Mahabharata – Bahagian 46

“Tolonglah ceritakan apa yang sebenarnya berlaku di sini,” pinta Raja Yayati apabila melihat Devayani terus membisu di tepi tasik berair jernih di pinggir hutan.

“Saya boleh menceritakan sekiranya tuanku berjanji tidak akan memaksa saya pulang ke rumah,” gadis itu meletakkan syarat.

“Baiklah,” kata Raja Bharata itu tanpa berfikir panjang kerana terlalu ingin tahu apa yang berlaku sehingga menyebabkan seorang gadis jelita berada di dalam sebuah perigi buta dalam keadaan berbogel.

Maka mulalah Devayani menceritakan mengenai kedatangannya ke tasik itu bersama-sama Puteri Sarmista iaitu anak Raja Vrishaparva.

Tentulah memandangkan dia yang bercerita, maka watak dan perwatakan dirinya diputihkan manakala personaliti Sarmista dihitamkan.

“Saya tidak sanggup pulang ke rumah saya yang terletak dalam kerajaan di bawah pemerintahan Raja Vrishaparva memandangkan puterinya, Sarmista, sudah memalukan dan menghina saya,” Devayani berkata sebagai kesimpulan bagi ceritanya.

Sepanjang mendengar cerita itu tanpa bersuara, Yayati tertanya-tanya juga dalam diri tentang rupa fizikal Sarmista; apakah dia jelita atau hodoh seperti digambarkan oleh Devayani.

“Jadi apa yang mahu kau lakukan sekarang? Tentu seorang gadis jelita seperti kau tidak boleh terus tinggal di pinggir hutan seorang diri,” Yayati berkata sejurus kemudian dalam usaha memujuk Devayani supaya pulang.

Mahabharata – Bahagian 45

Raja Yayati adalah Raja Bharata yang terkenal. Sebagaimana lazim dilakukan oleh raja-raja India pada zaman dahulu, baginda sering memburu di dalam hutan.

Pada suatu petang, baginda terpisah daripada kumpulan pemburu yang datang bersama-sama masuk ke dalam hutan. Walau bagaimanapun, Yayati tidak risau.

Baginda meneruskan perjalanan menunggang kuda dengan harapan akan mendapat mangsa yang sesuai untuk diburu.

Tidak lama kemudian, raja itu sampai di tepi sebuah tasik berair jernih di pinggir hutan.

Tanpa berlengah-lengah, Yayati turun dari atas kuda. Kuda tunggangannya dibawa ke gigi air untuk minum. Kemudian, bagindu juga minum air dari tasik untuk menghilangkan dahaga.

Tiba-tiba, Yayati berhenti. Baginda memasang telinga. Benarlah seperti apa yang disangkakannya. Sayup-sayup kedengaran suara seorang wanita sedang menangis teresak-esak.

“Siapakah itu?” Yayati tertanya-tanya dalam diri. “Tidak mustahil bahawa ada penunggu di tasik ini. Mungkin ia sengaja cuba menipu dan memperdaya orang dengan bunyi tangisan itu.”

Namun begitu, rasa ingin tahu yang sangat mendalam membuatkan Yayati terus meneliti sekeliling. Matanya tajam memperhati manakala telinga tajam mendengar.

Court frees Azilah and Sirul of Altantuya murder charge

The Court of Appeal today freed Special Action Unit officers Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar of the charge of murdering Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu.

This followed the court’s unanimous decision to allow the duo's appeal in the sensational case.

However, the prosecution has the opportunity to appeal with the Federal Court - the country's highest court.
As soon as the court's decision was read, the two accused said: "Thank you, your lordships."

While justice Md Apandi Ali led the three-member bench, justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat read out the judgment, which ruled there were serious misdirections by the High Court judge.

The misdirections included the failure to call Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak's former aide de camp DSP Musa Safri and the failure to take into consideration the police station's diary, which stated that Azilah was at Bukit Aman at the time of the incident.

The other judges were justices Linton Albert and Tengku Maimon Tuan Mat.

Alibi not taken into consideration

Shah Alam High Court judge Md Zaki Yassin on April 2009 convicted the two of murder but acquitted Najib’s close confidante, political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda (below), of abetting the murder.

In today's judgement, justice Tengku Maimun said the court did not find anywhere in the High Court's judgment about whether it had considered the alibi and the inconsistency in the telephone call logs of the accused.

"These include the police station’s diary, which states that Azilah was at Bukit Aman and not at the crime scene.
"The learned trial judge had misdirected himself by way of non-direction in failing to consider the station’s diary and in failing to make a finding whether the defence had cast a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case," she said.

