TR EMERITUS

By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal from The Malaysian Insider KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 5 — Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s accuser told the High Court today that he once idolised the Opposition Leader, describing himself as an “Anwar fan”. Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan was recounting in court today on the third day of Sodomy II his experience when he first met his idol Anwar in March 2008, soon after the general elections that year. “In March, my friend Rahimi Osman called me to come to his office in Petaling Jaya, Section 16. He had called because he wanted to chat with me and catch up on things. “While talking at the office, he asked me whether I was employed. When I said that I was not working, he then asked me whether I wanted to become an assistant in Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s office,” said Saiful. According to Saiful, Rahimi had told him that Anwar was short of office staff owing to the fact that staff members such as Nurul Izzah and Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad were contesting in the elections at that point of time. Saiful recounted how he was still divided over taking a job there when Rahimi took him to a meeting and introduced him to Anwar. “I was shocked. I had not decided on anything yet when Anwar said, ‘I appreciate your helping us’. It was a signal as if he had accepted me there and then.” Saiful also told the court that he had always idolised Anwar because “Anwar is a charismatic leader.” Earlier the court was taken through a tedious process of evidence introduction. Among the items introduced were rectal swabs taken from Saiful and also his clothes worn during the alleged sodomy, including a white Levi’s underwear. Other items introduced were clothes worn during the alleged sodomy which included a blue- white Ralph Lauren shirt, a pair of blue-black Levis underwear, and also black slacks/pants. The crowd reacted strongly to Saiful’s testimony that the black pants were a “gift from Anwar”. A tube of K-Y Jelly, a common lubricant, was also introduced as evidence. When asked by the prosecution as to what he had initially told the medical doctor at Hospital Pusrawi during the check-up, Saiful replied that in the middle of the check-up he told the doctor that he had been “sodomised”. “I did not pass motion for two days after the incident,” Saiful told the court. Saiful also spoke of a meeting he had with Anwar on June 27, 2008 in which he told the Opposition Leader he wanted to quit his job as personal assistant. This meeting took place after the alleged sodomy. “I had sent an email to Anwar on Friday morning the 27th of June. A few hours later, he called me and asked me to come to his office. “He then asked me why I wanted to quit.” According to Saiful, the reasons he gave the PKR leader in his email was that he lacked discipline, was always late for work and not academically qualified for the post. He alleged that he was “afraid” of being questioned because he was apparently given more privileges than other staff. “But this was not the real reason. The real reason was because ‘tak ingin diperlakukan sedemikian lagi (do not wish to be treated like that anymore)’.” Saiful then claimed Anwar tried to persuade him not to quit, and offered to sponsor Saiful’s studies with full pay and allowances. He said he was scared at the time and agreed to the offer. “Anwar said that he felt sad and disappointed with my decision, and he had persuaded me not to quit. “I was afraid to object at that time, so I accepted.” Later on, lead counsel for Anwar’s defence team Karpal Singh raised an objection to Utusan Malaysian and Sinar Harian carrying a photo caption that was, according to Karpal “out of hand”. The picture which showed Saiful, Judge Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah, defence and prosecution lawyers in the bedroom of the alleged incident was captioned “Mohd Saiful Bukhari menunjukkan katil di bilik tidur utama tempat beliau mendakwa diliwat Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim kepada Hakim Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah” (Saiful showing the judge the bed in the master bedroom where he claims to have been sodomised by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim). Karpal’s argument was that even during in-camera, the bed was never introduced as evidence, therefore the caption is misleading. The judge, however, dismissed Karpal’s objection. The court then stood down for a second visit to the condominium where the alleged sodomy took place. Yesterday, Saiful had told the court he went for a medical check-up only two days after he was allegedly sodomised by the Opposition leader. Earlier yesterday morning, the court also visited the condominium where Saiful explained how and where the alleged act of sodomy occurred two years ago. Saiful, who Anwar said was just his “coffee-boy”, continues to be in the witness dock this morning on the third day of the trial. Solicitor-General II Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden led the questioning on behalf of the prosecution before High Court judge Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah. Anwar, the 62-year-old PKR de facto leader, is charged with sodomising Saiful at Unit 11-5-1 of the Desa Damansara Condominium in Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara here between 3.01pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008. The former deputy prime minister has denied the charge, describing it as “evil, frivolous lies by those in power” when the charge was read out to him. He is charged under section 377B of the Penal Code and can be sentenced to a maximum of 20 years’ jail and whipping upon conviction. The trial is taking place 18 months after Anwar was charged in court in August 2008. Anwar was charged with sodomy and corruption in 1998 after he was sacked from the Cabinet and was later convicted and jailed for both offences. He was freed in September 2004 and later resurrected his political career by winning back his Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat in a by-election in 2008, which had been held in the interim by his wife. He had earlier led the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat, to a historic sweep of five states and 82 parliamentary seats in Election 2008. Hearing continues on Monday. - The Malaysian Insider  Read More →

