Saturday, December 6, 2014

Selangor: Selepas mandat @NajibRazak, @NohOmar perlu pasukan baru





Datuk Seri Noh Omar needs to have his own team so that he can lead Selangor UMNO back to its glory days


My Honest Opinion on #Selangor #UMNO

This past few months there has been a lot of talk regarding Selangor UMNO. It all started when the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Haji Najib Tun Razak said that he was "disappointed" with the performance of Selangor UMNO in the past General Election and their performance post GE-13.

In fact, this blog had also written some unsavoury articles criticising both Selangor UMNO and Datuk Seri Noh Omar, who is the Selangor UMNO Chairman for their Inability to challenge and compete with the current state government of DAP-PKR-PAS. 

To be honest we were dissapointed with Selangor UMNO as we thought and knew that they can perform much better than what they have been doing.

Nevertheless, this are all water under the bridge as we have now been given a clearer picture of what is actually happening in Selangor, in particularly Selangor UMNO. 

In order for Selangor UMNO to perform to its maximum potential, division leaders have to give their full support to the state chairman, in this case Datuk Seri Noh Omar. A state chairman cannot function well if his subordinates are hell bend on sabotaging his plans and programs.

Kudos to Datuk Seri Noh Omar, even though he is facing various problems internally from the division leaders, he has not even once complained or sulk that all his plans for Selangor UMNO cannot be executed properly. This shows the true character of the man himself. Where even though faced with various obstacles he goes about doing his work without any complaints whatsoever. 

I personally think that for Selangor UMNO to function to its true potential, Datuk Seri Noh Omar have to have his own team. A team that shares his vision and mission to capture Selangor back from DAP-PKR-PAS in the next General Election. He cannot be working with a group of people who does not support him. It will never work.

In addition, the grassroot leaders in Selangor UMNO have to quickly close rank and be as one rather than having camps all around the state.  Its no point that everybody is fighting for their own political survival but in the end the ones that are losing is Selangor UMNO as a whole. 

Even now, UMNO leaders in the state assembly is being treated without dignity and respect by the current state government. Have we no shame on this? I really hope that  the state division leaders rally themselves and support the current state leadership under Datuk Seri Noh Omar rather than bickering with one another. 

If they can't support Datuk Seri Noh Omar, then it is just right that the state chairman appoints a new team of people to support him in preparation for the next General Election which is about 39 months away. For Selangor UMNO, its time to move on and the time is NOW.



Baca juga:-

Thursday, December 4, 2014

SOLIDARITI - Ubat untuk UMNO Selangor @NajibRazak @NohOmar




"Selangor - Dua nakhoda, satu kapal, antara punca 
BN kalah PRU13" - Zein Isma


SO-LI-DA-RI-TI adalah perkataan yang paling banyak disebut oleh Presiden UMNO Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak di dalam ucapan dasar dan ucapan penggulungan beliau semasa Perhimpunan Agung UMNO 2014. Adakah UMNO Selangor cukup bersolidariti bagi menawan semula Selangor pada Pilihan Raya Umum ke-14?

Ketika membahas Usul Ucapan Dasar Presiden, wakil Badan Perhubungan Negeri Selangor, Datuk Zein Isma Ismail menyebut bahawa berdasarkan tinjauan umum antara faktor utama kekalahan BN di Selangor adalah kehilangan sokongan kaum bukan Melayu dan bukan Islampemilihan calon yang salah dan keadaan satu kapal, dua nakhoda dan perpecahan dalaman UMNO Selangor

Ramai pemerhati politik Selangor berpandangan, nakhoda kedua yang dimaksudkan oleh Zein Isma adalah Datuk Seri Ir Mohd Zin Mohamed atau Zin Badak, Koordinator BN Selangor semasa Pilihan Raya Umum ke-13 (PRU13) yang bersaing kedudukan dengan Datuk Seri Noh Omar yang merupakan Timbalan Pengerusi Badan Perhubungan UMNO Negeri Selangor ketika itu. 

Bagaimanakah keadaan UMNO Selangor sekarang berbanding PRU13? Datuk Seri Najib telah mengangkat Noh sebagai Pengerusi Badan Perhubungan UMNO Selangor. Pada waktu yang sama, Datuk Seri Najib juga melantik Datuk Syukor Idrus sebagai Timbalan Pengerusi, Datuk Johan Abdul Aziz sebagai Setiausaha, Datuk Seri Fateh Iskandar sebagai Bendahari dan Datuk Zein Isma sebagai Ketua Penerangan.

Blog MIK mendakwa terdapat perpecahan dalam kepimpinan tertinggi UMNO Selangor, di mana wujud kem Noh yang disokong oleh Zein Isma dan kem Syukor yang disokong oleh Johan dan Fateh sehingga menyebabkan UMNO Selangor kelihatan lembab dan mengakibatkan kontroversi selepas Konvensyen UMNO Selangor 2014. 

Bagaimanapun Presiden UMNO baru-baru ini telah bersetuju mengekalkan Noh sebagai Pengerusi dan sudah tentu, keputusan ini boleh menyebabkan krisis perpecahan dan fenomena DUA NAKHODA sekali lagi jika tidak ditangani dengan betul. 

UMNO Selangor memerlukan suntikan semangat baru dan SOLIDARITI. UMNO Selangor juga memerlukan pasukan yang lebih mantap dibarisi gandingan di antara pemimpin berpengalaman dan pemimpin pelapis. Paling penting UMNO Selangor perlu dibarisi kepimpinan dan jentera yang rajin bekerja bagi menentang kerajaan PR Selangor yang dipimpin oleh Azmin Ali.

Sejauh mana negeri Selangor penting kepada UMNO? 

Pastinya Selangor merupakan negeri yang penting bagi PR. Mereka akan melakukan apa saja termasuk menjual agama dan bangsa, demi untuk mempertahankan kuasa di negeri ini. 

Selangor adalah negeri bertumpunya ramai pemastautin daripada 13 negeri lain di luar Selangor. Perantau mencari rezeki di Selangor dan mereka akan pulang mengundi di negeri asal mereka. Apa sahaja yang disebut, dilaksanakan, baik atau tidak, benar atau pun salah, oleh Kerajaan Pusat, UMNO Pusat dan UMNO/BN Selangor akan mengakibatkan pembentukan persepsi dan impak yang besar bukan sahaja ke atas pengundi yang mengundi di dalam negeri Selangor, malah akan dibawa pulang ke kampung dan negeri-negeri lain oleh pengundi yang bermastautin di Selangor.

Kerajaan Pusat dan UMNO Pusat mesti berhati-hati kerana setiap dasar dan tindakan mereka mempunyai impak ke atas pengundi di Lembah Klang. Pada waktu yang sama, Badan Perhubungan UMNO negeri-negeri lain pula, tidak boleh meminggir dan membiarkan sahaja pengundi luar mereka tanpa sebarang bentuk engagement di negeri Selangor.

Sebagai parti pembangkang di negeri Selangor, tidak mungkin UMNO/BN Selangor mempunyai sumber dan masa yang mencukupi untuk mendekati dan membela kebajikan pengundi pemastautin ini, lebih-lebih lagi pengundi di dalam negeri Selangor sahaja sudah melebihi 2.05 juta orang.

UMNO/BN Selangor adalah pembangkang yang sedang berhadapan dengan seteru yang kuat, iaitu kerajaan PR kepada sebuah negeri yang mempunyai begitu banyak sumber.

Menyedari hakikat ini, jika Selangor amat penting kepada BN, bukan sahaja BN Pusat perlu memberi sebanyak mungkin bantuan, malah pemimpin-pemimpin UMNO di luar Selangor, baik yang berjawatan mahupun sudah bergelar mantan, perlu memberikan sebanyak mungkin sokongan dan meminimumkan risiko kekalahan BN di negeri Selangor.

Seperti kiasan Zein Isma di dalam ucapannya,

"Insafilah bahawa kita ini semua.bersaudara dan saling bertaut, adat bersaudara, saudara dipertahankan, cubit peha kanan, peha kiri terasa jua, ingatlah pesanan orang tua, bulat air kerana pembentung, bulat manusia kerana muafakat, kapal yang satu tidak boleh bernakhoda dua, tidak mengapa menjadi ayam mencatuk anak, tapi jangan sampai menjadi tikus membaiki labu, jangan memukul anak kerana ingin menyindir menantu, elakkan menepuk air di dulang, kerana akhirnya memercik ke muka sendiri, ingat2 bila bersorak, jangan diikut resam Pak Kaduk tiada gunanya menang bersorak, kalau.akhirnya tergadai kampung"


Mampukah UMNO Selangor bersolidariti di bawah kepimpinan satu nakhoda, iaitu Noh Omar dan membentuk pasukan yang lebih mantap, berdisiplin, berkemahiran dan yang paling penting, lebih banyak bekerja daripada bercakap?