On the call logs, she said the court found inconsistencies in the testimonies of the telephone company's witnesses, which had put an issue on the accuracy of the calls in question and the coverage protection.

“In our judgment, it is essential for the trial judge to address his mind to the challenge raised by the defence on whether there was in fact alteration or tampering of the data and whether the authenticity of the data was questionable or otherwise.

"Regrettably, the judge failed to do so and this amounts to serious misdirection rendering the exhibits (the call logs) unsafe to be relied upon," she said.

Inconsistency in police testimonies

The court also ruled that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police’s prosecution witness leading to the discovery of the crime scene, where the High Court judge did not examine the credibility and did not address the defence’s contention.

"This has raised a doubt on the accuracy of the section 27 statements and whether the discovery was made exclusively as a result of the information supplied by the two appellants (the two accused) and not from other sources," said Tengku Maimun.

On the possession of explosives, Tengku Maimun said the High Court judge should have made a further finding to connect the explosives to the two accused.

"By not making any findings on possession by the appellants of the explosives used in the commission of the murder, the learned trial judge had failed to address his mind on this missing link, resulting in yet another misdirection," she said.

The defence had argued that the type of explosives used in the murder was not kept in the police armoury.
Tengku Maimum also ruled that the non-calling of Musa (Najib's aide de camp) was essential.

"This is to unfold the narrative upon which the prosecution's case is based on.
"The failure of the prosecution to call or offer Musa for cross-examination in the circumstances of the evidence as a whole would have triggered adverse inference under section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act 1950 against the prosecution," she said.

The Court of Appeal also found that justice Md Zaki (High court) had failed to establish whether there was common intention.

"We find the judge made no findings on whether the prosecution had established that there was a pre-arranged plan by the appellants to commit murder and that murder was committed pursuant to the pre-arranged plan.

"In our judgment, the absence of such findings by the learned trial judge on the ingredient of common intention amounted to a misdirection by way of non-direction," Tengku Maimun ruled.

Blood-stained slippers and spent bullet

On the issue of the blood-stained slippers (allegedly Altantuya’s) found in Sirul's car, the court ruled there was no nexus between the slippers and Sirul and the prosecution had not closed the gap.

There were questions about the blood-stained slippers as they were not Sirul's size and it was not ascertained who owned it.

On the issue of a spent bullet found in Sirul's car, again the court found that there was a gap in the prosecution's case and the High Court judge had failed to direct his mind to the matter.

"It is our judgment the cumulative effect of the non-directions by the judge rendered the conviction unsafe.

"We unanimously allow both appeals. Conviction and sentence are set aside. The appellants are acquitted and discharged," said Tengku Maimun.
Azilah was represented by Hazman Ahmad and J Kuldeep Kumar, while Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin and Hasnal Rezua Merican appeared for Sirul.

Deputy solicitor-general III Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah led a team of prosecutors that comprised  DPP's Manoj Kurup and Noorin Badaruddin.

Altantuya (above) was murdered in the forest of Puncak Alam near Shah Alam between 10pm on Oct 19 and 1am on Oct 20, 2006.

According to the accuseds' lawyers, the two should be released from prison later today.
Sirul is being held at Tapah prison while Azilah is at Kajang prison.

Scorn explodes in Twitterjaya over Altantuya ruling

The social media is abuzz with the news that former police personnel Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar have been freed of the charge of murdering Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu.

Many of the netizens greeted the news with cynicism, musing that Altantuya may have killed herself.

One Twitter user @azzizul82 said: "I have guessed that Altantuya is a suicide bomber. It's just that she bombed the wrong coordinates."

Another user, @jaillanish, speculated that she had "exploded from within just like in (the movie) Iron Man 3".

Other netizens raised the question: Who killed Altantuya?

Meanwhile, constitutional lawyer Syahredzan Johan pointed out via his Twitter account that Sirul and Azilah's acquittal this morning does not mean that the court is ruling that no one had murdered Altantuya.

While qualifying his statement that he has yet to see the grounds of the judgement, he said it could mean that the now-overturned High Court conviction was "unsafe" and the case had yet to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

"It is not easy to convict someone of a charge, as it should be. Better to free 100 guilty fellows, than to convict one innocent sod. Understandably, people are shocked.

"But let's criticise if the judgement is wrong, not because we didn’t get the judgement we want to see," he tweeted.

Other netizens raised issue with the fact that the verdict meant that the Altantuya case remained unresolved.

