… dari tegap bertimpuh, baik rebah merempuh.

Vote For Anwar in Top 100 The Time 2008 Most Worthy

Anda boleh mengundi untuk Anwar Ibrahim di sini -> http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1725112_1723512_1724577,00.html

naikkan anak panah ke kanan sehingga 100% ye… :)

Petikan

PRO: Seen as a possible future Prime Minister, Ibrahim provides an active voice for demanding free and fair elections in Malaysia, a country known for its censorious government, which controls the mainstream media, bars students from political protest, and jails dissidents without trial.

CON: Citizens don’t soon forget the fact that a politician, however freedom-loving, once got six years in prison for corruption (in a politically charged trial) and nine for sodomy.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | savetheurl

2 Responses to “Vote For Anwar in Top 100 The Time 2008 Most Worthy”

  1. perantauan says:

    Wah, nampaknya ranking Anwar Ibrahim dah naik dalam senarai top 5..hebat2. Jom kita ajak ramai lagi kawan2 mengundi supaya naik ke tanga pertama.

  2. Aiyzak says:

    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.”

Powered by the people for the people