PKR must explain Anwar’s innocence

If PKR wants people to come out on 12th October 2016 to rally for Anwar’s release from jail, they will need to explain to the people in what way Anwar is a victim of an unjust trial. Are they saying the judge or judges sent an innocent man to jail? If so this needs to be explained.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

PKR to rally outside Federal Court during Sodomy II review

(The Star, 7 Oct 2016) – PKR will hold a rally outside the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya on Oct 12 when the Federal Court reviews Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy case.

“This (review) is the highest form of legal procedure to seek Anwar’s release.”

“As a party we will mobilise our members to pledge our support,” said PKR vice-president Tian Chua at the party headquarters on Friday.

“We will work hard to fight as a party for Anwar’s freedom,” he added.

The rally, named “Solidariti Menuju Kebebasan (Solidarity Towards Freedom), is to show the party members’ support for Anwar’s freedom.

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

Tian Chua announced that on Wednesday, 12th October 2016, PKR is going to hold a rally outside the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya. The purpose of this rally is to campaign for Anwar Ibrahim’s release from jail.

Tian Chua has to take serious note that while the Chinese DAP supporters and the Pakatuns have closed minds and would swallow any crap that Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Muhyiddin Yassin, Mukhriz Mahathir, or any of the Pakatan Harapan leaders throw at them, many other Malaysians are still capable of thinking to some extent.

PKR might not get a crowd — well at least not 50,000 or 100,000 — next Wednesday if the people are not inspired or motivated to come out to rally and demand Anwar’s release from jail.

In 1998 and 1999 (or even 2000-2001) it was different. People believed that Anwar was set up and was a victim of fabricated charges. At that time Abdul Gani Patail (who Mahathir later rewarded with the post of Attorney General for sending Anwar to jail) was a bungling fool. He messed up everything in his euphoria to send Anwar to jail that the judge had to sheepishly announce he finds Anwar guilty because he failed to prove his innocence.

Can you imagine a judge sending you to jail because you failed to prove your innocence? What about you are innocent until proven guilty and what about the onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt and what about in the event of doubt the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused?

Yes, these are the fundamentals of the rule of law (and not rule by law like how Mahathir used to do). You are innocent until proven guilty, the onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt, and in the event of doubt the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused. Plain and simple!

And that is why when ABC interviewed me in 2001 and asked me whether I am of the opinion that Anwar is innocent, I replied that is not the issue. The issue is whether Anwar got a fair trial and I feel he did not. So I am supporting Anwar not based on his guilt or innocence but because he was not given a fair trial. And on 2nd September 2004, the Federal Court agreed with me when they freed Anwar on grounds that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt even though, said the court, they feel Anwar is guilty.

So there you have it. I never went to law school but I know my law. And I could explain what even lawyers failed to explain. So do not underestimate Malaysians. Not all have brains like the DAP Chinese or the Pakatuns. Some of us can think and we will not simply swallow the opposition lies and propaganda.

So, if you want a crowd of 50,000 or 100,000 next Wednesday, inspire and motivate Malaysians to come out. Explain why they should come out and rally to demand Anwar’s release from jail. People need to know the details as the devil is in the details.

For example, there are some who say that over the last 15 years since 2001, the opposition people have won more court cases than they have lost. For every opposition person who lost his or her case five others won. So how can Malaysia’s judicial system be corrupt or one-sided if the score if 5:1 in favour of the opposition?

Tian Chua and PKR must be very careful about using this excuse — that the court is corrupt or one-sided. Or else they will have to explain why the opposition won more cases than it lost. Did the opposition bribe the judges?

Tian Chua or PKR must also explain the details of Anwar’s case and in what way his trial was flawed, unfair or unjust and in what way the court managed to find an innocent man guilty of sodomy and sentenced him to jail. As I said, the devil is in the details.

This is very important because the late Lee Kuan Yew said that Anwar is a victim of a honey-trap (and most Malaysian Chinese have extremely high regards for Kuan Yew and wish he was the Prime Minister of Malaysia). A honey-trap means a sting operation where you umpan (lure) the criminal into committing a crime.

I mean it is like sending a sweet young thing (whether boy or girl) to your room knowing that you will sailang the umpan. Then, as you are feverishly into it, we rush into the room and catch you in the act.

In that sense you were set up. However, you can only be set up if you a predator.

This is what Kuan Yew meant. He was saying Anwar is guilty but he was set up into committing that crime. So this needs to be explained. If not then people will say even Kuan Yew said Anwar buggered Saiful Bukhari Azlan so why should we rally and campaign for Anwar’s release?

Then Tian Chua needs to explain why Anwar refused to take the stand to testify. This would have been a golden opportunity for him to tell his side of the story — instead of screaming outside court during ceramahs that the allegation is untrue without telling the court in what way it is untrue. You should tell the judge, not tell people on the street, because it is the judge who needs to decide your guilt or innocence.

Anwar, however, did not do this.

Even more important was the defence of alibi that Anwar had adopted. This simply means Anwar was not there, at the scene of the crime, at that time and date the crime was supposed to have been committed. And Anwar had a dozen or so witnesses to support his alibi.

Then, when the prosecution said it has CCTV recordings from the security camera to debunk that alibi, they dropped the defence of alibi and none of the witnesses came forward to testify for Anwar in the end, not even his own wife, one of the alibi witnesses.

So you see, these are issues which many people are still not comfortable with. And if you speak to Anwar about this he will get very angry.

In 2010 I upset Anwar by saying he needs to be more convincing if he wants people to believe he is innocent. I then told him what I said above and he no friend me anymore after that.

Of course, the public perception is that I abandoned Anwar, did a u-turn, am a turncoat, and so on. The problem is Anwar cannot stand to be told the truth and if you do he no friend you anymore. And that is why Anwar no friend me anymore.

And to explain why he no friend me anymore he create this story about me crossing over to the other side. I suppose he cannot tell people the truth — that he no friend me anymore because I told him his story on the Sodomy 2 is not convincing enough.