Arrest illegal, thus items should be excluded says Karpal...

Three items sought by the prosecution to admit as evidence in the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trial should be excluded by reason of the unlawful arrest of the accused.

Karpal Singh said the items, from which DNA profiling was gained, were retrieved through improper and unfair means of deception or trickery.

The senior lawyer said Anwar had testified that three of his lawyers - Param Cumaraswamy, Sivarasa Rasiah, and Sankara Nair - were at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission office on July 16, 2008, to have his statement recorded.

At that time Anwar was aware of the 2pm appointment at the IPK (police headquarters) Kuala Lumpur to give a Section 112 statement in relation to Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan's (sodomy) complaint.

Anwar also testified that he had requested the MACC officers to allow him to leave for Kuala Lumpur in order to give his statement to the police, he said.

On the way back, Karpal argued that Anwar's car was ambushed by several unmarked vehicles and police cars with 10 to 15 UTK commandos clad in balaclavas and armed with machine guns.

Sankara who was seated in front, had asked Supt Ahmad Taufik Abdullah for the grounds of the arrest, but the officer replied he was merely following orders to arrest Anwar. Sankara was not told the grounds and neither was Anwar when Taufik accompanied him to be seated at the back of the police car.

"Cross-examined by Solicitor-General II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden, Anwar denied having any knowledge as to why he was arrested.

Arrest in contravention of constitution

Karpal submitted the arrest was in contravention of Article 5 (3) namely a person who is arrested, shall be informed ! as soon as may be, on the grounds of his arrest. Also section 28A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code states "A person arrested without a warrant shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest by the police officer making the arrest".

The senior lawyer said if Anwar's and Sankara's evidence is accepted, namely that no grounds of arrest were given by Taufik, the arrest should be considered illegal. "In law, a police officer arresting a person without a warrant both under Article 5(3) and section 28A(1) is required to furnish the person arrested the grounds for his arrest. Any violation would be to infringe these fundamental rights. Furthermore, the warrant of arrest was not produced.

"Surely Taufik would have known the grounds upon which he intended to arrest Anwar, before he led the police contingent to nab him. A weak attempt is made by Taufik to justify Anwar's arrest at the IPK Kuala Lumpur with the production of a copy of the warrant of arrest," he said.

Earlier the court decided not to allow the prosecution's application to admit the original copy of the warrant of arrest which solicitor-general II Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden, claimed had been misplaced. The learned DPP attempted to justify the production of a photostat copy of the warrant of arrest relying on section 159 of the Evidence Act, 1950 to refresh Taufik's memory.

However, Karpal pointed out the provisions of section 159 (3) clearly prohibits the presentation of a copy "whenever the witness may refresh his memory by reference to any document, he may, with the permission of the court, refer to a copy of that document, provided the court is satisfied there is sufficient reason for the non-production of the original."

"The warrant of arrest has not been proved and hence it must be disregarded. All the oral testimony on the warrant of arrest must also fall."

Sample must obtain Anwar's consent

Karpal said t! he items procured for DNA profiling by the police were obtained by improper and unfair means - by deception or trickery. "The samples retrieved must be with Anwar's consent. Anwar was also traumatised at being medically examined where his private parts and pubic hair were measured. He described it as degrading."

Karpal also submitted the prosecution's failure to call investigating officer Superintendent Jude Blacious Pereira, DSP Yahya Abdul Rahman and CID chief Bakri Zinin to rebut the sworn evidence given by Anwar, Sankara and Sivarasa in the trial-within-a-trial, is fatal.

"These personalities played a significant part in the arrest, detention, custody and procurement of the DNA samples from Anwar. Further police personnel in charge of the lock-up whose evidence would have been significant, were also not called to testify."

At the end of his submission, Karpal urged High Court judge Justice Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah to adopt a five member bench ruling in the Federal Court, in the Goi Ching Ang case which states:-

"There is a vested discretion in a trial judge to exclude evidence which is prejudicial to an accused even though the said evidence may be technically admissable.

"Evidence obtained in an oppressive manner by force or against the wishes of an accused person by trick or by conduct of which the police ought not to take advantage, would operate unfairly against the accused and should in the discretion of the court be rejected for admission," said Karpal.

The admissability or inadmissability of the three items the mineral water bottle, Good Morning towel and toothbrush, plays a crucial role in linking "Male Y" allegedly Saiful's perpetrator to Anwar. A decision in this matter will make or break the prosecution's case.

The hearing resumes tomorrow at 10am with Karpal replying to Yusof's submission.-Hafiz Yatim

source:malaysiakini

'Karpal: Tangkapan tidak sah, bahan bukti mesti ditolak'

cheers.

Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #55

Chapter 7: Enhancing Human Capital

Enhancing Human Capital Through Education

Globalization is driven essentially by knowledge; the new economy is appropriately called the K(for knowledge)-economy. Knowledge is the important ingredient of the new economy, and also its measure. Knowledge has replaced the economists factors of production land, labor, and capital as the chief economic resource.

The philosopher Saidina Ali perceptively observed that knowledge, unlike wealth, protects us under all circumstances, but we have to protect our wealth constantly against theft and inflation. The world around may crumble but with my knowledge and skills as a surgeon, I can still contribute and be productive. Further, wealth is diluted when shared; knowledge on the other hand, increases and gets enhanced when shared. A discovery in one field often stimulates innovations in another, thereby increasing our overall knowledge. Knowledge is also amplified through such exchanges. The nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) that was used initially in basic research to identify chemical molecules is now used routinely in clinical medicine. Indeed the market for this is worth considerably more. Wealth if kept secret may retain its value, but knowledge kept secret will quickly become obsolete and worthless.

Globalization greatly enhances the diffusion and amplification of knowledge and ideas.

The remarkable aspect of investing in education and knowledge is that the returns are both cumulative and synergistic. The more we invest, the greater the returns. One set of knowledge enhances the effect on another. As observed by the economist William Esterly, Investment in knowledge leaks from one person to another and realizes its full potential when high-skilled individuals match with each other. The more existing knowledge there is, the higher is the returns to each new bit o! f knowle dge.

I will illustrate this with a real life example.

About ten years ago a Malaysian patented a unique engineering device. This grew out of his doctoral studies. He wanted to stay in America for a while to develop his invention, but being a government-sponsored student, he was forced to return. He approached his departmental head at a Malaysian university for some protected time to work on his new gadget but was of course denied. Instead he was forced to teach an introductory calculus class. He appealed to his vice chancellor, but the latter was not interested in the travails of a junior instructor. Besides, Malaysian universities are more teaching factories rather than research centers. The vice chancellor, having no original invention of his own, did not appreciate the young lecturers dilemma. In the end, as is so typical of the fate of many talented Malaysians, the engineer left the country.

In America he was able to find an independent laboratory to perfect his invention, and with the help of a venture capital firm and a patent attorney, he was able to successfully market his product and establish his own company. He was greatly aided by the presence of all the supporting infrastructures.

The remarkable success of Silicon Valley, California, is due to this synergy of the various elements, clusters to use Michael Porters phrase. Each segment brings its own skills and knowledge, thus amplifying each other. A patent attorney would be useless without inventors; likewise, a venture capitalist would not survive unless there are entrepreneurs. All these elements complement and reinforce each other, hence the synergism.

Back to the Malaysian inventor, even if his university had been supportive he would still have difficulty bringing his invention to market because of the lack of supporting infrastructures.

Malaysia was fortunate that right from the very beginning its leaders were fully conscious of the need to develop the citizens. Its leaders wisely chose to build schoo! ls rathe r than barracks, and train teachers instead of soldiers. Significantly, the nations first minister of education was no less than the able Deputy Prime Minister, Tun Razak. He purposely took on that portfolio to demonstrate the governments commitment to education. Ever since then that portfolio has been widely regarded as the most important and prestigious. All the countrys prime ministers (except the first of course) had once held that position.

When Tun Razak was Minister of Education, his budget was the largest, reflecting the importance placed on education. Unfortunately his stream of successors as Education Minister had all been singularly unimpressive, except possibly for Dr. Mahathir in the 1970s. Following Mahathir that ministry again reverted to form, with its mediocre string of ministers. Razak and Mahathir recognized the importance of their assignments; they enhanced the reputation of the ministry. In contrast, their successors used the prestige of the ministry to further their own selfish political ambitions. They merely coasted along or worse, pandered to the political whims of the day. They let the schools and universities to deteriorate.

In an attempt to reverse the decline and in a marked departure from tradition, Prime Minister Mahathir chose the current minister, Musa Mohamad, the first non-politician appointed to the post. Sadly, thus far he has simply carried on this mediocre tradition, fumbling from one crisis to another.

Education remains the biggest item of expenditure in Malaysia. Both in absolute amount as well as relative to the budget, GDP, and population, Malaysia spends more on education than Taiwan or South Korea but has precious little to show for it. The Malaysian Ministry of Education is extremely inefficient; its mission cluttered. First is the poor leadership. Second, it has too many items of its agenda beyond education politics, social engineering, and public works. And third, it is too much like the defunct Soviet system.

I will cite one glarin! g stupid ity of the ministry. Up until the economic crash of 1997, Malaysia sent thousands of young Malays abroad simply to complete their matriculation, essentially Sixth Form classes. There were scandals where students were sent to fly-by-night educational outfits that existed only on paper, and of students being stranded abroad because the colleges they had been enrolled had not even been built!

For the cost of sending two students abroad, Malaysia could have easily employed a professor from Berkeley to come to Malaysia, thus benefiting many more students. I can see the rationale for sending them to top universities or for pursuing courses of study not available in Malaysia. But these students were taking run-of-the-mill undergraduate courses at third-rate institutions. While they were expending billions on these students, local universities were starved for funds to expand their libraries and laboratories.

