Pak Utih's Site

Cadangan Teks Khutbah Jumaat utk bulan Mei 2012 - 

Ulang tahun an-Nakbah

Cadangan Teks Khutbah Jumaat 13 Mei - Ulang tahun an-Nakbah

Suami tidur di sofa isteri merana seorang

Suatu ketika dahulu heboh di dalam satu lelaman sengsawang forum maya yang dianggotai oleh sembilan puluh sembilan peratus wanita-wanita, meluahkan perasaan mereka mengenai isu yang dianggap remeh oleh orang lelaki iaitu suami selalu tidur di sofa di luar bilik tidur. Berikut ialah rungutan sebahagian daripada mereka.

“Hubby kerap jugak tertidur kat luar masa tengok tv. Saya rajin kejutkan, ajak masuk bilik dan dia pun kerap terbangun jam 5-6 pagi, lepas itu keluar tidur di ruang tamu. Alasannya sejuk “aircond” (anak-anak saya suka aircond sejuk, tidak mahu kipas biasa). Kadang-kadang biarkan sahaja. Senang dia terbangun dengar azan subuh, boleh tolong kejutkan wife dia yg liat nak bangun ni.. ha ha!. Yang penting, dia mesti tidur bersama juga. Walaupun tidak sepenuhnya semalaman”. 

“Aduhai, saya tak boleh tidur sengsorang sejak bersuami ni. Kalau tertidur di luar pun, mesti kejutkan dia dah suruh masuk ke bilik. Walaupun dah pukul 2-3 pagi, baru nyaman tidur dengan selesa.”

“Bagi saya lokasi tak penting, yang penting tidur sama-sama.. :-)”

“Saya tidak suka kalau suami saya tidur di luar. Rasa macam suami suruh kita jaga anak-anak seorang-seorang di dalam bilik. Macam dia seorang saja nak tidur lena. Kita tidak boleh. Pernah sekali semasa saya mengandung, anak pertama demam dan dia tidak mahu tidur di katilnya. Jadi,kami tidurlah sekatil bertiga. Suami tidak selesa. Lepas itu dia terus keluar tidur di luar. Saya merajuk. Selepas itu, suami tidak buat lagi.”

“Tetapi, bagi Najihah tidak ada masalah juga jika suami nak tidur di luar bilik.
Tidak jadi masalah jika sekali sekala. Hahaha!. Kalau kerap sangat, den akan serah diri juga untuk tidur bersama di luar bilik tu”.

“Aduhai sangat sedih kalau tidur berasingan. Sudahlah jarang berjumpa sebab dia belajar Pengajian Jarak Jauh. Lepas itu, berjumpa tidur berasingan pula. Biarlah katil bujang. Janji tidur berdua. Pernah hubby tiba-tiba bangun dari katil dan tidur di atas lantai. Dia cakap panas. Sedih pulak saya rasa. Saya suruh dia bangun tidur dan naik semula atas katil. Saya lajukan kipas.”

“Sejak berkahwin, memang tidak boleh tidur seorang-seorang. Walaupun saya balik kampung sendirian atau semasa dia kerja malam, saya akan peluk t-shirt atau kain pelekat dia. Kalau pun dia terlena dan tertidur masa tengok tv, pasti saya akan kejutkan dia dan ajak masuk ke dalam bilik. Inikan pula bila dia marah, amat menakutkan. Minta dijauhkanlah. Jangan pisahkan kalau saya dimarahi”.

Isu ini juga telah saya alami. Satu ketika dulu, semasa baru dapat anak sorang, saya membaca kitab Tafsir Al Azhar karangan Pak Hamka, Surah An Nisa ayat 34, yang bermaksud ...." wanita yang kamu khuatiri nusyuz, maka nasihatilah mereka dan pisahkanlah di tempat tidur mereka, dan pukullah mereka. Kemudian jika mereka mentaatimu, maka janganlah kamu mencari-cari jalan untuk menyusahkannya. Sesungguhnya Allah Maha Tinggi lagi Maha Besar".

Semasa membaca ayat ini saya membacanya di sofa di ruang tamu di rumah yang kami sewa di Kampong Nahkoda dulu. Terdetik di hati, “Berkesan ke terhadap isteri kalau kita pisahkan dia daripada tempat tidur ?”. Saya tertanya-tanya keberkesanan nya di atas saranan Allah ini untuk menghukum isteri yang dikhuatiri nusyuz terhadap langkah kedua iaitu pisahkan dia di tempat tidur dan kalau tiada kesan juga, boleh dipukul tetapi tidak meninggalkan kesan sebagaimana pukulnya Nabi Ayub as kepada isterinya yang ingkar. Sedangkan kalau suami yang nusyuz, ayat 128 pula mengatakan, ““Dan jika seorang wanita bimbang akan nusyuz atau sikap  tidak acuh dari suaminya maka tidak mengapa bagi kedua-duanya mengadakan suluh yang sebenar-benarnya dan suluh itu lebih baik (bagi mereka)”.   Saranan ayat ini tidak pula dianjurkan kepada isteri memisahkan suami di tempat tidurnya, tetapi hanya suluh atau diajak berbincang menyedarkan dan mendapat persetujuan secara baik. Mengapa tidak sama menghukum suami seperti mana menghukum isteri yang nusyuz?

Sedang saya tertanya-tanya ayat ini, saya terlelap. Sekitar jam tiga pagi baru saya tersedar yang saya tertidur di sofa dan terus bangun tutup lampu dan masuk ke bilik tidur terus baring menarik selimut di sebelah Mak Utih. Semasa merebahkan badan di sisi Mak Utih, dia pula bingkas bangun tanpa melihat saya dan terus ke luar berjalan ke hulu ke hilir dan ke dapur dua tiga kali dan akhir kembali masuk ke dalam bilik dan terus baring di sisi saya tanpa melihat saya. Disebabkan saya masih mengantuk, saya biarkan saja perlakuannya. Kelihatan seolah-olah dia tidak nampak saya.

Semasa bangun subuh, Mak Utih menepuk saya sambil meninggikan suaranya "Semalam you tidur kat mana?, puas i cari, I risau tau, you tak ada". Saya tidak menjawabnya tetapi terus bersyukur kepada Allah kerana telah memberikan jawapan mengenai ayat 34 kepada saya mengenai perasaan seorang isteri sekiranya dia dipisahkan tempat tidur atau tidak tidur bersamanya pada malam itu apalagi kalau dia tahu suaminya memang ada di rumah. Memang remuk hatinya jika suami tidak tidur bersamanya.

Orang lelaki memang tidak ada perasaan sebegini. Tidur di mana pun boleh asalkan dia boleh lena sampai ke pagi. Sedangkan bagi seorang isteri, tidur bersama adalah satu penghormatan dan nilai yang amat berharga.Jika suami sudah mula tidak mahu tidur bersamanya, dirinya sudah dirasai tidak berguna lagi kepada suami yang tercinta itu.

Itu sebab rakan saya En. Bujang hairan mengapa isteri-isteri semuanya bising-bising hal remeh temeh ini. Sebab kita lelaki tidak memiliki perasan sebegini. Minda lelaki memang tidak mengaitkan aktiviti tidur dengan perasaan dan nilai emosinya. Yang penting bagi lelaki, dapat tidur dengan nyenyak untuk bangun segar esok paginya untuk memulakan tugas baru yang mendatang.

Pesanan saya:
1. Sama seperti saranan yang lain, biarkanlah suami tidur sekejab di sofa atau tertidur selepas tengok bola dan bila anda tersedar, bangun dan kejutlah dia dan ajaklah dia tidur bersama di katil dengan manja dan lemah lembut.

2. Bila dia datang ke katil tu, sediakan ruang yang selesa untuk dia merebahkan badannya.

3. Sebaik-baik saja suami ada disisi, teruslah peluk dia menandakan anda amat menghargai dirinya berada disisi anda. JANGAN BERLETER PULAK..Potong stim nanti. Ucapkan " Saya suka abang tidur di sini tau''.. Barulah suami itu faham dan rasa dirinya dihormati tidur disisi anda.

4. Melainkan suami yang jenis kuat berdengkur, memang terpaksa dipisahkan agar tidak menganggu kualiti tidur si isteri sebagaimana rungutan seorang isteri ini,

“ Tetapi selalu jugak saya rela suami tidur di tempat lain sebab dia berdengkur kuat sangat. Saya boleh jadi sakit kepala dibuatnya. He he he! kesian suami saya kan.”

Eloklah bawa dia berjumpa doktor untuk merawat penyakit berdengkurnya itu.

5. Bak kata satu ungkapan pengurusan strategik, “if you can not beat them, join them”. Kalau suami memang suka sangat tidur di luar, angkat semua “Toto” dan bantal, bentang depan tv, tidur sama-sama di luar tu.

6. Bagi orang suami, tidur yang berkualiti ialah tidur yang tidak diganggu oleh sesiapa dan nyenyak sampai ke pagi. Sebaliknya bagi isteri pula, tidur yang berkualiti ialah tidur yang disertai dengan pelukan mesra oleh suaminya dari belakang, bersentuhan walaupun hanya kaki dengan kaki dan apabila terjaga bangun paginya, dia masih di dalam pelukan suami tercinta.

(Artikel saya dalam Majalah Anis)

Selamat Mencuba

wassalam
Pak Utih

Berikut adalah Penjelasan Aqsa Syarif terhadap ‘Penyelesaian 2 negara’ (Two-State Solution) yang lestari.

Bagi pengamat isu Palestin, seringkali penyelesaian dua Negara diketengahkan sebagai jalan keluar kepada konflik di antara Palestin dan negara haram Israel. Apakah asas kepada penyelesaian 2 negara ini?

Fakta-fakta sejarah yang berkaitan perlu diketahui untuk memahami tuntutan beberapa pihak dalam mengusulkan penyelesaian tersebut. Ia bermula pada tahun 1947 apabila PBB meluluskan Resolusi 181 yang membahagikan negara mandat Palestin (Mandated Palestine di bawah pentadbiran British) kepada wilayah Arab sebanyak 45% dan wilayah Yahudi sebanyak 55%. Pembahagian ini diusulkan oleh UNSCOP – Jawatankuasa Khas PBB untuk Palestin di bawah Pelan Pemisahan (partition plan). Sebagaimana yang dijangka umat Arab menolak ketetapan ini dan mencetuskan perang Arab-Israel yang pertama sebaik sahaja negara haram Israel diistiharkan pada 15 Mei 1948 berdasarkan Resolusi 181. Perang ini berkesudahan dengan kemenangan di pihak Israel yang menduduki beberapa wilayah yang diperuntukkan kepada penduduk Arab berdasarkan Pelan pemisahan 1947. Siri-siri rundiungan di antara Israel dengan Mesir, Jordan, Lubnan dan Syria melakarkan semula sempadan di antara Israel dan jiran-jiran negara Arabnya pada tahun 1949. Siri-siri rundingan ini dinamakan The Rhodes armistice (Perjanjian Damai Rhodes).

Sempadan di antara Israel dan Jordan yang mengambil alih pentadbiran Tebing Barat di namakan garisan hijau (The Green line).