I sent a letter to Today’s letters section, Voices, on behalf of SFD on the morning of Feb 4. The letter was in response to comments by ‘political analysts’ in a Today report titled Group gazetted as political association, Feb 4: http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC100204-0000126/Group-gazetted-as-political-association It didn’t get published the next day Feb 5. I emailed the Voices Editor, Agatha Koh, to ask when the letter will be published. I didn’t receive a reply. I managed to find her contact number and called her directly. She said she received the letter and that the factual error will be amended in the online version of the report. I asked her when the letter will be published. She replied that the editors said there’s no need to. I asked her which editors and she didn’t say. The letter i sent: We write in response to Group gazetted as political association (Feb 4). We have some queries about the comments from your "political analysts". 1. We like to ask Dr Gillian Koh, who works at the PAP government-funded Institute of Policy Studies, whether she has any independent evidence of "foreign" funded institutions interfering in Singapore's politics or is she just parroting the PAP government's political stance and being xenophobic? 2. We would also like to ask if Assistant Professor Eugene Tan who remarked that the Election Department would have looked at the personalities in our ROS application when deciding to gazette it under the Political Donations Act. Is this comment based on evidence or does he have special knowledge of Election Department procedures? Finally, we like to point out a factual error, it should be 11 pro-term members and not 10. Jacob George Media Liaison Singaporeans for Democracy (SFD) Website: http://sfd.sg/  Read More →

OPINION In a lengthy commentary published in the Straits Times yesterday, ST journalist Rachel Chang launched an uncharacteristic tirade against "anti-People's Action Party personages" on the Internet for "lynching" netizens who do not share their views. (read article here) She expressed her concern that the lack of self-censorship prevailing in cyberspace has led to the rise of "ugly impulses" like "a blanket racism towards all foreigners" in some forums. "The urgent task for the online community in Singapore is to build up websites that are credible and respected, and pry control of the Web away from the ones who dominate it now - the ones who hide behind nicknames and prefer personal attacks to policy discussion," she wrote. Miss Chang's views probably embodied that of both PAP and SPH as well. Unfortunately, they have demonstrated once again their utter ignorance of how the new media works. For far too long, the PAP has been so used to a controlled media environment such that they are now clueless on how to deal with the sudden explosion of information on the internet which lies completely beyond their control. Though no names were mentioned, it is quite obvious that Temasek Review belongs to the sites "who dominate the Web" now for we are the only socio-political blog in Singapore with a readership exceeding that of a few sites belonging to the mainstream media such as TODAY Online, Divaasia and Razor TV. Miss Chang's statement betrayed her lack of understanding of how the new media operates - no individual site can ever control or dominate the internet. We may have a sizable readership now, but even if our readership were to double in the future, we still cannot control the flow and dissemination of information in cyberspace and how netizens think. Netizens are generally quite sharp, knowledgeable and astute to begin with. No sites will be able to pull a wool over their eyes and "dictate" their views if that is what Miss Chang meant. The internet is a jungle and only the fittest will survive in it. We are born and bred in this jungle and we know very well that in order to thrive in it, we have to constantly win our readers over with superior intellect, logic and persuasion which is unlike the environment which SPH journalists are working in where they are expected to produce nothing more than pure propaganda to please their political masters. Had SPH not enjoyed a complete monopoly in the Singapore market it would have folded up a long time ago with its lackluster, bland and shallow style of journalism. Perhaps SPH can try publishing a Straits Times-style newspaper in Hong Kong, Taiwan or South Korea and see if it can survive even a year. With due respects to Miss Chang, her version of "credible and respected" website will never take off in Singapore's blogosphere as the PAP's own P65 blog has shown. As a matter of fact, The Temasek Review did try to adopt a balanced approach in its articles in the beginning, but it just doesn't work out. Being an amateur site run on a shoe-string budget, the number of views per article is of utmost importance to us - the more clicks it receives, the more revenue we get from google advertising. Based on experience, the articles which get the most clicks are almost always hard-hitting critiques of the PAP. They sell like hot cakes and also garner the most number of