Additionally, the government also runs a system of expensive residential schools where students get free tuition plus room and board. Even children of millionaires and ministers do not have to pay a dime for their children to attend these expensive schools. The ministry is also responsible for distributing millions worth of contracts for construction, equipment, and textbooks. But instead of getting the best value for its money, such contracts are given instead only to Bumiputras, especially those with high political connections. Consequently because of the limited competition and lack of transparency, these contracts incur significant costs overruns and are often delayed or never completed.

A recent example was the contract for supplying computers to schools. At the end less than 10 percent of the projects were completed. Instead of punishing and blacklisting those recalcitrant contractors, the ministry merely extended their deadlines. This of course would be repeated many times. In the end it is the students who suffer.

To put matters in perspective, private colleges in Malaysia ar! e being built and run at a fraction of the cost of running similar government institutions. And their graduates are more employable than products of public institutions.

The ministry is a replica of the defunct Soviet system: highly centralized, strict top-down command, and rigid controls at all levels. The minister even appoints universities departmental heads! When led by efficient and imaginative ministers like Razak and Mahathir, such a structure produced admirable results. Left in incompetent hands, and you have a disaster that is the present system.

The present centralized system is clearly inadequate. American universities are widely regarded as the best precisely because there is no central authority; there is no ministry of higher education. Each institution is free to chart its own course. Consequently, the crowd at Harvard is very different from those at Creekville State University; nonetheless graduates from both places are needed. In contrast, American public schools, highly controlled and regulated, lag behind those of many other countries.

Next: Enhancing Human Capital Through Education

Muhyiddin Patut Terima Kasih Dengan PAS, bukan Maki PAS

Reaksi awal Muhyiddin Yaasin dilaporkan:

JASIN 6 Mac Kemenangan dua calon Barisan Nasional (BN) dalam Pilihan Raya Kecil Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) Merlimau dan Kerdau membuktikan sokongan rakyat terhadap Pas semakin terhakis.

Bagi Tulang Besi, sepatutnya Muhyiddin BERTERIMA KASIH kepada kepimpinan PAS, bukan memaki PAS sebegini biadab. PAS sebenarnya MENGHADIAHKAN kekuatan semula UMNO, bukan sebab UMNO itu kuat semula atas usaha sendiri.

Mengapa Tulang Besi berkata begini?

Sepanjang 2 tahun pemilihan PAS semenjak 2009 lepas, apakah yang telah dilakukan oleh teraju utama PAS di dalam PERSAINGAN dengan rakan sejawat mereka di dalam UMNO? Terutama sekali saya merujuk kepada Presiden dan Timbalan Presiden?

Sepanjang 2 tahun kebelakangan ini, terdapa BERBAGAI-BAGAI isu besar yang boleh dieksplotasi i.e. kenaikan harga barang, korupsi yang berleluasa, penswastaan air di Selangor yang menguntungkan kroni, sabotaj kerajaan negeri Selangor dgn perlantikan Khusrin, pemberian lesen judi yang bertambah2, penyalahgunaan wang rakyat, penggadaian tanah rezab surau kepada tauke di Rawang, fitnah liwat ke atas Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, saman ekor dan berbagai-bagai lagi,

Namun apakah yang dilakukan oleh teraju utama PAS terutamanya Timbalan Presiden PAS? Apa usaha terancang atau kempen terancang yang dilakukan beliau di dalam mencabar kedudukan Presiden dan Timbalan Presiden UMNO berdasarkan isu-isu di atas?

Selain dari itu, apakah usaha yang membolehkan pengundi-pengundi saluran 3 ke atas memberi kepercayaan mereka kepada Presiden dan Timbalan Presiden PAS sebagai alternatif kepada Presiden dan Timbalan Presiden UMNO?

"Kerajaang Perpaduang" Satu-Satunya Wawasan Kepimpinan PAS Sepanjang 2 Tahun Kebelakangan Ini

Dari yang Tulang Besi perhatikan 2 tahun yang lepas, satu-satunya gagasan yang diilhamkan oleh Presiden dan Timbalan Presiden PAS hanyalah wawasan yang dipanggil "Kerajaang Perpaduang". Tidak lebih dari itu.
!
Gaga san "Kerajaang Perpaduang" ini telah memainkan peranan yang cukup penting di dalam membina kembali keyakinan orang Melayu kepada kepimpinan Najib dan Muhyiddin Yaasin.

Secara tidak sedar, Presiden dan Timbalan Presiden telah memberi isyarat kepada orang Melayu bahawa Gagasan Pakatan Rakyat itu tidak baik untuk orang Melayu. Ini kerana PAS sendiri pun tak konfiden dengan Pakatan Rakyat sehingga mahu menubuhkan Kerajaang Perpaduang. Di kala itu, secara otomatik imej Najib dan Muhyiddin naik melambung dikalangan pengundi Saluran 3 ke atas.

NAJIB DAN MUHYIDDIN BOLEH "MENGELICIK BOLA SAMPAI PINTU GOL" TANPA TANTANGAN

Oleh kerana UMNO parti Melayu, maka satu-satunya tentangan mereka di kalangan orang Melayu adalah PAS.

Namun, apa yang berlaku dalam dua tahun yang lepas adalah seumpama Najib dan Muhyiddin membawa dan mengelicik bola sampai ke pintu gol tanpa ada tantangan dari PAS.

Tak hairanlah bila tiba waktu menjaring gol (baca: pilihanraya kecil) mereka menjaring gol dengan jayanya.

Kita mesti paham, di luar waktu pilihanraya adalah umpama kita menggelicik bola, passing bola, crossing bola, "center" bola dsbya. Di waktu pilihanraya adalah waktu kita "menjaring" gol.

Kalau di luar waktu pilihanraya, UMNO secara bebas membawa bola ke mana mereka mahu, maka mudahlah mereka menjaring gol apabila tiba waktu pilihanraya.

Patutlah UMNO begitu gembira sangat apabila Ustaz Nasaruddin Mat Isa dinobatkan sebagai Timbalan Presiden PAS pada pemilihan 2009 yang lepas.

Tulang Besi

After Kerdau and Merlimau – Reform or Face a National Revolt!

by Dr. Dzul

I’m fully conscious of how the BN’s mainstream media (MSM) would demonise and ostracise me for what I’m about to say. I’m nonetheless going to say it in simple and unequivocal term. Simply put, if I were to call the shot in N28 Kerdau by-election, I would want my party to boycott the election. Period.

The BN’s MSM would then have a field day in making PAS their punching bag and would go to town for weeks on end on this huge political meal. They would be apparently vindicated for all their claims that the opposition is bankrupt of ideas and issues to fight them on any further political contestation.

On the back of the looming 13^th General Election (GE) coming ever closer, the decision to boycott would arguably be a political suicide for PAS and the Pakatan. Political analysts might argue that the opposition has finally succumbed to the psychological war of the BN’s ‘propagandist firepower’. It doesn’t take a pundit to tell you that.

That’s the usual ‘in-the-box-kind-of-thinking’ that invariably ends up in political parties quite unwilling to brace drastic unconventional ideas and maneuvers. That’s the thinking that underpins the predictable decision of most political parties of whatever ideological persuasions in the face of challenging situation.

What’s my rationale for proposing this drastic action? Am I already conceding defeat on the 11^th hours? Am I now perceived as mitigating the adverse impact of another PAS’ defeat? Say what you like.

I’ve been part of the strategic teams of many a by-election especially after the 12^th GE. Some we have won and others we lost. The sweetest victory was of course Kuala Terengganu and the more bitter defeat was Galas. On both occasions power changed hands.

Quite contrary to the idea of running from defeat, I have a strange feeling that Kerdau is fast making me upbeat especially towards its finishing line. I’m not commenting on Merlimau as I’m not aware of the realities on ‘ground-zero’ in that BN’s state of Melaka.

Let me say it again. I’m not looking for an upset in Kerdau but is seriously hoping for a reduction of the majority the BN’s candidate secured in the last GE.

I’m not being wishful but given our campaign ‘blitz’ which put the Pahang’s MB defenceless to the finishing line, this writer is hardly surprised if the voters so decide to protest against Umno/BN’s decades of malaise and negligence.

No one in his right frame of mind would miss noticing that Kerdau is a ‘cowboy’ town. After 53 years Kerdau has never got on to be in the radar of development. It’s the PM’s home state mind you. So simply said again, I’m not running from defeat.

However, this piece is at best purely academic as far as a boycott is concerned, as polling is well underway for both Merlimau and Kerdau, before this writer could publish or upload this piece.

But I felt the compelling need to say and share it with the entire nation, before the results are announced this evening. I’m dead serious. If anything this piece and the likes of this writing, if widely enough read and disseminated, could very well be the genesis of a pending ‘national revolt’, not quite like the middle-eastern turmoil now on world stage that Najib dreaded.

But strangely quite alike though, as it will also represent the utter disdain and hatred of the rakyat or the citizens, for what is here now dubbed in “Political Science” as an ‘Electoral Authoritarianism’ (EA). Malaysia is now listed as one by the author of ‘The Logics of Electoral Authoritarianism”, Professor Andres Schedler (2006).

Simply defined, EA is how government abuses power as to distort and contain a true electoral competition and denies equal access to the media of competing parties and subverts a free and fair election.

In the eyes of an enlarging enlightened sections of the Malaysian electorates and citizenry, Malaysia is indeed guilty of perpetuating ‘electoral authoritarianism’ with impunity. For that, Najib and his cohorts please take note!

If PM Najib wants to put the “Ben-Ali-Mubaarak-Gaddafi-type Revolt” at bay in our beloved land of Malaysia, act urgently to redress and reform the many excesses and sins on ‘electoral authoritarianism’ that has continued unabated for far too long in this country!

My arguments, with respect to a boycott call on Kerdau by-election and now urging immediate reform, are essentially premised on, but not limited to the following basis and evidences.