Mampukah pemimpin, ahli dan penyokong UMNO menghentikan serangan ke atas kepimpinan UMNO Selangor dan menggantikannya dengan sokongan yang tidak berbelah bagi atas nama SOLIDARITI agar UMNO Selangor semakin kukuh dan kuat untuk menawan semula negeri Selangor dalam PRU14?


Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Blogger #Bangang - Apa kisah sebenarnya? @NajibRazak



“Saya setuju kata Datuk Zahid yang kata bloggers kita ni kadang-kadang tembak kita. Dalam istilah perang, friendly fire. Friendly fire is not friendly" 


“Bloggers kita ni cari makan dengan siapa? Pergilah tembak pembangkang. Itu cara kita nak menang dalam peperangan. Jangan perang sesama sendiri. Tak masuk akal. Bangang,”


Inilah kenyataan Presiden UMNO, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak yang telah menimbulkan begitu banyak perdebatan di dalam blogsfera UMNO dan pembangkang. Ada yang mengikut nasihat, namun tidak kurang yang terus `membangangkan' diri.


Malaysian Insider berjaya memanipulasikan pemikiran ramai, termasuk blogger UMNO, apabila menambah perkataan `UMNO' di dalam tajuk dan laporannya. 


Blogger dan penggiat maya UMNO yang hanya merujuk sumber pro-pembangkang terperangkap dengan menipulasi ini dan akhirnya berbalah sesama sendiri.

Dengar daripada minit ke-39 hingga minit ke-41, Datuk Seri Najib kata "Kalau parti nak kuat, jagalah pemimpin-pemimpin kita. Kalau dia bersalah pun tegurlah dengan baik, supaya parti kita kuat", merujuk kepada sikap penyokong pembangkang yang mempertahankan pemimpin mereka walaupun bersalah dan ada isu moral.

Pada minit ke-44, Datuk Seri Najib menyebut bahawa pemimpin pembangkang lebih teruk daripada pemimpin UMNO. "Jangan serang kita, serang pembangkang." Kemudian barulah beliau menyebut tentang tindakan blogger menyerang pemimpin (UMNO/Kerajaan)

Ada dua perkara yang perlu dijelaskan:-

Pertama, Datuk Seri Najib tidak menggunakan perkataan `Blogger UMNO' sebaliknya blogger kita, yang memberi maksud blogger pro-BN, tidak semestinya mereka blogger UMNO. Dalam sfera siber, blogger pro-BN terdiri daripada banyak kumpulan, termasuk jentera parti dan blogger bebas.

Sebagai mantan pengerusi jentera siber UMNO, Unit Media Baru (UMB), saya suka menyatakan bahawa memang menjadi salah satu daripada syarat dan garis paduan untuk bersama dengan UMB adalah tidak boleh menyerang parti dan pemimpin parti. Tidak mengapa jika mahu mengkritik, tetapi mesti membina dan seboleh-bolehnya berusaha menggunakan saluran yang ada terlebih dulu. Memang ada kes blogger dan facebooker yang menarik diri kerana tidak sanggup mengikut peraturan ini. 

Peraturan ini penting kerana UMB adalah jentera parti. Adalah menjadi kesalahan untuk menyerang pemimpin UMNO secara terbuka seperti yang termaktub dalam peraturan parti dan mereka boleh dihadapkan ke hadapan Lembaga Disiplin UMNO.

Bagaimanapun terdapat blogger pro-UMNO dan pro-kerajaan yang bukan jentera parti yang tidak terikat kepada peraturan ini. 

Kemungkinan besar blogger bebas inilah yang dimaksudkan oleh Datuk Seri Najib yang mempersoalkan mereka ni "cari makan dengan siapa?" 

Konteksnya, siapa `towkey' atau `paymaster' mereka sehingga mereka ini tidak memfokuskan serangan kepada pemimpin pembangkang, sebaliknya menyerang pemimpin parti dan kerajaan?

Kedua, yang ingin ditekankan oleh Datuk Seri Najib bukan pelaku atau medium yang digunakan, tetapi PERBUATAN. Perbuatan menyerang pemimpin dan sesama sendiri ini yang ditekankan sebagai perbuatan yang melemahkan parti dan disifatkan sebagai BANGANG. 

Memang susah nak mengatakan tindakan menyerang pemimpin dan parti sendiri sebagai tindakan yang cerdik. Walaupun penyokong pembangkang tidak mengikut ajaran Islam, tetapi dalam hal SOLIDARITI dan KETAATAN kepada pemimpin, mereka mengikut jaran Islam, sehingga mereka dapat mempertahankan pemimpin dan `jemaah' mereka.

Tidak kisah, jika mereka BLOGGER, FACEBOOKER, TWITTERER atau PEMIMPIN UMNO sendiri, jika mereka menyerang pemimpin dan parti secara terbuka, tindakan ini bukan sahaja tidak bijak malah boleh melemahkan parti.

Jangan jadi mangsa manipulasi medium pro-pembangkang dan bergaduh sesama sendiri akibat tidak mahu merujuk sumber asal sesuatu berita. 


Rujuk video penuh ucapan penggulungan Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak:-

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Fitnah 1MDB: Ahmad Maslan akan cabar Rafizi, Anwar

1MDB : Rafizi memfitnah lagi.. Ahmad Maslan akan lawan

1MDB:
1. YB Pandan telah menulis surat kpd Speaker semalam 11/11/14 utk membawa saya kpd JKuasa Hak & Kebebasan kerana kononnya saya berbohong utk mengelirukan Dewan ttg jaminan bond 1MDB. Saya telah mengadakan sidang akhbar tghari ini 12/11/14 di Parlimen  utk menafikan tuduhan itu & telah menghantar surat kpd YB Speaker utk membuat penjelasan & penafian. Kemungkinan isu ini akan dibahaskan & akan ada pengundian belah bahagi.

2. Saya telah berbincang dgn YB Lenggong & YB Simpang Renggam utk membawa YB Permatang Pauh & YB Petaling Jaya Utara kpd JKuasa Hak & Kebebasan mengenai fitnah terhadap 1MDB. Mereka berdua sudah bersetuju & akan menulis surat kpd Speaker hari ini, 12/11/14.

3. YB Permatang Pauh pada 13/10/14 menuduh 1MDB mendapat satu projek rm3b dgn nilai rm11b secara runding terus. Sebenarnya tidak wujud satu projek rm3b, yg ada ialah satu projek janakuasa arangbatu di Negeri 9 yg dinamakan Projek 3B bukan nilainya rm3billion, dibuat secara tender terbuka yg diperolehi oleh 1MDB drpd Suruhanjaya Tenaga. Permatang Pauh juga menuduh penyenaraian 1MDB tahun hadapan sebagai satu bail-out walhal ia tidak benar sama sekali.

4. Semalam petang 11/11/14, YB PJ Utara menuduh yg anak-anak syarikat 1MDB tidak menfailkan laporan tahunan kpd SSM, Suruhanjaya Syarikat Msia. Walhal yg sebenarnya semua anak syarikat milik penuh 1MDB telah pun berbuat demikian. Ini satu lagi fitnah yg tidak benar utk memburukkan 1MDB.

Lawan tetap lawan. Lawan hingga menang. Kerana kita berlandaskan kebenaran. Tkasih
(Ahmad b Maslan, YB Pontian, TMK, 12/11/14)

Artikel dari FB JPJ SMABMCG - Kenapa JPJ, MOT dibenci rakyat?


Artikel di bawah dipetik daripada FB Page JPJ Sila Mansuh Akta Bodoh Melarang Cermin Gelap. Hujah-hujah di dalam posting ini agak menarik dan meyakinkan. Mungkin JPJ dan Kementerian Pengangkutan boleh mengambil perhatian dan membuat pembetulan di dalam pendekatan mereka dan memperbaiki persepsi terhadap mereka selepas ini.


Page JPJ Sila Mansuh Akta Bodoh Melarang Cermin Gelap 
mempunyai 16,757 pengikut


Ramai rakyat negara ini yang tidak menyukai Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan (JPJ), bukan kerana ia merupakan pihak PENGUATKUASA semata-mata, tetapi kerana peraturan-peraturan pelik dan tidak efektif yang diperkenalkan mereka. Peraturan-peraturan yang diperkenalkan ini bukan sahaja tidak membantu mengurangkan kemalangan jalan raya dengan AMAT berkesan sebaliknya telah menyebabkan rakyat dihukum dengan berat. 

JPJ melalui admin FBnya telah cuba menjelaskan tindakan mereka. Namun bagi ramai rakyat negara ini, JPJ sebenarnya gagal memahami isu utamanya.

