Sunday, August 29, 2010

The US now describes Anwar Ibrahim, like Ahmed Chalabi, as fool's gold!



Malaysia and the Allure of Bridge-building

In a post on The Compass last week, I mentioned Malaysia's Anwar Ibrahim as an example of a politician whose anti-Semitic views are all too quickly glossed over, when they actually deserve further attention. The aside provoked a few comments, so I think a followup is in order.

Ibrahim has a roster of politically significant defenders in America - particularly Al Gore and Paul Wolfowitz, who have lauded him on numerous occasions to the U.S. media - mostly stemming from what was fairly obviously a politically motivated series of legal attacks waged against him under the auspices of former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. Mahathir was, as commenters noted, both anti-American and anti-Semitic - and those weren't even his worst qualities. By comparison, Ibrahim is a charming fellow with a gift for gab, exactly the kind of personality the Western media adores.

Yet Ibrahim is also an example of the kind of political personality who displays magnificent ability to manipulate situations to his advantage, and to say one thing to one audience, and another to another. The game Ibrahim engages in is not new.

As Marco Vincenzino recently noted, Ibrahim is cut very much from the cloth of Ahmed Chalabi, whose name you might recognize as another would-be leader who wooed editorial writers and intelligence agencies with false promises and grand proclamations. As Vincenzino writes:

[Chalabi] also raised millions of dollars from American taxpayers for his Iraqi National Congress. Now back in his native-Iraq, this Machiavellian political survivor has re-invented himself as a staunch Shiite advocate and close ally of Iran. A sense of betrayal overwhelms many of his original supporters in Washington.

I recall seeing Chalabi circulating in the halls of Congress and courting powerful right-wingers months before the Iraq invasion - besides the fact that it was a policy decision I opposed at the time, I found him to be a slick and untrustworthy operator to a disturbing degree (though I am curious what his daughter's new book will reveal). Chalabi was fool's gold and, however you come down on his actions, American leaders were clearly wrong to embrace him as closely as they did.

Yet America's political leadership tends to repeat this mistake over and over again - they fall in love with the idea of bridge-building to the Muslim world, of finding moderates who maintain that they can act as go-betweens to factions many of our policymakers barely understand. This idea leads policymakers to sometimes embrace potentially disastrous figures who know how to manipulate these circumstances and desires - men like Ibrahim, who can intone about the vile influence of "the Jewish lobby" in their own countries and in their own language, but in English, charm former vice presidents and respected foreign policy leaders.

George Washington never actually warned Americans to "beware of foreign entanglements" in his often misquoted farewell address. But he did say that "excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other." If you replace "nation" with "bridge-builder," you'll find it's still accurate in today's Washington. Click here for the original story!

Benjamin Domenech, a former speechwriter for Tommy Thompson and Sen. John Cornyn, is editor of The New Ledger and a research fellow with The Heartland Institute. He writes on defense and security issues for The Compass.

Just imagine this if you can!

It is a bit much now for me to take this shit but then Malay-Muslims are becoming Morons and a bunch of cowards nowadays! Next time this woman will have a pet piglet on her side when she is making a mockery of Islam and the Malay institutions!



Try to imagine a Malay-Muslim standing in front of a group of devout Hindus in a Hindu temple anywhere making a political statement?! No simply cannot imagine it.
Now try imagine the same of a Malay-Muslim doing the same at any Sikh temple, a Chinese temple, a Church, let see.....a Synagogue!!
Well, no right thinking Muslim-Malays would be allowed to make a speech standing up in front of an inner sanctum of other denominations' places of worship!
To begin with, we (Malay-Muslims) would be very sensitive enough not to accept such invitation to make a speech at a place of worship of other people's denominations. But then if I am a chauvinist Chinese Malaysian from an opposition party I would push the dumb and moronic Malays as far as I can to see how far they can relent to the pressure from a non-Malay chauvinist person.
Now having succeeded with the first attempt to stand in from of a surau talking to a bunch of a stupid and uninspiring moronic Malay-Muslims, I (as a chauvinist Chinese from an opposition party like the DAP) will next time bring a small piglet with me if I am invited to another surau for a speech, I will say as the piglet is my pet and nothing wrong with it.
Having said this I have to say if these Malay-Muslims from this surau from Kajang who allowed this chauvinist Chinese women opposition politician to stand in the inner sanctum of their religious place of worship are not Morons it would not have happened!
But chances are these Moronic-Muslim-Malays are many now, one imam during a Friday prayer sermon in Penang included in the sermon for the good health of chauvinist DAP Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng when this moronic Malay imam should have prayed for our King!