Apabila Israel melancarkan serangan mengejut ke atas negara-negara Arab di Sinai, Baitul Maqdis Timur, Tebing Barat, Tanah Tinggi Golan dan Selatan Lubnan di antara 5 hingga 10 Jun 1967 (Perang 6 hari), seluruh wilayah Palestin (Mandated Palestine semasa pentadbiran British 1917 – 1948) di kuasai sepenuhnya oleh Israel. Wilayah yang dirujuk tersebut ialah Genting Gaza dan Tebing Barat (termasuk Baitul Maqdis timur) yang masing-masing diambil alih oleh Mesir dan Jordan pada tahun 1948. Serangan yang dirujuk sebagai Perang 6 hari ini telah mengakibatkan kekalahan besar kepada negara-negara Arab terutamanya Mesir, Syria dan Jordan. Dalam serangan tersebut Masjid al-Aqsa yang terletak di Baitul Maqdis timur ditawan dan penguasaan ini berlanjutan sehingga hari ini (sudah menjangkau 44 tahun pada tahun 2011). PBB telah bersidang pada bulan November 1967 dan mengusulkan resolusi 242 iaitu Israel wajib berundur semula ke sempadan yang ditetapkan oleh perjanjian Rhodes (yang dirujuk sebagai Green Line bagi sempadan di antara Israel dan Jordan di Baitul Maqdis timur dan Tebing Barat). Namun atas desakan Israel ketetapan 242 menegaskan Israel perlu berundur dari wilayah yang diduduki (Occupied territories) dan bukannya wilayah yang diduduki dalam serangan tahun 1967 (The Occupied Territories). Article ‘The’ menjadi titik tolak kepada pertikaian di antara negara-negara Arab dan Israel di mana Israel tidak menyatakan secara khusus manakah wilayah yang diduduki apabila article ‘The’ digugurkan. Ini bermakna resolusi 242 memberi kebebasan kepada Israel untuk menafsirkan manakah wilayah yang dikatakan diduduki ini. Ini juga bermakna Israel bolih mencabar tuntutan mana-mana pihak untuk berundur dari wilayah yang didudukinya pada tahun 1967.

Apabila penyelesaian 2 negara dibangkitkan berdasarkan resolusi 242, maka ia menjadi suatu yang kabur dan tidak dapat dilaksanakan kerana Israel mempunyai wewenangan untuk menentukan manakah yang akan diwartakan sebagai negara Palestin dan di manakah sempadan negara Israel sekiranya negara Palestin yang berdaulat wujud bersempadanan dengan Israel. Atas perkiraan inilah maka penyelesaian dua negara tidak mungkin memberi jalan keluar kepada penyelesaian konflik Palestin-Israel. Israel akan menggunakan semua alasan-alasan teknikal untuk mempertahankan pendirian tidak akan berundur semula ke sempadan 1967 (The Green Line berdasarkan perjanjian Rhodes).

HAMAS menuntut tiga perkara sebagai syarat untuk melaksanakan gencatan senjata dengan Israel iaitu berundur dari semua wilayah yang diduduki pada tahun 1967 (“The” Occupied Territories), pengishtiharan Baitul Maqdis sebagai ibu negara Palestin yang berdaulat dan hak pelarian Palestin untuk pulang ke negara mereka (ini juga adalah berdasarkan ketetapan PBB – Resolusi 194(III)). Ini bermakna HAMAS pada dasarnya menuntut Israel keluar dari semua wilayah yang ditaklukinya dalam perang 6 hari tanpa perlu merujuk kepada Resolusi 242. Meskipun Resolusi 242 memperuntukkan tuntutan yang serupa namun tuntutan tersebut adalah kabur dan memberi ruang yang luas kepada Israel membuat tafsiran berdasarkan kepentingannya. Ini jugalah yang menjadi asas kepada tindakan Israel dan Amerika Syarikat untuk merujuk kepada wilayah yang diduduki sebagai wilayah yang dipertikaikan (oleh kedua pihak Palestin dan Israel – ‘The disputed territories’) meskipun PBB merujuk kepada wilayah tersebut sebagai wilayah yang diduduki (Israel) ‘The Occupied Territories. Sekiranya Israel bersedia untuk memenuhi tuntutan HAMAS maka ia perlu mengosongkan semua penempatan haram pendatang yahudi di seluruh tebing Barat dan Baitul Maqdis Timur (termasuk di sekitar dan kejiranan Masjid al-Aqsa) dan berundur semula ke sempadan yang telah ditetapkan dalam perjanjian Rhodes pada tahun 1949 (Inilah yang dirujuk sebagai sempadan 1967 atau lebih tepat lagi pra-1967). Dengan ini gencatan senjata jangka panjang atau ‘hudna’ bolih dilaksanakan di antara negara Palestin yang berdaulat dan negara haram Israel. Oleh kerana status ‘Negara haram’ Israel kekal meskipun gencatan senjata disepakati maka tidak ada keperluan bahkan tidak ada pihak yang bolih memaksa Palestin untuk mengiktiraf Israel. Israel pada dasarnya didirikan di atas negeri palestin yang mereka rampas pada tahun 1948. Ini juga bermakna perjuangan pembebasan bumi Palestin secara keseluruhan akan berterusan sehinggalah setiap inci negara Palestin (termasuklah 78% dari wilayah Palestin yang diiktiraf sebagai wilayah Israel oleh Rhodes Armistice pada tahun 1949) dibebaskan.

Maka dengan berundurnya Israel ke sempadan pra-1967 lengkaplah fasa pertama dari dua fasa perjuangan pembebasan Palestin. Jika Fasa pertama dapat dilaksanakan dengan jayanya maka Fasa kedua akan menyusul.

Prof madya Dr hafidzi Mohd Noor

Pengerusi

Aqsa Syarif Bhd

Kenyataan Media

 

Pertubuhan IKRAM Malaysia (IKRAM)

 

7 Januari 2012 bersamaan 12 Safar 1433

 

 

     HIMPUNAN 901

 

 

IKRAM amat prihatin terhadap perkembangan terkini yang berkaitan dengan Himpunan 901. Dalam membuat pendirian ini, IKRAM dipandu oleh prinsip-prinsip syariat yang yang menuntut agar keadilan diberikan kepada semua pihak.  IKRAM menghormati keluhuran Perlembagaan, mendokong prinsip-prinsip keadilan, memperjuangkan kesaksamaan dalam proses perbicaraan serta hak rakyat berhimpun mengikut peruntukan Perlembagaan.

 

IKRAM berpendapat bahawa kes perbicaraan DSAI adalah sebuah kes berprofil tinggi kerana melibatkan individu penting dalam percaturan politik tanahair. Maka, sebarang kemungkinan tentang wujudnya tekanan dan gangguan berunsur politik tidak dapat dinafikan dan apatah lagi ditambah dengan isu integriti terhadap badan kehakiman Malaysia yang sering dipersoalkan. Justeru itu, tidak hairanlah sekiranya rakyat mempunyai persepsi negatif dalam kes ini.

 

Lantaran itu, IKRAM menyeru pihak berkewajipan supaya memastikan agar :

 

·        semua pihak yang terlibat dalam kes ini diberi hak untuk mendapat keadilan sepenuhnya dalam proses perbicaraan dan penghakiman;

·        tahap pembuktian  beyond reasonable doubt  “melampaui keraguan yang munasabah” mestilah dilaksanakan;

·        konsep pengasingan kuasa antara badan kehakiman, badan legaslatif dan badan eksekutif wajib berlaku dengan jelas.

 

IKRAM juga menyeru para penganjur dan polis untuk berkerjasama dalam memastikan keselamatan dan kesejahteraan semasa perhimpunan terjamin.

 

Ahli-ahli IKRAM bebas untuk melibatkan diri dalam perhimpunan berdasarkan penglibatan politik mereka.

 

 

Dr. Mohd Parid Sheikh Haji Ahmad 

Presiden

Pertubuhan IKRAM Malaysia (IKRAM)

Kenyataan Media

 

Pertubuhan IKRAM Malaysia (IKRAM)

 

7 Januari 2012 bersamaan 12 Safar 1433

 

 

     HIMPUNAN 901

 

 

IKRAM amat prihatin terhadap perkembangan terkini yang berkaitan dengan Himpunan 901. Dalam membuat pendirian ini, IKRAM dipandu oleh prinsip-prinsip syariat yang yang menuntut agar keadilan diberikan kepada semua pihak.  IKRAM menghormati keluhuran Perlembagaan, mendokong prinsip-prinsip keadilan, memperjuangkan kesaksamaan dalam proses perbicaraan serta hak rakyat berhimpun mengikut peruntukan Perlembagaan.

 

IKRAM berpendapat bahawa kes perbicaraan DSAI adalah sebuah kes berprofil tinggi kerana melibatkan individu penting dalam percaturan politik tanahair. Maka, sebarang kemungkinan tentang wujudnya tekanan dan gangguan berunsur politik tidak dapat dinafikan dan apatah lagi ditambah dengan isu integriti terhadap badan kehakiman Malaysia yang sering dipersoalkan. Justeru itu, tidak hairanlah sekiranya rakyat mempunyai persepsi negatif dalam kes ini.

 

Lantaran itu, IKRAM menyeru pihak berkewajipan supaya memastikan agar :

 

·        semua pihak yang terlibat dalam kes ini diberi hak untuk mendapat keadilan sepenuhnya dalam proses perbicaraan dan penghakiman;

·        tahap pembuktian  beyond reasonable doubt  “melampaui keraguan yang munasabah” mestilah dilaksanakan;

·        konsep pengasingan kuasa antara badan kehakiman, badan legaslatif dan badan eksekutif wajib berlaku dengan jelas.

 

IKRAM juga menyeru para penganjur dan polis untuk berkerjasama dalam memastikan keselamatan dan kesejahteraan semasa perhimpunan terjamin.

 

Ahli-ahli IKRAM bebas untuk melibatkan diri dalam perhimpunan berdasarkan penglibatan politik mereka.

 

 

Dr. Mohd Parid Sheikh Haji Ahmad 

Presiden

Pertubuhan IKRAM Malaysia (IKRAM)

Segala puji bagi Allah, tuhan semesta alam. Selawat dan salam ke atas junjungan besar Nabi Muhammad s.a.w.

Sidang hadirin sekalian.

Apa khabar?

Rupanya Allah menghendaki kita ber-PPN lagi tahun 2011 ini.

Awal tahun ini dunia telah dikejutkan dengan kebangkitan rakyat di Tunisia, Mesir, Yemen, Libya, Bahrain dan Syria. Pada skala yang kecil demonstrasi berlaku di negara-negara Arab yang lain seperti Jordan, Palestin, Maghribi, Kuwait dan Arab Saudi. Regim diktator yang memenjarakan kebebasan jatuh bergelimpangan. Yang telah membuka ruang kebebasan berpolitik kepada rakyatnya telah lebih bertahan, sehingga saya percaya, mereka juga akan perlu membuka ruang yang lebih besar kepada kebebasan rakyat apabila perkembangan di negara jiran memberi contoh dan teladan.

Perkembangan dunia Arab ini amat menarik. Mitos bahawa orang Arab memerlukan pemimpin yang kuat dan hanya boleh ditadbir dengan kawalan yang ketat ternyata tidak benar. Pada suatu hari Jumaat 25 Ferbruari 2011, di Tahrir Square, rakyat Mesir berubah watak.

Tiada yang menjangkakan tindakan seorang graduan universiti di Tunisia, yang membakar dirinya kerana kesempitan mencari rezeki, dihalang oleh majlis penguasa tempatan dengan merampas gerainya telah mencetuskan perubahan yang besar di seluruh dunia Arab. Tiada yang menjangkakan perhimpunan kecil keluarganya bersama sahabat handai, menuntut keadilan, menjadi jutaan manusia yang menggulingkan rejim-rejim diktator di dunia Arab.

Regim sukar faham bahawa manusia inginkan hidup dengan kemuliaan (dignity) dan terlibat (participate) dalam menentukan masa depan mereka.

Strategi, “jika menggunakan kekerasan, gunakan kekerasan secukupnya” juga telah dibuktikan tidak berjaya di Libya. Asad sedang mencuba di Syria untuk membuktikan sebaliknya.

Regim sukar faham bahawa dunia telah berubah, internet telah menjadikan maklumat tersebar dengan pantas tanpa boleh dikawal. Kawalan penuh (total control) sudah tidak berkesan.

Perubahan yang dibawa oleh kebangkitan rakyat di dunia Arab amat besar kesannya. Di sana sini rakyat bangkit menyatakan hasrat mereka. Kerajaan yang bijak bertindak cepat melakukan reform sebelum rakyat menuntut perubahan yang lebih besar dan menyeluruh. Dengan langkah awal itu regim masih ada peranan dalam menentukan tempo perubahan. Sekurang-kurangnya membeli masa. Raja Jordan bertindak memecat kerajaan. Raja Maghribi memperkenalkan perubahan dengan mengurangkan kuasa terus baginda dan melebarkan penglibatan rakyat dalam politik dan penentuan Perdana Menteri. Hamas berdamai dengan dan menyertai PLO. Israel menghadapi suasana baru kerana ia juga hilang kawalan strategik dengan perginya sahabat yang membantu mengekang rakyat menentang Israel. Israel sudah tidak boleh mendabik dada bermegah konon ia sahaja di Timur Tengah yang menganuti amalan dan ideologi yang sama dengan Barat, democracy.