Isu utamanya:-

1. Persepsi - Kementerian Pengangkutan dan JPJ telah dilihat sebagai terlalu berlebih-lebihan dalam memperkenalkan sesuatu yang kononnya dapat menurunkan jumlah kemalangan jalan raya. Sesuatu itu termasuk, perkakasan seperti tali pinggang belakang dan AES, perkhidmatan seperti PUSPAKOM, undang-undang seperti cermin gelap dan nombor plat, hukuman seperti hukuman yang berat ke atas rakyat, termasuk dalam kes menghalang rakyat membaharui lesen kenderaan, lesen memandu dan terbaru hukuman berat dan keterlaluan ke atas pesalah cermin, dan penguat kuasaan pertaruan-peraturan ini yang menyusahkan sehingga mengakibatkan gejala rasuah. Pokok pangkalnya rakyat melihat terdapat matlamat wang ringgit dalam memperkenalkan segala `sesuatu' ini dan rakyat menjadi mengsanya.

2. Hukuman pesalah cermin gelap yang berat. Alasan oleh kerana JPJ tidak boleh menguatkuasakan undang-undang ini ke atas kedai aksesori, maka, JPJ PERLU MENGHUKUM RAKYAT adalah alasan yang tidak munasabah. Dalam hal ini, seharusnya, JPJ perlu bekerjasama dengan pihak yang boleh menguat kuasakan undang-undang ke atas kedai aksesori dan membuat undang-undang dan hukuman berkaitan. Menghukum rakyat adalah jalan pintas oleh JPJ dan mengenakan hukuman yang keterlaluan mengundang kemarahan rakyat seterusnya menggalakkan gejala rasuah sewaktu penguat kuasaan. Jika faktor yang menyebabkan kemalangan adalah kerosakan jalan raya, rakyat memerlukan pihak yang bertanggung jawab mengambil tindakan ke atas kontraktor atau pihak terbabit, bukan meminta JPJ menyaman rakyat yang melalui jalan tersebut dan berhadapan dengan risiko kemalangan.

3. Pengenalan hukuman ke atas kesalah cermin gelap sebagai tambahan kepada langkah-langkah sedia ada seperti tali pinggang keledar belakang, tali pinggang hadapan, AES dan sebagainya, memberi gambaran bahawa cadangan-cadangan JPJ untuk mengurangkan kadar kemalangan jalan raya tidak begitu tepat. Mungkin JPJ perlu melihat semula statistik dan kajian-kajian yang ada dengan lebih teliti. Misalnya siapa golongan yang paling tinggi terlibat dengan kemalangan berdasarkan peratus ke atas jumlah semua kenderaan di atas jalan, asingkan statistik kemalangan dan kemalangan maut ke atas golongan penunggang motorsikal, kereta, pengangkutan awam seperti bas atau yang melibatkan kenderaan komersial seperti lori yang banyak menggilis penunggang motorsikal; seterusnya punca kemalangan, samada mengantuk, memandu laju, jalan raya yang rosak, ketiadaan lampu jalan, pemandu mabuk, kecuaian kenderaan lain misalnya lori dan bas dan sebagainya. Selepas analisis ini barulah dicadangkan kaedah dan tidak perlu semua kaedah ini disertai dengan undang-undang mewajibkan yang melibatkan perbelanjaan wang ringgit atau hukuman yang berat.

4. Alasan aduan nombor plat kurang jelas boleh dipakai jika nombor plat itu benar-benar tidak jelas. Masalahnya, kalau nombor plat itu jelas sekalipun, tetapi tidak mengikut spesifikasi yang ditetapkan oleh JPJ, pemilik kenderaan tetap dihukum. Kedua, tidak jelas itu relatif kepada tahap penglihatan seseorang. Jika pengadu rabun atau rabun malam, sudah tentu plat tersebut tidak kelihatan jelas. 

5. Lampu HID dan strobe light - saya tidak tahu siapa yang mempunyai masalah akibat tergaggu begitu kerap dengan lampu seperti ini. Setakat ini, saya jarang berhadapan dengan masalah ini ketika memandu. Mungkin ada yang boleh memberi pencerahan. Jika warna lampu isyarat (signal) dan lampu brek kereta ditukar kepada warna lain, itu boleh mengakibatkan kekeliruan dan kemalangan. Kalau hendak semak yang itu, silakan.

6. Penguatkuasaan undang-undang cermin gelap memang agak lapuk. Banyak negara-negara jiran yang lebih bermasalah dengan keselamatan pun tidak menguat kuasakan peraturan ini. Alasan yang diberikan oleh JPJ tetap alasan penguatkuasaan dan kehendak untuk mengenakan hukuman terhadap rakyat. Alasan ini juga bukan alasan yang kukuh sebaliknya hanya untuk memudahkan tugas penguatkuasa menyaman rakyat. Kes Allahyarham Noor Suzaily Mukhtar dirogol di dalam BAS bercermin gelap, bukan kereta. Silakan, jika hendak menguat kuasakan undang-undang ini ke atas kenderaan awam dan komersil yang becermin gelap. Rakyat cuma pelik, jenayah berlaku dalam BAS, tet5api hukumannya kepada pemandu KERETA.

7. Kementerian Pengangkutan dan JPJ selalu menggunakan alasan keselamatan jalan raya untuk memperkenalkan undang-undang, hukuman, gajet, perkakasan, perkhidmatan dan pelbagai perkara baru mengakibat peningkatan perbelanjaan wang ringgit. Malangnya, bila diminta statistik yang berkaitan, permintaan ini tidak pernah dipenuhi. Sebelum ini, ramai yang pernah meminta statistik kemalangan di kawasan-kawasan yang hendak diletakkan kamera AES. Sehingga sekarang, pihak Kementerian dan JPJ gagal memberikan statistik tersebut kepada pihak-pihak yang memintanya.

8. Dalam kes cermin gelap, yang patut dihukum adalah pemilik kedai aksesori (misalnya seperti larangan menjual rokok kepada kanak-kanak) dan pembekal atau pengimportnya. Jika ada kegunaan filem gelap di dalam bidang lain, misalnya pembinaan rumah, maka, undang-undang yang menguatkuasakannya perlu dibuat, termasuk log perbekalannya (seperti yang dikenakan ke atas klinik dan farmasi di atas larangan penjualan ubat batuk tertentu dan bahan-bahan yang mengandungi pseudoefedrin) 

9. Sepatutnya Kementerian dan JPJ mencari jalan yang dapat mengurangkan beban rakyat, termasuk kos untuk mengambil lesen memandu dan mendidik rakyat di jalan raya. Bukannya mencari sebanyak mungkin jalan untuk menghukum dan membebankan rakyat. Sekiranya JPJ dan Kementerian Pengangkutan boleh memahami isu sebenar rakyat, maka admin FB JPJ tidak akan memberi jawapan seperti yang diberikannya.


Thursday, October 30, 2014

Pemimpin #Liwat2: "Fahmi salah guna kedudukan dan Majlis Perwakilan Pelajar" - pemimpin mahasiswa UM



“Fahmi menggunakan kuasa sebagai YDP (Presiden) untuk membuat keputusan satu pihak untuk meneruskan program yang tidak pernah dipersetujui oleh MPP yang lain." - Faridzuan, Pemimpin Mahasiswa UM


Nota: Kecil-kecil lagi dah MENYALAH GUNAKAN KUASA. Sama macam Anwar Ibrahim menyalah gunakan kuasa semasa menjawat jawatan Timbalan Perdana Menteri dan Menteri Kewangan dahulu. Apa yang menjelekkan, mahasiswa yang menyokong Anwar dan Pakatan Pembangkang (PR) tidak mempunyai idealisme yang asli. Sebaliknya mahasiswa yang menyokong PR, lebih suka mencari jalan pintas untuk publisiti dengan menumpang isu-isu berkaitan Anwar. Mungkin mereka sedar mereka tidak mampu menyerlah jika hanya bergantung kepada daya kepimpinan diri sendiri dan idealisme asli seorang mahasiswa.


“Fahmi memperalatkan kami” kata wakil pelajar
James Sivalingam | October 29, 2014


Fahmi Zainol bertindak sendirian kerana sebab-sebab politiknya

KUALA LUMPUR : Pelajar Universiti Malaya (UM) telah mencipta sejarah Isnin lalu apabila berkumpul dan bersatu menentang pihak pentadbiran universiti, berkenaan desakan mereka yang membawa pemimpin pembangkang, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim ke kampus untuk mendengar pidatonya “40 tahun, dari UM ke penjara”.

Walaubagaimanapun, di sebalik peristiwa ini, ia turut mendedahkan bahawa pemimpin Majlis Perwakilan Pelajar Universiti Malaya (MPPUM), Fahmi Zainol bertindak secara bebas tanpa persetujuan daripada mana-mana daripada 43 orang anggota dewan yang lain.

Pengerusi Kolej Kediaman dan Luar Kampus, Mohd Faridzuan Karim berkata, program pidato Anwar tersebut tidak pernah dibincangkan secara bersama MPPUM yang lain dan pihaknya berasa terabai serta tidak dipedulikan olehnya.

“Fahmi menggunakan kuasa sebagai YDP (Presiden) untuk membuat keputusan satu pihak untuk meneruskan program yang tidak pernah dipersetujui oleh MPP yang lain.

