Aug 24, 11
Why EC's arguments are seriously flawed
John R Malott
Aug 24, 11
10 friends can read this story for free
COMMENT There has been much informed discussion in Malaysia over the past two months about electoral reform, with thoughtful proposals from reformers and counter-statements by the government.
In this article, the first of two, I take a look at some of the proposals that have been made and compare Malaysia's situation to that of other countries.
Lowering voting age
From an international perspective, Malaysia's 21 year age requirement is out of step with the rest of the world.
Wikipedia lists the voting ages in almost 240 countries and territories around the world, and overwhelmingly the predominant voting age is 18. Malaysia is one of only 12 countries where a voter must be 21.
Let's look at Malaysia's Asian neighbours. You need be only 18 to vote in Australia, Bangladesh, Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, India, Laos, Maldives, Mongolia, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam.
In Indonesia and East Timor, it is 17; in South Korea, 19; and in Japan and Taiwan, 20. Together with Singapore, Malaysia is the only country in Asia to set the voting age at 21.
Let's also take a look at other nations in the Commonwealth, whose governmental structures and constitutions have all been influenced heavily by the British.
The voting age is 18 in Australia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Bermuda, Canada, Ghana, India, Jamaica, New Zealand, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Ta! nzania, Uganda, the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe. Once again, Malaysia is an outlier.
In Malaysia, when citizens turn 18, they have the legal right to get married, have consensual sex, sign contracts, and buy alcohol and tobacco. They can leave school and work when they are 16, and they can drive when they are 17.
They do not, however, have the right to vote until they are 21. Why does this age gap exist?
Malaysia's age limit clearly is out of step with the rest of the world and also is inconsistent with the legal rights it grants its citizens at an earlier age, from marriage through employment.
Extending the campaign period
Bersih 2.0 advocates extending the campaign period to 21 days, but the Elections Commission is opposed to it. EC deputy chief Wan Ahmad Wan Omar says that a shorter period is sufficient for a nation of Malaysia's size and technological sophistication.
However, a number of Malaysian advocates of electoral reform have pointed out that in years past, Malaysia's election campaigns extended beyond 21 days.
Let's take a look at Wan Ahmad's justification for a short campaign and examine the campaign periods in other Commonwealth countries, with which Malaysia shares a political heritage.
The 2010 Australian elections were announced on July 17, and the polls were held five weeks later, on Aug 21.
Using Wan Ahmad's logic, Australia needs a longer campaign period because it is a big country. So let's look at some smaller-sized places, which also are technologically sophisticated.
The 2010 elections in the United Kingdom were announced on April 12 and held on May 6. That is a campaign period of 24 days.
This year's parliamentary elections in New Zealand were announced on Feb 2, but they will not be held until Nov 26, almost 10 months later!
What ab out Singapore, a nation that is only 582 sq km in area, just 0.2% of Malaysia's size? Their Parliament was dissolved on April 19 of this year, and the elections were held on May 7, which was 20 days later.
Wan Ahmad argues that the length of a campaign period is correlated to a country's size and sophistication, but as the examples of the UK, New Zealand, and Singapore show, the argument doesn't hold water.
Finally, while Malaysia's land area is smaller than other India or Australia, the physical separation of the nation into its eastern and western halves has an impact on national election campaigns. The flying distance between Kuala Lumpur and Kota Kinabalu is 1,624 km.
That is just 42km short of the distance between Bombay and Calcutta, and 123km less than the distance between New Delhi and Chennai. So for political leaders who need to criss-cross the country, the length of the campaign is important.
Using indelible ink
Bersih 2.0 advocates the use of indelible ink, which has proven to be a low-tech but effective method to prevent electoral fraud. EC deputy chief Wan Ahmad has made a number of points in opposition.
First, Wan Ahmad claims that Malaysia's Constitution would need to be amended, because the government cannot deny a registered voter his or her right to vote. This is incredibly perverse logic.
The purpose of indelible ink is not to prevent someone from voting; it is to prevent someone from voting twice, fraudulently and illegally. It is a crime-prevention and not a vote-prevention measure. Furthermore, when the government imported indelible ink for the 2008 elections, no one claimed then that the Constitution needed to be amended.
