Proof lies in the sex video, Anwar! Whistleblower seen in sex tape: The 3 Datuks

Proof lies in the sex video, Anwar!
Comment By Joceline Tan, 
Datuk Shazryl Eskay Abdullah (L) and Tan Sri Rahim Tamby Chik (R). -PHOTO: NSTP

Tweet
Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s political allies must insist that the controversial sex video be sent for scientific testing if they are sincere about his political survival.

THE burning question now is whether or not the man in the sex video is Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
Only a handful of people can answer that with some degree of authority because everyone else talking or writing about it has not viewed the video.

One of those who has watched it is Anwar loyalist and Sungai Petani MP Datuk Johari Abdul who called a press conference to declare that he is convinced that it was not Anwar in the video. He is the only one so far who has disputed the identity of the man having sex in the video.

The conclusion of the others, mostly media people, vary from remarks that “the face looks like Anwar but the stomach is too big” to an outright affirmation.

A newspaper editor who had viewed it said that he had thought to himself, “Oh my goodness, that’s Anwar Ibrahim,” the moment the video showed a man entering a hotel room wearing a towel around his waist. The resemblance was that close.

Pakatan Rakyat politicians from the top down have since slammed the video, claiming it is doctored.
A giant question mark will continue to hang over the identity of the man in the video until and unless the video is sent for scientific verification.

But Pakatan leaders seem to be avoiding the elephant in the room in their bid to do damage control.

Anwar’s allies and supporters should be demanding for a conclusive verification of the video rather than disparaging the people behind it and running down the way it was screened to a select group.

They should be demanding a copy of the video so that they can decide for themselves and more importantly, verify it with an independent film studio of their choice.

The best place, it is said, is the FBI lab in the United States.

That way, they can check whether the video is doctored and if Anwar’s head has indeed been superimposed on the naked body of someone else.

As DAP strategist Liew Chin Tong said: “If it’s a fake, Anwar will emerge stronger than ever. If it is authentic, it’s the end of Anwar’s political career.”

It is true that it is an offence to possess or view pornographic material and the law should take its course here.

At the same time, there is little doubt that the three people connected to the video – Tan Sri Rahim Tamby Chik, Datuk Shazryl Eskay Abdullah and Datuk Shuib Lazim – have motives of their own.


Anwar had a direct hand in Rahim’s fall from grace back in the 1990s and this is probably payback time.

Shuib is treasurer of Perkasa, a group which feels that Anwar has let down the Malay cause.

Eskay’s motives are a little more complex. Eskay, who is from Kedah and of Thai descent, was the former honorary consul to Thailand.

He has had quite an interesting career, having worked as a sports therapist in the United States, including for the US Olympics gymnastics team as well as the Dallas Cowboys, a professional American football team.

He has a land in Naka, Kedah, where he rears goats and rides about on his horse wearing a stetson hat and carrying a rifle. That is why he is also known as Datuk Cowboy.

He is one of the few people to have stayed close to two arch enemies, namely Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Anwar.

Dr Mahathir, always on the lookout for successful Malaysians abroad, brought Eskay back to Malaysia to help Anwar with his backaches caused by the latter’s riding injury.

That was the start of the friendship between Eskay and Anwar. Again, Anwar has demonstrated poor judgement in his choice of friends.

And while allies and supporters have rallied around Anwar, Nurul Izzah, his daughter and party vice-president, has been far too quiet. She has not uttered a word about the controversy but she was present at Johari’s press conference on Wednesday where she sat with her arms crossed, looking solemn and unsmiling. She was clearly uncomfortable when Johari attempted to describe what he had seen in the video.

Nurul Izzah rose on the family name but she showed an independent streak in the way she carried herself during the PKR polls last year and has gone against Anwar’s will on a number of occasions.
Her silence and her body language speak volumes about her anxiety and concern regarding the latest allegations against her father.

Even Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail has not been her usual self since the controversy exploded. She has been by her husband’s side like the loyal wife that she is but she has looked sad and somewhat deflated.

Her station as the president of PKR has been completely overwhelmed by her role as the wife of a political leader fighting for his survival.

Regardless of whether the video involves her husband, this is not the best of time for her. The lady has had to take on more hardship than she deserves in this lifetime.

Anwar on the other hand is in top fighting mood. He has pointed the finger at everyone from the Prime Minister down.

But if he truly wishes to clear his name on the video issue, he should initiate the process of sending the video for scientific testing without further delay.

And if he is innocent as he claims, he will come out stronger.

Whistleblower seen in sex tape 

by NG CHENG YEE  chengyee@thestar.com.my 

Tweet

KUALA LUMPUR: Businessman Datuk Shazryl Eskay Abdullah is sure that the sex video is genuine because he himself is seen in the footage.

 “I can 100% confirm because I was in the tape. This is not a body double. You see me in the tape,” said Eskay at a packed press conference at a hotel in Jalan Pinang here yesterday afternoon.

He was replying to questions from reporters over whether the video footage was genuine and if the man in the tape was indeed Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Question: What were you doing there (in the footage)?

Answer: I cannot tell you! I am in the tape, why should I lie to you? Many people know me, I have given you my name.

Q: In the statement, you said you were not going to hand over the video to the police, but then why do you say now that you are going to do so? Are you under pressure?

A: I received an SMS that PKR president and Anwar's wife Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ahmad wants to view the tape. They even sent a mediator to ask me for the tape, which you know I would never give. Datuk Anwar is also my friend. They decided to go to the police so we are also going to the police.

Q: Is there only one tape or are there more?

A: Only one. Nobody has it. I could have sold it but it's not about money; it's about the truth
Eskay, who is embroiled in a court case where he sued a company for RM20mil for a breach of contract, also stressed that he was not an Umno member.

It was reported that Eskay discovered the tape when he was asked by the man in the video to retrieve a gold Omega watch.

Eskay claimed that while searching for the watch he discovered the recorder in a drawer.
Earlier, Eskay and former Malacca Chief Minister Tan Sri Rahim Tamby Chik spoke to the press after their identities were exposed by PKR Sungai Petani MP Datuk Johari Abdul at a press conference.
Rahim told reporters that Datuk T was a monicker for him, Eskay and Perkasa treasurer Datuk Shuib Lazim.

“The three of us are Datuks. You can say Datuk T stands for Datuk Trio or Datuk Tiga,” said Rahim, stressing that they did the expos on the video because they wanted to ensure that the people knew the truth.

On whether he was a spectator in the sexual acts, Eskay said: “I will give the full cooperation to the police. I will tell the police the truth and nothing but the truth.”

On why he did not go straight to Anwar if he was so sure it was him in the video, Eskay said: “I never knew there was going to be a tape. If I have the tape, somebody else will also have the tape, think about it.”

Eskay, who stressed several times that he and Anwar were friends, said there was no fallout between them. “It's about time, enough is enough. I had enough of being used,” he said.

Eskay also denied that the revelation of the video was a blackmail attempt.

“No, it's not blackmail. I did not ask for money. I will go straight to Anwar Ibrahim if I were to blackmail him and I would not be going to the press,” he said.

He also denied suggestions that the revelation was politically motivated, saying that if that was the case he would have distributed copies of the video in Sarawak.

On whether he is worried about his safety, Eskay said: “Of course I am worried about my safety. I hope now the police can take some precaution and help me out.”

Related Stories:
Rahim, Eskay and Shuib unmasked as men behind video
Datuk T trio want royal inquiry on steamy scandal
PKR man: Video an attempt to get me and five MPs to defect
Pahang PKR hits out at outdated political ploy'
Kit Siang calls for fair treatment
Step down in interest of nation, Anwar told
Prove your claims, Hisham dares accusers
Shuib confident truth will prevail
Press clamoured to watch video, says Eskay

Dr Mahathir, Politician to the core

Review by OOI KEE BENG

Tweet

This long-awaited autobiography is more about the political than the personal

BELIEVE it or not, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has been a part of Malaysian politics since World War II. Thus, his long-awaited memoirs easily drives home the fact that his influence runs deep and continues unabated, over 60 years later.

Not one to shy away from controversial views, he expressed grave disappointment with every one of Malaysia’s prime ministers and deputy prime ministers, barring Tun Abdul Razak Hussein.

Studying his words, one also sees that Mahathir was often in conflict with himself, for example when denying the key role he must have played in many failures and controversies.

He is also known for his willingness to do whatever it took to remain in power once he had reached the pinnacle in 1981. His deputies never had an easy time, and all of them fell by the wayside. Not even Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, despite being the only one to reach the position of prime minister, could remain safe from Mahathir’s assailment.

The stamp of ownership Dr M put on Malaysian nation building is undeniable, and no one today doubts that both the good and the bad from his long period of dominance will continue for quite some time yet.

His 22 years in power were controversial ones, during which scandals broke one after the other, and opponents were at times arrested without trial. The latter actions, he now claims, were against his will.

But his tenure was also the time when Malaysia gained global prominence, not only as an economic wonder and a showcase for “moderate” Islam but also as a multiracial society that posed as champion of the South and the Muslim world as well.

However, after he stepped down in October 2003, the long-term effects of his method of nation building have become obvious. Institutional degradation threatens to be his lasting legacy, and the establishments ruined in his time include Umno itself.

One can thus understand that his memoirs was eagerly expected. Many wish to know how he perceives his own achievements, and even more want to see some regret.

Now that he is no longer a politician, can he exercise enough distance from his own past to achieve a credible narration of his life and achievements?

As it turns out, he can’t. Dr Mahathir cannot not be a politician. Perhaps how he sees himself is best noted in what he says about his daughter: “Marina turned out to be a lot like me: argumentative, stubborn, opinionated and always believing she is right. She does not mind expressing her views: and that makes things very difficult sometimes. (Tun Dr Siti) Hasmah always said that an elephant could get crushed between two people who think they are always right”. (Page 216.)

Doctor In The House, stretching over 800 pages, varies in style. It varies in depth as well, with some subjects studied much more at length and in detail than others.

Taking too long to finish a book has many drawbacks, the chief of which is that the parts will not gel well, making the final product feel like a collection of chapters written by different people. It does not help that Dr M dwells excessively on the chapters that are lessons in official history and not biographical.

I was certainly left wishing that he had had expert help or that he had listened more to whatever expert help he may have had when finishing the book.

The lack of proper referencing gets exasperating after a while since many claims made in the book certainly cry out for verification. Yet, it is not historical errors that are the major irritant. Many concepts, especially nationalistic notions, are thrown in without any consideration of their dubiousness. “Tanah Melayu” is used as if it were a reference to a bygone polity and not a term used by early anthropologists.

Mahathir’s potential for controversy was obvious already when he began publishing articles in The Sunday Times after the war. His first piece saw the light of day on July 20, 1947. It was about Malay women empowering themselves, and about how their “fervent nationalism and sympathetic understanding” actually inspired their men to struggle for their own survival.

This view on women is one of the more commendable aspects of Mahathir (page 235), as is his affection and respect for his wife, Dr Siti Hasmah, and his joy in fatherhood.

Some of his passing memories are amusing to read as well, and I am sure they bring a recognising smile to older Malaysians the way Lat’s cartoons do; by capturing passing pedestrian scenes that otherwise remain outside description.

Most other areas that he draws attention to are done in a much less amiable fashion. The issue of race, a 19th century notion that most social scientists today find well nigh impossible to define, let alone use, is not a problem for Dr Mahathir. And he does realise that much of what he had to say can be construed as racist or narcissistic (page 24).

But although that is not his stated intention, I have to say that the fervent and categorical use of “race” is disturbing and certainly makes his book unnecessarily racialist, if not racist.

Some narcissism is apparent when he exaggerates his role in the resistance against the Malay Union (pages 92-95) or when he claims that after his expulsion from Umno, “no one else was championing the cause of the Malays” (page 210).

He is probably right when complaining that he became persona non grata after Tunku Abdul Rahman kicked him out of Umno in 1970, but to be flabbergasted and to protest as avidly against being ignored after his retirement in 2003 is surely unjustified (pages 210, 243).

“Successors, even if they are of the same party, do not wish the people to remember their predecessors. Many try in different ways to obliterate memories of the recent past. This is easy if the predecessor is disgraced, yet even if the predecessor willingly surrenders power, a successor may be uncomfortable if he is remembered too kindly (page188).

The lack of a serious class analysis in the book is disturbing, as is Dr M’s tendency to place blame on others in analysing history.

He accuses the British of being unfair in devaluing the pound sterling without first telling Malaysia about it (page 189). But currency devaluations do not work unless they come as surprises; that is how capitalist finance is played. And accusing voters of being vindictive when not supporting him in 1969 also shows a warped understanding of what popular will and democracy is (page 196).

Dr Mahathir claims that Umno was being magnanimous in not playing racialism to the hilt when they cooperated with non-Malays back in the 1950s instead of embracing the Islamist splinter group, PAS, thus forgetting in the process that independence would not have been impossible otherwise (page 222).

Here, the myth of complete Malay unity as a default situation looms large despite the evidence. Umno’s subsequent weakness is blamed on non-Malay demands and not on the obvious reality that, for most people, ethnicity-based dominance is not always the paramount consideration in politics. Other dimensions such as inter-personal conflicts, profession, class, gender, education and urbanity, not to mention an endless array of historical circumstances, are equally relevant.

Needless to say, PAS is also blamed for being betrayers of the Malay cause (page 223), while Datuk Onn Ja’afar is not judged the same way despite his departure from Umno and his forming of alternative parties.

The Malays as such are also blamed. Shortcomings in the New Economic Policy are not blamed on the state and its administrators but on the greed and poor money management of the individual Malay (pages 232, 267).

Doctor In The House seeks to be more than a mere memoirs but ended up disappointing this reader, both as an autobiography and a lesson in Malaysian history. If the goal is to leave to posterity a simplified version of history easily digested by people prone to ethnocentric thinking, and highlighting the role Dr Mahathir played in it as understood by him in his twilight years, then that is immediately achieved.

But in presenting half truths, selective recollections and opportunistic rationale, Dr Mahathir’s book fails to bring greater understanding to his time in history.

Ooi Kee Beng is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore. He is the author of The Reluctant Politician: Tun Dr Ismail And His Time (ISEAS 2006).

Malay Politicians Must Stop Poisonning Malay Minds

Tweet

An interesting speech gave by Dr. Azmi Sharom; an Assistant Professor of Law at UM.  He explains the CONSTITUTION: the Malaysian supreme law. Listen to this, it's interesting and refreshing. 

Worth listening to this recording. Our constitution is the most altered, amended, and modified constitution in the whole wide world.

Malaysia has never been an Islamic State as our Constitution is very specific on it. It was the Indian cobra, mamak Mahathir who lied all the way when he declared Malaysia as an Islamic Country and therefore State in 2001.

Lim Kit Siang immediately corrected him but he being the person he is insisted that he was right. Jokers like Ling Liong Sik, Samy Vellu and Lim Keng Yaik  of course did not object and quietly agreed with him and so did the other BN leaders. This mamak has damaged our country through and through.

He also passed the Syariah Law in Selangor in 1995 with the help of MCA, MIC, and Gerakan.

Ask MCA, MIC and Gerakan why they support an Islamic State and passed laws to support it, and now complain that DAP is supporting an Islamic State, when DAP has never ever agreed to do so.The evidence is beyond doubt, it is in the public domain, ask them, the shameless ones, do they have an answer?

We must never ever let UMNO get back their 2/3rds majority ever again.  If they do, then our country will go to the dogs. UMNO will again start changing the constitution like there is no to-morrow.  It will be changed to suit UMNO, just like they changed the constitution/rules/laws to allow for gerrymandering of the constituency, where a rural constituency with an electorate of 5,000 voters is entitled to vote for one MP/DUN, whereas in urban localities, an electorate of 100,000 can only vote for one MP.  What sort of democracy do you call this?