"A woman was killed using explosives. No one is found responsible for her death. Where is justice?" tweeted @1Obefiend.

Below are other selected tweets and Facebooks postings:

@rafiziramli: Shock & horror! Altantuya case: initially no motive, now there's not even murderers! Who killed Altantuya? Even Sherlock Holmes can’t solve

@chrisyht: So, who killed Altantuya? Oh well, this is Malaysia, land of endless possibilities...

@RajivJayKumar: Razak Baginda free, now cops free. Only in Malaysia will a foreign woman come to posses military grade C4 and blow herself up.

@marclourdes2m: So, if there's no connection between Azilah and Sirul to Altantuya's murder, does it mean this is Malaysia’s first spontaneous combustion case?

Paan Zaki: Altantuya had in fact committed suicide, wakes up, then blows herself up to hide the evidence – Another cartoon story from Malaysia.

@obie2610: Court of Appeal overturns conviction in Altantuya murder case... Now, how many did not see that coming?

Lau Chin Chua: Just my two cents, I think Sirul and Azilah’s acquittal is a good move. The explosives were not theirs; they have no interest in killing Altantuya. Congratulations to the two of you, but be wary because many  think only you would know who is behind the murder.

@MillicentBogert: So what happens next regarding Altantuya’s murder case, Malaysia? Any chance she will receive justice at this late date?


Source : http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/239105

What's next for MIC following Palani-Dr Subra truce?

ANALYSIS Last Sunday, the MIC headquarters in Kuala Lumpur was abuzz with activity with hundreds of MIC branch chairpersons converging there.

It was the day for MIC branch chairpersons from Kuala Lumpur, Selangor and Pahang to personally receive the endorsement signature from president G Palanivel in their respective nomination forms for the MIC presidential election.

The next evening (Aug 19), Palanivel headed for Seremban where he received similar support from branch chairpersons in Negri Sembilan.

MIC sources said the overwhelming response received by Palanivel (right) on these two occasions had changed deputy president Dr S Subramaniam's mind about contesting for the top post.

The media is also abuzz with speculation that Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak met the key leaders of MIC and brokered a deal whereby Palanivel and Subramaniam would be elected as president and deputy president respectively, with Palanivel agreeing to step down in 2016 after serving one more term.

A formal announcement on this deal is expected tomorrow.

Besides the deal brokered by the PM, MIC sources pointed out that it was Subramaniam’s delay in announcing if he wanted to contest that enabled Palanivel to take the lead in the run-up to the presidential campaign.

We are Chindians

"No culture can live, if it attempts to be exclusive." - Mahatma Gandhi

COMMENT Chindians are a minority within a minority. Being Chindian has made me look at the issue of race differently. I have always found it easy to find common ground with people of different races. I believe this is a result of being Chindian.

The Chindian Diaries project is aspiring to collect and document stories from the community in Malaysia and Singapore.

It is focused primarily on Chindian culture but is open to stories from other mixed marriages. By gathering these collective stories, it is hoped that they will form a greater, overarching cultural narrative.

Reflecting on my life, I was intrigued by my grandparents - my paternal Indian-Tamil grandfather and Chinese-Nyonya grandmother.

My father used to tell me about their union and how my grandmother was disowned by her family for marrying my grandfather, a dark skinned Indian.

I started this project in June 2012, after participating in a weekend storytelling workshop to dig deeper into my ancestors. It forced me to delve into my family history and I learnt new things about them.

Most Chindians lean towards Indian culture, only because there were more Indian men marrying Chinese women in the 1980s till 1990's.

Lee: Rajapakse a Sinhalese extremist

COLOMBO: Former Singaporean prime minister Lee Kuan Yew has described Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse as a Sinhalese extremist.

He also described what happened in Sri Lanka in 2009, during the end of the civil war, as ethnic cleansing.

The father of modern day Singapore made this statement during a conversation with author Thomas Plate, who wrote the book ‘Citizen Singapore: How to Build a Nation – Conversations with Lee Kuan Yew.

Lee described Sri Lanka as an “unhappy country” as it was disunited between the Sinhalese and Jaffna Tamils for decades.

“Yes, they have beaten the Tamil Tigers this time, but the Sinhalese who are less capable are putting down a minority of Jaffna Tamils who are more capable. They were squeezing them out.

“That’s why the Tamils rebelled. But I do not see them getting rid of all two million-plus Jaffna Tamils.

The Jaffna Tamils have been in Sri Lanka as long as the Sinhalese.” he said.