“Mengapa, bagaimana dan apa alasan beliau (Fahmi) bagi menggunakan nama MPPUM dalam poster yang ditempatkan di seluruh universiti?,” katanya yang marah apabila melihat poster yang mengandungi nama MPPUM yang terpampang di seluruh kampus.

Katanya, beliau juga tidak menyokong penganjuran program pidato oleh Anwar.

Mohd Faridzuan menambah, MPPUM turut menentang tindakan Fahmi yang membawa Anwar ke kampus.

Beliau turut mendedahkan bahawa kebanyakan pelajar yang hadir adalah bukan daripada pelajar UM tetapi dari luar.

“Malah, pelajar-pelajar luar UM melebihi daripada pelajar yang ada di dalam. Jumlah seperti itu hanya terdiri dari beberapa pelajar UM,” ujarnya.

Tambahnya, beliau juga tidak menjangka bahawa pintu pagar UM akan dirempuh walaupun telah disekat oleh Pegawai Keselamatan.

“Saya rasa bimbang dengan keselamatan dan bersyukur ia berjalan lancar walaupun ada sedikit kekangan.

“Bagi saya sebagai pelajar dan pemimpin mahasiswa, mereka sepatutnya tidak harus meneruskan program ini dan seharusnya mereka tidak boleh merempuh pagar universiti,” katanya.

Faridzuan turut mempersoalkan “Kenapa dia (Fahmi) membawa masuk Anwar? Apa sebabnya terutamanya apabila keesokan harinya (Selasa dan Rabu) Anwar mungkin akan masuk ke penjara ?

“Adakah mahasiswa dan mahasiswi akan diheret dari politik kampus ke politik jalanan yang selama ini kita tahu dalam universiti tidak dibenarkan?

“Ini yang saya mahu Fahmi jawab,” katanya.


Tuesday, October 28, 2014

#Liwat2: Kenapa Hakim dapati Anwar bersalah? Fakta Kes Bhg 2



Nota: 12 perkara UTAMA yang menjadi intipati Penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan pada 11 April 2014. 8 hujahan penting yang menyokong dan memperkukuhkan pandangan Hakim Perbicaraan yang lepas dan 3 hujahan yang memperbetulkan kekhilafan Hakim Perbicaraan ketika membebaskan Anwar pada 9 Februari 2012. 3 hujahan ini (perkara 10, 11 dan 12 dalam posting ini) menjadi asas kenapa Anwar telah dibuktikan bersalah kerana meliwat Saiful.


PENGHAKIMAN PENUH 

11 April 2014

BALIA YUSOF HJ WAHI
HAKIM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN

AZIAH ALI
HAKIM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN

MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH
HAKIM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN


Teks penuh boleh dibaca melalui pautan di bawah:-



1. Sengaja menangguhkan perbicaraan

[6] Based on the above facts, it would be stretching it too far to say that this appeal has been disposed of in haste. It should be noted that most of the applications to adjourn were at the instance of the respondent who had filed one application after another. It can be seen that the first hearing of the appeal was fixed on 22.7.2013 by which time both parties ought to have filed their respective written submissions. However, only the appellant filed its written submissions dated 19.7.2013 together with the bundle of authorities. The court received the respondent’s first written submissions only on 12.2.2014 and another written submissions on the first hearing day i.e. 6.3.2014.

[7] It is in the public interest that criminal appeals be dealt with by the courts as soon as possible. Dilatory practices bring the administration of justice into disrepute. As is often pointed out, “delay is a known defence tactic”. It is not proper for a counsel to routinely fail to expedite hearing an appeal solely for the convenience of his client. Nor will a failure to expedite be reasonable, if done for the purpose of frustrating an opposing party to obtain rightful redress. Counsel should not intentionally use procedural devices to delay proceedings without any legal basis.


2. Kredibiliti Saiful kukuh, terdapat bukti yang menyokong kenyataan Saiful, integriti dan rantaian bukti tidak terputus dan terjejas

[28] PW6 successfully developed DNA profiles from the tooth brush, the ‘Good Morning’ towel and the mineral water bottle, but not from the hair. These DNA profiles matched each other, indicating that the DNA identified originated from the same source. PW6 then compared the DNA profiles she obtained with that obtained by Dr Seah (PW5). PW6 found the DNA profiles developed from the tooth brush, the ‘Good Morning’ towel and the mineral water bottle matched the DNA profile of ‘Male Y’. Thus, this indicates that the DNA identified originated from a common source. PW6 prepared a report (exhibit P62). 

[29] It is on the basis of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence that the learned trial judge decided that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing a prima facie case against the respondent. In so doing, the learned trial judge had regard to the following:

(a) that the credibility of PW1 was intact;
(b) that there was corroboration of the testimony of PW1;
(c) that the integrity and chain of evidence in relation to the exhibits was neither broken nor compromised.



3. Nota Dr. Osman bin Abdul Hamid mengenai kemasukan objek plastik ditambah kemudian

[39] We have perused the evidence of DW1 and the record of his examination dated 28.6.2008 (exhibit ID D16). DW1 agreed that the notation in the report regarding assault by introducing plastic into the anus was added later. We have also perused the medical report dated 30.6.2008 (ID 16A) and find no mention was made about any assault with a plastic. But what can be determined from the testimony of DW1 is that PW1 made a complaint to him about being sodomised by a VIP.



4. Kredibiliti Saiful kukuh dan tindakan Saiful tidak membuat laporan lebih awal dapat difahami

[52] We have scrutinised the evidence of PW1 carefully and we are in full agreement with the learned judge when His Lordship found that it was not difficult to understand why PW1 had acted in the way that he did although he insisted that he did not consent to the respondent’s act. PW1 was a young man of 20 years old, employed by the respondent as his personal assistant who had to deal directly and personally with the respondent. PW1 idolised the respondent since young. The respondent was generous to PW1 and had presented PW1 with a suit less than two months after he started employment with the respondent. PW1 was also given preferential treatment when he was allocated a room in his office over his more senior colleagues. 

[53] The learned judge found that PW1 had previously complained about similar acts to various people and in fact his uncle, Ezam and Mumtaz, had discouraged him from lodging a police report. Some of these persons were even sceptical of PW1’s complaint.

[54] We further agree with the finding of the learned trial judge on the credibility of PW1 and there was nothing improbable about his evidence. His Lordship found that the evidence of PW1 was reliable. 

[55] It is trite law that credibility of witnesses is the domain of the trial judge. We are satisfied that the learned trial judge had sufficiently considered and appreciated the evidence of PW1 and His Lordship is entitled to make a finding on his credibility. 


5. Bukti yang menyokong bahawa Saiful dan Anwar berada di tempat yang sama pada waktu kejadian

[59] As regards the issue of corroboration of the evidence of PW1 on the factum of penetration, the learned trial judge found that the evidence of PW1 that he was at the condominium was amply corroborated by the evidence of Ibrahim bin Yaacob (PW24), who testified that on the day in question, he had directed PW1 to deliver an envelope to the respondent at the said condominium. This evidence was further corroborated by the image of PW1 arriving at the condominium at 14.47.44 which was recorded by the CCTV. The recording showed PW1 had arrived in a motor van bearing registration number WPK5925 which was registered in the name of the father of PW1’s fiancĂ©e. PW1 was recorded taking the lift and another CCTV captured the image of PW1 exiting on the fifth floor at 14.42.56. PW1 was then seen entering the lift on the fifth floor and later was seen driving the same motor van leaving the compound of the condominium at 16.35.05. The learned trial judge had carefully evaluated the evidence regarding the times of the recordings and had accepted the evidence of PW10, Mohd Zabri bin Adil, who was the head of Digital Forensic Department of Cyber Security and the evidence of Mohd Sharizuan (PW11), an analyst with Cyber Security. His Lordship was satisfied and had accepted the explanation by these two witnesses regarding the real times of the events recorded on the hard disk of the CCTV. 

[60] The learned trial judge referred to the recording of camera number 4 which showed a car bearing registration number WMK6 arriving at the condominium at 12.19.58. According to PW22, Ahmad Humaizi bin Awang, Head of the Record Unit of the Kuala Lumpur Road Transport Department, this car belonged to the respondent. Someone resembling the respondent was seen taking the lift from level P1 to the 5th floor and exited at the said floor. The same person was seen leaving the 5th floor and took the lift to level P1 and exited at the said floor at 17.14.54. The same car bearing registration number WMK6 was recorded leaving the compound of the condominium at 17.30.23. Based on these evidence, the learned trial judge found that both PW1 and the respondent were at the said condominium at about the same time of the alleged incident. 

