Yankee Doodling Dogsbody

Deceptive champions of democracy masquerading as United States of America and the founder of Westminster-styled Constitutional Monarchy, United Kingdom should be ashamed of their “concerned” remarks upon the Federal Court unanimous decision to uphold Court of Appeal judgment of incarcerating Permatang Pauh MP Anwar Ibrahim.

Pro-Anwarista news portal:

US, UK concerned with Anwar’s sodomy verdict

Published: 11 February 2015 12:17 AM
The United States and the United Kingdom have both expressed concern over the Federal Court’s decision to uphold PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s conviction for sodomy.

In separate statements, officials from both countries said that Anwar’s case raises questions about the independence and fairness of Malaysia’s judiciary, and the country’s rule of law.

“The United States is deeply disappointed with Mr Anwar’s conviction following a government appeal of the original verdict finding him not guilty,” said Bernadette Meehan, a spokesperson of the US National Security Council.

“The decision to prosecute Mr Anwar and the conduct of his trial have raised a number of serious concerns about rule of law and the fairness of the judicial system in Malaysia,” Meehan said in a statement emailed from PKR’s communication’s secretariat.
“These concerns are compounded by the government’s intent to expand its sedition law, which Prime Minister (Datuk Seri) Najib Razak had pledged to repeal, to prosecute government critics.”

Meanwhile the UK’s Minister for Asia, Hugo Swire also said that he was deeply concerned by Anwar’s imprisonment.

“His case raises worrying questions about the independence of the judiciary and rule of law in Malaysia. As such, we have consistently raised our concerns with the Malaysian government,” said Swire in a statement emailed to The Malaysian Insider.

Anwar starts his five-year jail term today after the Federal Court quashed his appeal against a conviction of sodomising former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan in 2008.

Meehan said National Security Advisor Susan Rice had met with Malaysian opposition leaders in April 2014, where the latter delivered a message from the US President on human rights.

Meehan said the message was that countries who uphold the human rights of all their citizens – regardless of their political affiliation, ethnicity, race, religion or sexual orientation – are ultimately more prosperous and more stable.

“The United States and Malaysia have built a strong ‘comprehensive partnership’, and we remain committed to expanding our cooperation on shared economic and security challenges affecting our countries’ interests in Asia and globally.

“In that context, we urge the Government of Malaysia to apply the rule of law fairly, transparently, and apolitically in order to promote confidence in Malaysia’s democracy, judiciary, and economy.”

Swire also said the UK encouraged Malaysia to recognise the importance of international confidence in its judicial system and to restore trust in its commitment to human rights.

“Malaysia is an important partner and friend to the UK. We continue to believe that the integrity of the rule of law is a key part of its success, as are the values of moderation and tolerance.” – February 11, 2015.

************

There are clear mockery on the principles deceptively they stood for and propagate throughout the world.

First of all, this is about the rule of law and buggery is still an offensive act of crime under the Section 377B of the Penal Code. It is the same criminal law in Singapore and most of the Commonwealth nations (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Maldives and Jamaica. It is also the model for similar laws that remain in force in Bhutan, Brunei, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Tuvalu, Samoa, Malawi, Mauritius, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Ghana, The Gambia, Botswana, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia).

Second, this case had been about a private citizen (Mohd. Saiful Bukari Azlan) who made the complaint to the Police that he was buggered by Anwar, on 28 June 2008. The Police and chemist investigated and Attorney General found that the evidence had merit to charge Anwar in a criminal court.

Third, the merits of the case which include the samples of semen (taken from Saiful’s anus) and DNA (taken from items in the Police lock-up) were rightfully obtained and permissible to be adduced in the court. Apparently, they belong to Anwar.

Fourth, Anwar had his day in court. It is a damming fact that he did not use the provision to speak from the witness box under oath to prove his innocence. Instead he used it as his political soap-box, to perpetuate his morbidly dying drama of being a political victim.

Fifth, the courts are independent because against popular believe, the High Court Judge let Anwar off. Of course in March 2014, the five-man bench Court of Appeal disagreed with the January 2012 Kuala Lumpur High Court decision.

Sixth, the advanced and more sophisticated of society in the US and Britain need not view the case as ‘politically motivated’ but instead should view Anwar’s incarceration as ‘justice served’ for a case which was exactly about ‘An employer sexually harassing and manipulated a subordinate’.

Seventh, Anwar never did repent despite he was found guilty for buggering his wife’s driver Azizan Abdul Razak in a Kuala Lumpur High Court on 8 August 2000 and the Court of Appeal upheld the decision. Closely looking at the Federal Court judgment on 2 September 2004, one could note that the judges did believe that the act of buggery did happen. It is just that the technicalities of ascertaining the precise time made the Apex Court judges to allow Anwar to walk away as a free man.

Extracts:

“The testimonies of one Dr. Mohd Fadzil and one Tun Haniff and the conduct of the first Appellant (ie Anwar) confirmed the appellants’ involvement in homosexual activities. However such evidence did not corroborate Azizan’s story that the appellants sodomised him on the date, time and place specified in the charge.”

Additionally, the majority also held:

“even though reading the appeal record, we find evidence to confirm that the appellants were involved in homosexual activities and we are more inclined to believe that the alleged incident at Tivoli Villa did happen, sometime, this court, as a court of law, may only convict the appellants if the prosecution has successfully proved that the alleged offences as stated in the charges, beyond reasonable doubt.”

Anwar did sin and all these seven points proven that he did. The United States and Britain must do better, if they want to be respected for the principles they stood for.

Published in: on February 11, 2015 at 08:30  Comments (24)