Can someone out there enlighten more?.  Whether you're  pro-BN or pro-opposition, please, do not, in your wildest dreams ever allow UMNO their 2/3rds majority.  Don't ever let Malaysia go the ways of Zimbabwe, Somali, or Myanmar, the current crisis in Middle East and North African countries.

Educate yourself about what the supreme law of the land says. Then vote wisely.  

Spread this like wildfire...make it one of the most viewed. You will help educate people about our law. 

When Doc in the House had ‘AIDS’

Tweet



Along The Watchtower By M. Veera Pandiyan

Fascinating stories about Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, from a man who was close to both of them.

IT’S amazing that when it comes to politics in Malaysia, things either revolve around the same old issues or the same old personalities.

Like these two who still continue to make the headlines – Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Over the past few days, I have been trying unsuccessfully to get a copy of the former Prime Minister’s memoirs, A Doctor in the House, which has generated much interest since its launch more than two weeks ago.

Having missed out on the deadline for the collective buying discount offer at the office, the last hunt was at Borders in Tropicana City Mall in Petaling Jaya on Monday, only to find out that the latest batch of copies had just been sold out.

Love him or loathe him but this is one person whom Malaysians find hard to ignore. The PM for 22 years may have stepped down eight years ago but there’s no waning of his stature or influence among many, just as there seems no end to aversion and scorn from others.

The other character who seems to be forever making the news is of course Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, a former blue-eyed boy of Dr Mahathir, who rose through his patronage to occupy the second most important position in the country before being unceremoniously sacked and jailed in 1998 on sodomy and corruption charges.

After a long hiatus, poster-size pictures of him made the front pages on Tuesday, next to headlines denying that he was the man in a shocker of a sex video with a hooker, unveiled to selected media representatives a day earlier.

Anwar has since lodged a police report citing criminal intimidation and defamation against Datuk T who exposed the video, and the police have begun probing the case under the law pertaining to possession and distribution of pornographic material.

(Datuk T stands for Datuk Trio or Three Datuks, who have been identified as Tan Sri Rahim Tamby Chik, Datuk Shazryl Eskay Abdullah and Datuk Shuib Lazim).



Datuk T, meanwhile, had said he would surrender the footage to an independent public commission and urged the media fraternity and non-government organisations to take the lead in setting one up.

As some of these developments were taking place on Tuesday, I was having a chat and coffee with Tan Sri Sanusi Junid, a man whose life has been intertwined with that of Dr Mahathir and Anwar and one who knows a lot about both of them.

The former youth leader, scholar, linguist and colourful politician who has had a chequered career spanning banking, politics from the grassroots to the Cabinet level and academia, is, of course, no stranger to controversy himself.

Political veterans would agree that this is one guy who has always been close to Dr Mahathir and was also once very chummy with Anwar, making him a veritable font of yarns about both of them.

Many of the stories are yet to be heard, and some like those dating back to when Anwar was a Form One schoolboy in the Malay College Kuala Kangsar and Sanusi was his senior in Form Five are unlikely to be told.

Sanusi, a founder vice-president of Abim, certainly is someone who knows the ins and outs of Anwar from the time he was 12 years old to his entry into politics.

Among the anecdotes told by Sanusi on Tuesday was about the time when Dr Mahathir threatened to quit as Prime Minister in 1985 as Umno nearly held an extraordinary general meeting to urge Tun Musa Hitam, who had resigned as Deputy Prime Minister in the wake of the Memali tragedy, to return.

He recalled his rather devious role, and that of a few others, in getting the delegates to oppose the motion for the EGM – by making them believe that the majority was against it, although the opposite was true – through persuasive but frantic last-minute phone calls.

Musa’s supporters later put up posters linking Dr Mahathir with ‘AIDS’ – an acronym for the closest people around him then: Anwar Ibrahim, Daim (Zainuddin) and Sanusi – and blamed them for the defeat.

According to Sanusi, among the ‘AIDS’, it was Anwar who was cosiest to Dr Mahathir.

“Besides his wife and children, Anwar was the nearest to Dr Mahathir’s heart,” he recalled, adding that unlike the others whom he only sought for views, Anwar benefited most from the former PM’s trust.