[61] The learned judge had drawn the irresistible conclusion that there was opportunity for the respondent to commit the offence at the place and time as charged. Having considered the evidence ourselves, we are in agreement with the learned trial judge when His Lordship concluded at para 137 of the grounds of judgment which reads: 

“[137] Based on the above evidence, I find the accused and PW1 were at the vicinity of the crime scene during the period mentioned in the charge. The presence of the accused at the vicinity of crime scene and the proximity of time to the commission of the offence showed there was opportunity for the offence to take place. More importantly they are corroborative evidence, lending support to the credibility of PW1’s evidence.”.


6. Penetrasi, ejakulasi dan Bagaimana DNA Anwar dipadankan dengan air mani dalam dubur Saiful

[62] Concerning the issue of factum of penetration, the learned trial judge found corroboration from the evidence of PW3 Dr.Siew and PW23, Dr Fazuin. Both PW3 and PW23 testified that PW1 had informed them that he was sodomised by a high profile public figure for at least two months and the last incident happened on 26 June 2008. PW1 also informed them that a lubricant was used and there was penetration as well as ejaculation. No condom was used. 

[63] The crucial evidence which corroborated the evidence of PW1 on the factum of penetration is the evidence of the doctors Dr Khairul Nizam (PW2), Dr Siew (PW3), Dr Razali (PW4) and the chemist Dr Seah (PW5). 

[64] PW2 and PW4 conducted the physical examination on PW1 in the presence PW3 and PW23. PW2 and PW4 conducted the anal examination. Swabs were taken from PW1 by PW2. Exhibit P6F was taken from the perianal region, exhibit P6H and P6i were taken from high rectal region and exhibit P6J was taken from low rectal region. These exhibits were placed in sealed receptacles which were in turn placed in a transparent plastic bag exhibit P27. PW3 then handed over exhibit P27 to the investigating officer (PW25) who in turn handed them over to the chemist, Dr Seah (PW5). 

[65] PW5 analysed these exhibits and found the presence of sperm cells in Exhibits P6F, P6H, P6i and P6J. PW5 further testified that semen containing spermatozoa found on swabs B7, B8 and B9 came from a single source referred to a ‘Male Y’. PW5 prepared the report exhibit P25.

[66] We now come to consider the identification of ‘Male Y’ as alluded to earlier. In this respect, the evidence of Aidora bt Saedon (PW6), another chemist attached to the Chemistry Department, is essential. 

[67] PW6 developed the DNA profiles of ‘Male Y’ from exhibits P58A a white toothbrush, P59A a ‘Good Morning’ towel and exhibit P61A an empty ‘CACTUS’ mineral water plastic bottle.These exhibits were collectively recovered by PW15, PW16, PW17, PW18 and PW20 from the lock-up cell in which the respondent was the sole occupant. After having conducted her analysis, PW6 found that ‘Male Y’ is the same contributor of the DNA retrieved  from the exhibits recovered from the lock-up. PW6 came to the conclusion that the contributor of the DNA and ‘Male Y’ is from the same source.


7. Dakwaan bahawa Air Mani rosak selepas 56 jam TIADA MERIT dan bertentangan dapatan saintifik

[93] In such circumstances, the pertinent question to be asked is whether, notwithstanding degradation, was PW5 and PW6 able to extract good DNA profiles? In one literature titled ‘Dealing with DNA evidence: A legal guide’ by Andrei Semikhodskii, it is stated as follows:

“DNA is stable and reliable data can be produced from very old and decayed biological samples. DNA is more robust than proteins when subjected to harsh environment and is capable of withstanding both natural and man-made injury. The high molecular integrity of DNA allows forensic scientists to analyse long-buried samples as well as samples that have been subjected to high temperatures and chemical treatment. Even when biological material is severely degraded, DNA evidence can still be produced using modern forensic approaches.”

[94] In R v Butler [2001] QCA 385, the brief facts are that one Mrs Douty was murdered probably on 1st September 1983 when she was sunbaking on a beach at Brampton Island. Her body was discovered in some undergrowth in a place called Dinghy Bay, unclothed but covered with a red towel. The red towel was found to have both blood stains and semen stains on it. The sole evidence on which the appellant was convicted, apart from the fact that he had an opportunity to kill the deceased, was DNA evidence from his semen found on the red towel. The appellant did not give evidence. The DNA tests, which it was said to prove this, were done in February 1997. One of the grounds raised by the defence was that over 13½ years between the murder and the DNA analysis, the towel had been in a number of places and that there was no satisfactory evidence on the condition in which, at all times, it had been kept. Consequently, it was submitted, factors such as moisture, sunlight or heat could have so degraded the sample of semen from which the DNA was said to have been extracted that it was impossible to extract DNA from it.

[95] The court rejected the submissions. The court had this to say:

[25] In the first place a period of 13 ½ years is not, in DNA terms a long time. Good results have been obtained 20 or 30 years after the event and Dr Budowle even gave the example of DNA extracted from bones 60,000 years old. If the substance containing it is dry and out of sunlight it will not degrade for many years.

[26] Secondly, there is nothing to indicate that any of the conditions which could have caused even partial degradation, in particular moisture or heat or direct sunlight, existed in respect of the towel at any time. It was dry when Mr Freney took possession of it two days after the murder and it was always kept dry, indoors and, it seems, in a plastic bag, albeit with other things.

[27] Thirdly, one of the advantages of the process by which DNA is extracted, so Dr Budowle said, is that unlike earlier processes such as the ABO process referred to later, partial degradation does not prevent good results from being obtained. That is because, unlike the other processes, it focuses on very small portions of the DNA, a few hundred letters long at the most. These may be mere fragments of DNA.

[96] Dr. B.R. Sharma in his book ‘Forensic Science In Criminal Investigation & Trials’ 4th Edition at page 1118 states as follows:

6. The quantities of the DNA required for analysis are extremely small, in micrograms. In recent times the requirements have become even less, due to amplification of material clues through cell regeneration, technology – Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR).

7. An important advantage of DNA profiling is that the contamination of evidentiary clues by similar biomaterial may increase the difficulties but do not prevent the identification 
significantly.

[97] In the same vein, Jane Moira Taupin in ‘Introduction to Forensic DNA Evidence For Criminal Justice Professionals’, CRC Press states at page 18 that “The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was a boon for forensic science, as it enables the analysis of minute quantities of blood and semen and is 
effective for degraded samples such as those commonly encountered at crime scenes. PCR is essentially a molecular photocopier that can amplify very small samples and allow 
them to be detected and analysed.”.

[98] In States & Others v Jyotish Prasad & Others LNIND 2009 DEL 799, the High Court of Delhi held that:

“While, as a hypothesis, it may be stated that a vaginal swab kept in an unrefrigerated condition would be subject to degradation, but that has to be established as a fact. In the present case, the DNA analysis report does not indicate that the vaginal swab Exhibit-PW-14 obtained from the deceased had deteriorated to such a condition or, at all, which did not permit them to do DNA profiling in respect thereof." 

[99] Further literature on this subject referred to us by the learned DPP includes an article from the British Journal of Venereal Diseases (1972) 48, 141 written by AI Morrison with the heading ‘Persistence of Spermatozoa in the Vagina and Cervix’. Learned author of the said article referred to the book edited by Smith and Cook wherein it was stated that ‘spermatozoa may remain in the posterior fornix as long as 17 days, and may survive a menstrual period.’. The said author also referred to the British Medical Journal (1964a) where it was stated ‘live sperms have been found in the cervix three days after coitus.’. In the research carried out by AI Morrison involving 104 women, sperms were found in the cervix up to twelve days after coitus and in the vagina up to nine days after. 

[100] The evidence of PW5 clearly shows that the deterioration of the samples in the instant case was not to such an extent which did not permit her to do DNA profiling. Hence, the finding by PW5 of sperm cells in the complainant’s anus 56 hours after the incident of sodomy is not unusual. In the light of the above, we have no hesitation to conclude that both PW5 and PW6 were able to obtain perfect DNA profiles which connected the respondent with the offence charged. 


8. Anwar enggan membela diri

[104] A statement from the dock is evidence but it is not entitled to the same weight as sworn testimony. A statement from the dock must relate to the events pertaining to the charge (PP v Karim bin Othman [1994] 2 CLJ 826; R v Dunn & O’Sullivan (1922) 17 Cri App R 12).

[107] In our view, the trial judge in the instant appeal could quite properly wonder why the respondent had elected to make an unsworn statement; that it could not be because he had conscientious objection to taking the oath since, if he had, he could affirm. Could it be that the respondent was reluctant to put his evidence to the test of cross-examination? If so, why? He had nothing to fear from unfair questions because he would be fully protected from this by his own counsel and by the court.

