The Permatang Pauh's poster war on Rocky's Bru prompted me to think about DSAI. In the case that led us to much confusions about this person who was once our leader, he was found guilty and convicted. But finally, the Federal Court set aside his convictions and sentences. DSAI got away by technicality. The prosecution proved some but failed to prove the other elements of the charges against DSAI. And the standard of proof to find someone guilty is beyond reasonable doubt!
BUT KNOW THIS! The present Chief Justice, Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamed, who wrote the judgment at that time said:
"To summarize our judgment, 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 the alleged offences as stated in the charges, beyond reasonable doubt, on admissible evidence and in accordance with established principles of law. ..." (Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim v. PP & Another Appeal [2004] 3 CLJ 737 at page 788)
DSAI's acquittal does not mean that he did not do it.
If a person is acquitted for drug trafficking, it does not mean that he is not a drug trafficker. Simpang Renggam might be his home for the next years...
Another point to think about is DSAI is also openly supported by the USA as DSAI himself openly supports USA. The Human Rights in USA is fighting for liberty to do almost anything, as they have many groups of people of many beliefs, including legalising homosexual activities.
Analyse this and put two and two together, there you have the answer...
2 comments:
Anwar did not get away on a 'technicality'. The Fed court clearly said that Azizan could not be believed; that he was a liar.
Would you rely on someone's testimony based on higher moral ground when in the middle of the trial he commits khalwat (allegedly with a prostitute)?
That being the case, Hamid had no biz writing in his judgement that he believed homo acts took place, since he relied entirely on 1 man's words, and by their own admission, Azizan was a liar.
Remember the DNA evidence and the matress was all cooked up so much so the judge had to 'EXPUNGE' the sub-standard police investigation and evidence.
So, why this flip-flop in Hamid'sjudgement? I think it was to protect Dr.M, as otw, the whole country would have to question his role and judgement in pushing the case and believing a driver's word over that of his hand-picked Deputy PM.
Your statement that "If a person is acquitted for drug trafficking, it does not mean that he is not a drug trafficker. Simpang Renggam might be his home for the next years..." has no basis in our Constitution. It is nonsensical.
It would imply that even if someone is found Not Guilty in the highest court in our land, the Fed Court, people can go around saying he is guilty. What would you say if this happened to you father or mother or wife?
What is happening is that the police do not want to admit they have a poor case and poor and shoddy investigative techniques. The 'tak boleh kalah' mentality. And so resort to all these remand actions which are dangerous
'extra-Constitutional' acts which can lead to dictatorship and fascism.
And let's not spin around with Anwar & USA connnection. Dr.M paid $1.2 million of taxpayers funds)legally of course), to a Jewish American lobbyist to arrange for a 5-minute photo-shoot with George Bush. Does that mean you concur that Dr.M supports legalising homosexual activities & same sex marriages & supports invasion of Iraq and links with Zionists?
Be objective.
http://donplaypuks.blogspot.com
You are a rather inane blogger.
If he is not convicted, he is not convicted. He remains innocent. Period.
Half the judges may then have been fixed anyway. It's a possibility to consider.
Please don't waste readers' time if you cannot contribute any novel analysis to the blogosphere.
Many bloggers such as yourself repeat the same news that we can read in the newspapers or hear in causal coffeeshop conversations.
Please write something that shows intelligence, but silly, bigoted views.
Thank you.
Post a Comment