Polisi Amerika dan Barat kucar-kacir. Presiden Bush cuba memulakan perubahan dengan percubaannya mendemokrasikan dunia Arab. Mungkin fikirnya, itu senjata ampuh mengekang kebangkitan Islam. Mubarak telah memberi amaran kepada Amerika, jika rakyat Mesir diberi kuasa memilih, mereka akan memilih Ikhwan al-Muslimun. Pilihanraya di Palestin juga telah memberikan kepadanya isyarat yang sama. Usaha Bush terencat dan dia mencuba pula pendekatan the war on terror. Namun Islam tidak berjaya dipinggirkan. Sasaran menggantikan regim dengan yang pro-Amerika juga tidak berhasil. Iraq dipimpin oleh Syiah yang tidak pro-Amerika. Pilihanraya di Tunisia, Mesir dan Maghribi meletakkan parti Islam di hadapan. Pasti bukan ini yang difikirkan akan berlaku kita Obama berucap kepada dunia Islam dari Kaherah tiga tahun yang lalu.

Banyak analisis yang telah dan akan dibuat mengenai kesan the Arab Spring. Saya ingin mengemukakan satu yang jarang disebut. Pada saya hasil the Arab Spring yang terpenting adalah dalam satu musim umat berjaya mengemukakan pendekatan bertamadun, memperjuangkan maruah dan kebebasan melalui gerakan aman dan bukan keganasan seperti yang mereka gambarkan.

Ditambah pula dengan penerimaan masyarakat terhadap parti-parti Islam serta kebijaksanaan kepemimpinannya berperanan bersama rakyat telah membersihkan gerakan Islam daripada imej buruk yang mereka palitkan sejak dahulu. Kini gerakan Islam berada di tempat yang amat baik di dunia Arab. Kini gerakan Islam merupakan wakil ummah, the face of the ummah, tanpa dapat dipertikaikan. Kesannya kepada dunia akan menyerlah di hari mendatang.

Kita amat teruja dengan perkembangan di dunia Arab. Kadang-kadang kita terasa seolah-olah berada di Dataran Tahrir, melaungkan takbir dan tahmid. Kadang-kadang perasaan kita merasakan seolah-olah kita turut menang kerusi di Tunisia, Mesir dan Maghribi. Saban hari kita merasa amat perit dan sengsara seolah-olah kita berada di Homs dan Halab. Saya percaya perasaan yang sama dikongsi oleh hadirin di dalam dewan ini. Malah saya percaya perasaan yang sama dikongsi oleh umat Islam di serata dunia. Perasaan ini amat penting kerana ia benar-benar menyuburkan ukhuwah dan merentasi sempadan negara nusa yang telah mereka cipta untuk memecahkan dan memisahkan ummah. Ini adalah bahan (ingredient) yang penting bagi kebangkitan umat sejagat.

Di dalam ulitan perasaan yang kita biarkan merayau ke mana yang ia hendak, perlu diingat hasil yang diraih adalah usaha puluhan tahun membina jamaah dan saf, mengisinya dengan kepemimpinan dan aktivis yang ditarbiah rapi, khidmat dan bakti yang telah ditabur kepada masyarakat tanpa mengharap balasan serta tenaga, harta dan nyawa yang dikorbankan sehingga merekalah yang paling bersedia dan layak memanfaatkan perubahan.

Perlu diingat, untuk sampai di situ, mereka telah melalui satu detik paling istimewa, satu saat yang memecahkan pasong yang memenjara jiwa mereka, satu sentakkan yang membebaskan mereka dari perasaan ragu-ragu, bimbang, gusar dan takut. Detik itu detik watak berubah. Detik itu meleraikan ikatan cinta dunia. Dari saat itu dia berdiri teguh berjuang menghadapi apa jua ancaman yang datang. Fikirnya hanya redha Allah. Semoga keikhlasan dan pengorbanan kudrat yang diamanah Allah kepadanya diterima Allah jua. Jika gugur, syahid. Jika pulang, menang.

Perlu juga diingat perubahan yang berlaku adalah permulaan. Perjalanannya bergantung kepada sejauh mana gerakan Islam berjaya menyelesaikan permasalahan kehidupan yang dihadapi oleh rakyat. Keyakinan rakyat bergantung kepada kebijaksanaan kepemimpinan mentadbir dengan adil lagi saksama, menyebarkan kedamaian, akrab dan sentiasa bersyura dengan rakyat dan benar-benar membawa rahmat ke seluruh alam. Dari setiap pemimpin ditagih agar berakhlak dengan akhlak Islam. Dari pengamatan, empat hingga lima tahun adalah jangka pembuktian. Banyak kebangkitan rakyat yang terpesong dalam tempoh tersebut.

Malaysia?

Perhimpunan aman Bersih 2.0 pada 9 Julai 2011 tiba menyentak pemerintah seolah-olah the Malaysian Spring telah tiba. Gamat. Clamp-down. Tutup Kuala Lumpur. Rampas apa saja yang kuning. Tangkap kerana ini agenda komunis. Cegah kerana ini agenda Barat. Media massa saban hari menyiarkan propaganda. Buat laporan polis. Pasti seribu lima ratus yang dilaporkan menjadi rekod Malaysia kalau tidak dunia.

Orang yang ada menyimpan rahsia memang begitu!

Takut benar kuasa mereka tergugat, takut benar akan terbongkar sejarah silam. Bukan regim Arab sahaja yang tidak faham aspirasi rakyatnya serta perubahan zaman yang sudah berlaku.

Beberapa hari sebelum hari yang ditetapkan, SPB Yang Di Pertuan Agong telah bertitah. Ia memberi ruang kepada kedua-dua pihak untuk mencari penyelesaian yang baik. Bersih 2.0 diperkenan mengadap dan maklumkan akan akur dengan titah Baginda serta bersetuju tidak berhimpun di jalan raya sebaliknya berhimpun secara aman di Stadium Merdeka seperti yang ditawarkan oleh Perdana Menteri sebelum itu. Namun semua usaha untuk berkerjasama dengan polis dan pentadbir stadium menemui jalan buntu. Stadium memberi berbagai alasan kononya sedang diperbaiki kemudian katanya ada acara yang telah diterima tempahan. Wal hal seluruh dunia tahu konsert yang dijadualkan telah ditunda. Polis? Biasalah tetap kata tidak boleh, tidak boleh, tidak boleh.

Bilakah mereka akan faham ada pendekatan lain selain total containment?

Pada hari yang bersejarah itu, walaupun Kuala Lumpur telah ditutup, lebih kurang lima puluh ribu rakyat Malaysia berbilang bangsa, agama, usia dan faham politik berhimpun secara aman di beberapa tempat yang boleh. Satu kejayaan yang nyata. Tahniah kepada rakyat Malaysia. Bersih 2.0 juga berpandangan tindakan keterlaluan polis menjelang perhimpunan menyemarakkan lagi kesungguhan rakyat untuk berhimpun.

Perhimpunan aman itu bagaimanapun telah mengorbankan satu nyawa. Semoga ruh al-marhum di rahmati Allah.

Kejayaan perhimpunan mempamerkan rakyat Malaysia juga ada semangat itu.

Selepas selesai perhimpunan aman terbukti rakyat Malaysia memang aman dan sebaliknya Polis yang memegang senjata dan mencederakan orang. Seseorang mengungkapkan, “the only violence on the day was by the police”. Polis tidak pandai mengaku membuat silap. Kata mereka tiada gas pemedih mata dilepaskan di Hospital Tung Shin. Kemudian doktor-doktor mengeluarkan kenyataan akhbar menyatakan sebaliknya. Disusuli pula dengan video yang amat jelas. Beberapa lama selepas itu apabila berlaku rusuhan di United Kingdom, polis terus mengambil kesempatan mengatakan tindakan mereka menghalang perhimpunan Bersih 2.0 memang bijak. Polis bagai tidak faham di United Kingdom sejak dulu wujud golongan Anarchist dan juga elemen samseng mengambil kesempatan. Rusuhan di United Kingdom bukan perhimpunan menuntut kebaikan. Dikatakan perhimpunan aman di Timur Tengah menggunakan i-phone di UK untuk mencuri telefon, i-pod dan TV plasma. Di Malaysia kan lain!

Jika diteliti dengan baik, ternyata tuntutan Bersih 2.0 amat wajar disokong oleh semua. Amat menghairankan ada bantahan terhadapnya. Pilihanraya yang bebas dan adil akan menafikan sebarang pertikaian terhadap keputusan pilihanraya. Ia akan memastikan yang kalah tiada pilihan kecuali menerima kekalahannya. Bagi yang menang pula keabsahan pemerintahannya terpahat dan layak menikmati kepercayaan yang sungguh-sungguh diberi oleh rakyat. Jika pilihanraya ditanggap tidak bersih, bebas dan adil Malaysia juga boleh terjerumus ke kancah bahaya seperti beberapa negara di Afrika, terkini DR Congo, atau bekas kuasa dunia Russia.

Di mana salahnya lapan tuntutan Bersih 2.0?

Mari kita teliti satu persatu.

1. Bersihkan senarai undi

Senarai undi harus dibersihkan untuk memastikan ketidakaturan yang sedia ada seperti penyamaran dan ‘pengundi hantu’ disingkirkan.

Dalam jangka masa panjang, BERSIH 2.0 mencadangkan pendaftaran pengundi secara automatik dilaksanakan berdasarkan data di Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara.

2. Mereformasikan undi pos

Sistem undian pos yang sedia ada perlu diperbaharui. Penafian hak terhadap pengundi yang tidak dapat hadir boleh diselesaikan dengan memberi pilihan kepada semua pengundi untuk mengundi melalui pos ataupun secara lebih awal jika mereka tidak dapat hadir di kawasan pengundian pada hari mengundi, tidak kira sama ada mereka berada di Malaysia mahupun di luar negara. Anggota Polis, tentera dan penjawat awam harus mengundi secara biasa seperti para pengundi lain jika mereka tidak bertugas pada hari mengundi. Bagi memastikan ketelusan proses undian pos, ejen-ejen parti politik harus dibenarkan untuk memantau keseluruhan proses undian pos atau undian lebih awal.

3. Gunakan dakwat kekal

Dakwat kekal adalah penyelesaian yang mudah bagi mengelakkan pengundian berganda, menjimatkan dan berkesan.

4. Masa kempen minima 21 hari

Tempoh kempen minimum dua puluh satu (21) hari akan memberi lebih masa kepada para pengundi untuk mengumpul maklumat dan mempertimbangkan pilihan mereka.

5. Akses media yang bebas dan adil

Semua agensi media, terutamanya agensi media yang dibiayai oleh kerajaan seperti Radio dan Televisyen Malaysia (RTM) dan Bernama, harus memperuntukkan liputan yang seimbang dan objektif kepada semua parti politik. Debat umum antara para calon harus disiarkan.

6. Kukuhkan institusi awam

Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) harus melaksanakan tanggungjawab perlembagaannya untuk bertidak secara bebas dan saksama supaya mendapat keyakinan orang ramai. SPR harus mengambil langkah-langkah bebas dan proaktif untuk menegakkan integriti proses pilihanraya dan menguatkuasakan Akta Kesalahan Pilihan Raya 1954 seperti yang dimandatkan oleh Akta Pilihan Raya 1958. Kenyataan SPR yang berulang kali bahawa mereka tiada kuasa untuk bertindak adalah salah dari segi undang-undang dan tidak membangkitkan keyakinan orang ramai dalam kebolehan SPR untuk memenuhi peranan perlembagaan mereka.