[108] For the respondent to succeed in his defence, it is incumbent upon him to adduce evidence which can answer the allegations in the charge. In this case, the respondent did not even deny that he was at the scene of the crime at the material time and date as stated in the charge. He never disputed that his car was seen entering and leaving the condominium at the material time. He also did not dispute that he was seen entering the lift to the 5th floor of the condominium and later leaving the place. He also did not dispute that he had directed his chief of staff, PW24 to arrange for an envelope to be handed over to him at the said condominium and that PW24 had instructed PW1 to bring the envelope to him. The respondent also did not dispute the fact that PW1 had brought the envelope to him at the place of the incident. The learned judge found that the respondent’s statement from the dock is a mere denial with which we fully agree. The bare denial by the respondent does not amount to any doubt whatsoever. A credible defence is one that answers the evidence thrown at it by the prosecution. It is also imperative that the respondent explain his case. 



9. Dakwaan Anwar DIHALANG dari memanggil alibi TIDAK BENAR sebaliknya Anwar yang ENGGAN memanggil 14 saksi alibi yang disenaraikannya

[31] The respondent had earlier given a notice of alibi pursuant s.402A of the Criminal Procedure Code and listed 14 witnesses in support of his alibi. However, when he was called upon to enter his defence, the respondent elected to give a statement from the dock and called another 7 witnesses in support of his defence case. The defence of alibi was abandoned. 

[109] As we have noted earlier, the respondent’s line of defence was an alibi of which he had given notice before the commencement of the trial. But at the trial, it appears that this defence was never pursued for reasons best known him. It is pertinent to note that an alibi represents a complete defence to exculpate the respondent from the offence charged.

[112] Likewise, we share the sentiments that the court may draw an inference that the evidence of the alibi witnesses could not have assisted the defence. It is of interest to note that among the witnesses named in the notice of alibi was the respondent’s own wife and also his Chief of Staff. These witnesses in particular, would have been available and were at the respondent’s disposal had his alibi been genuine. 



10. Kredibiliti Saksi Pakar Anwar Ibrahim dipersoalkan

[130] In accepting the evidence of the expert witnesses, the learned trial judge had failed to consider that in terms of the probative value of the evidence, the evidence of PW5 ought to have been held to be more credible in the sense that PW5 had herself carried out the various tests and analysis of the samples as opposed to both DW2 and DW4 who did not have the benefit of doing the analysis themselves. The evidence of both DW2 and DW4 are mere opinion as opposed to the evidence of both PW5 and PW6 which were factual and based on their own analysis of the samples. Both DW2 and DW4 are mere “arm chair experts”. In terms of qualifications, the learned trial judge had found PW5 to have impeccable credential, holding a PhD in Forensic DNA and is the head of the Serious Crime Unit, Chemistry Department Malaysia. So too PW6, whom the learned trial judge had found to be without doubt an expert in DNA analysis and competent in terms of her academic and professional qualifications and experience.

[131] On the method of analysis, His Lordship had also found and accepted that PW5 had conducted the DNA analysis using the latest technique. DW4 on the other hand last did DNA analysis in the lab in 2004 and his expertise seem to be limited to the interpretation of results of DNA analysis only. This was by way of his own admission. In giving his evidence, DW4 imparted his knowledge not gained from personally having conducted the test and analysis (page 2541 appeal record), but only by reading a manual on DNA extraction protocol issued by AB1 (see page 2543 appeal record). That being the case, it is understandable why DW4 could not appreciate the evidence of PW5’s explanation in respect of the method of extraction she carried out because DW4 had never personally conducted the procedure before.

[132] It is trite that an expert witness must give reasons for his conclusions (see PP v Loo Seng Yip [2004] 8 CLJ 496). Both PW5 and PW6 had testified in detail on the analysis done and the reasons for their conclusions reached. We are not sure whether DW2 and DW4 were able to match up with that since their conclusions were derived mainly from textbooks and journals in forming their opinions. How much weight ought to be given to such evidence? This was not considered by the learned trial judge.

[143] The learned Deputy was also very critical of the manner in which DW4 gave his evidence. Strong words were used by the learned Deputy. DW4 was alleged to have made wild comments and insinuations on the processes carried out by PW5 in her analysis to be merely jobs done by robots in his country. This was highly questionable and deceitful according the learned Deputy. DW4 had also insinuated that the Chemistry Department is not accredited and that the accreditation had expired in 2005.

[144] We find merits in the criticisms of the learned Deputy against DW4. The evidence of Mr Lim Kong Boon (DW5) showed that the Chemistry Department was and is fully accredited as evident from exhibits D90 and D92. We find that the insinuation by DW4 was mischievous, to say the least.

[145] It was further submitted before us that the credibility, expertise, credential and objectivity of DW4 had been called into question. The learned Deputy referred to Ms Robert Charles Bropho v. The State of Western Australia [2007] WAOC 77 where the credibility and credential of DW4 was called into question. In the said case, Goetze DCJ had remarked:

“Dr. McDonald was cross-examined as to whether he was actually a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences. It was suggested, that, the Academy does not provide for fellowship. Whether that is so or not has not been proved. Dr. McDonald accepted fellowship of such Academy 
is not an academic qualification, but rather, an affiliation, which should have not been listed in a separate section relating to affiliations. Further in cross-examination, Dr. McDonald conceded that he is not a Fellow of the Australian College of Legal Medicine, but, he had claimed such fellowship as an affiliation in his curriculum vitae because both that college and the Australian College of Bio-Medical Sciences of which he is a Fellow, now run concurrent meetings (T226). He did not see that this misrepresented his affiliations within his curriculum vitae. These concessions by Dr. Mc. Donald impact upon his credibility."

[146] The judge in that case also took issue with Dr. McDonald’s expertise as an expert at p.17 of the judgment as follows:

“At the end of Dr. McDonald’s evidence-in-chief, I did not know from whom or from where Dr. McDonald obtained his claimed expertise in DNA and molecular genetics. I did not know what it is that Dr. McDonald knows or does not know about DNA and genetics, and importantly, about population statistics, which he regarded as a “rather esoteric little classification”(T203)”

[147] Further down the pages of the judgment, the same judge made further comments on Dr. McDonald’s expertise and the manner he presented his expert opinion. At page 26, the judge concluded:

“This explain why Dr. McDonald is not an expert. He does not have the expertise to derive and validate a subpopulation model. He cannot follow the derivations in such model. He has not attempted to follow the derivation of the subpopulation model used by Dr.Buckleton in this case (T237). However, when he looks at the observed profiles, he says that the model prepared by Dr.Buckleton is “flawed”(T237)”.



11. Hakim Perbicaraan melepaskan Anwar kerana berpendapat bahawa sampel telah tercemar. Bagaimanapun Mahkamah Rayuan berpendapat Hakim Perbicaraan telah melakukan kekhilafan yang besar. Kekhilafan Hakim Perbicaraan mengenai Integriti Sampel

[119] Faced by the above evidence, the learned trial judge concluded that the result of analysis done by PW5 could not be reconciled with the expert evidence of these two witnesses and asked himself the question which expert was right?

[120] In trying to answer the question, the learned trial judge had re-examined the evidence of PW3 who collected the samples at the Kuala Lumpur General Hospital and put them individually in plastic containers labelled and sealed with the Kuala Lumpur Hospital seal and placed them in the plastic bag P27. This plastic bag P27 was then handed over to PW25 who then subsequently cut open P27 to re label the containers. With this, the learned trial judge concluded at paragraph 205 of his judgment:
“By cutting open P27, the confidence in the integrity of the samples was gone”.

[121] His Lordship had come to this conclusion after having accepted the evidence of DW2 who stated that the containers were not tamper proof. DW2 came to this view merely by looking at the containers in court and gave his opinion solely from the manner in which these containers were sealed and the type of material used as seals. That was merely his opinion pure and simple.

[122] It is crystal clear that the learned trial judge was simply overwhelmed by the evidence of these two expert witnesses called by the defence. We find that His Lordship had overlooked the testimony of DW2 under cross examination regarding the issue of tampering of the containers where DW2 admitted that he could not say that there had been tampering of the containers (see page 2234 appeal record). In cross examination, DW2 answered as follows: 

S: Would you say that the containers were tampered?

J: No, I can’t. All I was saying yesterday is that this is the container that if any tampering occurred, it would be evident to others....

[123] In the light of the above, we find that the testimony of PW5 that there was no tampering of the containers remained intact. We also find that it was never the prosecution’s case that the samples were in pristine condition.


12. Kekhilafan Penghakiman Hakim Perbicaraan Kes Liwat 2

[155] We are of the view that had the learned trial judge undertaken a critical analysis of the evidence of these two expert witnesses, His Lordship would in all certainty have not mistaken plausibility for veracity. Our perusal of the learned trial judge’s grounds of judgment fail to find any evidence where His Lordship had even considered the credibility of the defence witnesses in particular the evidence of DW2 and DW4. The learned trial judge turned an indulgent eye upon the evidence of DW2 and DW4 when he should have treated them with caution. There was a total failure of any observation with regard to credibility. Narrating the evidence of the witnesses will not suffice and it does not amount to evaluation or appreciation of the evidence, let alone critical analysis. 

[156] Of no less serious error on the part of the learned trial judge, was the failure to reason out the basis for his acceptance and preference for these two defence experts which is an integral part of the analysis and evaluation of evidence by a presiding judge. 