Hey if I am a chauvinist Chinese of this country I will do anything to erode the Malays "domination" of the country, why not? Because I know they are so stupid enough that I can get away with it. And I will keep on doing this because as a chauvinist Chinese of this country these Malays are a bane to my existence!

Ends

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Jon Stewart of the Daily Show is my kind of a Jewish-American friend!

In a segment on "The Daily Show" last night titled "Extremist Makeover Homeland Edition," Jon Stewart addressed the Ground Zero mosque for the third time as of late, this time giving mosque critics FOX News a taste of their own medicine.

In clips all from the last 24 hours, Stewart showed how several FOX pundits prefaced unfounded reasons why the Islamic cultural center would be dangerous with defensive claims of tolerance for the religion. Former Clinton adviser Dick Morris even went so far as to call it a "terrorist command center."

In another clip from FOX, Eric Bolling displayed his charred safety deposit box from the World Trade Center to show why he was personally invested in keeping the mosque away from the vicinity of ground zero. Although Stewart mocked his display of lost cash and coin from an event where so many lives were lost, Stewart respected Bolling's discomfort with the symbolism of the mosque. That was until Bolling took out an index card written on in highlighter connecting Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to Iran and other dangerous parties, with question marks written next to each "fact."

"It's a dangerous game of guilt by association that you can play with anyone," Stewart pointed out. "It's 'six degrees of people who don't eat bacon.'" He then pulled out an index card of his own, highlighted with similar "facts" connecting News Corp owner Rupert Murdoch to none other than Osama Bin Laden, leading him to ask, "Is FOX News a terrorist command center? I don't know! I just don't know."

Sunday, August 22, 2010

My name is Khan and I am not a terrorist!

The descendant of Kit Siang and Ngeh were granted citizenship after Independence now they want to be Sultan and Agong!




The Chauvinist DAP Chinese would not rest in peace until a Chines opposition member were to become a Sultan or an Agong!!



Although I have not seen the movie and I am sure it is about misconception of being a Muslim or a name sounding like Muslim or Arab.
Shah Rukh Khan was acting in this movie "My name is Khan" and on how this man went to Washington and was mistaken for being a terrorist just because of his name.
Well yeah! If you are an American of an Arab-descent with a "Muslim-sounding name" do not criticised the US government terribly hard or just your luck one night some one from the Homeland Security will come and pick you up and detained you under the homeland security ordnance.
As it is now Muslim-American are now living in fear in the US, the land of the free where freedom of expression is the fundamental way of life there, among other things.
The controversy over the building a multi-purpose Muslim centre where a prayer room is also provided has already gone awry. The thing is it is not even at ground zero but away from it and in spite of this fact racist white American political leaders such as Newt Gingrich are already whipping up the jingoistic anti-Muslim fervor that is now dividing Americans.
The Muslim-multi purpose is for everyone not only Muslim. So why the brouhaha and uproar?! Just plain anti-Muslim persons sentiment, I am sad.
Back to us the same thing is happening. The chauvinist Chinese led by Kit Siang and his just as his chauvinist Bai cohort has been going around making people believe that Malays are a bunch of racist. No sir I shall not keep my mouth shut if you think by voicing our our Malay rights that we are now considered as racist so be it.
The sad fact is even some Malays believe in the lies concocted by Kit Siang and his cohorts
You Chauvinist non-Malay opposition poetical leaders you cannot make us believe that by uttering our Malay right in public or otherwise that we are considered racist?? no sir!
We are not going to fall into the trap as one set by the American administration that Muslim-American had better keep their mouth shut about their rights as American to voice their objections just like any other American, and their rights to condemn a bad US administration or otherwise be labeled a terrorist.
As for you Malays out there do not fall into the same trap laid by these Chauvinist non-Malay politician from the opposition into making us Malay believe that if we voice out our concern over our infringed Malay rights that we are racists?!
The way it is now, no Malays dare to come out to condemn the opposition for showing their disrespect to the Malays rulers and the King, for fear of being labeled a Malay racist, don't be a moron you Melayu bodoh express yourselves this is your country!