Selain daripada SPR, institusi-institusi awam seperti Badan Kehakiman, Peguam Negara, Polis Diraja Malaysia dan Suruhanjaya Pencegah Rasuah Malaysia harus bertindak dengan bebas, saksama dan penuh integriti pada setiap masa dalam melaksanakan tanggungjawab menurut Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

7. Hentikan rasuah

Semua bentuk pembelian undi, termasuklah janji peruntukan kewangan bagi projek-projek pembangunan oleh wakil-wakil rakyat semasa tempoh kempen, harus diberhentikan. Tindakan tegas mesti diambil ke atas semua yang mengamalkan sebarang bentuk pembelian undi.

8. Hentikan politik kotor

Rakyat sudah jemu dengan politik kotor yang semakin menjadi ciri utama politik Malaysia. Kesemua parti dan ahli politik hendaklah berhenti mengamalkan politik kotor. Rakyat dan pengundi, lebih berminat mendengar polisi dan perancangan yang ingin dijalankan.

Kalau difikirkan kembali alangkah baiknya jika cadangan Bersih 2.0 ini disambut baik oleh Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya semasa dibincangkan dengan mereka pada tahun 2010. Bersih 2.0 di pertemuan itu telah menyatakan kesediaan untuk bekerjasama, malah menyokong SPR dalam usaha menjadikan pilihanraya di Malaysia yang terbaik dunia. Tidak lama kemudian, termaklum semuanya susah, tak boleh, perlu pindaan akta, perlu pindaan perlembagaan pun ada. SPR kata menurut Peguam Negara dakwat kekal menyalahi undang-undang.

Kini selepas tertubuhnya Parliamentary Select Committee, dakwat kekal menjadi boleh, dan beberapa cadangan lain Bersih 2.0 turut dipertimbangkan. Kini rakyat mengkehendaki semua lapan tuntutan dipenuhi sebelum Pilihan Raya ke-13.

Asal Kita

Kita imbau sejarah silam dan kesannya kepada pembinaan keperibadian kita.

Ramai pengasas JIM merupakan bekas pelajar di luar negara. Dasar Ekonomi Baru telah menghantar pelajar yang ramai ke negara Barat. Di negara Barat kita dikejutkan dengan kebebasan tanpa batas, tidak banyak pantang-larang, tidak ada keluarga yang memandang.

Kita berjumpa Islam yang syumul, suatu cara hidup yang lengkap (ad-deen).

Ilmu fiqh ibadat yang diwarisi bertemu kepelbagaiannya dari seluruh dunia hingga kita terjurus untuk memahami Islam dari sumber asal.

Pertama kali kita berjumpa dengan Sahih Bukhari dan Sahih Muslim.

Pertama kali menatap tafsir dari ulama muktabar.

Kita membaca sirah ar-Rasul (SAW) lalu nampak metodologi perjuangan dakwah.

Kita berjumpa persaudaraan (ukhuwah) Islam. Kita bersaudara dengan yang rambut perang dan mata biru, abang gelap bak malam tanpa bulan dan bintang, yang rambut lurus dan yang kerinting bak kismis, yang mata bulat dan yang sepet bagai mengantuk sentiasa.

Kita berjumpa persaudaraan berasaskan iman. Kita ada saudara di merata dunia. Berkasih sayang hanya kerana Allah. Kaum, suku dan bangsa benar-benar untuk pengenalan (takruf). Tinggi dan mulia hanya diukur dengan ketakwaan.

Kita berkenalan dengan gerakan Islam dari berbagai benua. Walaupun namanya Jamaat-e-Islami, Ikhwan Muslimin atau pergerakan Nursi, dan setiapnya ada keistimewaan tersendiri namun terserlah keseragaman fikrahnya kerana menimba dari sumber yang sama.

Kita berhimpun membina Jamaah di kalangan umat Islam setempat bagi menyempurnakan tanggungjawab bersama. Kemudian kita bina jamaah yang menyatukan pelajar Islam dari Malaysia, IRC, Islamic Representative Council pada bulan April 1974.

Kita juga mengkaji dan memahami sistem Barat yang menguasai dunia. Kita fahami sistem kepercayaan mereka, Materialisme. Kita memahami ideologi-ideologi yang lahir dari kepercayaan Materialisme ini.

Kita dalami ideologi Liberalisme, yang membangunkan sistem berasaskan kebebasan; sistem ekonomi Kapitalisme, sistem politik Demokrasi dan sistem sosial yang bebas.

Kita memahami ideologi Sosialisme, yang membangunkan sistem yang berasaskan kawalan; sistem ekonomi yang dipanggil command economy dan sistem politik berasaskan satu parti.

Kita kembali ke Malaysia pada pertengahan 1970an. Terus menggerakkan usaha dakwah dan tarbiah terutamanya dikampus-kampus.

JIM hanya ditubuhkan pada 27 Julai 1990. JIM telah melakarkan sejarahnya yang tersendiri sehingga berada di barisan hadapan dalam kalangan organisasi Islam dan dalam kalangan masyarakat madani.

IKRAM tertubuh pada 22 Oktober 2009.

Pengalaman yang dilalui ini mengukuhkan pegangan kita kepada pemahaman berikut:

1. Pendekatan memahami Islam dari sumber asal 
2. Kesyumulan Islam
3. Manhaj taghyir
4. Ukhuwah Islamiah, kesatuan Ummah
5. Jamaah, dakwah, tarbiah
6. Engagement dengan siapa sahaja
7. Kesejagatan

Semua ini tergabung menjadi jatidiri kita, penghuni alam, manusia dan Muslim. Kerap salah satu dari pegangan kita ini dicabar dengan isu semasa masyarakat, sama ada yang ada kaitan dengan fikrah atau pendekatan. Isu kalimah Allah, ketuanan Melayu dan Himpun sebagai contoh.

Dari sudut dakwah kita memilih untuk menyampaikan Islam sebagai penyelesaian. Kita memilih bergiat di medan masyarakat madani dan berusaha untuk membina konsensus. Dalam konteks kini perubahan sistem akan berlaku berasaskan kehendak rakyat. Suasana aman dan damai di mana perbincangan dan pertukaran pandangan dapat berlaku tanpa sebarang tekanan aman subur untuk dakwah. Hudaibiah membuktikan. Sikap inklusif dan rahmah diperlukan untuk berdakwah di tengah-tengah masyarakat.

Membawa Risalah kepada Masyarakat

Fasa seterusnya dakwah kita bersambung dengan usaha membawa risalah Islam kepada masyarakat. Usaha yang telah kita mulakan mendampingi masyakarat madani sejak dahulu lagi telah berputik dengan penubuhan suatu gabungan yang unik, Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia. Ia dianggotai oleh organisasi masyarakat madani berbilang agama, ethnik, ideologi dan datang dari seluruh ceruk rantau Malaysia.

GBM unik kerana ia gabungan yang positif dan membangun dan tidak ditubuhkan untuk menentang atau mempertahankan sesuatu. Ia gabungan yang luas cakupannya. Pendekatannya mencari pemuafakatan dan tindakannya dalam perkara yang disepakati. Jika gabungan ini bertahan dan usahanya membuahkan hasil, gabungan itu sendiri adalah mesej yang bermakna kepada masyarakat umum.

GBM diasaskan di atas landasan berikut:

1. berlandaskan Perlembagaan Malaysia, 
2. komited memajukan satu Malaysia yang aman, adil dan makmur, 
3. neutral dari sudut politik dan
4. tiada organisasi ahli dikenakan perkara yang bertentangan dengan prinsip-prinsipnya.

GBM telah sepakat mengubal satu piagam mengandungi lima belas perkara. Ia juga akan menjadi panduan usaha-usahanya.

Piagam Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia

GABUNGAN BERTINDAK MALAYSIA (GBM) 
Membina sebuah negara Malaysia yang lebih Unggul

Pendahuluan

Semenjak kemerdekaan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu pada tahun 1957 dan pembentukan Malaysia pada tahun 1963, negara telah berkembang menjadi sebuah negara pelbagai etnik yang dinamik dengan kemajuan di dalam banyak bidang.

Kami menghargai pengorbanan, toleransi dan tolak ansur semua komuniti dalam fasa pengasasan negara hingga membuahkan kestabilan, kemajuan dan keamanan.

Untuk masa hadapan negara hendaklah mengejar cita-cita memajukan insan berlandaskan prinsip-prinsip keamanan, keadilan dan kebebasan yang melangkaui batas-batas ethnik, warna kulit atau kepercayaan.

Di atas nikmat kebebasan asas yang termaktub di dalam perlembagaan, kami bertekad mewujudkan negara yang inklusif berasaskan keadilan.

Iltizam

Kami beriltizam untuk bekerjasama membawa pembaharuan dan pembaikan dalam bidang-bidang berikut:

1. Tadbir Urus Baik

Mempromosi pengawasan yang baik, integriti, kebertanggungjawaban dan ketelusan dalam sektor awam dan swasta serta masyarakat madani. Memastikan toleransi sifar terhadap rasuah.

2 . Politik

Politik hendaklah dilihat sebagai khidmat untuk negara dan rakyat. Mereka yang berkuasa mestilah dilantik melalui pilihan raya yang bersih, bebas dan adil oleh pengundi yang berpengetahuan. Pemisahan yang tegas di antara parti dan kerajaan hendaklah diamalkan.

3 . Badan Kehakiman

Kebebasan penuh badan kehakiman amat penting untuk menjamin keadilan.

4. Federalisme

Kuasa politik dan ekonomi dipencarkan supaya negeri-negeri mempunyai autonomi dan kawalan yang lebih ke atas sumber-sumbernya.

5. Kerajaan Tempatan

Demokrasi diperluas ke semua peringkat termasuk pilihan raya untuk badan berkuasa tempatan, mukim dan kampung.

6 . Perkhidmatan Awam

Perkhidmatan Awam hendaklah memberi khidmat dengan penuh integriti, profesionalisme, dan kecekapan hingga dihormati dan dipercayai oleh rakyat.

7 . Ekonomi

Pertumbuhan ekonomi hendaklah mengutamakan rakyat daripada keuntungan dan hendaklah lestari alam sekitar. Pengagihan kekayaan yang saksama untuk membanteras kemiskinan dan menjaga kebajikan rakyat. Sebarang langkah affirmative hendaklah berdasarkan keperluan dan bukan latar belakang ethnik.

8 . Alam Sekitar

Berjuang ke arah sebuah masyarakat yang harmoni dengan alam semula jadi di mana terdapat keadilan persekitaran untuk semua. Mempromosikan pembangunan yang adil dari sudut sosial, berdaya saing dari sudut ekonomi dan lestari dari sudut ekologi.

9 . Pendidikan

Menegaskan semula keperluan satu sistem pendidikan holistik yang melahirkan rakyat berpengetahuan dan berhemah tinggi. Menjamin pendidikan dalam bahasa ibunda dan memberi layanan yang adil lagi saksama kepada sekolah-sekolah semua aliran bahasa dalam sistem pendidikan nasional.

10. Hak Wanita

Menegakkan keadilan gender bersandarkan ketetapan antarabangsa yang memberi persamaan substantif kepada wanita serta peluang dan ruang penglibatan dalam pembangunan negara dengan menghapuskan diskriminasi dan prejudis.

11. Hak Orang Asli

Mengiktiraf hak orang asli ke atas tanah dan sumber-sumbernya serta memastikan mereka mengamalkan budaya mereka dengan bebas.

12. Kebudayaan

Menghormati kepelbagaian budaya dan menggalakkan interaksi silang budaya.

13. Agama

Menegakkan kebebasan untuk mengamalkan agama seperti yang termaktub di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Mempromosi persefahaman dan keharmonian di kalangan penganut agama.

14. Media

Meningkatkan kebebasan media di mana ia tidak dibelengu oleh pengawalan berlebihan. Perspektif yang bertanggungjawab dan pelbagai mesti dibenarkan untuk siaran. Kebebasan bersuara dan kebebasan memperoleh dan menyiar maklumat hendaklah dijamin.

15. Perpaduan Nasional

Perpaduan nasional hendaklah disandarkan kepada sifat majmuk masyarakat kita dan dibentuk melalui amalan prinsip persamaan di atas semangat muhibah yang sebenar, saling hormat-menghormati dan saling memahami.

Semoga usaha ini membuahkan hasil.