Wan Ahmad's second argument is chauvinistic. He says that indelible ink is for poorer, less s! ophistic ated countries like India and Indonesia. Sophisticated countries like Malaysia deserve a more high-tech system like biometrics.
But then, in the same breath, he says that voters in the countryside are not sophisticated, and that they could be duped by people who dip their fingers in ink before they vote. So which is it - are Malaysians sophisticated or not?
Indelible ink has been in use in Indian elections since 1952, and there have been no accusations of fraud. The peasantry have not been duped. True, there have been problems in the Philippines because they used a lower quality ink that can be removed easily.
But Indian ink - which is what the Malaysian government imported in 2008 - stays on the skin for 72 hours and cannot be removed.
The irony is that many Malaysians believe that the proposed high-tech biometric system will lead to more fraud and more problems, not less. The equipment and database will be under the control of the government. Some blog reports say that the Malaysian companies that provide this kind of equipment have close political and family connections to government leaders.
Furthermore, as we all know, any computer system and database is only as good as the information that we put into it. High-tech systems are also prone to crash.
Can Malaysia deploy biometric equipment to thousands of polling places across the country, train personnel, and ensure both electricity and Internet connectivity, especially in the rural areas? A low-tech solution - indelible ink - seems easier, cheaper, and more reliable.
Permitting foreign observers
When Wan Ahmad was asked last July whether Malaysia would invite foreign groups to observe the country's next elections, the EC deputy chief became emotional and nationalistic: Why do we need fo! reigners ... commenting on our election system? They don't know our election laws. They don't understand our values.
It is a matter of pride, he said. Malaysians would be hurt by the negative comments of foreign observers. They are foreigners. Who are they? Why do we need Germans commenting on our election system?
The irony is that he made these comments just as his boss, Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof, was in Thailand on a five-day trip with four other Malaysian election commissioners to observe the Thai elections. The Malaysian group had been invited by the Thai Election Commission, along with 11 other countries.
As in Malaysia, voters in Thailand are divided on the question whether their elections are free and fair. An Asia Foundation survey in 2009 found a split - 47% of those Thai surveyed said their elections are free and fair, while 48% disagreed.
But when asked whether the presence of election observers would give them more confidence that the results of the elections were fair, 62% said yes. Only 34% said that it would not.
From that point of view, it is in the government's interest to invite both domestic and foreign groups to observe the next elections. The heavy-handed government crackdown last July 9 against the Bersih rally certainly got the world's attention and raised international concern that all might not be as it seems in Malaysia.
The government says that elections are free and fair. The world needs to be assured about the strength and integrity of Malaysia's democracy. Inviting foreign observers is not an issue of national pride; it is a question of national interest.
JOHN R MALOTT was the US Ambassador to Malaysia, 1995-1998, and continues to follow developments in that country closely.
KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 24 Foreign sperm detected in the rectum can be inserted by means other than sexual activity, an Australian forensic pathologist told Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahims sodomy trial today.
Dr David Wells, who was testifying for the defence, said penile penetration was not the only method to explain the presence of sperm in that area as there were other ways to leave a residue.
He named a few examples, such as through a surgical procedure or inserting an instrument called a proctoscope into the rectum, by pushing traces of sperm found outside the anal region into the cavity.
Dr Wells, who has written some 10 books on forensic medicine, said the use of a proctoscope could complicate matters more because one would not be able to discount the chance that sperm was pushed inside the rectum.
A proctoscope was also used by doctors to examine Anwars complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan when the latter sought medical aide two days after alleging he had been sodomised three years ago.
When defence lawyer Sankara Nair questioned if a plastic object, which had been raised in yesterdays court hearing, could have the same effect, Dr Wells agreed.
He also said that not all victims of sodomy would necessarily display signs of anal injury.
Under questioning from Anwars defence team, Dr Wells clarified that such trauma from violent sexual activity would depend on the amount of force used and need not necessarily cause the anal tissues to tear or bruise.
The forensic expert had earlier told the prosecution the same thing.
Datuk Yusof Zainal Abiden had referred Dr Wells to his own book on the topic, and pointe! d out th at the use of lubricant on the anus was among several ways that would not leave trauma scars.