1. Najib now infamous saying, “We don’t buy votes, but if you support us we can increase your allocation tomorrow or later. But show support for Barisan Nasional first”. Now that could only equal to his atrocious words of “You help me, I help you” in Sibu ie his promise of delivering RM5 million on Monday if Robert Lau wins on Sunday now is iconised as the ultimate of ‘vote-buying’ in the lexicology of our local EA. If that is not vote-buying, what is?
2. Najib began as early as on the second day of the campaign period to blitz Kerdau with ‘goodies’ and handouts as follows: RM400,000 for a hall in Kampong Seri Kerdau, RM150,000 for a Balai Bomba, RM100,000 for Hindu Temple and RM9.25millions on a water treatment plant in Batu Sawar. That’s a hefty RM10.4million, well exceeding the constituency budget allocation. Where are funds coming from? Umno’s coffers or cronies’ or tax-payers’?
3. Abuse of usage of public premises for party political campaign listed below:
   1. Public Field in Teluk Sentang,
   2. Mosques and Schools in Batu Sawar,
   3. Community Hall in Jengka 23 Felda,
   4. Broadband Centre for Jengka 25
   5. Community Hall in Kuala Tekal
   6. Kerdau’s Felda’s office.
4. Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Ahmad Maslan’s announcement that the federal government will settle the CESS payment of RM13,000 for each settler in Jengka 22 next Monday is a surely a covert inducement for settlers to vote for BN come polling day for the Kerdau by-election on Sunday. (Cess payments are monies deducted from the sale of rubber for the purpose of replanting rubber plantations with oil palm. However, when settlers made the decision to switch from rubber to oil palm in 2004, cess payments worth RM12,000 that each settler had accumulated over the course of more than 20 years were not paid by Felda. Felda had paid the settlers RM5,000 each but the Land Development Authority still owes the settlers RM13,000 each, including interest). The bone of contention is why only pay those in the Jengka 22 in the N28 Kerdau constituency, while all Felda settlers Pahang have long been waiting for what are rightly theirs!
5. The vicious and baseless attack on Dato’ Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man, the Director for PAS’ Strategic Centre for the N28 Kerdau by-election by the MSM. The footage was widely covered and repeated by the BN’s TV channels including the ‘independent’ TV3. This should be the last straw of it all. Seen and peceived by many as failing to respond to all the allegations of a failing Pahang state, as concertedly attacked by PAS’ election machinery, as depicted by Auditor General’s report, Umno took the final hours of campaign to level a smear campaign on him, accusing him of abusing and capitalizing on a Felda settler’s financial hardship to his advantage. All these heinous hate campaign were fortunately clarified by those involved but wasn’t at all featured in the BN’s MSM. Abuse of MSM and denial of opposition’s right to MSM has become more rampant of late.

Based on a snap-shot of the abuses and excesses of a regime that practices “Electoral Authoritarianism”, I for one would not have hesitated to give the Election Commission and now Najib an ultimatum –Respond or face a National Revolt!

For the information of all well-wishers of democracy and in all fairness to us in PAS/Pakatan, we had submitted on 2 occasions, memorandum to the EC, MACC and the PDRM in protest of all these abuses and subversion of democracy.

It does not take a lawyer to be telling you that Najib and his cohorts are abusing the provision of the Election Offences Act of 1954 aimed at curbing abuses and corrupt practices of contending parties in an electoral process.

It is the conviction of this writer that Malaysia may not well see the equivalent of the Middle Eastern upheaval soonest. But if this regime persists and perpetuates “Electoral Authoritarianism” with little or no regards for the demands of electoral reform by both civil society and opposition political parties, Najib is indeed courting the like of another and bigger peaceful assembly of 500,000 protestors @well-wishers of democracy prior the 13^th GE.

Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad, Member, PAS Central Working Committee and Malaysia MP for Kuala Selangor.

"Sabah seeks Independence, and rightly so."

‘Sabah got a raw deal joining Malaysia’

from Free Malaysia Today » Nation by Dominic Legeh

KOTA KINABALU: Pre-Malaysia Sabah was considerably better off in many respects than it is today, according to former Malaysia Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) vice-president Simon Sipaun.

“Life in Sabah before Malaysia was good, to say the least.

“Admittedly, there was no development as seen today but Sabah was not alone as Malaya was not much better,” Sipaun said at the United Borneo Front’s (UBF) inter-party dialogue and leadership exclusive seminar here on Saturday.

“There was no racial problem. Mixed marriages were very common. That’s why there are many ‘peranakans’ (babas and nyonyas) in Sabah.

“If Sabahans are now conscious of racial and religious divides, they learnt it from the peninsula.

“There were no illegal immigrants. There were no cases of Sabahans losing citizenship status while foreigners gained it without much difficulty.

“There were no repressive and draconian laws such as the Official Secrets Act (OSA), Internal Security Act (ISA), the Printing Presses and Publications Act, the Sedition Act, the Police Act and the Proclamations of Emergency.

“There was no quarrelling over dead bodies.

“The composition of the civil service was multiracial. Meritocracy was appreciated, observed and practised. Corruption and ‘ketuanan Melayu’ were unheard of. The list continues.

“How not to miss pre-Malaysia Sabah?” he asked.

Sipaun, who was the chairman for the dialogue, also said that agreements and related legal rights of Sabah as well Sarawak within the federation of Malaysia were more often than not seen as the inconvenient truths and preferred to be forgotten than fulfilled.

An after-thought

Citing Sept 16 as an example, he said the fact that it took the federal government 46 years just to admit and officially recognise the date as the birth of Malaysia speaks volumes.

He added that the political union between Britain’s Borneo territories and Malaya was at best an artificial one as the two regions had very little in common.

“The inclusion of Sabah and Sarawak was an after-thought to counter balance the Chinese population of Singapore. As it happened, Singapore left the federation in 1965 and continued to progress by leaps and bounds.

“Brunei decided to withdraw from the negotiation at the eleventh hour and has survived well to this day. It remained a big fish in a small pond while Sabah and Sarawak have became small fish in big pond,” said Sipuan.

He pointed out that Sabah, which is rich in natural resources, and was once the second richest state in the country is now the poorest, while its so-called self-autonomy was only imaginary as Malaysia, although federal in form, was unitary in substance.

Sarawak, he said, was somewhat better off than Sabah as its people, in the absence of Umno in their state, still have a say in deciding who was going to be their chief minister.

“I believe that there are also more local Sarawakians holding senior and important positions in federal departments in the state. The illegal immigrant problem is also minimal,” he said.

However, he said that Sabah and Sarawak did have many things in common since forming Malaysia including, sadly, problems.

Short-changed

As such, it was in the best interest of both states to have close cooperation and to continuously pool their resources and exchange skills, knowledge and experience to maximise mutual benefits.

He added that there was a general consensus that Sabah and Sarawak deserved better treatment by the federal government in terms of, among others, more equitable distribution of opportunities and development projects.

He noted that the value for development projects for Sabah and Sarawak in the Budget 2011 only amounted to about RM9.55 billion, which was “peanuts” compared with the massive RM109.74 billion being spent in the peninsula.

“One project, namely the 100-storey building located in Kuala Lumpur has been allocated RM5 billion.

“Yet both Sabah and Sarawak are producers of oil and gas, which represent an important source of federal revenue.”

Sipuasn said the term “fixed deposit” used by Barisan Nasional (BN) in referring to Sabah was derogatory and insulting, as the federal government continued to give lop-sided treatment to the state.

He stressed that during the last general election, it was the voters of Sabah and Sarawak who saved the current government from losing power, so much so that Sabah has now been referred to as a “fixed deposit”.

“But in return for all these, Sabah and Sarawak appear to continue to be short-changed and getting a raw deal,” he said.

Trial within trial - the final arguments.....

Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy trial resumes today with final arguments made by both the defence and prosecution in the trial-within-a-trial. Anwar, along with lawyers Sankara Nair and Subang MP Sivarasa Rasiah, testified for the defence, while arresting officer, superintendent (then ASP) Ahmad Taufiq Abdullah, testified for the prosecution.

In this trial-within-a-trial, top defence lawyer Karpal Singh is attempting to prove that the arrest was unlawful and the three items retrieved from the cell where Anwar was detained overnight - which contain the 'Male Y' DNA - were unfairly and unlawfully obtained.

However, the police officer acknowledged that the warrant of arrest, dated July 15, 2008, was only given to Anwar at the Kuala Lumpur police headquarters where he was detained. It remains to be seen whether Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Justice Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah will make his decision on the admissibility of the crucial evidence today.

9.06am: The court is called into session with Justice Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah presiding.

9.07am: Yusof applies to recall Supt Ahmad Taufik, the arresting officer, to put in the warrant of arrest as evidence. Karpal objects. He says today is fixed for submissions as the trial-within-a-trial has closed. According to Karpal, this is a criminal trial and the application should be made during the trial-within-a-trial. Yusof explains the warrant of arrest was misplaced and that he has found the original. Last Friday, the warrant of arrest which was tendered in court was not the original.

9.12am: Justice Zabidin rejects the application by the DPP.

9.15am: Karpal begins his submission. He says the evidence of the three items ought to be excluded as:

* There was violation of the federal constitution, si! nce the arrest is unlawful.

* These were solicited through unfair means.

Karpal says the burden of proof here is on the balance of probabilities.

9.19am: Karpal reminds the court that Anwar gave evidence under oath to testify against his 'unlawful' arrest.

9.21am: The defence lawyer argues that the accused was arrested without being told the grounds of his arrest. "They arrested him with 10 to 15 UTKs (Special Action Unit) armed with sub-machine guns and wearing balaclavas," he says. Karpal says Yusof had also cross-examined Anwar and the accused had maintained that no grounds of arrest was mentioned.

9.23am: Karpal argues that under the fundamental liberties (rights of a person), a suspect must be told the grounds of his arrest. "Any violation would be to infringe these rights. Furthermore, the warrant of arrest was not produced."

9.26am: The defence lawyer adds that a photocopy of a warrant of arrest should be regarded as 'secondary' evidence. "It does not fulfil Section 65 of the Evidence Act."

9.27am: Karpal says the copy of the warrant of arrest should be rejected and it should be marked as 'for identification' only, and not as evidence. "It is not been proved and hence it must be disregarded. All the oral testimony on the warrant of arrest must also fall."