Pengalaman Mendampingi Masyarakat

Menyampaikan risalah Islam tugas setiap Muslim. Surah Ali Imran ayat 104 memberi turutan usaha menyeru kepada kebajikan mendahului menyuruh yang makruf dan mencegah dari yang mungkar.

(Maksudnya) "Dan hendaklah di antara kamu ada segolongan orang yang menyeru kepada kebajikan, menyuruh (berbuat) yang makruf, dan mencegah dari yang mungkar. Dan mereka itulah orang yang beruntung."

Ini teladan yang baik bagi duat. Seru dulu kepada kebajikan kerana ia memberi kefahaman yang menjadi asas penerimaan suruhan dan larangan.

Dalam mendampingi masyarakat kita mesti berpegang teguh dengan Islam pada setiap ketika. Berikan penjelasan yang jelas. Tiada apa yang perlu disembunyikan tentang Islam. Tiada apa tentang Islam yang perlu kita malukan. Malah sebagai cara hidup yang menepati fitrah manusia bincangkan dengan baik, mudah-mudahan Islam itu lebih mereka fahami.

Ciri-ciri yang perlu ada pada kita untuk dampingan (engagement) yang berkesan, dari pengalaman mendampingi masyarakat berbilang agama, kaum dan ideologi bolehlah disenaraikan seperti berikut:

1. Ikhlas
2. Sangka Baik
3. Amanah
4. Jujur
5. Tawadhu
6. Ada kemampuan
7. Boleh diharap (reliable) 
8. Mesra
9. Konsisten

Semua ciri-ciri ini bukanlah yang dibuat-buat agar kita diterima baik oleh orang tetapi ia memang sebahagian akhlak kita. Saya percaya akhlak seseorang duat boleh membantu mad`u memahami Islam.

Cabaran bagi Gerakan Dakwah

Merenung pengalaman silam dan memandang ke hadapan perjalanan dakwah terasa masih jauh. Cabaran datang menduga kekuatan jamaah, umat dan masyarakat. Dikongsikan beberapa cabaran yang perlu dihadapi. Ada di antara penyelesaiannya bergantung kepada kita, umat Islam atau masyarakat Malaysia. Semuanya bergantung kepada Allah.

Cabaran 1: Masyarakat yang belum menanyakan erti kehidupan

Di kalangan setiap kelompok manusia, hanya segelintir yang mampu memikirkan perkara-perkara konseptual. Itulah sebabnya tiga belas tahun usaha dakwah ar-Rasul (SAW) di Mekah menghasilkan hanya beberapa ratus pengikut. Kualiti mereka ini teruji. Mereka tidak perlu bentuk dan contoh di depan mata sebelum berkeyakinan dengan Islam. Mereka tidak memerlukan perbandingan untuk menyakini kebaikan Islam.

Golongan ramai tidak memikirkan sama ada yang ada ini sudah yang terbaik. Hidup mereka, “okay lah”. Begitulah kebanyakkan manusia di dunia ini, termasuk di Malaysia. Mereka terus hidup hari demi hari dengan gaji yang “boleh lah”, ada bonus, ada naik pangkat dan mobiliti sosial. Sistem yang ada cukup baik untuknya. Sekarang sudah cukup bahagia dan jika ditambah dengan usaha gigih impiannya akan tercapai. Mengejar impian yang dirasakan ada harapan tercapai memacu hidupnya seharian. Begitulah hidupnya setiap hari. Tidak sempat memikirkan sama ada sistem ini buruk atau baik, betul atau salah.

Mereka belum cukup kaya untuk memikiran tentang erti kehidupan dan kebahagiaan.

Segolongan rakyat pula hidupnya susah, tapi “cukup lah”. Malaysia ini amat subur. Rezeki ada di mana-mana. Jika kesempitan boleh memohon bantuan. Kadang-kadang rezeki datang tanpa diminta. Ada dermawan, ada NGO.

Mereka belum cukup tertekan untuk memikiran tentang erti kehidupan dan kebahagiaan.

Tanpa keupayaan memikirkan erti kehidupan mereka tidak akan menilai sistem yang ada dan apa alternif lain. Pendakwah yang ingin membawa perubahan sistem perlu terus gigih seperti ar-Rasul (SAW) semasa di Mekah hingga tiada yang belum mendengar seruannya.

Cabaran 2: Umat Islam yang belum menjadi contoh yang baik

Tiada bezanya dengan orang lain. Saban hari kita lihat yang melakukan jenayah, maksiat, rasuah, penipuan, dadah, perangai tidak sopan ramai dari kalangan umat Islam. Walaupun agama tidak wajar dipersalahkan sebab kegagalan pengikutnya, namun pada orang lain ia menggambarkan agama itu tidak mengesani pengikutnya dengan baik.

Cabaran 3: Masyarakat Islam yang belum yakin dengan Islam

Dari kalangan umat Islam yang memegang tampuk kuasa seolah-olah tidak menjadikan Islam panduan kepemimpinan. Tiada usaha yang gigih menyerlahkan alternatif Islam walaupun negara bergelut dengan kemelut ekonomi berasas riba, gaya hidup berasaskan hutang dan gejala sosial dek hilang pegangan agama.

Ada juga di kalangan umat yang malu alah dengan Barat. Akhirnya terbawa-bawa dengan perjuangan yang bukan dari Islam asalnya.

Paling malang jika ada di antara kita, masyarakat du`at, yang malu turun pandang mengetengahkan pandang dari sudut pandang Islam dengan ilmu dan kepetahan.

Sepatutnya umat cukup “bangga” dengan Islam yang dianutinya hingga tidak sabar-sabar mengongsikannya dengan alam sejagat.

Cabaran 4: Masyarakat Islam yang kurang berpadu

Umat Islam di Malaysia telah terlalu lama bergantung kepada Perlembagaan, kerajaan dan politik sehingga ummah sebagai suatu entiti tidak dipupuk. Tiada institusi umat yang dibangunkan untuk memupuk pemuafakatan dan tolong menolong di kalangan umat. Kekuatan umat tidak terpusat. Umat terlalu lama selesa dengan jaminan dan keistimewaan yang diberikan oleh Perlembagaan. Tupang yang diperlukan dahulu untuk mengangkatnya keluar dari angkara penindasan penjajah telah tidak pernah ditinggalkan hingga menjadi anggota prostetik yang mencacatkan. Keselesaan yang dirasakan dari kestabilan politik yang lama telah menjadikan umat biasa dengan perpecahan.

Kini apabila kuasa politik mula bergoncang dan kerajaan juga turut goyah menjadikan Perlembagaan pula bergetar, umat tidak ada wadah pemuafakatan. Tidak ada tempat berpayung yang tidak bergantung kepada orang lain. NGO dan gabungan yang tumbuh seperti cendawan selepas hujan tidak akan menyelesaikan kemelut ini.

Apa yang diperlukan adalah mencari jatidiri umat yang sebenarnya dan membina institusi pemuafakatan umat yang memayungi semua. Saya yakin Islam kunci binaan ini.

Masyarakat Cina, umpamanya ada kesepakatan dalam isu budaya dan bahasa serta wujud tolong menolong sesama mereka. Mengapa tidak kita?

Cabaran 5: Lebih ramai panglima daripada negarawan

Dari kalangan aktivis Islam terdapat lebih ramai panglima daripada negarawan. Hasilnya kerap permasalahan umat terutamanya yang membabitkan orang lain terdorong kepada pertembungan daripada rundingan. Tuntutan orang lain terus dilihat mengancam. Suasana ini menimbulkan ketegangan dan ketegangan tidak baik untuk dakwah. Ini tidak pelik, kerana ar-Rasul sendiri pada mulanya tidak disokong ramai dalam isu perjanjian Hudaibiah. Sepatutnya pembawa rahmah ke seluruh alam lebih berpegang kepada engagement daripada confrontation. Dakwah benar-benar memerlukan lebih ramai negarawan dan diplomat.

Penutup

Ucapan dasar ini merupakan ucapan dasar Presiden JIM yang terakhir, insya-Allah. Proses menutup JIM kini di peringkat yang terakhir. Pemindahan aset dan aset maknawi JIM sedang berjalan dengan giat. IKRAM pula sudah menemui rentaknya dalam masyarakat.

Akhir sekali saya mengingatkan ikhwah dan akhawat tentang satu detik paling istimewa. Jika belum melaluinya, segeralah membuat temu janji.

Semoga-moga Allah merahmati perhimpunan ini.

Semoga-moga Allah sentiasa melindungi hadirin sekalian.

Selamat bermuktamar!

Zaid Kamaruddin

The following is the full statement by Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim at the High Court this morning, as he enters defence in the sodomy trial. Anwar opted to speak from the dock, which among others, means he could not be cross-examined by the prosecution:

My name is Anwar bin Ibrahim. I am the leader of the Opposition in Parliament. In the 1990s, I was the Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister until September 1998 when then Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad sacked me after I had refused to resign. He had told me to resign or face dire consequences including criminal prosecution for alleged sexual and corruption offences. I refused and all hell broke loose. My unceremonious and grossly unjust dismissal simultaneously orchestrated with a trial by media under Mahathir’s complete control triggered mass and widespread demonstrations throughout the country and launched the movement for change and reform known in our history as the Reformasi era.

After a series of show trials during which every rule in the book on evidence and criminal procedure was violated with impunity at the hands of the prosecution and the courts, I was convicted and sentenced to a total of 15 years.

The charge against me

First and foremost, I categorically deny the charge against me. I want to state in no uncertain terms that I have never had any sexual relations with the complainant Mohamed Saiful. His allegation is a blatant and vicious lie and will be proved to be so.

This is a vile and despicable attempt at character assassination.  In this regard, let me reiterate that they can do all they want to assassinate my character and sully my reputation and threaten me with another 20 years of imprisonment but mark my words, they won’t be able to cow me into submission. On the contrary, it only serves to fortify my conviction that the truth will eventually prevail. Come what come may, I shall never surrender. With apologies to Jean Racine in Phaedra:

“You know how well your tyranny favours my temperament and strengthens me to guard the honour of my reputation.”

Yes indeed, I will guard it with my life if I have to. And if I may bring the message closer to home, let me quote the words of Nelson Mandela in his speech made from the dock in the famous Rivonia show trial of 1963 under the Apartheid regime:

“I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

Back in 1998, blindfolded and handcuffed, I was beaten senseless by the Inspector General of Police and left to die in the lock up at the Federal Police headquarters. However, it was by the grace of God that a few of the rank and file of the police took pity on me and nursed me to recover from the near lethal blows. There was then a cover up by Gani Patail (now the Attorney-General) and Musa Hassan (the IGP at the time that I was charged in this new episode) with the full knowledge and connivance of Dato’ Yusuf, the current chief prosecutor in this trial. All these personalities were linked in one way or the other with the 1998 show trial and more insidiously with the suppression of evidence in respect of the black eye scandal and attempts to pervert the course of justice. These are the same personalities who are now actively involved in the current prosecution against me.Res ipsa loquitur, as they say, but in this regard I’m not talking about negligence but rather proof of criminality in this heinous plot betraying indeed “the deep damnation” of the conspiracy.

The circumstances are compelling that I elect to make a statement from the dock. And in this statement I shall attempt my utmost to place the truth ahead of the web of lies and deceit that has been spun thus far. To quote Shakespeare:
“And let us once again assail your ears,
That are so fortified against our story…”

Which has set me from the outset of the trial to have been deprived of a level playing field and subjected to inequality of arms vis-a-vis the prosecution.

The prosecution’s failure to discharge its duties professionally

1)  Even though these matters are done as a matter of routine in criminal proceedings, the Prosecution has consistently refused to disclose material critical to my defence, including: 
(a) prosecution witness list;
(b) primary hospital examination notes written by the medical examiners of the complainant at HBKL;
(c) witness statements (including that of complainant); and (d) forensic samples and exhibits for independent examination and verification. All this has caused considerable prejudice to my defence and occasioned grave injustice. The only conclusion that one can reasonably draw from the prosecution’s persistence in this act of perversity is that unseen hands are at work and it is certainly not the hand of God.