Thursday, August 12, 2010

AL GORE, ANWAR IBRAHIM, PAUL WOLFOWITZ

Quantcast

The Strange case of Al Gore, Paul Wolfowitz and their joint defense of Malaysian Anti-Semite named Anwar Ibrahim

By Roy Thinnes

People in glass houses should not throw stones. Especially when they are a couple of discredited has-beens, one a former Democrat vice-president with an inconvenient truth about his marriage and divorce who has just escaped being charged with sexual assault; and the other a one-time neo-con who mightily embarrassed the Republican Party by getting himself fired from the World Bank over salary shenanigans involving his Libyan-born girlfriend Shaha Riza.

The fact is that Al Gore and Paul Wolfowitz have crossed the partisan divide to defend an anti-American, anti-Semitic foreign politician.

As if they did not create enough trouble for themselves, Al Gore and Paul Wolfowitz have now been brought together by a very strange friend. They recently penned a joint defense in The Wall Street Journal of Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, a well-known anti-Semite and anti-American Muslim demagogue. Anwar is on trial for sodomy, a crime in Malaysia, but the real accusation is sexual assault, the intricacies of which Mr. Gore has had to read up on recently after narrowly escaping charges made by a masseuse in Portland, Oregon.

Anwar, the man Al Gore is defending, recently attacked the prime minister of his own country, a conservative and pragmatic ally of the United States in the war against terrorism, for joining the U.S. in imposing sanctions against the crazies in Tehran. And he attacked President Obama for not condemning Israel enough, calling him a weak president.

But it is Anwar’s line about how the Jews control everything, including the Government of Malaysia, that has raised alarm bells in Washington.

Anwar’s inflammatory rhetoric at home in Malaysia was so odious that it recently triggered a request from B’nai B’rith, the leading Jewish group, that the United States Government sever all ties with him.

In light of the role that Ibrahim has played in the resurgence of anti-Semitic polemics in Malaysian politics, wrote B’nai B’rith President Dennis Glick in a letter to House and Senate leaders two months ago, we ask that U.S. officials suspend their ties with Anwar Ibrahim. A purveyor of anti-Jewish hatred such as Ibrahim should not enjoy the measure of legitimacy that a positive relationship with the United States would confer upon him.

Both Al Gore and Paul Wolfowitz should have known better. Gore, in particular, is the bigger hypocrite, if only because he has cultivated a Mister Clean (or should we say Mister Green?) aura of self-aggrandizing perfection.

As for Wolfowitz, a recent whistle-blower’s report in Washington documented how his girlfriend Shaha Riza, was paid a salary higher than that of Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice by a foundation set up with $20 million of U.S. taxpayers’ money. Riza’s activities in this role were in apparent violation of conflict of interest regulations at the World Bank, as well as the national security, tax and visa regulations of the U.S. government.

But even more egregiously Riza then helped get Anwar Ibrahim, a close friend of Wolfowitz, named as chairman of the obscure State Department-funded Foundation for the Future.

The Wall Street Journal article was not Wolfowitz’s first defense of Anwar Ibrahim. In 2009 he wrote an article promoting Anwar as one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people. And his reaction to the B’nai B’rith censure was to tell the Washington Post in June that Washington should cut [Anwar] some slack.

The complete absence of any mention of Anwar’s anti-Semitism or anti-American rhetoric in the Gore-Wolfowitz article is astonishing.

Gore and Wolfowitz behave as though Anwar is Nelson Mandela, rather than an opportunist whom conservative commentator Marco Vicenzino, in The Daily Caller, recently called another Chalabi and a chameleon who is expert at the art of deceiving D.C.

But one thing seems accurate. Gore and Wolfowitz wrote in the article that: Our views have been formed completely independently of each other.Well, that much is true because Anwar and his network of friends, media advisers and lobbyists in Washington have been working overtime to try and limit the damage caused by his recent series of anti-American and anti-Semitic rants. They even dispatched Anwar on a recent apology tour of Washington, trying to gloss over his militant Muslim rhetoric.