The sexual assault specialist had been stumped earlier when Yusof asked, If someone had tampered or planted sperm on the [rectal] swabs, that person must have had that particular sperm in his possession?
Dr Wells replied that sperm and DNA were different things and added that the question would be better dealt with by a DNA expert.
Australian chemist Dr Brian McDonald who specialises in DNA is to testify tomorrow for the defence.
Anwar is charged with sodomising former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan at a condominium in Bukit Damansara here between 3.10pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.
He faces up to 20 years in jail if convicted under section 377B of the Penal Code, but will escape the whipping sentence due to his age. -- MI
From Nora Murat, via e-mail
A vote in the Philippine Senate yesterday (Aug 23) has opened the way for the country to become a party to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
After more than 10 years of campaigning by Amnesty International, NGOs, and interest groups, the vote to approve the Rome Statute brings the Philippines closer to joining the global effort to end genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Earlier this month, Amnesty International Philippines submitted a petition urging the Senate to approve ratification. The petition carried more than 8,000 Filipino citizens signatures.
States which ratify the Rome Statute take on a commitment to investigate and prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes before their national courts and agree that, if they are unable or unwilling to do so, the International Criminal Court (ICC) may step in.
They also agree to cooperate fully with the work of the ICC in investigating and prosecuting crimes committed around the world. The Philippines will become a party to the ICC once the government files the instruments of ratification with the United Nations.
Congress will also need to pass legislation to ensure that domestic laws are in accordance with Rome Statute. The Philippines played an active role in the drafting of Rome Statute in 1998.
Two years later, the Rome Statute was signed and the government indicated that it would ratify. However, only in March 2011 did President Benigno S Aquino III announced that he would submit the treaty to the Senate.
Prompt ratification of the Rome Statute will mean that the Philippines will be the first founding member of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) to join the ICC.
On 22 March 2011 it was announced that the Government of Malaysia had decided to ratify the Rome Statute. The statement was made by Minister in the Prime Ministers Department Nazri Abdul Az! iz.< p>He further stated that this move is a declaration that, Malaysia rejects and will not commit such crimes. We do not want such things to happen in our country.
Five months has passed and we hope the government will keep its word.
As a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Malaysia has made a public commitment to adhere to human rights and play a leading role in the advancement of human rights in the region.
Malaysia needs to make it a priority to ratify the Rome Statute and bring domestic laws in line with the Rome Statute as promptly as possible.
This would be a giant step in the right direction for Malaysias human rights terrain as it makes a strong statement that as a civilised and developed nation, we will not tolerate heinous acts.
The writer is executive director Amnesty International Malaysia
9.12am: Wells explain history should also indicate whether there was any lubricant was used, was there violence, issues of other sexual acts. He adds that past medical history, including bowel history, is also important.
9.14am: The witness says bowel history is important to note in sodomy cases to identify whether the patient had previously undergone surgical procedure for bowel problems.9.17am: Wells is shown the proforma form where Yusof claims is complete.
9.22am: Wells says all the details on whether there is violence should be noted in the form. "If a person is grabbed forcefully and turn down, it would be different." "It's more likely affect interpetration. Violent manner but checks reveal no injuries, it would bring to question," he says.
9.24am: Yusof: What do you understand by a complete physical examination.
Dr Wells: There will be top-to-toe examination. The prosecution has a short exchange with Sankara when Yusof was seen trying to limit Dr Wells' answers.
9.30am: Wells says the proforma did not express the findings of checks (cotton swab) of Saiful's! mouth.< /p>
9.31am: However, Wells says he would not take a swab in Saiful's mouth if the incident happened more than 48 hours ago. Saiful was examined by Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) doctors two days after the alleged incident.
9.32am: Yusof shows a copy of a book written by Wells.
9.33am: Yusof notes what Wells had testified yesterday is also mentioned in the book which he had written.
Wells: I am relieved.
9.36am: Yusof says complete desirable physical examination to all areas of the body is stated in his book.