comments as well. To give an example, we paid a known freelance columnist to write a well researched article on housing policies for us which is pretty fair, balanced and objective. Another article only half its length and consisting no more than empty rants against the PAP with no author attributed to it was published a few hours later. This article garnered twice the number of views than the earlier article at the end of the day. Now if you are a businessman selling news, which type of news will you sell more often to maximize your returns? The conventional "wisdom" that "credible and respected sites' producing objective, balanced and unbiased articles written by known (not anonymous) writers will become popular and widely read is an illusion. We have been proven wrong time and again. Readers flock to our site not because we report the unvarnished "truth", but because we are able to articulate their innermost thoughts, feelings, concerns, worries, fears, frustration, resentment and anger clearly, succinctly and so thoroughly that they feel they have found a listening ear. This is what kept our readers coming back for more. Temasek Review is a reader-oriented site. We cater to the needs of the majority of netizens which are not met by the mainstream media. Most of our articles revolve around important issues like immigration, foreign talent, housing policies, education, political rights, democracy and social justice because they are grossly neglected by the mainstream media which tends only to present half-truths, spins and lies to cover the flaws of the PAP. Miss Chang should stop and ponder why certain views deemed "extreme" by her standards are gaining so much traction among netizens. The majority of Singaporeans are not xenophobic, they just feel threatened by the large number of foreigners living in their midst and it is a natural reaction that they should express their discomfort, displeasure and anger against it, not because they are against any particular race or nationality per se. By putting all sorts of labels on them just because they do not share your views, you are only going to turn more people off. The PAP should be worried by the rising chorus of disapproval of the way it is running the country on our site because we now belong to the mainstream. It is not the voice of a vocal minority but that of a silent majority who will become the kingmakers in future elections. At the present moment, the PAP's internet strategy is to rely only on the mainstream media to get its message across while ignoring the new media altogether so as not to lend any credibility to it. Such a narrow approach will only work if the new media has a limited reach, but with our present readership, it will be foolhardy for them to continue swinging their sledge-hammers to demolish us. The last time SPH tried to demonize us a few months ago, it ended up boosting our readership unwittingly. Every now and then, we will receive a hate mail from some PAP member and supporter castigating us for being biased against the government, but when we ask them to write a rebuttal to our articles, they refuse to do so. If you think what is published here is unfair, inaccurate and prejudiced against the PAP, then you should try to convince readers and win them over to your side instead of complaining, whining and screaming away. This is an open forum. We have stated many times that we welcome diverse views from across the political spectrum, be it pro or anti-establishment. If you refuse to engage us, then you cannot blame us for misinterpreting you or portraying you in a bad light. To borrow a quote from Voltaire: "We may disagree with what you say, but we will defend to the death your right to say it." PAP members and supporters should understand that the reality on the ground is that you need us more than we need you. We can continue wacking you for all we care and our readership will not suffer a bit. You are the ones who need a platform in cyberspace to make yourselves heard and you should be grateful to us for offering space on our site for you to do so. We have been very fair to PAP leaders and members who bother to write to us such as Madam Halimah Yacob and Sear Hock Rong. We will make sure your views get aired adequately here on our site, but if you continue to treat us with contempt, then you cannot blame us for being "unfair" to you because we will have to close shop if we were to adopt the same editorial stance and style as the mainstream media. The urgent task for the online community is not to build up "credible and respected" websites as defined by the standards of the establishment, but to have as many "Temasek Reviews" as possible to achieve a combined readership higher than that of the state-controlled media. Malaysia has Malaysiakini, Malaysia Today, The Malaysian Insider, Malaysian Mirror, Merdeka Review etc, but Singapore only has Temasek Review and one other site. It is not healthy for the new media to be dominated by only one or two major voices in the long run. We prefer to have a wide variety of sites, each offering a different perspective and slanted towards different parties to complement one another rather than to have one single "credible and respected" website. In a free and open media landscape, readers will be able to judge for themselves the news sites they can trust. If we have been publishing only hogwash all along, our readership will not have reached this size now. Both PAP and SPH should just let go and trust Singaporeans to reach an informed decision themselves. There is no way you can control the New Media. Wake up from the idea and engage us on our own terms and turfs now before it is too late! We bear no animosities against the PAP or SPH. If you are keen to talk to us, just drop us an email at [email protected]  Read More →