So the question emerges: When Al Gore and Paul Wolfowitz unite for the first time in history to defend a discredited Malaysian firebrand, are they ignorant and snookered, or just venal?

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Admit being a persecuted as a gay person, any Western country will let you in!

Say good-bye to fake asylum seekers!


I was told of a case of one Malaysian man who was granted a political asylum by telling the Canadian authority that he was a persecuted gay person in Malaysia.
Based on that he was allowed to stay in Canada as a permanent resident. But guess what, a couple of years after being granted an asylum and allowed to stay in that country, he "changed" his sexual preference and "became" a hetero-sexual and then brought his entire family to the country that believed his story in the first place.
Today, the Canadian government is not all that gullible anymore of such a scam.
But the thing is, bleeding heart liberal societies, such the United Kingdom, is also so gullible about stories of so called "brutality" being committed by countries like us, that they are willing to grant permanent stay to these people alled "asylum seekers".
The fact of the matter is Malaysia does not persecuted persons of gay persuasion. Come here an find out for yourself. Although Malaysia has a strict laws on rape, such statutory rape, sex without consent between sexes or otherwise. If you commit any of this and get caught you will be charged. But if you keep you sexual preference a secret and have a consensual sex between sexes or otherwise nobody gives a damn in Malaysia.
And Malaysia also does not commit ethnic cleansing on any group as claimed by one Malaysian-Indian lawyer, who had initially used ethnic persecution to apply for an asylumn in the UK, he was turned down.
This happened years ago when a couple of -Malaysian-Indian lawyers, actually two, whose case became a case celebre when they made statement saying being Malaysian of and Indian origin in Malaysia means being persecuted by the "Malay" government.
He also wrote to the Queen of England that his "people" is being systematically being ethnically cleansed by the Malay government.
I believe one of the two lawyers was given an asylum. There are many more such cases of Malaysians citing brutality committed by the Malaysian government and thus requires an asylum. They just want to live in what they perceived as a better society, going to the greener pasture so to speak.
Sources at the British High Commission said, quote: "We are not as gullible as you may want to think we are." Well said.

Monday, August 09, 2010

Former US diplomat, now lobbyist, close to Anwar, becomes daily defender and late night blogger

So what's Malott’s Motives?

By Roy Thinnes

John Malott is an eminent man: the former United States Ambassador to Malaysia has maintained his involvement in Asian affairs, from helming the Japan-America Society of Washington, D.C., to working with the lobbyists at the Washington consultancy Manatt Jones, to writing articles on the internal politics of the country in which he served as Ambassador. It is in the last capacity that Malott is of interest here. He has, lately, taken to popping up wherever the trial of Anwar Ibrahim is discussed. This ranges from pieces in the Wall Street Journal to the comments and chat section of the Huffington Post in recent days.

If that latter bit strikes you as odd, it should. This is the age of new media, but new media is not, properly, new any longer, and most persons engaged in public communications know how to engage with it. The Internet and its forms give us a remarkable number of avenues for public engagement — far beyond the traditional channels of publications and letters — but the ill-kept secret of using them effectively is not to use most of them. Messaging should be channelled and disciplined, and this goes triple for an eminent person like former Ambassador John Malott. “Social” media in particular (in which we must include something as basic as conversation-oriented blog comments) is geared toward a pattern of share-and-react. What is appropriate among friends generates strife among strangers, and degrades the dignity of, say, an erstwhile Ambassador.

John Malott has not learned this.

He popped up in the Huffington Post’s comments section at nearly four in the morning, issuing two vitriolic responses to a column by Joshua Trevino on Anwar’s trial. Trevino’s essay was neither pro- nor anti-Anwar, being an evenhanded examination of the mistaken assumptions undergirding present Western press coverage of that trial. Malott, though, apparently took it as an attack on Anwar’s cause, and responded accordingly.

Malott’s first comment was a strange series of inaccurate statements, ranging from a declaration that assault was no longer an issue in Anwar’s trial, which is false; to a bizarre assertion that “Zionist terrorism” is a more morally reprehensible phrase than “Zionist aggression”; to a misunderstanding of what “protege” means. (The issue of anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic statements in Malaysian politics was far more accurately addressed by Trevino himself, in the July 20th Washington Times. Malott closed his comment with a haughty suggestion: “Perhaps you should pick another country to write about.” Unusual advice at the close of a passage that didn’t write about its country particularly well, seemingly petty.