9.30am: Karpal also points out that investigating officer DSP Jude Blacious Pereira was not called to rebut the defence contention over the grounds of arrest. "The arrest is unlawful and improper. Taufik has admitted he received instructions from Federal CID chief Bakri Zinin. However, Bakri was not called by the prosecution."

9.35am: Karpal submits the samples retrieved must be with Anwar's consent, and it would be a violation of Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code if these were obtained without consent.

9.37am: Karpal stresses that the items were retrieved using unfair means. "Anwar was also traumatised for! being m edically examined where his private parts and pubic hair were measured. He described it as degrading." Karpal reminds that court of a federal court decision that any evidence gained by trick should be disregarded and expunged.

He finishes his submission.

9.43am: Yusof begins his submission. He agrees that court has to evaluate the trial-within-a-trial based on the balance of probabilities. He urges the court to look not only at the evidence gained in this trial-within-a-trial but also throughout the whole proceeding.

9.47am: Yusof says Anwar did not categorically deny the execution of the warrant of arrest. "What he said was that he did not know the document that he signed."

9.48am: Yusof submits that Taufik had informed Anwar of the arrest was based on a seizable offence under Section 377B. "Supt Taufik also produced the warrant of arrest and the charge (sodomy) at IPK. "Anwar did not deny the existence of a warrant. Taufik made a copy of it and photocopied it - this is already good evidence. The fact remains Taufik made a copy of the warrant."

Yusof says it is the prosecution's submission that the onus is on the defence and it has not been able to support the allegation made. "Anwar signed the warrant (and this) is basis for the grounds. The arresting officer statement merely corroborated it."

9.55am: Yusof said the fact remains that the copy of the warrant of arrest is not fabricated evidence.

9.59am: Taufik is not an interested witness, says Yusof, as he is not the investigating officer. "Anwar also said the officer was polite and nice. Taufik did say that the arrest was made under a charge of (Section) 377B."

10.03am: Given that Taufik was not an interested party, there ! is no re ason for the court not to accept his testimony. "He was merely performing his duty as asked - that was to arrest Anwar," says Yusof. Yusof cites that case of a person who was arrested and was informed on the grounds of his arrest a few hours later. "In Anwar's case, reasonable ground was said on the purpose of the arrest when the arresting officer Taufik mentioned the charge under Section 377B."

10.11am: Yusof says that, in this case, sufficient grounds were given and the police again read the charge less than an hour later. "Anwar complained of not getting (Saiful's) police report. The police report is not important. There was no delay in informing him (Anwar)."

10.17am: The prosecutor argues that there was no mala fide (bad faith) on the part of the police in making the arrest as Bakri had issued the order on July 15 (a day earlier) for fear that Anwar would not honour his pledge (to give his statement at 2pm). "There was the allegation of sodomy, a seizable offence. Taufik was under duty to make the arrest. Where is the unlawfulness of the arrest?"

10.21am: Yusof says Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) is impartial, and that the examination should not be deemed as degrading, since certain things are done this way. "It is not as if the police recovered the items as a result of a degrading examination," he said.

10.23am: According to Yusof, the balance of probabilities shows the applicant had failed to prove anything about the unlawful arrest.

10.25am: Yusof says the test of admissability of evidence of the three items is relevancy. He cites a Jamaica case to show this. The prosecutor, who has spoken for about 45 minutes, requests a short break.

10.50am: The hearing resumes.

10.53am: Yusof continues with his argument on relevancy.

11.07am: He cites British case laws. "The court has a discretion to exclude evidence obtained illegally. However, the court has no discretion to refuse evidence even if it gained unlawfully, if it is relevant.! " Citing a case where a blood sample test was taken involuntarily to perform a DNA test, he says "it is allowed to be admitted if it is relevant".

11.25am: Yusof says the prosecution needs to show evidence and DNA from the mineral water bottle corresponds to the sperm retrieved from Saiful. He said this is to corroborate as to what is said by the witness (saiful). "It does not amount to a confession (by the accused) but it shows relevancy."

11.32am: Yusof says no tricks were employed in this case. "Anwar was not tricked into using the toothbrush, towel or bottle. He was not induced or threaten to do it. There was no oppression. Even if it is illegal, it is admissable."

11.37am: Yusof says a trial can be considered to be a fair one, even if evidence may have been unfairly obtained.

11.43am: He cites a British case involving unlawful arrest and unlawfully obtained evidence. The court accepted the evidence adduced to show guilt. Yusof says a sample of body fluid was taken without consent in a rape case but was admitted.

11.45am: PKR vice-president and Batu MP Tian Chua enters the courtroom in full parliamentary regalia (following the opening of the new Dewan Rakyat session this morning). He is followed by Selayang MP William Leong.

11.52am: Yusof mainains there was no illegality or impropriety in this case. "It is not a physical confession. No tricks."

11.53am: Yusof cites another British rape case where the hair and semen sample were taken unfairly for DNA tests from the accused - much like this case - and the court had ruled this admissable.

11.58am: Yusof says the evidence obtained supports the charge, and reiterates that there was nothing improper or illegal about this.

12.06pm: Yusof cites another American murder and rape case in which the accused caught five years later had refused to give a blood sample. "However, the police wanted to have his DNA and they used his unwanted cigarette buts to retrieve his saliva. Similarly in t! his case , the evidence was obtained from a mineral water bottle which was discarded."

12.11pm: Citing a case in Iowa in the US, he says the accused was feted with cake and given a mineral water bottle. "It was taken and replaced with another water bottle, and was used as evidence." Yusof says the respective courts in all these cases had admitted the evidence although it was obtained illegally.

12.16pm: He says the question of "prejudicial effect" does not arise as it only confirms guilt. Balik Pulau MP Yusmadi Yusoff and Machang MP Saifuddin Nasution come in with two others.

12.19pm: Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah walks in. The public gallery is now packed. Yusof says that Saiful's evidence merely corroborated what was said, while the chemist's testimony affirmed the evidence which confirms the guilt of the accused.

12.22pm: He concludes by saying that the defence has failed to prove that it was improper to obtain the items obtained from the cell on balance of probability. "The items were taken without tricks being employed, there was no inducement, no threats, no promises...It would not be unfair for the court to admit the items as evidence (as it has) general discretion to admit evidence." He asked for the defence application to be dismissed and to allow the prosecution to call Supt Amidon and chemist Nor Aidora Saedon to admit the items as evidence.

12.25pm: The judge initially calls a recess up to 2.30pm, but then agrees to to hear Karpal's reply at 10am tomorrow.

source:malaysiakini

'Hujah akhir bicara dalam perbicaraan'

'Penahanan tak sah, bukti pendakwa raya perlu ditolak'

cheers.

DAP: "Tiger Chua. admit it, your party is a pariah party."

Fish rots from the head, MCA — Tan Teck Huat

MARCH 6 — Let’s educate Datuk Seri Chua Soi Lek a bit. He accuses the DAP’s Lim Kit Siang of hitting below the belt by using the PKFZ scandal to damage the MCA’s reputation.

Come on, Chua, even before Kit Siang opened his mouth while campaigning in Merlimau, many Malaysians have already christened the MCA as the Malaysian Corrupt Association, no thanks to the Port Klang Free Zone fiasco.

How did we come to this conclusion?

I guess by noting that two former leaders of the MCA stand accused of misleading their prime ministers and Cabinet colleagues into agreeing to buy tracts of land at hugely inflated prices.

As a result of these acts, taxpayers had to bail out this project to the tune of billions.

Once again, I have to point out that the men accused of masterminding the mother of scandals is not Ah Chong the branch official from Gemas or Ah Lim from Bukit Mertajam.

The two men are Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik and Tan Sri Chan Kong Choy, former MCA leaders. You know what they say about the fish being rotten from the head.

So I guess it is reasonable for anyone Malaysian to wonder if the MCA is a party of officials interested in their own welfare or the welfare of Malaysian Chinese.

And mind you, this PKFZ thing is not a one off.

Didn’t Tan Koon Swan go to jail in the 1980s and what about other senior party officials jailed during the deposit-taking scandal.

In short, the MCA has a track record of its president and top officials falling afoul of the law in a big way.

Soi Lek can huff and puff all he wants but a legitimate question for all of us to ask is besides Ling and Kong Choy, who are the other MCA or BN officials who had knowledge of the scandalous behaviour in the PKFZ case.

* Tan Teck Huat reads The Malaysian Insider.

PAS: Don't gamble lah (Gamble with us is okay ... Hehehe)

PAS sec-gen defends Kelantan's lottery ticket ban

Mustafa Ali says it has always been the state's policy for the past 20 years to oppose any form of gambling.

PAS secretary-general Mustafa Ali today defended the recent move by the Kelantan state government to ban the sale of lottery tickets from business premises in the state.

NONE"It has always been the Kelantan state government's policy for the past 20 years to oppose any form of gambling," said Mustafa in a statement to the media.

Fending off criticism that PAS is conducting a process of Islamisation, he argued that the issue should be seen in a wider scope, which is not limited to Muslim or non-Muslim or Malays or non-Malays.

"What needs to be seen in this controversy are the negative effects of gambling.

"In my humble opinion, this activity is opposed by all religions in order to propagate good families, societies and countries," he reasoned.

However, he said that because this issue involves principle and policy, he will bring this matter to the top Pakatan Rakyat leadership for discussion to formulate a solution.

"Umno and BN has legalised gambling as the licenses are issued by the federal government. Pakatan Rakyat must have clear policy on this because it concerns the well being of the people," said Mustafa further.

He was referring to statements made by DAP chairman Karpal Singh, among others, calling for the ban to be lifted.

PAS' use of Islamic law and adamant policy of pursuing an Islamic state has it at odds with the mainly socialist DAP and the multiracial PKR which can be seen to have secular leanings.

DAP gotta nothing better to say ...