Yusof: Top-to-toe examination. Wells says he agrees there is a need for top-to-toe examination. "If there is any doubt, then you do the top-to-toe examination. If no doubt, then there is no doubt. I agree it is a point of discussion." The solicitor-general II appears to be trying to test Wells' credibility.
9.43am: Yusof asks when a person alleges sodomy, would it be safe to assume the act includes foreplay and so on. Wells replies "yes".
9.45am: Wells questions why areas of Saiful's hair was recorded, where else there were no notes on details of the complainant's mouth.
9.48am: Yusof says Saiful's medical report is "safe" because it is based on the proforma. Wells however disagrees.
9.52am: Wells agrees with Yusof he had come across cases of questionable forensic practises in Australia. Anwar couldn't resist interjecting from the dock: "There are many here too."
9.54am: Wells questions the relevance of some terms in the proforma. The reason, Wells says, "you take swab is because you want to ensure there is contact with another person".
9.57am: Wells agrees that with semen you cannot see through naked eye, and you need a cotton swab.
9.58am: Yusof sugges! t swab t aken in the peri-annal, rectum and upper rectum would indicate the presence of semen. "There was presence of semen on B5, B7, B8 and B9." Wells says that should come from the lab report. "They rely on someone else's interpretation of analysis."
10.02am: Yusof: Who should interpret there was penetration.
Wells: It should be the scientist, not the doctors. But if they are confident of the finding, the doctors can say on assumption.
10.06am: Yusof asks for 15 minutes break. The judge orders the court to stand down.
10.25am: Court resumes. Yusof asks Wells if there should be proper labelling on the container, to which Wells agrees.
10.28am: Wells says the time and date should be stated on the labels.
10.35am: Yusof goes into the subject of contamination.
10.36am: Wells says contamination can come from hospital attendants and police vehicles.
Yusof: In Saiful's case, there is a crime scene?
Dr Wells: Yes.
Yusof: There are four doctors involved.
Dr Wells: Yes.
Yusof: Would you agree that the swab would include the four person?
Dr Wells: Yes, but it can also come from the trousers, because it comes into contact with the skin.
10.38am: Yusof asks what the risk is of contamination, to which Wells reply that he would never guarantee that contamination would never occur. "There would be other procedures, including cleaning of the room. Contamination may come from the examiners, individuals whom he met or clothing.! "
10.40am: Wells says contamination can occur during procedure, but there is a need to reduce it.
Yusof: The protoscope went beyond it and went 4cm in.
Wells: It would reduce contamination, as the walls of the rectum or vagina are closed.
10.44am: Yusof asks Wells to look at the proforma form. The examination took place after 56 hours following the alleged incident, he notes.
Yusof: If a person is not there and had not come into contact, his DNA would not be found?
Dr Wells: Yes, if there is no contact with doctors or other factors.
10.48am: Yusof goes to the finding in the medical report where a witness was said to be not happy with the sentence "no conclusive finding that there was penetration." Wells says that it could be a matter of semantics, as there is the word "conclusive". "Why should there be the word conclusive there?"
10.53am: Yusof is now referring to Dr Wells' book.
10.54am: Yusof reads out that in the majority of subjects there were no injuries on the victim, to which Wells agrees. "So, it is not odd if there is no injury on Saiful," he said.
10.55am: Yusof says unforceful entry may produce signs of blunt trauma, to which the witness agrees.
10.57am: Wells says he described the medical report as ambiguous because he felt uncomfortable with the use of the words "conclusive" and "does not reveal" penetration.
10.58am: Wells says he has many doubts in Saiful's medical report. "Other people who read it may also agree because of the word conclusive."
Yusof: Is i! t ambigu ous or inaccurate?
Dr Wells: Well, you need to find a thesaurus (to help me). But I believe it is more ambiguous.
11.01am: Wells expresses concern about certain safeguard not being in place (as it would lead to not a desired result).
11.02am: Wells is shown by Yusof another book authored by another person.
11.03am: Yusof reads out that bruises may not become prevalent in sexual acts, to which Wells agrees.
11.06am: Yusof asks whether Wells is alleging that the container wherein the sample is placed could be tampered. Wells says it is not the container but the sealing used, because the sample is retrieved (from) inside (ie, it is not exposed)
11.10am: Yusof asks if a person plants a sperm, must you must have the sperm of the person there? Wells replies that this was something he would leave to the DNA expert.