Incredibly, just eight hours later, Malott was back for more. His second comment went in-depth on the specific charges against Anwar, emphasizing that the politician is on trial under Malaysia’s anti-sodomy statute — and not its rape statute — with the purpose of showing Trevino to have been wrong. Instead, he managed to accidentally support the point that Trevino was making: the Huffington Post columnist explicitly acknowledged that Anwar is prosecuted for sodomy, and then went on to examine the deeper meaning of the charges and its coverage. Malott’s argument that the absence of rape charges conclusively eliminates that as a factor in prosecutorial intent will strike anyone familiar with criminal prosecution as risible: reductions and changes in charges are a commonplace throughout developed nations’ legal systems. And as Al Capone discovered when jailed for income-tax evasion, prosecution on one charge doesn’t mean the prosecutor isn’t trying to get you for another. Malott managed to buttress Trevino’s point, and provide an example of the sort of agenda-driven interpretation of Anwar’s trial that the latter was writing about — surely not the former Ambassador’s intent in weighing in.

What, exactly, is Malott’s intent? As has been noted, he’s turning up in Anglophone media lately any time and anywhere that Anwar Ibrahim is mentioned. And he has long ties to the Malaysian politico, not least through his own wife, Hiroko Iwami Malott, who was head of the Japan chapter of the “Free Anwar Campaign” during Anwar’s first trial and imprisonment a decade ago.

Fast-forward to 2005, and we see Anwar and Malott turning up on academic panels together. The two are said to have remained close over the years. This is all circumstantial, of course, but it is suggestive of close personal ties to the defendant in the trial, and seemingly a conflict of interest for a credible commentator. Toss in the odd and unedifying spectacle of a former United States Ambassador picking petty fights in blog comments — with no other history of doing so — and one could reach certain conclusions. But it is not for us to speculate on Malott’s Motives, merely to report that he seems to have lost the sense of balance and serenity one normally expects from a diplomat. Read the original text here!

Friday, August 06, 2010

What Anwar's Trial Really Means - By an American observer.

Person of Interest, it means a suspect: A police report made on Al Gore aka Mr Stone, by a cleaning lady who accused him of a sexual attack in a hotel room!



Unlike the lopsided views presented in a write up in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) by sex-addict Gore and two-timing philanderer Wolfowitz about the trial of Anwar Ibrahim, Joshua Trevino's observation should be emulated by all Western media when covering Anwar's trial, that is to be detached, impersonal and focused. It is also refreshing to note that Joshua Trevino actually contradicted both Gore and Wolfowitz summation of Anwar's trial in that over rated WSJ.

The truth of the matter is writers like Joshua Trevino is a
bona fide Malaysia watcher, unlike Gore and Wolfowitz. A former Bush admin speechwriter, what Trevino has written in Huffington Post has now becomes a subject of healthy debate in Washington. And in the end, and as usual, truth will always prevail via good level headed writers of the Western media!

Sometimes soon Americans will know the truth and the real character of this little man named Anwar Ibrahim, a anti-American activist at heart, whose claim to fame is to have friends like scary weirdo sex-addict Al Gore and instead-of-gel-but-prefer-to-use-spit-on-hair and two-timing philanderer weirdo named Wolfowitz, who is also a good friend of the prime minister of Turkey! Below is an article by a very impartial American writer on Anwar's trial!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Joshua Trevino

In Malaysia, criminal prosecutions often seem to have a political taint by dint of history and media. In that vein, it's important to address both in assessing the meaning of the trial of Anwar Ibrahim.

Western media's treatment of Anwar's sodomy trials tends to focus on what strikes Westerners as remarkable: that he is being tried for sodomy, which in itself is no longer a crime (de facto if not always de jure) in Western societies. This is indeed morally unacceptable, and even shocking -- and were this the beginning and the end of the charges against Anwar Ibrahim, the media campaign against his prosecution would be on solid ground.