2)  Your failure to respond during the course of the trial to several attempts by persons hostile to me to discredit me by commenting on aspects of the trial. These included whether I should provide samples of his DNA; blaming the defence for the delay of the proceedings; and reporting on matters that were the subject of a suppression order. These public comments were made either in defiance of your orders that they not be made. They were made by UMNO officials and politicians, including Dato’ Seri Najib orchestrated through the controlled electronic and print media, such as Utusan Malaysia, Berita Harian, the New Straits Times and TV3. The constant comments by the Prime Minister and UMNO officials in the media and adverse comments on the progress of the trial were clearly calculated to influence you and illustrates the political motive behind the charge.

3) The latest act of blatant disregard occurred just last Tuesday and Wednesday over TV3 which broadcasted a pre-recorded interview with the complainant saying things which are clearly in contempt of the proceedings in respect of the trial. In particular, the audacious portrayal of himself as the victim who is a pious and God fearing Muslim who has sworn on the Quran that he is a witness of truth.

The latest act of blatant disregard occurred just last Tuesday and Wednesday over TV3 which broadcasted a pre-recorded interview with the complainant saying things which are clearly in contempt of the proceedings in respect of the trial. In particular, the audacious portrayal of himself as the victim who is a pious and God fearing Muslim who has sworn on the Quran that he is a witness of truth.

4)  But the truth is that even as the trial was in progress, the complainant who was engaged to someone else was shamelessly having an affair with a member of the prosecution team. Quite apart from the consequences of such an affair on the conduct of the prosecution, the complainant’s facade of moral rectitude is shattered by this scandalous affair with the lady prosecutor who herself was also engaged with another man.

5)  In spite of all this, the complainant, assisted by the full force of the UMNO propaganda machine, via their media, has gone to town to vilify me. The point is that all comments were calculated to discredit me, adversely influence the course of the proceedings and to intimidate the witnesses at the trial. In spite of all these blatant transgressions, you have persistently refused to respond to any of these acts of contemptuous behaviour.

The solemn duty of a judge is not to sit mute when the law provides for a court of its own motion to issue show-cause notices against those who interfere in the administration of justice. I am reminded of the maxim Judex Habere Debet Duos Sales, Salem Sapicutiae, Ne Sit Insipidus, Et Salem Conscientiea, Ne Sit Diabolous, the English translation of which is, ‘A judge should have two salts, the salt of wisdom, lest he be insipid; and the salt of conscience, lest he be devilish’.

The office of a judge is one of the most honourable in the country; he is the voice of the legislator and the organ for dispensing justice; he holds the balance between the executive and the subject.

Even more significantly, in the discharge of his duties, the judge should be mindful of Allah’s command:

“…and let not hatred of others swerve you into error and depart from justice. Be just, that is nearer to piety. Fear Allah, For Allah is well acquainted with all that you do” (Surah al-Ma'idah: 8)

In the middle of the Second World War in 1942, Lord Atkin, in Liversidge v Anderson, had occasion to say in the House of Lords,
‘It has long been one of the pillars of freedom…that the judges are no respecters of persons and stand between the subject and any attempted encroachment on his liberty by the executive, alert to see that any coercive action is justified by law’

In my case, Y.A., presiding in an adversarial trial, had the residual power and the jurisdiction to have invoked Y.A.’s powers relating to contempt of court. Y.A. chose not to do so for reasons best known to Y.A.. What has happened is not in the best traditions of the Judiciary. In the ongoing Banting murder trial, the learned trial judge in that case, Y.A. Datuk Akhtar Tahir, took it upon himself to summon a local television producer over a clip it aired during its prime news slot relating to the defence in the murder trial of Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya and three others. A newspaper clipping of that report is annexed herewith. Y.A. Datuk Akhtar Tahir has courageously demonstrated judicial activism in the name of human rights and the essential requirement of a fair trial.

To compound the position to incredulity, the open scandal relating to DPP Farah Azlina Latiff having an affair with PW1 did not concern Y.A. This invidious relationship should have alerted Y.A. in that I was been denied a fair trial for the simple reason that Farah Azlina Latiff would have had access to the investigation papers being a member of the prosecution’s team and, therefore, PW1 would, through this relationship, would have had knowledge of the statements given by witnesses, including my alibi witnesses in the course of the investigation.

In fact, the owner of the unit 11-5-2, Haji Hasanuddin bin Abd Hamid, had been harassed by the police for a total of thirty hours in the recording of his statements which were all video recorded. This was obvious when he was interviewed by the defence lawyers in my presence. The police investigation has scuttled my defence. To make a mockery of the situation, the prosecution offered at the close of their case an alibi witness named, Fitria binti Dipan, who by their own admission cannot be traced.

Y.A. did not even chastise Farah Azlina Latiff for the illicit affair with SP1. All that was done was that Farah Azlina Latiff was taken off the prosecution team at the behest of the prosecution which was an open confirmation of the existence of that illicit affair. Farah Azlina Latiff did not deny the allegations against her. Neither was PW1 recalled by the prosecution to deny the existence of this unsavoury affair.

The Attorney-General had publicly stated the reasons would be given later to account for the sordid affair. That has yet to eventuate.

Yet, in the face of this, Y.A., at the close of the prosecution case, made a finding that PW1 was a truthful witness from this passage in the judgment as follows,
‘Nothing came out from the lengthy cross-examination of PW1 or from the evidence of other prosecution’s witnesses that could suggest what PW1 had told in his evidence was something which was not probable. I find PW1’s evidence remains intact. He had truthfully and without embellishment or exaggeration in his evidence narrated in minute detail how he was sodomised by the accused on the date and at the place stated in the charge. I find him to be truthful witness and his evidence is reliable and if accepted would establish all the facts required to prove the charge against the accused.’

My lawyers had clearly made the submission that Y.A. had made a prejudgment when Y.A. ought to have only made findings as to who was telling the truth at the conclusion of the defence, in which event, I would have given evidence under oath. My lawyers did not, at any time, advert to the passage above in isolation. They zeroed in on the obvious, namely, whether a witness was truthful or not had to be decided at the close of the defence case. The provisions of section 182A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code provided the judge with that guidance but to no avail. That section bears repeating. It states:

‘At the conclusion of the trial, the court shall consider all the evidence adduced before it and shall decide whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.’

Pursuant to what I have stated above, I have been denied the benefit of putting up my defence under oath. That amounts to deprivation of a fair trial and the existence of a level playing field.

The Court of Appeal going out of line

My appeal to the Court of Appeal over the recusal of Y.A. on account of prejudgment, following which would have resulted in biasness was heard on 6th July, 2011. A copy of the order is annexed herewith. No written judgment was handed down by the Court of Appeal on 6th July. The appeal was dismissed summarily on the preliminary objection taken by the prosecution that the order appealed against was not a final order. Those were the reasons given in open court. Nothing more, nothing less. The Court of Appeal took no more than five minutes to dispose of the appeal.

Unbeknownst to me or my lawyers, there was at the same time a 40-page judgment under the hand of Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak also dated 6th July, 2011. A copy of that judgment is annexed herewith.

Why did the Court of Appeal not read out the 91 paragraphed grounds of judgment dated 6th July on 6th July itself? Obviously, this judgment was at hand on 6th July but had surreptitiously been concealed from my knowledge and the knowledge of the public. The letter dated 11th August, 2011 supplying a copy of this judgment to my lawyers is annexed herewith. As is usual, Y.A. must have had the benefit of reading this judgment which will further exacerbate your bias against me. The judgment is an open and flagrant attack on me to which I will advert in due course. Suffice to say at this juncture that here is a judgment of the Court of Appeal written after 6th July, 2011 which contains harsh criticism against me without my being given the opportunity to reply.

But that begs the question: the appeal had been dismissed in limine on the ground that the order appealed against was not a final order. That should have been the end of the matter because it followed that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. [Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak sat mute during the course of submissions on the preliminary objection]. The matter did not go beyond into the merits. That is what the Court of Appeal announced on 6th July without going an inch further. The preliminary objection is adverted to, not as the main part of the judgment. The major part of the judgment goes beyond. It is a frolic of his own used for the purpose of hitting out at me.

If that was so, why did Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak embark upon a relentless attack on me in the rest of the judgment? In fact, he had no jurisdiction to do so. This is a blatant abuse of judicial power, perhaps in a surreptitious attempt to curry favours of the political masters? Otherwise, how else can one explain as to why he embarked upon such a scurrilous attack on me by stating in the following paragraphs as numbered:

‘[5] This case will fall in history. It will be chronicled as the only known case in our country or for that matter within the Commonwealth enclave where the appellant as an accused person persistently and consistently filed one application after another in an attempt to recuse the learned trial judge from hearing and continuing to hear the sodomy trial which is ongoing.

[6] It seems that the appellant here is trying his level best to scuttle his sodomy trial for reasons best known to him, much to the chagrin of the prosecution and the exasperation of the members of the public at large.

[15] It was certainly an uncalled for criticism [against the learned judge] bent to deceive and confuse the uninitiated. It is easy to criticise but it is always difficult to justify it.

[18] It is also difficult for us to accept that the Notice of Motion was filed out of a genuine belief that the learned trial judge had been biased against the appellant.

[49] The charge graphically described what the appellant did to Mohd Saiful Bukhari Bin Azlan [PW1.] [It is elementary that it is the evidence, not the charge, which proves an offence].

[50] The trial was unduly prolonged. It received wide media coverage.

[56] After such a fine display of judicial impropriety, Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak now has audacity to patronize us about a sound judicial system by stating, in what sounds like a broken symbol, as follows:

‘The perquisites of a sound judicial system are independence and impartiality. For an effective and a strong judicial system, the impartiality of its judges are of paramount importance. But it cannot be denied that the public’s confidence in the judicial system is shaped and moulded more by appearances.

Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak rather ungraciously, and without jurisdiction, took a swipe at the judgment of his brother judges of the Court of Appeal including Richard Malanjum, now Chief Judge (Sabah and Sarawak), with the obvious purpose of humiliating them when stating:

‘[72] Rowstead did not consider the “real danger of bias” test in determining whether the learned JC should have recused himself notwithstanding the Federal Court had earlier on applied the said test in:

(a) Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v Syarikat Bekerjasama-sama Serbaguna Sungai Gelugor dengan Tanggungan [1999] 3 MLJ 1, FC; and

(b) Mohamed Ezam bin Mohd Nor & Ors v Ketua Polis Negara [2002] 1 MLJ 321, FC

[73] Consequently, Rowstead’s suggestion that the request for recusal to be heard

by another judge is quite radical. We categorically say that the recusal request, like the present matter, was rightly heard at the first instance by the learned trial judge and followed by this court.

[74] Rowstead did not consider nor ventilate on section 3 of the CJA read with section 50(1)(a) of the CJA and the Explanatory Statement thereto.

[75] The recusal application housed in the Notice of Motion concerned a long protracted trial that saw the legal manoeuvrings activated by the appellant at every nook and corner in an attempt to scuttle the criminal trial of the appellant for an offence of sodomising PW1. It is the mother of all trials in Malaysia.’

[I had every right to exhaust all legal remedies open to me. No attempt has been made by anyone, or any quarter, to prevent me from doing so by seeking an order to declare me a vexatious litigant].

As alluded to earlier in this statement, Y.A. would have had the advantage of reading this judgment after it was distributed by letter dated 11th August, 2011. This, in effect, amounts to placing, by Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak, alleged bad character evidence on my behalf.

In view of this, how can I get a fair trial or even the semblance of one before the trial judge now who has been further put in a position to compound biasness against me?

How can I possibly give evidence under oath when the DPP has, in his possession, the same judgment which could be used against me in cross-examination? Y.A. cannot be disabused of what has been fed to Y.A. by Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak when delivering a judgment dated 6th July, 2011 which obviously, having regard to the length thereof, must have been prepared well before 6th July, 2011.

This is scandalous.

Yang Arif has created a position under which I cannot give evidence under oath. I say, with all the force at my command, that I would have been prepared and willing to give evidence under oath but for the handicaps foisted on me, in the manner Y.A. has conducted the trial and in the manner in which the Court of Appeal judgment dated 6th July, 2011 would have come to the notice of Y.A. with regard to what I have stated herein before.