11.11am: Wells says you have to identify the sperm or DNA. There was sperm found inside Saiful's rectum, from the sample taken. The chemist has shown the DNA is Anwar's.
11.14am: Wells is asked: how long can sperm last? He says it can be between 36 and 48 hours. Yusof shows an article from a journal.
11.18am: Yusof cites a case where there is sperm head can lasts more than 48 hours. Wells cautions such a statement, saying: Yes, this is a 30 year-old literature, but all cannot depend on this solitary case alone.
11.21am: Yusof asks Wells why he said the specimen may not be there after 36 hours. Wells explains that this is based on his experience, as it is extremely rare that you can get specimen after 36 hours.
11.24am: Reading from a 2009 source,! Yusof s ays anal and vaginal swabs can be taken after three days.
11.26am: Wells: "I am not aware of any case as this, where a sample can be obtained after 56 hours," says the Australian professor. "There is 36 to 48 hours from anal specimen, there are others involving vagina where specimen can be retrieved after five days," he says.
11.32am: Wells says he always keeps an open mind in this area. Yusof asks for short break to check whether he has covered all areas.
12pm: Karpal is wheeled in.
12.09pm: Court resumes. Yusof informs the court that he has finished cross-examination of Wells.
12.10pm: Sankara asks about history-taking. Wells says it is very important, as it forms the basis of management and diagnosis. "It is a fundamental part of medical practice."
A man was left bleeding and bruised after being assaulted by his girlfriend in Singapore, reported China Press.
The woman, 24, hit, kicked and strangled her boyfriend after he criticised her appearance and dressing.
The daily reported that the woman now feared she might lose her boyfriend.
She said she still loved him but could not accept his criticism at times.
"He asked me to put on make-up, wear high-heels and not to wear t-shirts.
"I listened to him because I love him," she was quoted as saying by the daily.
In the second year of their relationship, the woman claimed that her boyfriend wanted her to slim down.
"He did not allow me to take breakfast and lunch," she said, adding that this was one of the reasons which triggered the arguments between them.
The woman added that she was still trying to salvage the relationship.
> Sin Chew Daily reported that Jelapang assemblyman Datuk Hee Yit Fong has challenged Perak DAP secretary Nga Kor Ming to face her in a Malay-majority constituency in the next general election.
Hee said Nga should take up the challenge to prove that DAP was a multiracial party accepted by Malay voters.
Hee was one of three Perak state assemblymen who left Pakatan Rakyat to become Barisan Nasional-friendly indepen! dents in 2009.
She also questioned why Nga did not come forward to take on any MCA heavyweights or Umno candidates.
Hee was responding to Nga's earlierwhich challenged MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek to take on either DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang or his son Lim Guan Eng in the next election.
1.0 Laporan HUKM itu sendiri pincang. Lampiran (dipanggil proforma form) kelihatan bercanggan dengan rumusan laporan. Juga, "proforma form" tersebut banyak yang tidak lengkap
2.0 Jabatan Kimia menguji sampel DNA dari HUKM itu 90 jam selepas kejadian. Mengikut Dr Wells, sampel yang diuji selepas 36 jam pun sudah tidak tepat lagi, inikan pula selepas 90 jam. Bagaimana Jabatan Kimia membuat rumusan DNA tersebut milik Anwar, tiada siapa yang tahu.
3.0 Sampel yang diambil juga tampaknya terdedah kepada kontaminasi. Cara sampel itu diambil tidak menepati piawaian antarabangsa dan jelas sampel yg diambil itu tidak layak untuk diuji serta dibuat rumusan diatasnya.