The truth is somewhat more nuanced. Though Anwar Ibrahim is on trial for violation of Malaysian anti-sodomy law, this is effectively ancillary to his alleged crime: a sexual assault upon one Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan. Saiful has told police and prosecutors that the opposition leader, for whom he then worked, coerced him into a sexual encounter in early 2008. It is this nonconsensual activity, not sodomy per se, that is now at the heart of the trial of Anwar Ibrahim.

In the West, prosecutions of this nature are frequently sensational, but rarely controversial. Thankfully, we're mostly past the social stage wherein victims of sexual assault are routinely disbelieved. And we generally understand that leveraging individual power for sexual favor is, if not always outright criminal, at least immoral. This much is uncontroversial, and for a major Western media outlet to suggest otherwise would bring down upon it a well-deserved storm of criticism and protest.

So why is the reporting on Anwar's trial in Malaysia so different? Why is it so frequently assumed that the putative victim in this case is merely a political tool, instead of a person with a right to his day in court? Why this apparent double standard?

The answer lies in the circumstances of Anwar's first trial under the same law -- but not for the same crime. That 1998 prosecution was widely, and with justification, seen as a politically motivated persecution by the government of former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. Mahathir, a generally disliked figure in the West for his strident Islamist rhetoric and conspiratorial mindset, saw his erstwhile deputy and protégé Anwar as a political threat. The courts were duly mobilized, and Anwar lost.

The immediate effect upon Anwar was jail time, but the long-term political effect was almost wholly beneficial. Having been persecuted by Mahathir, Anwar Ibrahim immediately became the presumptive leader of the political opposition to the Malaysian ruling party. As a direct consequence, he established a fruitful and friendly liaison with Western policymakers and politicians, from Al Gore to Paul Wolfowitz and beyond, most of whom assumed that Anwar was against all the hateful things that Mahathir was for.

Of course, longtime watchers of Malaysia know this isn't the case: Anwar may have been Mahathir's victim, but he remains his persecutor's protégé, as B'nai B'rith acknowledged last month when it urged American policymakers to shun him over a pattern of anti-Semitic statements.

The present case strikes an ill-informed media establishment as more of the same. Once again, they see Anwar Ibrahim prosecuted under Malaysia's sodomy laws. But there are important differences on this go-around that responsible reporting must note. First and foremost, as noted, is the assault angle. Whereas the Mahathir-era prosecution jailed Anwar and his alleged sexual partners, there is no legal pursuit of Saiful Bukhari. The young man alleging Anwar's coercion is treated like any victim of sexual assault in any ordinary, developed country...for more original text click here!

Joshua S. Treviño is the President of Treviño Strategies and Media, and a longtime observer of Malaysian affairs. He served as a speechwriter in the Administration of George W. Bush.





People In Glass Houses Shouldn't Throw Stones!

Wolfowitz?....What can I say!

Scary weirdo sex-addict Al Gore, a good friend of Anwar Ibrahim!

Pathetic little man asking a sex addict and a two-timing philanderer to save his backside! (Pun intended)


By Roy Thinnes (Writing for Malaysia In Focus)

For Malaysia-watchers who saw a recent defence in The Wall Street Journal of Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, penned by the dubious duo of Al Gore (sexual assault investigation underway after accusations against the former vice-president by a massage therapist) and Paul Wolfowitz (forced to resign in disgrace from World Bank after accusations of conflict of interest in promoting girlfriend, who was paid more than Condoleeza Rice to work at Foundation chaired by Anwar Ibrahim), here is some background on the deep ties that link Wolfowitz and Ibrahim.
This is the part Paul Wolfowitz would prefer not to highlight when he defends Anwar Ibrahim.
To read the full text please click here:

Sunday, August 01, 2010

Brother Anwar Bin Ibrahim was, and will again be the next big catch!

So what is this Brother Anwar Bin Ibrahim telling people that the government has got no balls and no Chutzpah (his Yiddish expression for having the balls) to catch a BIG fish of a politician for corruption and for other misdeeds?
We must again be reminded that he was arrested when he was a Deputy Prime Minister and a Minister of Finance, for abuse of power and of other misdeeds, and a BIG fish indeed! And I am sure he will be found guilty again after his ongoing sodomy trial. But unfortunately there will still be many Malaysians who will still believe his lies!