DAP MP alleges vote-buying in Merlimau

DAP's Kota Melaka MP claims he saw a group of people handing out cash of RM100 per person to Chinese voters.

Allegations of vote-buying have surfaced in Merlimau, with DAP Kota Melaka parliamentarian Sim Tong Him claiming that it happened within 200 metres from the SRJK (C) Merlimau polling station.

NONEAccording to Sim, who lodged a police report soon after, he had seen a group of people handing out cash of RM100 per person to Chinese voters at a footpath.

Speaking to Malaysiakini, Sim said he recognised one man in the group of people as an MCA local councilor, although the man in question had his back to Sim.

“(Some reporters and I) were able to get a closer look at them, from about five feet away, and I clearly saw a Malay man holding RM50 notes that were about three inches thick, and giving it out to voters,” he said.

NONESim said that a China Press photographer then started to take photos, alerting the group who later surrounded them, demanding that the photographs be deleted.

“One man said that if we refused to delete the photographs, then we cannot blame them if anything happens to us,” he said, adding that the group was rather aggressive.

“The whole incident only took a few minutes. The photographer was reluctant to delete the photographs but I insisted as I did not want any harm to befall us,” he said.

NONEHe added that one the Malay men shouted “call Datuk Mat” upon realizing that they were caught red-handed, but Sim does not know who the man was referring to.

It is understood that the photographer has managed to retrieve some of the photographs but none of them show cash changing hands.

When word got around of the alleged incident, Pakatan supporters stationed at SRJK (C) Merlimau seemed reinvigorated.

Waving suggestively RM10 notes in the air (above), they jeered at the BN supporters across the road.

Thieving MCA leaders and gullible premiers

Maniam Sankar

I wonder if there has been any country where two leaders of the second largest party in government has duped two presidents of the largest component party in the government, who also happened to be successive prime ministers of the country.

It does seem to show successive incompetence and irresponsible premiers who were being used by thieving, senior ministers to milk the country.

That shameful picture is surpassed only by the current leader of the MCA stating it won't affect the party. What does one make of that statement?

That the party is known for thieving, so there's no issue? Or that the premiers want thieving ministers to allow the country to be milked?

Isn't there any decent person in government who will stand up to this? Must we go the way of Egypt and Tunisia before we get better governance?

Is that our fate as a country?

"Money can't buy you everything, but votes ... Absolutely."

Who says this ... ?

- The King Mamak Who Has Gasak 5 Trillions From Malaysia -

MB: Victory a gift of the people’s trust

from Free Malaysia Today » Nation by fmt

TEMERLOH: Barisan Nasional’s (BN) win in the Kerdau by-election is regarded as a gift of the people’s trust in the BN.

Pahang Menteri Besar Adnan Yaakob said the win proved that the people continued to accept BN and were confident with its struggle.

“All the election promises made by BN will be implemented for the benefit of the people,” he told reporters after the announcement on the victory of the BN candidate, Syed Ibrahim Syed Ahmad, in the Kerdau by-election at the Temerloh Municipal Council’s Dewan Tun Razak here.

Syed Ibrahim defeated Pas’ candidate, Hassanuddin Salim, with a majority of 2,724 votes.

Adnan, who is the BN election director for the by-election, said the big majority obtained by the BN candidate was also a gift to the state government for its efforts in generating development and economic growth in Pahang.

Umno vice-president Hishammuddin Hussein said the win reflected the people’s trust in the BN government.

Umno information chief Ahmad Maslan attributed the big win by BN to support from voters in three Felda areas in Kerdau.

“From the three Felda areas, we obtained a majority of more than 1,000 votes and this really helped BN,” he added.

Ahmad, who is Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, also attributed the victory to the candidate factor.

“We will fulfil all our promises made in this by-election. This win also showed that the people’s confidence in the leadership is strong again,” he added.

MCA deputy president Liow Tiong Lai said Syed Ibrahim’s win showed that the people’s support for BN was stronger.

“Congratulations to the BN machinery for the hard work and thank you to the voters for supporting the BN and accepting the 1Malaysia concept.

“What is clear is that the support from the Chinese voters has increased, from 37 people to 212. This is an achievement,” he added.

Meanwhile, MIC vice-president MIC SK Devamany said BN victory in Kerdau proved that the political transformation implemented by Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak was beginning to be accepted by the people.

“Although BN wins with a huge majority, party members cannot be complacent. Instead, they have to continue with the hard work for the coming general election,” he added.

Meanwhile, Umno secretary-general, Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, said BN would fulfil all its promises.

“The 1Malaysia concept introduced by the prime minister proved successful in drawing the people’s support,” he added.

Umno supreme council member Ismail Sabri Yaakob said the big win by BN showed that the people’s confidence in the party had been restored.

“The people have realised the lies made by the opposition all this while,” he added.

Wanita Umno chief Shahrizat Abdul Jalil said the win was worth the hardwork by the BN machinery, especially the women, who left their family to help in the campaign.

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II The Recorded Truth 3 Mac 2011

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

TRIAL WITHIN A TRIAL

[2.30]
MY: Kes ditetapkan untuk perbicaraan dalam perbicaraan berikutan bantahan rakan saya, KS, berkaitan dengan penangkapan dan penahanan.
KS: DSAI will be giving evidence, under oath. SN will be the witness in this trial within a trial.
YA: So he shouldnt be here.
KS: Yes, he shouldnt be here. He will go.
YA: Yes, Mr. Karpal?
KS: Can we call DSAI?

TWT D1: Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim
63 tahun, Ketua Pembangkang di parlimen Malaysia, alamat masih sama.

DSAI angkat sumpah dalam BM.

KS: Do you wish to giving evidence in English or BM?
AI: Saya pohon kebenaran untuk cakap dalam Bahasa Inggeris, memandangkan beberapa isu yang dibangkitkan dengan Datuk, itu agak teknikal berdasarkan keterangan awal, kalau boleh saya ingin berBahasa Inggeris.
YA: It is your right, tapi kena angkat sumpah semula dalam BI.

DSAI angkat sumpah sekali lagi dalam BI.

Q: Dato Seri, when was you were being arrested?
A: 16th of July 2008, 1 p.m.

Q: Let us start on the very beginning. On the 3rd of July 2008, can you tell us what happen?
A: At about 9 a.m, I was called by the MACC Putrajaya to give evidence to MACC with regard to my earlier police report on the fabrication of evidence in the 1998s assault by the then IGP Tan Sri Rahim Noor against the AG Tan Sri Ghani Patail and the then IGP Musa Hassan. I was there accompanied by my 3 counsels, Datuk Paramcumaraswamy, Sivarasa, and Mr. SN Nair.

Q: Tell us what happened there?
A: At 10 a.m approximately we were brought in by Tuan Sazali of MACC for series of interview and questions with regards to the police report and he took down extensive notes. At about 12, I then informed him that I have an appointment, I have been summoned by the police to go to IPD at 2 pm. I requested that the interview be referred to a later date to allow me to go to police station on time.

Q: Which is at the IPK ! Jalan Tu ah?
A: Yes.

Q: When you were told [] prior to go to Putrajaya?
A: I was Informed around 14th July by Sankaran Nair who was in touch with Supt. Jude Pereira. Then I was supposed to appear on the 16th. But I have told Sankaran Nair to inform Supt. Jude that Ive been [] on the earlier date given by MACC, so he requested for 2 pm, and this was agreed upon by both parties; Jude and Sankaran Nair on my behalf.

Q: You were said that you go to Putrajaya on the 16th together with 3 counsels on which you mentioned earlier. You have to leave Putrajaya for the purpose of coming to KL to give your statement?
A: Yes.

Q: You said you were together with Datuk Param at that time?
A: Yes.

Q: []?
A: The officer, Sazali was kind enough and he make notes of that. And I believe this was written by him to say that he has to defer the investigation until a later date because Anwar has an appointment with the police at IPK at 2 pm at that particular day.

Q: You left Putrajaya together with Datuk Param?
A: Yes we left soon afterwards, and first sent Datuk Param to the Golf Club at Mont Kiara, and then I with Sankaran Nair and Sivarasa went straight to my house for Zohor prayer so that I can come back to IPK on time at 2 oclock.

Q: During the journey to your home, did anything happen?
A: Sankaran Nair was first being in communication with Supt Jude, who was curious about my whereabouts, and Sankaran Nair said that we were then on our way to Segambut. We were then will be at IPK as scheduled at 2 p.m. And Supt Jude confirmed then; yes, so we proceeded to Segambut.

Q: Do you identify Jude?
A: Yes.

Q: Call him for identification.
A: Yes, this is Supt Jude.

Supt Jude dicamkan.

Q: What happen then?
A: On the way to my house in Segambut, and then immediately saw a mark vehicle blocked the route with few others police petrol cars and at about 10-15 commando special force, UTK squad, with balaclava on and with submissions guns around the area. So we ! have to stop abruptly.

Q: What would be the time?
A: Close to 1 pm.

Q: These commandos from UTK, were they armed?
A: Yes, I could see from the vehicle, with Sankaran Nair sits in the in front, they were armed.

Q: In what way were they armed?
A: I believe it is the submission guns.

Q: You at that point of time, was in the car?
A: Yes. I seated at the back, and Sankaran Nair was sitting in front beside the driver.

Q: What happen there?
A: Of course we have to stop. I remained in the car, Sankaran Nair met the officer who was dressed in uniform. One officer was in uniform, and then he approached the car, I overheard the conversation. I was asked to remain in the car and Sankaran Nair asked question to the officer.

Q: Do you overhear the conversation between SN Nair and the officer?
A: YA, you can expect the standard question like why are we stopped, what are you want to do and he said arahan untuk menangkap DSAI.

Q: How could you hear that from your car?
A: The car window, I make sure that..because I wanted to go out from the car but Sankaran Nair stopped me from coming out from the car before he could settle with the police officer.

Q: What was the rest of the conversation?
A: Sankaran Nair of course said that we were, Anwar was returning to the house for Zohor prayer, and he was summoned to meet Jude at 2p.m, so why did you need to arrest him now?