[157] In our considered view, the learned trial judge fell into serious error when he doubted the integrity of the samples based on the evidence of the two expert witnesses called by 
the defence. 

[158] The finding of the learned trial judge is seriously flawed and merits our intervention. In our view, the reception by the learned trial judge of the defence expert witnesses’ evidence is not objective and is one sided. This is a serious error and falls far short of the proper approach that a judge should take when judicially appreciating evidence.

[159] For the aforesaid reasons, we allowed the appeal by the PP and set aside the decision of the learned judge. We find the respondent guilty as charged. Accordingly, we convicted him of the offence.

Monday, October 27, 2014

Kronologi Kes #Liwat2 Anwar - Fakta kes Bhg 1


Nota: Anwar Ibrahim telah dihadapkan ke muka keadilan dan telah diberikan ruang dan kelonggaran yang melangkaui ruang dan kelonggaran yang diberikan kepada mana-mana pesalah biasa.

28 Jun, 2008 : Bekas pembantu Anwar, Mohamad Saiful Bukhari Azlan, membuat laporan polis mendakwa Anwar telah meliwatnya di sebuah kondominium di Damansara. Laporan itu dibuat dua hari selepas dakwaan insiden liwat itu.

30  Jun, 2008 : Anwar memfailkan saman fitnah terhadap Mohd Saiful, yang membuat laporan polis ke atasnya bagi tuduhan liwat, dengan mendakwa laporan itu palsu dan berniat jahat.

7 Ogos, 2008 : Anwar, 60, penasihat Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) mengaku tidak bersalah di Mahkamah Sesyen di sini atas pertuduhan meliwat bekas pembantunya, Mohamad Saiful Bukhari Azlan, 23, di Unit 11-5-1 Kondominium Desa Damansara, Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara, antara 3.10 petang dan 4.30 petang pada 26 Jun, 2008.

Beliau dituduh mengikut Seksyen 377B Kanun Keseksaan yang membawa hukuman  maksimum penjara 20 tahun dan sebat jika sabit kesalahan.

Hakim S.M. Komathy Suppiah membenarkan Anwar dibebaskan dengan bon peribadi  RM20,000 tanpa penjamin.

Nov 7, 2008 : Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen S.M Komathy Suppiah memutuskan supaya kes liwat Anwar dibicarakan di Mahkamah Sesyen selepas mendapati sijil untuk memindahkan kes itu ke Mahkamah Tinggi, yang ditandatangani oleh Peguam Negara Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, tidak sah.

Dalam menolak permohonan pendakwaan (supaya kes itu dipindahkan ke mahkamah Tinggi), Komathy berkata sijil itu bercanggah dengan jangkaan perundangan Anwar bahawa Abdul Gani tidak akan terlibat dalam kes itu.

5 Mac, 2009 : Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan kes liwat itu dibicarakan di Mahkamah Tinggi dan bukannya di Mahkamah Sesyen.

Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah membuat keputusan itu ekoran permohonan pihak pendakwaan supaya dikaji semula keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen mengekalkan perbicaraan kes itu di Mahkamah Sesyen.

Beliau berkata Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen S.M Komathy Suppiah telah terkhilaf dalam memutuskan bahawa sijil pemindahan kes itu, yang ditandatangani oleh Peguam Negara Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, tidak sah.

6 Mac, 2009 : Anwar memfailkan rayuan di Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi supaya kes liwatnya didengar di Mahkamah Tinggi.

10 Mac, 2009 : Mahkamah Tinggi menetapkan 1-24 Julai sebagai tarikh perbicaraan kes liwat itu.

17 Jun, 2009 : Anwar telah memfailkan permohonan untuk mengetepikan pertuduhan liwat beliau di Mahkamah Tinggi.

6 Nov, 2009 : Mahkamah Rayuan  menolak permohonan Anwar untuk mendapatkan dokumen penting dan sampel DNA yang didakwanya amat penting untuk pembelaannya dalam perbicaraan bagi pertuduhan liwat yang dihadapinya.

Antara dokumen penting itu ialah kenyataan yang direkodkan daripada saksi iaitu Mohd Saiful, Dr Osman Abdul Hamid dari Hospital Pusrawi, pemilik kondominium Hassanuddin Abdul Hamid, kenyataan tiga doktor Hospital Kuala Lumpur, nota ahli kimia dan laporan perubatan.

1 Dis, 2009 : Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan bahawa ia tidak boleh membatalkan pertuduhan meliwat terhadap Anwar hanya berdasarkan laporan perubatan yang menyatakan ketiadaan penetrasi.

Semasa menolak permohonan Anwar untuk mengetepikan pertuduhan liwatnya, Hakim Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah berkata laporan perubatan tidak boleh dijadikan asas untuk mahkamah menggunakan kuasa untuk membatalkan pertuduhan itu.

3 Feb, 2010 : Perbicaraan kes liwat Anwar dimulakan dengan Mohd Saiful memberi keterangan sebagai saksi pertama. Perbicaraan itu, di hadapan Hakim Mohamad Zabidin, bermula selepas 18 bulan Anwar dituduh pada Ogos 2008.

Dalam keterangannya, Mohd Saiful memberitahu bahawa Anwar, yang didakwa meliwatnya, telah mengajaknya untuk melakukan hubungan seks di luar tabii.

Mohd Saiful berkata insident itu berlaku pada 26 Jun, 2008 selepas beliau dan Anwar selesai berbincang mengenai jadual kerja di sebuah unit kondominium Desa Damansara di sini.

5 Feb, 2010 : Mohd Saiful memberitahu Mahkamah Tinggi bahawa beliau tidak membuang air besar selama dua hari selepas diliwat oleh Anwar. Beliau juga memberi keterangan bahawa seluar yang dipakainya pada hari insiden itu berlaku adalah hadiah daripada Anwar.

9 Feb, 2010 : Perbicaraan kes liwat itu ditangguhkan sekali lagi bagi membolehkan pihak pembelaan memfailkan maklum balas kepada afidavit jawapan terhadap permohonan Anwar supaya hakim menarik diri.

Ia ditangguhkan selepas pembelaan memohon supaya Hakim Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah menarik diri daripada mendengar kes itu dengan alasan beliau bertindak bereat sebelah.

18 Feb, 2010 : Anwar gagal dalam cubaannya untuk meminta Hakim Mohamad Zabidin menarik diri daripada mendengar perbicaraan kes liwatnya.

Hakim Mohamad Zabidin, semasa menolak permohonan itu, memutuskan bahawa tidak ada sebab beliau perlu menarik diri daripada menghakimi kes itu, dan jika beliau berbuat demikian, ia seperti melarikan diri daripada tanggungjawabnya.

25 Feb, 2010 : Anwar gagal dalam cubaannya untuk mendapatkan dokumen-dokumen penting termasuk contoh spesimen DNA Mohd Saiful sebelum bermulanya  perbicaraan kes liwatnya, selepas Mahkamah Persekutuan menolak permohonannya.

DARI LAMAN WEB
 Top 3 Ikan Bakar in KL
Top 3 Ikan Bakar in KL
HungryGoWhere Malaysia
 Forget About Piranhas, This Is the Most Dangerous Creature in the Amazon
Forget About Piranhas, This Is the Most Dangerous Creature in the Amazon
OZY
Recommended by
3 Mac, 2010 : Semasa pemeriksaan balas oleh peguam Anwar, Karpal Singh, Mohd Saiful memberitahu Mahkamah Tinggi bahawa beliau tidak membasuh duburnya selepas insiden liwat yang didakwa berlaku pada 26 Jun, 2008 kerana beliau mahu "simpan bukti".

Mohd Saiful, saksi utama terhadap kes liwat ketua pembangkang itu, juga memberitahu bahawa beliau tidak mandi selepas insiden itu sebaliknya hanya menyiram tubuhnya.

Beliau mandi pada pagi sebelum insiden itu berlaku, katanya.

16 Ogos, 2010 : Anwar gagal dalam cubaan keduanya untuk menggugurkan pertuduhan liwat terhadap dirinya selepas permohonannya ditolak oleh Mahkamah Tinggi.

Dalam usahanya menggugurkan pertuduhan itu, Anwar mendakwa integriti dan kesaksamaan keseluruhan pasukan pendakwaan adalah dicurigai berikutan dakwaan wujudnya hubungan antara Mohd Saiful dengan seorang daripada anggota pendakwaan.

20 Sept, 2010 : Mahkamah Rayuan menolak rayuan Anwar untuk membatalkan pertuduhan liwatnya kerana ia tidak ada bidang kuasa untuk mendengar dan menentukan perkara berkenaan.

6 Dis, 2010 : Anwar sekali lagi gagal dalam cubaan keduanya meminta Hakim Mohamad Zabidin menarik diri daripada menghakimi perbicaraan kes liwatnya selepas Mahkamah Tinggi menolak permohonannya.

