The Hello Bar is a simple web toolbar that engages users and communicates a call to action.

Anwar Statement From Turkey Embassy

I am issuing this statement from within the embassy of the Republic of Turkey in Kuala Lumpur.

I was transported to the embassy earlier this morning fearing that my personal safety was in danger. I thank all those who offered to assist me in this time of need and am grateful to the Turkish ambassador for extending an invitation to seek refuge within the embassy.

Since the March 8 election, numerous credible sources from within the government and military intelligence have advised me that certain agents from within Barisan Nasional leadership have initiated plots to cause harm to me or my family or my supporters.

I have been told that my assassination has not been ruled out as means to subvert the people’s will and bring an end to the transformational changes taking place in Malaysia.

Notwithstanding the threats which are intended to silence my voice, I intend to make public new evidence implicating that Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan and Attorney-General A Gani Patail engaged in criminal acts of fabricating evidence in cases launched against me in 1998.

The allegations that have been made against me on Saturday are nothing more than a replay of the events which transpired in 1998 when I was sacked from the office of the deputy prime minister, jailed and beaten, and then charged and convicted by a kangaroo court for crimes which I never committed.

This charade was orchestrated by a corrupt Barisan Nasional leadership which made use of the entire apparatus of the state power including its control of the judiciary, the police force, and its grip on the mainstream media.

These actions are being repeated today to undermine the forces of reform and renewal which were unleashed in the March 2008 election.

I would like to assure my family, friends and supporters in Malaysia that I am safe and remain committed as ever before to continuing the struggle for a free and just Malaysia.

Anwar Ibrahim
29 June 2008

Rate this:
3.2

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

2 Comments so far

  1. […] charges are attempts at “political murder”. The Opposition politician has also sought refuge in the Turkish embassy and accused the Malaysian government of trying to put him back into jail, based on similar charges […]

  2. no imageAiyzak (Check me out!) on July 1st, 2008

    I quoted this from renovatio blogged by stephendoss concrning about Anwar sodomise cases issued previously..checked it out..

    “FOR THE BENEFIT OF READERS, I HAVE EXTRACTED FROM THE PAST THE JUDGMENT BY THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA, ANWAR’S APPEAL AGAINST HIS CONVICTION ON SODOMY. THE FOLLOWING IS A MAJORITY DECISION REACHED BY THE JUDGES SITTING IN THE FEDERAL COURT ON THE ANWAR IBRAHIM APPEAL AGAINST HIS CONVICTION ON SODOMY.

    PLEASE NOTE AND READ CAREFULLY THE VERDICT, THAT ALTHOUGH THE JUDGES HAD NO DOUBT IN THEIR MINDS THAT THE ACT OF SODOMY BY ANWAR IBRAHIM HAD TAKEN PLACE, BUT TO RELY SOLELY ON AZIZAN’S EVIDENCE WOULD BE UNSAFE FOR THE PURPOSES OF UPHOLDING THE JUDGEMENT.

    SO DID THE ACT OF SODOMY TAKE PLACE ? YES ACCORDING TO THE JUDGES. BUT DUE TO A TECHNICALITY THEY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO DISMISS THE CASE.

    DALAM MAHKAMAH PERSEKUTUAN MALAYSIA

    (BIDANG KUASA RAYUAN)

    RAYUAN JENAYAH NO: 05-6-2003 (W)

    ANTARA

    DATO’ SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM … PERAYU

    DAN

    PENDAKWA RAYA … RESPONDEN

    RAYUAN JENAYAH NO. 05-7-2003 (W)

    SUKMA DARMAWAN SASMITAAT MADJA … PERAYU

    DAN

    PENDAKWA RAYA … RESPONDEN

    CORAM:

    ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD F.C.J.

    RAHMAH HUSSAIN F.C.J.

    TENGKU BAHARUDIN SHAH TENGKU MAHMUD J.C.A.

    MAJORITY JUDGMENT OF

    ABDUL HAMID MOHAMAD F.C.J.

    AND TENGKU BAHARUDIN SHAH TENGKU MAHMUD J.C.A.

    In this judgment, Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim will be referred to as “the first appellant” and Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja will be referred to as “the second appellant”.

    The first appellant was charged with an offence punishable under section 377B of the Penal Code.

    The second appellant was charged with two offences. The first charge is for abetting the first appellant in the commission of the offence with which the first appellant was charged. The second charge is similar to the charge against the first appellant i.e. under section 377B of the Penal Code.

    Both the appellants were tried jointly. The first appellant was convicted and sentenced to nine years imprisonment commencing from the expiry of the sentence he was then serving in the first trial. High Court Kuala Lumpur Criminal Trial No. 45-48-1998 (1999)2 M.L.J. 1 (H.C), (2002)2 M.L.J. 486 (C.A.) and (2002) 3 M.L.J. 193 (F.C.)). The second appellant was convicted on both charges and sentenced to six years imprisonment and two strokes for each charge with the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. For the judgment of the High Court in the present case, see (2001) 3 M.L.J. 193.

    They appealed to the Court of Appeal. Their appeals were dismissed – see (2004) 1 M.L.J. 177.

    They appealed to this court and this is the majority judgment of this court.

    Section 87(3) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (“CJA 1964”) provides that a criminal appeal to this court “may lie on a question of fact or a question of law or on a question of mixed fact and law.” The position is the same as in the case of the Court of Appeal hearing an appeal from a trial in the High Court as in this case – see section 50(3) CJA 1964.

    To summarise our judgment, even though reading the appeal record, we find evidence to confirm that the appellants were involved in homosexual activities and we are more inclined to believe that the alleged incident at Tivoli Villa did happen, sometime, this court, as a court of law, may only convict the appellants if the prosecution has successfully proved the alleged offences as stated in the charges, beyond reasonable doubt, on admissible evidence and in accordance with established principles of law. We may be convinced in our minds of the guilt or innocence of the appellants but our decision must only be based on the evidence adduced and nothing else.”

    Rate this:
    2.5

Leave a reply

CommentLuv badge