Q: Did the officer reply?
A: The officer merely said that Arahan dan saya mesti bawa DSAI ke motokar saya untuk dibawa ke IPK. Saya diminta menangkap DSAI ke IPK dengan kenderaan saya.

Q: What else the conversation between them?
A: YA, from what I could recall, Mr. Nair keep on repeating the questions like what was the charge, and the officer, I must say that he was quite polite and he wasnt rude and just say, look sir, saya terima arahan untuk menangkap DSAI.

Q: What happened?
A: Then, Mr. Nair approached me and said that I have to come down from the car and move on to th! e other police vehicle.

Q: So you go down?
A: Yes but I am very upset, I was quite displeased, and I said to the police officer; Im going to the police station, so what is the point? Mr. Nair then insisted that he will join me in this car. The police politely said to me, Dato Seri, arahan adalah tangkap dan tolong datang ke motokar saya. I said to Nair, all right, and then I followed.

Q: Were you at any time given ground for your arrest by the officer?
A: No, Sankaran Nair insisted, and the standard replies were arahan, tangkap, naik motokar saya. And the same position when I went to the other car, police vehicle, I asked the officer..(tak habiskan jawapan)

Q: What did you asked?
A: I said; Apasal buat kat saya macam ni lagi?

Q: Very polite?
A: He was polite, I must say. He was not rude, and he knew I was angry in fact, and he said saya terima arahan, saya harap DSAI ikut saya. Saya kata; tapi, berapa kali dah? Dan saya nak pergi ni, dah bagitahu Jude.

Tuan tahu, pasal apa? Nak pukul saya? I did ask repeatedly, because every time YA bila polis nak tangkap, trauma saya ialah kena pukul. Jadi saya tanya dia, dan dia bagitahu, we will not beat you up.

Q: This officer, he sat with you, in the car?
A: He was sitting at the front seat, I was at the backseat in the middle, and both to the right and left were the commando from UTK. So I was sitting in the middle.

Q: They were in uniform?
A: Senior officer in front was in uniform, but the UTK commando staffs were not in uniform.

Q: The officer, do you at any time know his identity?
A: Yes, he is very fair, wear spectacles

Q: Did he mention his name?
A: He did mention I suppose, but I cannot recall his name.

Q: Can you identify him?
A: Yes.

Supt Ahmad Taufik bin Abdullah dicamkan.

Q: Upon reaching the IPK, where did he take you?
A: He escorted me to I cant remember what floor.

Q: What was the room that you were taken?
A: YA I was brought to one large meeting room! .

Q: Who was in the meeting room?
A: Not immediately but few minutes later some other senior officers appeared. Supt. Taufek left, I recall Supt Jude was there, the chief of the commando, Tuan Yahya and also a very senior officer who is in charge of police legal affairs, Tuan Razali.

Q: DSP Yahya, he was here the other day giving evidence?
A: Yes.

Q: Tell us what happen?
A: Of course I kept on asking them about(tak habiskan jawapan)

Q: Before that, lawyers were there, at that time?
A: Yes, at that time, few minutes afterward, Mr. Sankaran Nair appeared, and join us.

Q: Any other lawyer there?
A: Mr. Sivarasa joined a bit later.

Q: What happen there?
A: I started by asking all the senior officers on who gave this instruction, you know that I am supposed to appear, why am I arrested?. And the standard answer is that I need to cooperate and there were keen to continue with the investigations and asked for my statement. But I said to them that I have already agreed, and then why did you arrest me, just for asking my cooperation to give statement.

Q: Did you make statements that day?
A: Yes, sometimes later I was escorted to a smaller room by a police sergeant, 5 to 10 yards away, and Jude Pereira was there and also one of my counsel, Sivarasa.

Q: For what purpose?
A: I was told to give statement to be recorded under Section 112 of CPC.

Q: Was the statement recorded?
A: Yes, about 2.30 until about 5.30 also, Jude Perreira asked some question, and I gave him answers.

Q: Did you sign the statement?
A: Yes, after completion, Jude said he was finished, and I remembered asking him are you sure? and he said yes so the statement recorded sudah selesai jam 5.40

Q: You were shown the statement?
A: Yes, and I signed on every page.

Q: What was stated on the end of the paper?
A: Selesai.

Q: What were the exact words?
A: Percakapan selesai and I asked him are you sure there are no other questions? Because I keen to! go back home, and then he answered yes and then I signed.

Q: And it is recorded that rakaman percakapan selesai?
A: Yes.

Q: Then, what happen?
A: I was brought back to the main meeting room. It was very late for Asar prayer, and they gave the facilities for Solat Asar. Then, I just waited there, the senior officers appear, and from time to time I was asking them, You told me the main purpose is to take my statement, I have completed my statement, but why am I here? And they said you just wait for a while.

Q: Anything happen after that?
A: I waited, and nothing happen, and after maghrib prayer, around 8 o clock, Jude said to me, that we are going to the hospital now, and then they escorted me to HKL.

Q: Any particular room?
A: I believe it was 20 something room, 28 I supposed.

Q: Were you examined there?
A: Yes I was brought in, and Jude entered the room with me and my counsel Sivarasa. We were met by director of the hospital but they all left, leaving Jude Pereira, Sivarasa and one consultant surgeon E Boon Leong and one consultant physician- Dato Jayendran Sinnadurai.

Q: Did they request anything?
A: They gave me certain forms, they want blood sample for DNA, hair and then some body swabs and then I said what is the law and what is the requirements, and then they were said that they want to get the blood sample for the purpose of DNA from me.

Q: Did you agree to it?
A: No, I said let me consult with my counsel. So I did consult with my counsel, and my counsel advised to cooperate to all the examinations, but not to give the samples.

Q: You complied with the advice of the counsels not to give the blood sample?
A: Yes, the doctors asked me again, I answered, one, it was the legal advice, second is my personal experience in 1998, where we have in evidence for fabrication of evidence, and blood sample is stolen from HKL.

Q: Were you being examined then?
A: Yes, but before that, I told the doctors that I dont want to be examined in fr! ont of m y lawyers, the police officers, the nurses, and they complied. So all the other including Jude Pereira had to leave and waited at the door, and these 2 doctors, asked me to take off my pants, coat, shirt, leaving me only with my singlet and underwear. And then after checking the upper part, I was asked to remove my underwear to measure private part, the length of my pubic hair, which is really degrading and demeaning and then they check my penis and anus.

Q: That was the extent of the examination?
A: Yes.

Q: Any swabs taken?
A: No, but all the external, the anus and the penis part were examined using all the cotton buds and whatever, except the insertion of the equipment was not done because I did not agree to those.

Q: After the examination were you taken back to the police station?
A: After the examination, the doctor asked me number of questions regarding the alleged sodomy and I cooperated and reply, after taking quite extensive notes, and after about 45 minutes, my examination completed and I left the hospital.

Q: And you were taken back to the IPK?
A: Yes, and brought to the same meeting room and I waited there for some time.

Q: What would be the time when you reach IPK?
A: About 11 o clock I came back. But YA, repeatedly I asked, and they all say that after the examination, youre going back. I asked Jude, and Sankaran Nair asked Jude, and he said after your statement recorded, youre going back home.

Q: Did they send you home?
A: No. After 11.30, they just said, Dato Seri, you are required to be here, and we will escort you to the cell. I said, this is strongly unfair, you told me that you will release, and why do I need to be detain? Standard answer by

the police, that they got instruction to put me in the cell.

Q: Before went to the lock up?
A: YA, I was brought in into the lockup, an hour later. At that time, when I first brought in, I dont remember been given anything, but all together I remember all items given to me. One hou! r later I was brought back to the meeting room where Azizah and Nurul Izzah were there. I was allowed to meet them for about 15 minutes, and they said they brought.(tak habiskan jawapan)

Q: Did Yahya give you anything?
A: Yes, Azizah brought in, but I wasnt allowed to touch and take anything. She was passing them to Yahya, and what was given other than the small white towel which was provided(tak habiskan jawapan}

Q: What did exactly Yahya give you?
A: Two medium size towels, toothbrush, toothpaste and soap and the bottle mineral water.

Q: Any towel?
A: One white towel, one very small towel.

Q: This small towel, did you remember the type of it?
A: I dont remember anything.

Q: If it shown to you, can you identify it? Good Morning towel?
A: Yes.

Q: In the lock up, were you alone?
A: Yes. In the lock up I was alone; of course there were guards there that you can see from distance, because this is the lock up on its own. This lock up has steel bars on both sides, and I did appeal to Tuan Yahya because of on my back condition, I cannot be left on the semens floor, which was very cold.

Q: The lock up was it air conditioned?
A: Yes I believe it was, and it is part of the office of the security area. So it was very cold, and the semens floor was really cold, and you cant lean on the wall, because it just only steel bars on 4 corners. So you have to actually, sleep on the semen floor.

Q: What is the condition of this lock up?
A: YA, I dont expect VIP treatment but I dont really regard it of being a normal lock up, it was deployable, [] and there was no washroom but the laboratory was awfully dirty.

Q: You placed in the lock up at what time?
A: From 11 until about 8.30 on the following day.

Q: You were putting there in the night?
A: Yes, 11.30.

Q: You were taken out from the lock up at any time?
A: At about 12 something, about 15 minutes meeting with Azizah, Nurul Izzah with the presence of police officers, and then I was br! ought ba ck to the police lock up.

Q: Was there any statement taken at the morning?
A: Yes, 8.30 in the morning I was brought back to the meeting room for few minutes then Jude Pereira instructed me to go to a small room where he said he wanted to continue as he has now some additional question and

lawyer Sivarasa was there.

Q: And there were statement taken from you?
A: Yes. I did protest on two grounds; 1) he promised that I will be released after the statement taken previously; 2) he said that he had finished recorded statement from me. But he says no, there are more questions he needed to ask, and that one is under Section 112 of CPC so I have to obliged.