Anwar memohon penarikan diri hakim itu berikutan keenganannya mengenakan tindakan terhadap Utusan Malaysia kerana menghina mahkamah kerana mengeluarkan laporan yang didakwa pihak pembelaan sebagai prejudis kepada kes itu.

14 Dis, 2010 : Bapa Mohd Saiful, Azlan Mohd Lazim, merayu kepada Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin supaya membantu mempercepatkan kes membabitkan anak lelakinya itu.

14 Jan, 2011 : Mahkamah Rayuan menolak rayuan Ketua Pembangkang itu untuk mengetepikan keengganan Hakim Mohamad Zabidin menarik diri daripada mendengar perbicaraan itu.

16 Mei, 2011 : Mahkamah Tinggi memerintahkan Anwar membela diri atas tuduhan meliwat Mohd Saiful tiga tahun lepas, setelah pihak pendakwaan  membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap Anwar.

Dalam penghakimannya, Hakim Mohamad Zabidin berkata saksi utama, Mohd Saiful, adalah seorang saksi yang benar, boleh dipercayai dan diyakini.

6 Jun, 2011 :  Anwar gagal dalam percubaan ketiganya supaya Hakim  Mohamad Zabidin menarik diri daripada mendengar perbicaraan kes liwatnya. Beliau mengemukakan permohonan itu atas alasan terdapat prapenghakiman dan sikap berat sebelah oleh hakim itu apabila memutuskan bahawa Mohd Saiful adalah seorang saksi yang boleh dipercayai pada penggulungan kes pendakwa.

22 Ogos, 2011 : Anwar, yang memilih untuk memberi keterangan dari kandang tertuduh apabila membacakan kenyataannya yang setebal 32 muka surat,  menafikan beliau telah mengadakan hubungan seks dengan Mohd Saiful.

Anwar mempunyai tiga pilihan - memberi keterangan dari kandang saksi yang yang bermakna beliau boleh disoal balas oleh pihak pendakwaan; memberi keterangan dari kandang tertuduh yang bermakna beliau tidak boleh diperiksa balas oleh pihak pendakwaan tetapi dalam membuat keputusan, mahkamah mengambil kira fakta bahawa pihak pendakwaan belum menyoal balas tertuduh; atau memilih untuk berdiam diri.

Pada perbicaraan kes liwatnya yang pertama pada 1998, Anwar memberi keterangan dari kandang saksi.

6 Okt, 2011: Mahkamah Tinggi memutuskan tidak perlu bagi Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak dan isteri Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor memberi keterangan sebagai saksi pembela dalam perbicaraan kes liwat Anwar.

Mahkamah membuat keputusan itu selepas membenarkan permohonan Najib dan Rosmah untuk mengetepikan sapina yang mengarahkan mereka menjadi saksi untuk pihak pembela pada perbicaraan kes liwat itu.

Hakim Mohamad Zabidin berkata selepas meneliti afidavit, hujah daripada pihak-pihak berkaitan, mahkamah bersetuju dengan peguam yang mewakili Najib dan Rosmah bahawa Anwar gagal menunjukkan kerelevanan dan kepentingan apabila mengemukakan sapina kepada perdana menteri dan isteri.

9 Jan, 2012: Mahkamah Tinggi membebas dan melepaskan Anwar daripada tuduhan meliwat Mohd Saiful. Penghakiman 80 muka surat oleh Hakim Mohamad Zabidin menunjukkan adanya kemasukan zakar tetapi ia tidak disokong oleh bukti-bukti lain.

Beliau berkata mahkamah tidak boleh 100 peratus yakin mengenai integriti sampel yang diambil untuk ujian DNA daripada Mohd Saiful kerana sampel itu mungkin telah dikompromi sebelum tiba di Jabatan Kimia untuk dianalisis.

9 Julai 2012: Pihak pendakwaan mengemukakan petisyen rayuan mengandungi sembilan alasan, yang antara lain,  supaya Anwar disabitkan atas  tuduhan liwat mengikut Seksyen 377B Kanun Keseksaan.

12 Sept, 2012 : Anwar menarik balik samannya terhadap Mohd Saiful kerana membuat laporan polis terhadapnya kerana meliwat, dan mendakwa laporan itu bersifat palsu dan berniat jahat.

22 Feb, 2013 : Mahkamah Rayuan menetapkan dua hari dari 22 Julai, 2013 untuk mendengar rayuan pendakwaan terhadap pembebasan Anwar.

18 Sept, 2013 : Mahkamah Rayuan menolak permohonan Anwar untuk melucutkan kelayakan peguam kanan Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah sebagai pendakwa raya bagi mengetuai pasukan pendakwaan dalam rayuannya terhadap keputusan membebaskan Anwar daripada tuduhan liwat.

2 Okt 2013 : Mahkamah Rayuan menetapkan dua hari mulai 11 Dis untuk mendengar rayuan pihak pendakwa terhadap pembebasan Anwar.

21 Nov, 2013 :  Anwar gagal dalam rayuannya di Mahkamah Persekutuan untuk melucutkan kelayakan Muhammad Shafee Abdullah daripada bertindak sebagai pendakwa raya untuk mengetuai pasukan pendakwaan dalam kes rayuannya.

Anwar mengemukakan permohonan dengan alasan bahawa Muhammad Shafee tidak boleh bertindak sebagai pendakwa raya dalam kes rayuan itu kerana beliau  (Muhammad Shafee) adalah saksi penting pada perbicaraan kes liwat.

11 Dis, 2013 : Anwar gagal dalam permohonannya bagi kali kedua untuk melucutkan kelayakan Muhammad Shafee.

20 Dis, 2013 : Anwar gagal dalam permohonannya bagi kali kedua untuk melucutkan kelayakan Muhammad Shafee mengetuai pihak pendakwa raya. Ketika menolak permohonan Anwar, Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan permohonan itu tidak mempunyai merit.

Kali ini, Anwar menggunakan maklumat daripada akuan berkanun bekas Ketua Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Kuala Lumpur Datuk Mat Zain Ibrahim sebagai alasan untuk mengemukakan permohonan.

6 dan 7 Mac, 2014 : Mahkamah Rayuan mendengar hujah daripada Muhammad Shafee dan peguam Karpal Singh.

7 Mac, 2014 : Anwar dijatuhi hukuman penjara lima tahun oleh Mahkamah Rayuan selepas mahkamah mendapatinya bersalah meliwat Mohd Saiful, enam tahun lepas.

Hakim Datuk Balia Yusof Wahi, yang mengetuai panel tiga hakim mendengar rayuan pendakwa dalam kes itu, bagaimanapun membenarkan permohonan Anwar bagi penangguhan pelaksanaan hukuman, sementara menunggu keputusan rayuan dengan mengenakan ikat jamin RM10,000 dengan seorang penjamin.

Ketika mengetepikan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi untuk membebaskan Anwar, Hakim Balia berkata mahkamah dengan sebulat suara memutuskan bahawa hakim perbicaraan telah tersilap dalam penghakimannya bahawa integriti sampel DNA yang digunakan dalam kes itu telah dikompromi.

Karpal Singh, ketika ditemui pemberita kemudian, berkata berikutan keputusan itu, Anwar tidak dapat mengemukakan borang penamaan calon bagi pilihan raya kecil DUN Kajang pada 10 Mac.

24 April, 2014 : Ketua Pembangkang mengemukakan petisyen rayuan terhadap hukuman penjara lima tahun atas kesalahan liwat di Pejabat Pendaftar Mahkamah Persekutuan dengan mengemukakan 35 alasan mengapa  sabit kesalahan dan hukuman ke atasnya harus diketepikan.

14 Ogos, 2014 : Mahkamah Persekutuan menetapkan 28 dan 29 Okt untuk mendengar rayuan akhir Anwar. Datuk Sulaiman Abdullah, seorang peguam kanan, akan mengetuai pasukan pembela berikutan kematian peguam Karpal Singh  yang terkorban dalam nahas jalan raya pada 17 April.

14 Okt, 2014 : Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan Muhammad Shafee ialah seorang yang sesuai dan layak untuk mengetuai pasukan pendakwa dalam kes rayuan Anwar pada 28 Okt.

Panel lima hakim yang diketuai Ketua Hakim Negara Tun Arifin Zakaria mencapai keputusan itu dengan sebulat suara, berkata saluran yang sesuai untuk Anwar mencabar pelantikan Muhammad Shafee ialah melalui semakan kehakiman dan bukan melalui notis usul.

28 dan 29 Okt 2014 : Mahkamah Persekutan dijadual mendengar hujah daripada pihak pembela dan pendakwa. Sama ada mahkamah akan membuat keputusan atau menangguhkan keputusan ke tarikh lain, ia hanya akan diketahui pada tarikh berkenaan.


Read more at: http://www.astroawani.com/news/show/kes-liwat-ii-anwar-ibrahim-secara-terperinci-47068?cp

Popular Posts