Zaid Ibrahim tidak perlu respons kepada budak kecik tersebut, sebaliknya ada pihak ketiga yang respons melalui e-mel yang saya terima, seperti berikut:-
ANWAR’S SODOMY TRIAL: A RESPONSE TO NIK NAZMI
He claims that Zaid while in PKR had enthusiastically advocated that the case against Anwar was made up. Very conveniently and self-servingly, Nik Nazmi had neglected to provide the instances as to exactly when and where Zaid had done so. Suffice it seems that Zaid was a party member and all PKR party members have to close their minds and subscribe to the dogma that Anwar is being framed. Any sense of objectivity or objective opinion in viewing the Anwar sodomy trial apparently is considered an act of heresy. What a fine progressive political organisation PKR is turning out to be.
What Zaid has advised of Anwar is shared by many other people. Zaid is right when he said should Anwar be unwilling to volunteer facts that can clear his name, it will be difficult for the majority of the rakyat to swallow. It’s no use for Nik Nazmi to paint people who hold such a reasonable opinion to be of the same level as Perkasa or GAP or what not. He should learn to distinguish the message from the messenger.
One undeniable fact is that PAS has been rather silent about it. And that silence, as Zaid had pointed out, is rather deafening. Such was Nik Nazmi’s defensiveness over this that he came quite close to claiming to be a spokesperson for PAS with regard to the party’s stand over recent revelations in the sodomy trial. Sorry, sir, we would rather wait for a PAS person to speak up about this.
As for other matters related to the trial that Nik Nazmi took exception in his statement, they have all been dealt with during the trial. The full court transcripts show that proceedings have been quite unlike what Anwar’s followers have tried to hold it out to be. Defence lawyers have had every chance to cross-examine witnesses and challenge their credibility and the evidence thus far adduced. Yes, on some occasions the court ruled against the defence but in others, the court did rule in its favour. It’s this latter fact that people like Nik Nazmi and PKR have so studiously ignored or glossed over in their efforts to equate sodomy I with sodomy II in the public perception.
They seem to forget that such efforts appear quite dishonest and futile when unlike sodomy I where the defendant actually was deprived of every possible avenue for clearing his name, in sodomy II, as Zaid Ibrahim pointed out, he has a very good opportunity to do so.
ZHARRIF AZRAI
No comments:
Post a Comment