Then again, why wasn’t the judgment which, even if written after midnight on 5th July, 2011 read out in open court so that I could counter and demolish all the allegations made against me by Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak?

It is elementary no one should be condemned, unheard. This is axiomatic. As far back as 12th August, 1999 the Federal Court, the highest court in the land, in Insas Bhd and Anor v Ayer Molek Rubber Company Bhd and others had occasion, after adverting to the authorities on the position to rule,

‘The offensive remarks made by the Court of Appeal against the High Court, the applicants and their counsel ought to be expunged from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, as it had a tendency to bring the whole administration of law and order into disrepute. Judicial pronouncements should be judicial in nature and should not depart from sobriety, moderation, and reserve. It also should not display emotion and intemperance, as displayed in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.’

Adverting to an Indian Supreme Court case of State of Uttar Pradesh v Mohd Naim, the Federal Court had occasion to adopt what was said there as follows;

‘If there is one principle of cardinal importance in the administration of justice, it is this: the proper freedom and independence of judges and magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform      their functions freely and fearlessly and without undue interference by anybody, even by this court. At the same time it is equally necessary that in expressing their opinions, judges and magistrates must be guided by considerations of justice, fair play and restraint. It is not infrequent that sweeping generalizations defeat the very purpose for which they are made. It has been judicially recognized that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law in cases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider: (a) whether the party  whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on  record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) whether  it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on conduct. It has also been recognized that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve.’

In Insas, the Federal Court adopted what was said in AM Mathur v Pramod Kumar Gupta & Ors when dismissing an apparently unsustainable review petition which had certain derogatory remarks against Mr AM Mathur, a senior advocate and also the ex-Advocate General of the State. The Court had occasion to hold,
‘Judicial restraint and discipline are as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are to the effectiveness of the army. The duty of restraint, this humility of function should be a constant theme of our judges. This quality in decision-making is as much necessary for judges to command respect as to protect the independence of the judiciary. Judicial restraint in this regard might be better called judicial respect, that is, respect by the judiciary. Respect to those who come before the court as well as to other co-ordinate branches of the State, the executive and the legislature. There must be mutual respect. When these qualities fail or when litigants and public believe that the judge has failed in these qualities, it will be neither good for the judge nor for the judicial process. The Judge’s Bench is a seat of power. Not only do judges have power to make binding decisions, their decisions legitimate the use of power by other officials. The judges have the absolute and unchallengeable control of the court domain. But they cannot misuse their authority by intemperate comments, undignified banter of scathing criticism of counsel, parties or witnesses. We concede that the court had the inherent power to act freely upon its own conviction on any matter coming before it for adjudication, but it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that derogatory remarks ought not to be made against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration unless it is absolutely necessary for the decision of the case to animadvert on their conduct.’

Chief Justice of India, Bhagwati, in State of Madya Pradesh & Ors v Nandlal & Ors, in expressing his strong disapproval of the strictures made by the judge, stated:

‘We may observe in conclusion that judges should not use strong and carping language while criticizing the conduct of parties or their witnesses. They must act with sobriety, moderation and restraint. They must have the humility to recognize that they are not infallible and any harsh and disparaging strictures passed by them against any party may be mistaken and unjustified and if so, they may do considerable harm and mischief and result in injustice. Here, in the present case, the observations made and strictures passed by BM Lal J were totally unjustified and unwarranted and they ought not to have been made.’

How could I under these circumstances give evidence under oath?

Y.A., when making the order for the witnesses offered to the defence for interview in court, gave a lifeline to the witnesses in stating in open court that they could refuse to be interviewed. Y.A. did not in doing so evenly handle the scales of justice. Y.A. created and perpetuated an imbalance unbecoming anyone holding the mantle of justice. In fact, the Prime Minister, Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak, and his wife, Datin Seri Rosmah binti Mansor, former Inspector General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, and SAC Dato’ Rodhwan bin Ismail who featured prominently in the evidence of PW1 came to the interview room echoing similar protests namely, “We are not prepared to be interviewed” with the Prime Minister saying Y.A. suggested this could be done. These were material witnesses compelling the defence now to resort to causing subpoenas to be issued for their presence.

Y.A. has created a position under which I cannot give evidence under oath. I say, with all the force at my command, that I would have been prepared and willing to give evidence under oath but for the handicaps foisted on me, in the manner Y.A. has conducted the trial and in the manner in which the Court of Appeal judgment dated 6th July, 2011 would have come to the notice of Y.A. with regard to what I have stated herein before.

My trial is an adversarial one and Y.A. ought not to have descended into the arena by suggesting witnesses offered to the defence could deny to be interviewed. It did not come within the province of Y.A. to do so.

My alibi witnesses made known to the prosecution were in fact included in the prosecution list of witnesses which was not supplied to my lawyers. They were defence alibi witnesses. I am informed this is the first time this has been done.

In fact, the owner of the unit 11-5-2, Haji Hasanuddin bin Abd Hamid, had been harassed by the police for a total of thirty hours in the recording of his statements which were all video recorded. This was obvious when he was interviewed by the defence lawyers in my presence. The police investigation has scuttled my defence.

To make a mockery of the situation, the prosecution offered at the close of their case an alibi witness named, Fitria binti Dipan, who by their own admission cannot be traced.

The complainant's allegations are pure fabrication

As I have said at the outset, I categorically deny the allegations made against me by the complainant.

The complainant stated in evidence on 26th June, 2008 he arrived at Kondominium Desa Damansara at 2.45 p.m. to discuss work matters and hand-over documents given to him by one Ibrahim Yaakob [my Chief of Staff] to myself. He says he stopped his van at the security post and mentioned the code name ‘Mokhtar’ to the guards at the condominium before being allowed in. He parked his vehicle and took the lift to Unit 11-5-1 where I was allegedly seated at a dining table in the living room. He says he sat down at the same table and started the discussion. He told the court of the crude manner in which I had allegedly asked for sex.

The following appears in his evidence thereafter (as attached)

When questioned, he answered that he was angry and scared and that he was not prepared to do it but purportedly because I had appeared angry, he eventually obliged. It has to be observed at this stage the complainant could have, on his own admission in examination-in-chief, left the room as there is no evidence of any attempt by me to latch the door from inside.

He had further alleged that he was ordered into the bedroom and that he did enter out of fear. Even at this stage, the complainant had the opportunity to leave the living room. He did not do so. The rest of the evidence in this regard clearly showed that the complainant had every opportunity on every occasion to flee but he did not do so. His reason was that he was petrified by fear. But such a reason flies against the facts. Here is a man in his early twenties, a six-footer, physically fit and robust and with powerful connections in the top police brass as well as the political elite with access to the very inner sanctum of power. Additionally, he has also been a key UMNO student operative, having undergone the rigorous training conducted by the Biro Tata Negara of the Prime Minister’s Department.

And here I was a 60-year-old man with a history of back injury who had undergone a major back surgery holding no position of power. If indeed I could have exercised any kind of undue influence or mental pressure on him, this could have been easily neutralized by a quick phone call to his connections. As regards the fear of physical harm, it would take a great stretch of the imagination to suggest that I could pose any physical harm to him.

Under cross-examination, the following significant evidence was elicited from the complainant. He admitted that he had brought along lubricant and had himself voluntarily and without hesitation applied it. He claimed that carnal intercourse took place and that it was painful and coarse. However, this was clearly not borne out in the medical evidence in the prosecution case suggesting fissures or tears. After the alleged act, he testified that he had a drink and engaged in a friendly conversation with me. Startlingly, no attempt was made by the complainant to seek immediate medical attention. Instead, he attended a PKR function the following day. In the evening, he joined a meeting of the Anwar Ibrahim Club at my house without showing any sign of either emotional or physical discomfort let alone trauma. On the contrary, he was going about matters in a calm and confident manner. His conduct therefore is totally inconsistent with having been violated. In any event, he neither made a police report nor sought medical attention, notwithstanding that two days prior to the alleged act, he had met with Najib and Rosmah as well having talked on the phone with Musa Hassan and met with Rodhwan at a hotel.

It is obvious, from the evidence above, that the complainant was lying through his teeth although Y.A., despite the compelling evidence to the contrary, found him a truthful witness at the close of the prosecution case. This defies logic, let alone the law.

Then again, the expert evidence with regard to DNA led in the course of prosecution case through PW4, Dr. Seah Lay Hong and PW5, Nor Aidora bt Saedon was highly questionable in that crucial information pertaining to the DNA analysis of both the said witnesses which they were obliged to furnish to the court was suspiciously withheld despite them confirming the existence of such information. The real possibility that the samples analyzed were contaminated and even planted were completely disregarded despite such possibilities coming clearly within guidelines set by the international forensic community which were completely ignored, if not, blatantly disregarded by PW4 and PW5 to fit the prosecution’s case. It is obvious had the said possibilities been explored, the conclusions reached would have been very different in that the complainant’s own semen was found in his own anus, there was ample evidence of contributors other than Male Y around the complainant’s perianal, lower and higher rectal region and there was clear evidence of the samples having been tampered with before they were sent for analysis. In such circumstances, the integrity of the said samples was surely compromised. Furthermore, the impartiality of PW4 was highly questionable having regard to the way in which she completely dismissed the very high possibility that the samples sent to her would have degraded to a certain degree by the time they reached her which such degradation was completely absent from all samples in this case. This clearly points to the obvious reality that the samples sent for analysis could not have been what were extracted from the complainant’s person.

Trial within a trial

The Gestapo-like manner in which I was arrested and the subsequent detention and interrogation by the police all betrayed the hands of the political masters at work. What was the need to send in balaclava clad commandos to effect the arrest if not to attempt to flex political muscle and to display pure vindictiveness? These startling facts were completely ignored by Y.A.

Y.A. had made an earlier ruling to exclude the recovery of certain items including water bottle, Good Morning towel, tooth paste from the lock-up at IPK, Kuala Lumpur where I had been detained overnight from 16.7.08 to 17.7.08. However, you reversed this ruling subsequently which is something most shocking and unprecedented.

Although in the Trial Within a Trial, I had adverted to the role of Taufik and Supt. Jude Pereira, the prosecution elected only to call Taufik in rebuttal in the Trial Within a Trial. Taufik attempted to produce a photostat copy of the warrant of arrest which was only marked as an ID and, therefore, could not be considered as evidence in the Trial Within a Trial. A photostat copy of a document is not admissible as evidence in a court of law. It was in the Trial Within a Trial that primary evidence of the document ought to have been given if the original record had been lost or destroyed.

I say it because as I’ve stated earlier, the court’s integrity has been completely compromised and bears all the classic symptoms of a show trial where the script has been effectively written and the outcome a foregone conclusion. I say it because as a presiding judge you have demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt your complete lack of impartiality.

The prosecution could not, by producing the original warrant of arrest in the main trial, cure the infirmity. It is in evidence that 3 copies of the warrant of arrest were in the possession of Supt. Jude Pereira. The evidence of the warrant of arrest was available during the Trial Within a Trial.

Even Supt. Jude Periera, whose role was adverted to by me during the Trial Within a Trial, chose not to take the stand despite having had the opportunity to have produced the original copy of the warrant of arrest in the Trial Within a Trial.

It was during the Trial Within a Trial that Supt.Jude Periera should have testified. It was clearly unlawful for the court to accept Supt. Jude Periera’s evidence in the general trial for the purpose of rebutting my evidence in the Trial Within a Trial that the DNA profiling from the Good Morning towel, toothbrush and mineral water bottle had been obtained by unfair methods and unfair means and my arrest, therefore, had been procured unlawfully.

In fact, Supt. Jude Periera’s evidence in the general trial confirms that there had been non-compliance with Rule 20 of the Lock-up Rules, 1953 in that I, after my arrest on 16.7.08, had not been placed in the lock-up from 6pm to 6am the following day. The provisions of Rule 20 are mandatory.

If this was the position in our case, which it was, then, clearly, my being taken to the HKL in breach of Rule 20 reflected unfair means and unfair methods being employed by the police to obtain the DNA profiling from the items set out hereinbefore. The position is further compounded by the evidence of Supt. Jude Periera in the general trial that he did not direct police personnel in charge of the lock-up not to touch the said items despite the police personnel in the general trial before the Trial Within a Trial, clearly, saying that Supt. Jude Periera had done so.

So the position comes to this, Supt. Jude Periera, in his evidence on oath in the main trial, supports the defence case that unfair methods and unfair means had been used by the police to obtain DNA profiling from the items set out hereinbefore.

From the ruling made by the court to exclude the items, it is clear it was based on unfair means and unfair methods employed by the police meaning it was by trick and deception that the police attempted to introduce the DNA evidence.

In any event, from the evidence of DSP Taufik given in the Trial Within a Trial and the general trial, the grounds of arrest could not have been given by him to me in Segambut as this is, clearly, contradicted by the evidence of S.N. Nair and myself.

The question of challenging evidence given in the main trial by DSP Taufik and Supt. Jude Periera does not arise. It was the assertions made under oath by me that my arrest was unlawful and unfair methods and unfair means had been used to obtain his DNA profiling in the Trial Within a Trial stood unchallenged by the prosecution by leading lawful evidence in rebuttal of those assertions. In fact, Y.A. should have drawn an adverse inference against the prosecution for not having done so.

Forensic evidence

The prosecution case rests on the evidence of the DNA and so called “findings of seminal fluid” or “sperm” as they claim. As a matter of fact, this is the only forensic evidence upon which the foundation of the prosecution’s so-called proof rests. Yet, this foundation is erected on shaky grounds though this has not prevented them working in hand in glove with the powers that be to mount an insidious and relentless campaign to vilify me.

The fact is that there is not an iota of evidence, DNA or otherwise, that has ever been found in the premises of the alleged act, not in the wash room, bed room, carpets or anywhere else where such evidence ought to have been found.

Supt. Pereira, despite being instructed to keep the HKL samples (marked B1 to B10) in a freezer, deliberately defied the instruction of Dr Siew Sheue Fong (HKL Forensic Doctor) and also admitted that he was in serious breach of the IGSO, (he even stated he took full and personal responsibility for breaking of the IGSO), when he deliberately kept the HKL samples in his office cabinet for about 43 hrs before delivering them to the Chemist. One must not forget that the alleged act was supposed to have occurred two days prior to the said samples having been extracted. Coupled with this 43-hour delay in delivery to the Chemist, it would mean that the samples were already at least 90 hours old by the time they were examined by the Chemist. Undoubtedly, the samples would have totally degraded. Yet evidence by the prosecution claimed that no degradation of any consequence had occurred.

In any event, even the 43-hour delay alone would have seriously compromised the integrity of the samples in terms of its deterioration due to bacterial action. Also, by not storing the samples in the police exhibit store (which will accord access only to him), his deliberate omission of such strict rules of the IGSO has by his very act, presented an opportunity and possibility of tampering of the samples as access to others was made easier. This was disregarded.

There are also no cogent or compelling reasons both in law and practice for Supt Jude Pereira to cut open P27 (the big tamperproof bag containing all the HKL samples which was sealed and handed over to him), ostensibly to remark them (B1 to B10). It is clear that this act was just a convenient excuse to get access to the individual samples which by themselves were clearly not tamperproof as they were deliberately “sealed” with ordinary and easily removable tapes and easily removable HKL paper seals.

Dr Siew Sheue Fong , as evident in court, was most reluctant to refer to his medical notes during cross examination despite being unable to remember details. During the break he was caught surreptitiously taking a sneak peek of his notes. This dishonest act of a professional doctor who ought to have conducted himself in a fair and independent manner was blatantly ignored. Many a time Dr. Siew and Dr Mohd Razali Ibrahim deliberately chose not to answer pertinent questions put to them by my counsel. Instead Dr Siew  and Dr Razali’s evidence was accepted without reservation.

Dr Seah Lay Hong  (the Chemist) gave evidence that when she received the 12 HKL samples there were 2 samples that were marked as taken on very different dates, she testified she did nothing to seek clarification from Dr Siew . She further testified that she “gave the benefit of doubt” to Dr Siew. My lawyers submitted strenuously that such acts and/or omissions amount to a serious breach of the cardinal rules of international lab protocols and those of the Jabatan Kimia Malaysia. Despite such blatant exposures and abject failures of non observance of strict rules, Dr Seah’s evidence was well received and in totality when it ought to have been jettisoned in totality for reasons of incompetence and gross negligence.

The defence evidence will show that the prosecution claim to have proof of the presence of “seminal fluid” or “sperm” is completely unfounded. In fact, this purported proof is nothing but pure fabrication, a fact which is not that unusual considering the past history of the prosecution in this regard. If they had had any such forensic evidence, they would have guarded it for dear life rather than let it being handled in such a sloppy manner.

Summation

Your Lordship has failed to ensure a fair trial as demonstrated, inter alia, by the following instances:

1. Your refusal during the course of the trial to order disclosure of material critical to my defence, most of which you thought was sufficiently relevant and which fairness required that you should order it to be disclosed before the trial. Your failure to fairly and properly exercise his judicial discretion to order disclosure was not only contrary to Malaysian laws but violated the international standards expected of a modern state which purports to practice the rule of law.

2. Your refusal to act accordingly either to take cognizance or to hold to account those responsible for the flagrant acts of leaking and publishing in the media of prosecution submissions before the matter was heard in court; your utter indifference to my protestations about these transgressions has wittingly or unwittingly facilitated the conspiracy to vilify me in the court of public opinion even as the trial is in progress.

3. Your failure to order that witnesses critical to my defence attend the trial to testify, in circumstances where their involvement was patently material to the issues at trial and recorded under oath in the complainant’s testimony and admitted by statements made by these witnesses to the media. These witnesses relate to the circumstances in which the complainant came to make his early complaints against me. Nothing could be more material to the credit of the complainant.

4. Your finding the complainant to be “a truthful witness” at the close of the prosecution case clearly amounted to prejudgment demonstrating in the process a clear bias against me. Consequently, you have deprived me of my constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair hearing the effect of which is to entitle me to an unconditional release with the charges leveled against me falling to the ground. Notwithstanding this, you have not only failed to order my release but have adamantly refused to recuse yourself from further presiding at the trial.

5. Your arriving at the conclusion that the complainant was a witness of truth without first hearing the evidence of the defence would render the continuation of this trial an exercise in futility. What use would there be for me to adduce evidence to show that the complainant is in fact a liar if you have already found “him to be a truthful witness” and that his evidence is reliable and conclusive and by virtue of that irrefutable? It is untenable and the law does not allow you to do what you have done.

6. Your finding that the complainant has corroborated himself by complaining to the medical doctors of sexual assault was a glaring error of law apart from it being in gross disregard of a finding of fact, that is, that the clinical finding had indicated no evidence of penetration. Additionally, your failure to question why the prosecution has for no apparent reason refused to call in the first medical officer who had examined the complainant to testify. Did it not cross your mind that this failure was prompted by the need to suppress evidence that might be unfavourable to the prosecution?

7. Your accepting without hesitation the forensic evidence as corroborative of the complainant’s account in circumstances where there were obvious concerns about how those samples were obtained, labelled, stored and analyzed.

Conclusion

This entire process is nothing but a conspiracy by Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Najib Razak to send me into political oblivion by attempting once again to put me behind bars. I therefore declare that I have no faith whatsoever that justice will prevail in these proceedings notwithstanding the valiant efforts made by my defence team. As I have said at the outset, this is not a criminal trial. It is a charade staged by the powers that be to put me out of action in order that they remain in power.

In 1998, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad did just that and by his Machiavellian use of all the organs of power of the State, succeeded in getting me convicted for fifteen years for offences that I had never committed. Such was the tyranny and injustice done to me then. And such is the tyranny and injustice being perpetuated today.

Najib Razak is doing the same thing as his mentor did, which is to employ all means within his power through the media, the police, the Attorney General and the judiciary in order to subvert the course of justice and to take me out of the political equation.

This relentless conviction to send me back to prison became all the more imperative because of the major victories gained by the opposition Pakatan Rakyat in the March 2008 elections. Their worst fears were confirmed when it became clear that once my legal disqualification was over I would be contesting for a parliamentary seat and if I won, would be elected leader of the opposition.

It was therefore no coincidence that this new conspiracy surfaced three months after the March 2008 victories and the formal charge against me was made just one month prior to my contesting the Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat. The sequence of events that unfolded prior to the formal charge appeared to be lifted from the plot of 1998 minus, in this latest episode, the black eye affair and the purported victims being led into court as partners in crime. In this second episode, the conspirators have tweaked the plot to make the complainant take on the role of a helpless victim, having realized that the 1998 method of employing Stalin-like confessions and the portrayal of the alleged victims as remorseful and repentant sexual deviants were just too much for the public to believe.

Hence, during the entire examination of the complainant, the prosecution left no stone unturned in their attempt at painting the picture of a helpless, naive and innocent young man who is a witness of truth and whose testimony should be believed regardless of any evidence to the contrary. The fact is that in the entire scheme of things, the complainant, who was just a university drop out working part time helping out my chief of staff, is essentially a pawn being employed by the shady plotters to achieve their devious ends in the conspiracy. And yet it was the decision of the court after the close of the prosecution case that he indeed is a truthful witness.

The preparation entailed in this conspiracy was most elaborate and went all the way to the Prime Minister himself and his wife Rosmah Mansor both of whom by the complainant’s own admission had met him in their residence where he purportedly complained of being sexually assaulted. The initial statement by Najib that he had met with the complainant merely to discuss about a scholarship was a blatant lie only to be retracted later after various exposes were made via the social media and the internet blogs. It was obvious that neither Najib nor Rosmah would not want to be seen to be part of the conspiracy being themselves embroiled in a series of other scandals the details of which have been raised in Parliament which to date have never been categorically refuted. But the stakes in this conspiracy are so high that nothing can be left to pure chance for indeed the prospect of the UMNO led Barisan Nasional losing power to Pakatan Rakyat is becoming more real by the day.

The main thrust of the conspiracy was to fabricate this sodomy charge in order to inflict maximum damage to my character in the run-up campaign to the by-elections.  Towards this end, an intense and virulent media blitz was launched concurrently with the staging of rallies and ceramahs where the focus of the debate was not on any social, economic or even political issues but purely on my person and my morality. The plotters for reasons known only to themselves became privy to information which would be used subsequently by the prosecution and went to town in an orgy of character assassination calculated no doubt to ensure a humiliating defeat for me in the polls. But Allah is Great and instead of losing, I won the Permatang Pauh seat with a thumping majority of 15,000 votes.

But the zeal to consign me to political oblivion continues unabated. Najib seems to think that by destroying my political future, it would also destroy the prospects of Pakatan Rakyat ever coming to power.

Hence, nothing is spared to ensure that I will be convicted in order that the UMNO-led Barisan government continues to rule.

Having regard to all the above, I now wish to state that this trial is for all intents and purposes a show trial. I say this not to mock your Lordship nor with animosity towards anyone personally but I sit before you in the dock only to speak what I know and what I believe with conviction to be the truth. And this conviction is borne by having been in public service for more than forty years a quarter of which was spent within the walls of incarceration in Kamunting and in Sungai Buloh. The fact remains that I was condemned to imprisonment not because of any crime that I had committed but for my political beliefs and convictions and more significantly because back in 1998 I had posed a clear and present threat to the more than two decades of autocratic rule of Mahathir.

I say it because as I’ve stated earlier, the court’s integrity has been completely compromised and bears all the classic symptoms of a show trial where the script has been effectively written and the outcome a foregone conclusion. I say it because as a presiding judge you have demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt your complete lack of impartiality. I say it because you have consistently refused to recuse yourself even in the face of mounting evidence of your bias against me. I say it too because you have persistently turned a blind eye to the gross violations of protocol and procedure committed by the prosecution while at the same remaining impervious to my protestations about these blatant irregularities that would have without more alerted any impartial judge as to the malice and bad faith of the prosecution.

In the matter of the duty of a judge, the Holy Qur’an commands: “And when you judge between mankind, then you judge justly” (Surah An-Nisaa: 58)

Anwar Ibrahim