Q: When were you []
A: I was there from approximately 8.30 to 9.30 Less than one hour.

Q: Was the statement signed by you?
A: Yes. The same procedure were followed, I was cautioned, I re-read, make corrections, every page signed.

Q: What happened after that? After you have completed making your statement.
A: I was brought back to the meeting room and asked to wait.

Q: You waited until when?
A: I waited for few hours and I think Tuan Yahya and Tuan Razali mentioned to me that Yes, we are waiting for your car and youll soon be released.

Q: So, you are allowed to go home?
A: Yes, YA. For medical treatment.

Q: You went back home?
A: Yes.

Q: And after that for medical treatment?
A: Yes.

Q: You left at about 12.30?
A: Yes.

Q: Why medical treatment?
A: Because I was in excruciating pain. I was given immediately [] jab.

KS: That would be all for my question.

Cross-examination by MY

Q: Dato Seri, how long was Mr. Nair talking to this officer who were there to effect the arrest of you?
A: About 5 minutes.

Q: 5 minutes. 300 seconds. During that time you were saying that at no time the police officer told you that you were arrested because of this case?
A: No. YA, to be honest, not only Mr. Nair asked the question, I asked the question! in the car and there was no answer given.

Q: I put it to you Supt. Ahmad Taufik informed you that you were arrested because of this offence.
A: YA, no time did heI mean, he was very polite, I wouldnt deny that. But I kept on repeating and he said Arahan tangkap Dato Seri pergi ke IPD

Q: Upon reaching the IPK where you were placed in the meeting room, there were a number of senior officers there. Didnt anyone of them tell you that why you were there? About the arrest, the ground of arrest?
A: They were there, yes and most of the discussion was about the need to get me to give a statement to Jude Pierera.

Q: And the statement is pertaining to the report?
A: Jude Pierera during 112 statement

Q: You knew then the statement required from you was pertaining the report lodged by Saiful Bukhari?
A: Yes, by Jude Pierera in the meeting room.

Q: Not only you knew that, you were told.
A: I was told in the room, not in the meeting room, the second room, the smaller room where we went with Sivarasa that is recorded under S.112 with reference to this case.

Q: In fact way back on 14.07.2008 you knew you were required to go there for the purpose.
A: On 14.07.2008, I was told by Sankaran Nair that I am supposed to go to IPK or IPD to give a statement to Jude Pierera.

Q: Was there any other offences that you could think of which made the police arrested you on that day?
A: I commit no offence, YA. And you want to say that? What have not they said to me? Antinational treason, Yahudi agent, I dont know what they want me for. There are 101 allegations in the daily papers, including not wearing a Malaysian batik.

Q: As far as you are concern, there was only one report against you during that material time and that report was by En. Saiful?
A: There are a few reports made against me on political issues including the one made by Saiful Bukharis.

Q: But on 14.97.2008 you were informed you were required to give statements pertaining to the report?
A: As far ! as I cou ld recall there was nothing specific.

Q: Because it was your counsel who told you?
A: Yes.

Q: You said Nair was in communication with Jude on 16.07.2008?
A: Yes.

Q: And you were told about it by Nair?
A: I was in the car with Nair when Nair was in phone conversation with Jude Pierera.

Q: You yourself didnt hear Jude?
A: Yeah, I heard Nair having a conversation.

Q: You heard him having conversation but you personally wouldnt know whether or not that person with whom Nair was having conversation was Jude. You couldnt confirm that until Nair told you.
A: Yes. That is very consistent with what I told the MACC at 12.00 p.m.

Q: Would you agree with me right from the time you were taken by Supt. Taufik until you were released the next day the police had been treating you with respect. They treated you well, no physical abuse and nothing. Do you agree with me?
A: It is true that there is no physical abuse but no question of the fact that I was treated were alike Botak Chins standard of high [] criminal. No normal person is ever placed in that lock-up.

Q: So, your problem is with regard to the condition of the lock-up, not the treatment?
A: Not the lock-up, the way I was treated. I was not told what was the offence, I was dragged like Al-Qaeda agent.

Q: You didnt say that you were dragged. You said the officer was very polite to you.
A: The officer was polite. I dont deny that. And I volunteered a statement. I was not asked.

Q: You didnt say you were dragged. You cannot say that. I mean you have to talk about fact. Were you dragged into the car?
A: YA, what do you called that? In this condition with machine guns, armed team police cars. You say that is a normal arrest, YA?

Q: Were you physically dragged into the car?
A: There was no physical abuse.

Q: You were taken to the hospital?
A: But being in the lock-up, sleeping on the cement floor, is that not physical abuse?

MY: YA, my complaint will be the same with! the def ence counsel. I ask question, you answer. KS will ensure you explain.

Q: You were taken to the hospital and were asked to give your blood specimens and you refused on advice of the counsel. Who is the counsel?
A: The entire team from Haji Sulaiman downwards had always briefed me and at that point in time Sivarasa was there and prior to that Nair. All persistently advise me and I have explained it to the doctors. One of the doctors agreed to me. It is very important. [] nodded and said I appreciate your predicament.

Q: Did you refuse and did you know they wanted this for purpose of investigation?
A: I knew there were attempts to fabricate and [] unfair.

Q: Did you know that they wanted this for the purpose of the investigation? Because you told the court that the doctor asked you about this alleged sodomy. So, you knew it is for that purpose?
A: I did explain to the doctors and the doctors did record it.

Q: That is not the answer. Did you know that they wanted the blood specimens for the purpose of this investigation?
A: Yes, they told me and I explained to them the experience both in 1998, the fabrication, the [] charges and the continuing attempt now, YA. It is not something Im saying it now in the court. I said it to the police and to the doctors.

Q: Dato Seri, the other question was this. You were given a mineral water. Would you agree with me that this mineral water was given to you when you were placed in the meeting room? In fact you had a drink there and brought this bottle back.
A: Yes. YA, whatever was given at any time before you enter the lock up, none could be brought by me. It has to be given by the police officer. Whether the same bottle was used I wouldnt know.

Q: Most of the time you were with your lawyers?
A: No. Most of the time I was with the police.

Q: In the meeting room you were with your lawyers, when you were arrested you were with your lawyers, upon reaching there the lawyers were waiting for you. In fact before your sta! tement w as recorded, would you agree that you had meeting with your family members first? Because statement was only recorded at 3.00 oclock. And you were there at 1.00 something.
A: My family members were not there.

Q: Your lawyers were there?
A: Yes, my lawyers were there. My family members were not allowed to be brought in until late night.

Q: Would you agree that statement was, in fact you can confirm that statements were recorded from you from 3-8 on the 16.07.2008?
A: 2.30-5.30.

Q: Before that?
A: I was asked to sit in the meeting room alone with the police officers coming back and forth.

Q: And then the next day, between 8.30-9.30?
A: Yes.

Q: And this time in the presence of your lawyers?
A: Yes.

Q: In fact when all the statements taking you were with your lawyers?
A: Yes.

Re-examination by KS

Q: You said just now Mr. [eee bue leong] said Dato Seri, I understand your predicament. He said that?
A: Yes. YA, there are two doctors, one Is consultant physician [datuk dr. jeyandran] and one is consultant surgeon [ee bun leong]. In medical report, only Jeyandran signed, but EE Bun Leong did not. signed but not []. Jeyandran was asking me for blood samples, Ee bun Leong said Dato Seri, I understand the predicament to your deciosn. You are not compelled to do anything. You are right. Because I said to thenm :You follow my case, you know blood samples were stole from HKL in 1998. So ee bun leong I could sense that he was listening and said I leave it to you, I understand

Q: And you are aware that he did not signed the medical report?
A: Yes, he did not signed. His name appear, his position, but he did not signed.

Q: You used the word dragged just now. Anything in literal or []?
A: [], but I was not physically dragged. Thats why I volunteered the statement from the beginning, and the police was polite.

YA: I understand that it is not physically dragged.
KS: My learned friend gives the other impression just now when I q! uestione d Dato Seri.
YA: Teruskan.

Q: Were you ever at any time given grounds of arrest?
A: The point of arrest until the meeting room, all the senior officers was there but none of them made any reference to the charge. Only when I went to the room with Siva with Jude Pierera, Jude Pierera did mentioned the police report and the charge. Even at that time police report was not given. We appealed to him Please show us that report, it was not given to us.

Q: Im talking about ground of arrest. Grounds of arrest were never given to you at any time?
A: No.

Q: Right from the time you were arrested to the time when you are released?
A: It is established fact that the police report was not given to us and I was not told of the ground of arrest.

Q: Did they give you grounds of arrest? They took your statement. Did they give you the grounds of arrest?
A: No. they did not. They just said there is a police report and I asked where is it and it was not given to me. I was not given any basis but they said You are required under S.112 CPC and I said I understand the law.

Q: When you take the statement, no mention of the ground of arrest?
A: No.

KS: No further question.
YA: Next witness will be Sankaran nair?
KS: []

TWT DW2: Sankaran Nair
TWT DW2 affirm the oath in English.
Advocate & Solicitor. 55 years old.

Q: On 16.07.2008, did you go to Putrajaya together with DSAI?
A: I did.

Q: What was the purpose of going there?
A: I was acting as solicitor for DSAI in the matter of his report to ACA for certain matters.

Q: Tell us what happened. From where did you go and with whom, apart from DSAI.
A: I and another lawyer, Mr. Sivarasa met at DSAI house and we fetched Datuk Param along the way and we proceeded and reached there at about 10.00 a.m.

Q: And the purpose is for DSAI to give a statement?
A: To give a statement in respect of his police report against Tan Sri Ghani and Tan Sri Musa Hassan for black eye incident.

Q: H ow long were you there together with Dato Seri at the MACC office in Putrajaya?
A: He was supposed to give the statement for the entire day but DSAI was aware and we keep reminding him again and again that he has to be at IPK at 2.00 p.m. because I have told DSP Jude that we will be at IPK KL at 2.00 p.m. we did tell the officer recording at about 12.00 p.m. that we had to leave otherwise we will be late. And as a result, the officer recorded down what has been said about our meeting in IPK with DSP Jude. And we left at about 12.00 p.m.