1.0 Kalau anak awak kena rogol, nak pakai 4 saksi jugak ke?
2.0 Kalau dlm handphone anak gadis awak ada gambar dia berzina, kena tunggu 4 saksi jugak ke?
3.0 Kalau kena tunggu 4 saksi ni, semua mangsa rogol boleh terlepas
4.0 Zaman moden takkan tak boleh pakai bukti CCTV dan video
5.0 Kenapa nak tunggu 4 saksi, suruh je Anwar bersumpah mcm Eskay bersumpah
6.0 Dah ada DNA Anwar dlm jubor Saiful. Apa bukti lagi nak?
7.0 Kalau saya ada video Babyrina berzina, bolehkah ia dijadikan sebagai bukti?
Audio and video evidence must be authenticated by both parties in any litigation by a forensic expert who is also an expert witness who assists the court in understanding details about that electronic evidence.
TERJEMAHAN: Bukti Video dan Audioa dalam kasus "litigation" mestilah disahkan kesahihannya oleh kedua-du! a belah pihak oleh seorang pakar forensic yang juga akan menjadi saksi pakar yang akan membantu mahkamah di dalam memahami butiran berkaitan bukti elektronik
Anwar Ibrahim, for so long the virtuoso political actor, had his Nelson Mandela-Mahatma Gandhi moment in court on Monday.
By refusing to testify in his own defence in his trial for sodomy, and choosing to make an 8,000 word long statement from the dock on which he cannot be cross-examined, Anwar put on a grand piece of political theatre.
It wasnt the first in his political career and certainly not the last, again calculated to impress the intelligentsia and intellectual circles, and calculated to draw the required references, particularly to Mandela.
And as a calculated act, drawing upon great moments in world history, it cheapens both Anwar and the very real heroes in the struggle for liberty that he professes to respect.
On 18 March 1922, Mahatma Gandhi cheerfully submitted himself to judgment on a charge of sedition, with a statement from the dock that was a defence of his great invention, peaceful non-cooperation, in which he said:
non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as is co-operation with good I am here, therefore, to invite and submit cheerfully to the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me for what in law is a deliberate crime and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen. The only course open to you, the Judge, is either to resign your post and thus dissociate yourself from evil or to inflict on me the severest penalty
And the judge entered political history for his response: Mr Gandhiit will be impossible to ignore the fact that you are in a different category from any person I have ever tried or am likely to have to try if the course of events in India should make it possible for the Government to reduce the period [of his sentence] and release you, no one will be better pleased than I.
Four decades later Nelson Mandela stood in the dock in P! retoria on April 20 1964 and delivered a defiant, blistering attack on apartheid and the South African system and paid homage to the timeless ideals of Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, and American democratic institutions.
He took four hours to read his statement, and his act of defiance is firmly a part of world political history. He put South Africa on trial. The world listened. ( Full text of Nelson Mandelas statement from the dock at the Rivonia Trial, at Wikisource)
Mandelas speech is now considered one of the greatest speeches of the 20th Century. It ended with these words:
During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.
And, of course, on Monday, Anwar Ibrahim dutifully quoted Mandelas words.
He plainly sought to emulate both Gandhi and Mandela, inviting the courts to do their worst. It is not the first time he (and his handlers) sought to place himself on the same pedestal as the worlds greatest heroes of liberty.
The Asian Renaissance man of the 1990s the would-be aspirant to the Nobel Peace Prize on the same level as Aung Sang Suu Kyi the now-forgotten Permatang Pauh Declaration on the lines of the Bandung Declaration the would-be bridge across civilisations
Anwar Ibrahims political career is littered with such echoes of great moments in the struggle for liberty. But they are merely echoes, deliberately crafted, moments of grandiose theatre, of someone aspiring to greatness.
There is merit in Anwars review of th! e rot in the Malaysian system. It is, unfortunately, all too familiar to all who have followed events of the past decade.
And thus Anwars statement from the dock is not the defining moment in the Malaysian struggle for liberty that his publicists and admirers will seek to declare. No matter how eagerly they strive to draw the parallels to Mandela (they seem to have forgotten about Gandhi).
Gandhi and Mandelas struggles were of, and by, the oppressed seeking to tear down a repressive system.
Anwars struggle and those of his political fellow-travellers is of one power elite against another, contending for political supremacy.
We the oppressed are merely fodder in that struggle.
Therein lies the difference, between Gandhi and Mandela on the one hand and Anwar and Co on the other, the difference between the truly great and the merely want-to-be-great, the ones who only think they are great.