Sanusi also related another interesting tale about money politics in Umno, dating back to 1993 when former Deputy Prime Minister Tun Ghafar Baba was swept away in the contest for the deputy president’s post by Anwar, who was then leading the party’s Team Wawasan.

Sabah strongman the late Tun Datu Mustapha Harun, Ghafar and Sanusi were on their way to a divisional meeting in Sabah in a helicopter and during the journey, Mustapha kept telling Ghafar not to worry as he was about to get his first nomination from the state.

“But when we reached the place, the division chief, who was supposed to be a strong supporter of Mustapha, said: ‘Sorry Tun, I cannot nominate Ghafar today because that man over there (pointing to someone later only identified by the others as a Sarawakian and non-Malay) has just given me RM500,000.”

The meeting soon started with a short speech, after which the nomination was done in front of everyone. And as the division chief said, it was not Ghafar who was named.

Sanusi said during their journey back, Mustapha said he was not surprised at the turn of events.
He said he told the dejected Ghafar matter-of-factly: “I regret I did not bring RM1mil.”

Associate editor M. Veera Pandiyan likes this observation by American journalist Joseph Sobran who passed on last year: Politics is the conspiracy of the unproductive but organised against the productive but unorganised.

Malaysia High Court to Admit DNA Evidence against Anwar's sodomy trial

Setback for Anwar in Malaysia sodomy trial -High Court decides to admit key DNA evidence against opposition leader, reversing earlier ruling.
 Tweet

Anwar Ibrahim maintains there is a political conspiracy against him [AFP]

Anwar Ibrahim, the Malaysian opposition leader, has suffered a setback in his sodomy trial, as a court decided to accept the key DNA evidence that had been earlier rejected as inadmissible.

The country's High Court, on Wednesday, said it would let prosecutors use the evidence in their bid to link Anwar to traces of semen found on his accuser, a 25-year-old former aide.

The surprise reversal of the decision came after an appeal by the prosecution, and after the court had heard new testimony from police.

"It is clear that [Anwar's] arrest was lawful and the detention was for a lawful purpose," judge Zabidin Mohamed Diah told a packed courtroom.

"This court has no choice but to allow these items to be tendered [as evidence]. My earlier ruling in the matter is reversed," he said, but added that the court would not compel Anwar to provide a sample of his DNA.

The court had previously ruled that DNA from a bottle, toothbrush and hand towel in Anwar's detention cell -taken without his consent - was obtained illegally, and was therefore inadmissible.

Vital evidence

The evidence is a vital part of the prosecution's effort to prove that Anwar had sex with Mohamad Saiful Bukhari Azlan, his former aide. A chemist had testified that the DNA on those items matched that of semen discovered on Saiful.

Anwar faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted of sodomy, which is considered a crime in the Muslim-majority country.

Yusof Zainal Abiden, the government prosecutor, had asked the High Court to review its earlier decision about the illegality of the DNA evidence.

He urged the court to compel Anwar to provide his DNA as tests would show whether there was a match with the semen found in an internal examination on Saiful, who claims he was coerced into having sex with the politician at a Kuala Lumpur condominium in June 2008.

Anwar has refused to voluntarily provide a DNA sample because he fears authorities will tamper with it.
The opposition politician criticised the court's decision, insisting to reporters that authorities got the three items through "trickery and deception".

'Political conspiracy'

Sankara Nair, Anwar's counsel, said the judge did not take all the facts into consideration.

"We disagree with the decision because the judge says the arrest was legal but it wasn't just the issue of the arrest alone, it was also the violation of lockup rules and many other issues," he told the AFP news agency.
Malaysia High Court to Admit DNA Evidence against Anwar's sodomy trial

Anwar maintains that the charges are part of a political conspiracy to remove him from politics.
He is also struggling with new allegations of sexual misconduct after a sex video depicting a man believed to resemble him was leaked under mysterious circumstances on Monday.

Anwar claims both the sodomy charge and the video were fabricated by the government to crush his political threat.

Authorities deny any conspiracy. And police said they were investigating the video, which has not been publicly circulated.

Source:

Agencies

Newscribe : get free news in real time