Q: You left for where?
A: We was supposed to drop Datuk Param and naik satu kereta ke IPK. But the time we reached Selangor Club in Kiara

Q: What was the purpose at Selangor Club?
A: Datuk Params car was there so we have to drop him there and it was nearly 12.35 p.m. at that time. Since there was so much time left DSAI suggested that he wants to pray and freshen up before we proceed to IPK and Kiara is near to DSAIs house so we went to his house.

Q: What happened on the way?
A: By the time we passed Garden School at merely 12.30 or 12.40, DSP Jude asking me Where are you? and I said Look, we are still early. We are going back to DSAIs house, and hell pray and freshen up and Ill asure you Ill be bring him at 2.00 sharp.

Q: Where?
A: To the IPK.

Q: Anything happened on the way to DSAIs house in Segambut?
A: In about 10 minutes thereafter as we proceeded to DSAIs house mengikut Jalan Segambut Dalam, we have to get to DSAIs house through a slip road and as we entered the slipped road, we were ambushed by several police cars. And I particularly remember a green unmarked wheeler [] and there were about 10 or so balaclava clad and platoon commanders and they all having armed and very menacing surrounded DSAIs vehicle.

Q: After that what happened?
A: I told DSAI to remain in the car because the situation is rather menacing since I dont expect machine gun to arrest one man and then plus too many cars. We were quite alarmed. ! In fact, DSAI was quite alarmed, threaten and fearful of himself. We just sat for a while and I told DSAI [], dont come out and I will talk to the officer. When I opened the door, an officer I think Supt Taufik if I can recall, he is Superintendent because he is in uniform.

Q: Is he here? If I call him will you be able to identify him?
A: Yes.

Q: Supt. Jude also, can you identify?
A: Yes.

Supt. Taufik and Supt. Jude identified.

Q: Carry on.
A: This things is in our mind because the last time we told the police that we will surrender DSAI in 1998 the last time when we told that we will surrender DSAI in 1998 without any problems if you ask us to bring him and thereafter we expected them to invite him to the police station, they stormed the house. So, that fear operated in all of us, me and DSAI that it is happening again.

And I told him not to come out of the car and I talked to the officer Taufik and I asked him What is it that you want? We are supposed to be there at 2.00 p.m. and Ive just spoken to DSP Jude. And he said My order are to arrest DSAI and take him to IPK and I asked him What is the charge? Why do you have to arrest him? and he said My orders are to arrest and bring him to IPK.

I asked him Why dont we go in DSAIs car? You can escort us and you dont have a reason for him to be arrested by you and he said No. My orders are strict and I am to arrest him and take him into my vehicle. [] and I said Alright, I have to talk to client. I then walked to DSAIs car and opened the door and asked him to come out and told him Looks like you have to go. They are very strict about this.

Thereafter I escorted him to the four wheeler vehicle and I asked Supt Taufik Can I follow? At least let the lawyer be with him as a fact they are taking him now and to that he said No. there is no space in the vehicle. There are two escorts and DSAI will be there, so there is no space and you have to come on your own. So then we followed the vehicle thereafter as soon as DSAI were! driven away.

Q: Right off to IPK?
A: Yes, we went to IPK

Q: What happened at the IPK? []
A: As soon we were there, at 7th floor, we were ushered to a meeting room. And there, if I recall there is ACP Razali, DSP Jude and I cant recall the others who were there together with DSAI and ACP Razali then said to me Look Mr. Nair, we are not going to detain your client. We just want to take his statement. And after the statement, he may leave. Soon, the other lawyers just arrived and Datin Seri also arrived and on that assurance we left one lawyers aside and we left the office and waited down stairs.

Q: So, that was your on that day ?
A: Yes.

Q: From the time DSAI was apprehended, stopped [], did Supt Taufik gives any grounds of arrest to DSAI at any time?
A: Absolutely no, YA. He was rather robotic and says My instruction is to bring DSAI to IPK. Thats it.

Q: Was DSAI given grounds of arrest at any time at the IPK by anybody?
A: Not in my presence at all.

KS: That will be all, YA.

Cross-examination by MY

Q: Would you agree with me that Supt Taufik didnt talk much?
A: As I said he is robotic and all he said is My order is to arrest DSAI.

Q: Yes or no?
A: Yes.

Q: You asked him why was he there.
A: Yes.

Q: And would I be correct to say that he said I have an order to arrest DSAI pursuant to this offence?
A: He said Im here to arrest. Thats all.

Q: My instruction is you were told the reason of arrest.
A: No, he did not tell me the reason for the arrest.

Q: Theres one statement you made towards the end, with the assurance that he will be released that night.
A: Yes.

Q: I just want to ask this question, if there is no assurance what will happen?
A: If there is no assurance obviously we will then as lawyers will apply perhaps for habeas corpus.

Q: On what ground?
A: On the basis that the arrest was illegal.

Q: Why?
A: He has agreed to give statement to the police and there is no reason to! arrest. Under S.111 CPC, you dont arrest the person if you cant go and apply for a summons before a Magistrate to have him comply it to come to the police station. You dont arrest a person for that.

Q: Would you agree that S.111 CPC apply to witnesses and not suspect?
A: At that time we dont know they were [] him as what.

Q: Would you agree that DSAI was a suspect?
A: At that time? We dont know at that time.

Q: Are you aware of all the reports made against DSAI?
A: Of course Im aware.

Q: So?
A: He can be a witness. He can be anybody. Thats why we did not know at that time what you have decided to treat him as.

Q: In fact the report was published in the newspapers. The whole of Malaysia, if not the whole of the world know there was a report alleging sodomy. Were you aware of that?
A: Yes.

Q: Didnt that make him a suspect?
A: Thats for you to decide. Im a lawyer.

Q: Yes, because you are a lawyer I ask you.
A: He can be anybody. Anybody that you want him to be.

Q: Allegation is made against you, didnt that make him a suspect?
A: I am a lawyer. I am not a prosecutor or the police to decide that.

MY: YA, may I ask this question?

Q: You were a police officer before?
A: Of course.

Q: You are a SB (Special Branch) and you were in commercial crime?
A: Yes.

Q: When did you call a person a suspect?
A: When I want to take his statement.

Q: []. There are many people whose statement are recorded and yet no report is not against them and that doesnt make them a suspect.
A: Not necessarily.

Q: So, when their statements are recorded, they are a suspect? Thats what you said.
A: You can be. You can also be arrested.

Q: So now, in this particular instance you knew that DSAIs statement was about to be recorded and it makes him by your answer, a suspect.
A: There is no legal definition of a suspect.

Q: I mean, it is by your definition.
A: [] either a witness or an accused. [] of suspect. Can yo! u tell m e in the CPC the definition of a suspect?

Q: I took it by your definition.
A: You say suspect, I dont say suspect.

MY: YA
KS: Leave it for submission.
YA: Yeah, this is about the law.
MY: Okay []
YA: We want facts only, not law.
MY: Yes, YA. Thats why sometimes I always wonder whether or not the counsel should be allowed to ask all about the law. But anyway..

Q: You speak to Jude on 14.07.2008?
A: Yes. He called a few times.

Q: What did you talked to him about?
A: There are few conversations between me and him so I dont know which one are you referring to.

Q: On the 14th.
A: All I know is on the 13th we told him You have served S.111 and you didnt serve it on him personally therefore my client is not obliged to come.

Q: Was that the only conversation?
A: I believe he was asking to fix appointment again.

Q: During that day how many conversations you have I wouldnt know. But you know that DSAI is required to come to IPK on 16.07.2008?
A: No. That was an agreement he made. []

Q: My suggestion is on 16th July there was no communication at all between you and DSP Jude?
A: Absolutely.

MY: That would be all.

Re-examination by KS.

Q: Were you an experienced or at least police officer?
A: Yes.

Q: When did you join the police force?
A: I joined in 1982.

Q: As what?
A: I was a Cadet ASP.

Q: You were in the force for how long?
A: About 8-9 years.

Q: And you have experience of crime investigation?
A: Yes. [] in other branches.

Q: In this case were you aware that S.111 order was issued?
A: I was aware when the family called me on Sunday saying that S.111 order was given to the guard at the guard house.

Q: S.111 are addressed to?
A: The name was DSAI on the [].

Q: What is the S.111 order?
A: It is an order to appear before a police officer at the police station or in a police station.

Q: As a witness under S.112?
A: As a witness under S.112. Th! ats true .

KS: That would be all, YA.
MY: I only have one question through the court.
YA: Apa dia?

Q: With regard to S.111, is it true that you dont recognized that as being served on your client?
A: As I understand the law, S.111 must be served personally on the person required

Q: And you dont recognize it?
A: As lawyers, we dont recognize that.

MY: Thats all.
KS: Just one question.

Q: It was in fact issued?
A: Yes, it was issued. Definitely.

Q: It was a S.111 order?
A: Yes. S.111 order. It was issued.

KS: That would be all.
YA: You can now go out.
KS: We will be calling Mr. Sivarasa. He will be here tomorrow morning.
YA: He is not here now?
KS: He is not here.
MY: I though I dont want to call rebuttal witness but in view of what he said I have two rebuttal witness, with only one question each.
KS: We must close our case first.
YA: Yeah. And later baru rebuttal boleh call.
KS: You cant jump the gun.
MY: Most of the thing said we accept.
KS: This is a criminal trial, YA. We must placed before this court all the materials, YA.
YA: Start tomorrow with Sivarasa. You got two rebuttal?
MY: Two rebuttal witnesses, Taufik. I want to ask whether or not he informed. Thats all. []
YA: Okay. But it has to be after Sivarasa.
MY: Yes.
YA: So boleh habis lah esok?
KS: Well try our best.
YA: Continue tomorrow at 9.00 a.m.
[3.52 p.m.] Adjourned.