Sunday, March 20, 2016

Anwar Ibrahim's greatest fear

Anwar Ibrahim's greatest fear is that people will forget him.

suspect that has been why he has decided to represent himself in the RM100m suit against Nalla so that he keeps himself in the public eye, wakakaka.

And that too has been why his wife, daughters and supporters have frequently raised issues about him, such as nominating him for the Nobel Prize.

Mind you, this proposed nomination might not be a wasted effort as the Norwegian committee for the Nobel Peace Prize has been known to be controversial in awarding the Prize to unexpected people.

Anyway, a kaytee poem for Anwar Ibrahim, wakakaka:

Oh I used to float like a butterfly
and sting like a bee, nay, tebuan*
I can't accept my political goodbye
It's cruel to make me sing like a swan

* being formerly UMNO, wakakaka


  1. Nalla the Snake is Ktemoc's favourite because of his attacks on Anwar Ibrahim.
    He has made many defamatory statements regarding Anwar. Anwar has every right , in fact, he should sue him for libel.
    Unlike Najib No Balls who dares not sue the Wall Street Journal, because WSJ wrote the truth.
    The Malaysian Prison authorities have refused Anwar his basic rights, by denying him access to his lawyers. To prove his point, Anwar is going ahead with the suit anyway, without lawyers.

    Ktemoc's vendetta against Anwar has gone beyond the limits of human decency.

    Many of us regard Anwar's imprisonment , both the past one and the present one as an injustice, driven by a heavily politicised Malaysian prosecution and judicial system.

    The politicisation of the Malaysian legal system manifests itself both in terms of action and inaction.
    The politicisation of legal action is obvious from the jailing of Anwar Ibrahim as well as that of Lim Guan Eng.
    The politicisation in terms of inaction is obvious from the utter lack of any concrete steps to bring to justice the Prime Minister Najib for the RM 2.6 Billion disappearing into his personal bank accounts.

    Ktemoc likes to mention the Westminster system, of which Malaysia's is a pale fake imitation.

    In the true Westminster system, there are virtually NO circumstances under which Britain's David Cameron or Australia's Malcolm Turbull ,could remain in office if it were proven that RM 2.6 Billion in funds which are not his money, disappeared in the depths of his personal bank accounts.

    Whether he gets charged in court and found guilty is a separate matter, for the courts to decide.

    1. Don't bullshit about anwar being denied access to his lawyer.

      MKINI reported that anwar has 16 cases ongoing but was restricted to only one hour with his lawyers per week.

      N Surendran, who was one of Anwar's lawyers, had said the amount of time was inadequate as the jailed opposition leader was involved in 16 ongoing cases.

      anwar's family has even appealed for him to be imprisoned in his own home. I suspect it's all his tactics to obtain MAX exposure in public eyes. it's a wonder it's only 16 cases and not 160 cases, not including house arrest and the nomination for the nobel prize

  2. Anwar Ibrahim needs to resort to suing some of his detractors because there was and still exists an industry out there manufacturing and disseminating wild and highly damaging allegations about Anwar.

    Ktemoc is one of those who happily seizes upon and broadcasts any negative statements about Anwar.
    The Taxi Sapu of anti-Anwar allegations..

    Take one documented and proven example of calumny.
    Anwar's enemies have kept repeating the allegation that during the Kampung Rawa incident 1998, Anwar threatened to silence the prayer bells of Indian temples in the country forever.

    The chief purveyor of this urban legend was the transformed BN-friendly version of Chandra Muzaffar. He was allegedly told of Anwar's speech by a "Senior Journalist" present and there were many witnesses, so it must be true.

    Anwar Ibrahim sued Chandra Muzaffar for defamation. Chandra was unable to produce the said "Senior Journalist".
    Maybe it was Clark Kent, or was it Jimmy Olsen ?

    He was also unable to produce a single witness from that crowded hall during that alleged incident. There must have been at least 50-80 people who would have heard Anwar, if he said it.

    Chandra Muzaffar was forced to publically recant in a newspaper that allegation against Anwar.
    It was either that or he would be liable for very painful damages payable for defaming someone of Anwar's stature.

    Anwar Ibrahim must not be denied the right to clear is name against those who defame him.

    1. you're so full of bullshitting spin. Following is Chandra’s full press statement on the out of court settlement between him and Anwar Ibrahim.

      The Out of Court Settlement between Anwar Ibrahim and Chandra Muzaffar on the 7th of January 2014. Muzaffar stated:

      Given some of the comments on social media it is important to put my decision to retract my allegation against Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim in perspective.

      I withdrew my allegation about the ringing of bells in a Hindu Temple in connection with the Kampung Rawa dispute between some Hindus and Muslims in March 1998 in the Kuala Lumpur High Court this morning, the 7th of January 2014, as a reciprocal gesture since Anwar had withdrawn two other claims of defamation against me on the 14th of January 2013.

      Initially, he had alleged that I had defamed him at a forum in Petaling Jaya on the 3rd of March 2008 on three counts.

      1) I had opined that he would be an unmitigated disaster as Prime Minister of Malaysia.

      2) I had accused him of deceiving the people through his Machiavellian politics

      3) I had alleged that he had said that temple bells would not ring in a Hindu temple in the Kampung Rawa Dispute if the temple authorities did not abide by his rulings on the settlement of the Dispute.

      The third claim was actually an illustration I had employed to show that Anwar was inept in managing inter-religious ties.

      Anwar sued me on all three claims on the 6th of March 2008.

      When Anwar dropped the first and second claims which were the substantive claims against me last year — especially the first claim — I had contemplated retracting my third allegation which is what I did in Court this morning. Anwar for his part had accepted the retraction without costs, damages or an apology.

      At the end of the day, it was an amicable resolution to a legal wrangle that has gone on for almost six years.

      don't try to over reach in your constant bull - Muzaffar might sue you, wakakaka

  3. Woaaaaa...looks like you and RPK are having a lover's tiff over the issue of Lim Guan Eng's bungalow.

    Funnily, I agree with RPK, but you should remind RPK that you have been steadfastly defending "his" Najib.

    Presumption of Innocence is an important legal convention. However, for an Elected official, the issues go far beyond Presumption of Innocence or narrow legal issues.

    Caesar must be above suspicion, else Caesar's position, with so much associated power becomes untenable.

    So it is with Najib, so it is with Lim Guan Eng.
    At a public level, a top Elected Official practically has to prove his innocence, not just the law enforcement agencies to prove his guilt. That is a separate matter.

    To his credit, Lim Guan Eng so far has done a creditable job to engage his accusers. Bringing the press to tour his bungalow house was a master stroke.
    It shows the property for what it is - a modest house, and not in a "High End" neighbourhood.
    My Penang real estate contacts tell me some of the other nearby properties which had very much higher sale prices were in a totally different league - Shabudin Yahaya's accusations against Lim Guan Eng amount to barking up the wrong tree.

    Contrast that to Dear Leader Najib who has some 30 different stories about the RM 2.6 Billion which went into his personal bank accounts. Either Najib is as guilty as sin, or he has really foolish PR advisors.

    1. wakakaka, which proves both of us are individually our own man. incidentally the saying refers to 'Caesar's wife', not Caesar himself - to wit, "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion".