Friday, October 31, 2008

A thought-provoking speech by Dato' Mohd Zaid Ibrahim, author of 'In Good Faith' which I proudly bought

Full speech: M'sia - a lost democracy?

Oct 31, 08 4:08pm

Let me start by inviting you back into history. Imagine that it is the morning of the Aug 31, 1957. At midnight, an independent nation calling itself the Federation of Malaya is to be unveiled. Conceived as a cutting edge model of multiracial and multi-religious coexistence and cooperation, it is poised to stand out as an example of what can be achieved through diplomacy and a respect for the spirit of democracy.

MCPXIt is of great historical significance that the transition from colony to independent nation, so often achieved only at the great price that turmoil and unrest exacts, has been achieved peacefully. Though this is a process that may have been made more difficult without the skill and fortitude with which negotiations to that end have been carried out, they do not define it.

That honour goes to the aspirations of all those who call Malaya home. The quest for self-determination has not been one that recognised race. It has been, simply put, a Malayan one.

I would like to think that as midnight approached, one of the elements that gave confidence to the Alliance leaders and, in fact, all Malayans was the knowledge that a constitutional arrangement that accorded full respect and dignity for each and every Malayan, entrenched the rule of law and established a democratic framework for government had been put in place.

The federal constitution was a masterful document. Inspired by history and shaped lovingly to local circumstance, it was handcrafted by a team of brilliant jurists who appreciated that they could not discharge their burden without first having understood the hearts of minds of those who would call this nation their home and whose children would call it their motherland.

Hundreds of hours of meetings with representatives of all quarters resulted in a unique written constitution that cemented a compact between nine sultanates and former crown territories.

This compact honoured their Highnesses the Malay Rulers, Islam and the special status of the Malays even as it seamlessly allowed for constitutional government and created an environment for the harmonious and equal coexistence of all communities through the guarantee of freedoms and the establishment of the institutions that would allow for the protection and promotion of these guarantees. If at all there was a social contract, it was the guarantee of equality and the promise of the rule of law.

I would say that as at Aug 31, 1957, the Federation of Malaya was set to become a shining example of a working democracy. Though special provisions had been included in the constitution to allow for protective affirmative action measures where the Malays were
concerned, and later the natives of Sabah and Sarawak when these states merged into the renamed Federation of Malaysia, and for declarations of Emergency and the enacting of exceptional laws against subversion, these provisions were not anti-democratic nor were they undermining of the rule of law.

Conversely, if used as contemplated by the founders of the constitution, they were aimed at protecting democracy from grave uncertainties that could undermine the very foundations of the nation.

If I sound nostalgic, it is because in some ways it could very sadly be said that democracy and the rule of law, as they were understood at the time this nation achieved its independence, at a time when I was much younger, have been consigned to the past. Events that followed in history undermined and stifled their growth. To understand how this came about and the state of things as they are, one however must have an understanding of the politics of the country. I seek your indulgence as I attempt a brief summary of key historical events.

A turn for the worst

After the euphoria of 1957, race-relations took a turn for the worst in 1969. The race riots of that year have marked us since. As a response, adjustments were made and measures introduced to keep what was now perceived to be a fragile balance in place. The Rukun Negara was pushed through as a basis of national unity and the New Economic Policy (NEP) was unveiled by which the government was mandated to address the disparity in wealth between the Malays and the other communities, in particular the Chinese, that had been identified as the root cause of the resentment that had exploded into violence.

These measures, in my view, were on the whole positive. They were agreed to by all the political parties making up the government, in part due to an understanding that the NEP was a temporary measure aimed at assisting the Malays that would not disadvantage the other communities. The late Tun Dr Ismail talked about giving the Malays an opportunity to survive in the modern competitive world. It was readily appreciated that unless society as a whole addressed and rectified certain historical imbalances and inequities, the country would flounder. In my view, these measures were easily reconciled with democracy and the rule of law.

The 1980s presented a different scenario altogether. We saw a unilateral restructuring of the so-called social contract by a certain segment of the BN leadership that allowed for developments that have resulted in our current state of affairs. The non-Malay BN component parties were perceived by Umno to be weak and in no position to exert influence.

Bandied about by Umno ideologues, the social contract took on a different, more racialist tone. The essence of its reconstructed meaning was this: that Malaya is primarily the home of the Malays, and that the non-Malays should acknowledge that primacy by showing deference to the Malays and Malay issues. Also, Malay interest and consent must be allowed to set the terms for the definition and exercise of non-Malay citizenship and political rights. This marked the advent of Ketuanan Melayu or, in English, Malay Supremacy.

Affirmative action and special status became a matter of privilege by reference to race rather than of need and questioning of this new status quo was not to be tolerated. As Ketuanan Melayu evolved and entrenched itself, Islam became political capital due to the close links between Malays and the religion. The constitution itself defines a ‘Malay’, for purposes of affirmative action, as someone who amongst other things professes the religion of Islam.

This over the years led to a politically driven articulation of Malaysia as an Islamic state. Again, no questions were tolerated. Majoritarianism had become the governing paradigm of governance as the character and nature of rights were defined by Malay interests and defined by them.

This new political philosophy in which the primacy of Malay interests was for all purposes and intents the raison d’etre of government naturally led to interference with key institutions. I say naturally as it was, and still is, impossible to reconcile the principles of equality and civil rights of the people of this country with the primacy of one group over all others.

Needless to say, a new social order in which some are made to defer to the primacy of others is not going to be easily accepted. As such, in order to enforce compliance and to encourage acceptance harsh measures would have to be taken to quash protest or disagreement. Policy doctrine or diktat not supported by consensus will almost certainly be a subject of contention.

It is for this reason that in the 1980s already harsh anti-democratic laws that allowed for the suppression of legitimate dissent such as the Internal Security Act, the Official Secrets Act, the Police Act, the Printing Presses and Publications Act and the Sedition Act were tightened further.

Where possible, reliance on them was made immune from judicial scrutiny a feat achieved only through a constitutional amendment that suborned the judiciary to parliament. It got to a stage where when more than five friends got together, one wondered whether it was wiser to obtain a police permit. Such was the state of the law, such was the state of democracy.

Pandering to the Umno right

Mukhriz Mahathir will probably be the new Umno Youth leader. In saying as he did recently that there is no need for law and judicial reforms as it will not benefit the Malays, he typifies what is perceived as the kind of Umno leader who appeals to the right-wing of Malay polity. That he may be right is sad as it leads to the ossification of values that will only work against the interests of the party and the nation.

This type of thinking may pave the way to a suggestion in the future that we may as well do away with general elections altogether as they may not be good for the Malays for if the justice that a revitalised rule of law would allow for is not to the benefit of the Malays, what is? More inefficiency, more corruption and a more authoritarian style of government perhaps. We are a deeply divided nation, adrift for our having abandoned democratic traditions and the rule of law in favour of a political ideology that serves no one save those who rule.

How else can we describe the state of affairs in Malaysia? In a country where the rule of law is respected and permitted to flourish, just laws are applied even-handedly and fairly. I can point to
numerous instances where that has not been our experience. Let me point a few out to you.

A gathering of one group constitutes an illegal assembly but not that of another. A speech or publication is seditious or constitutes a serious threat to the security of the nation such as to warrant detention without trial under the ISA if published by one person but not another. This cannot be right even if it were to be to the benefit of the majority, which is not the case.

My belief in constitutional democracy and the rule of law is founded on an acceptance of their functional qualities and the prospect of sustainable and inclusive development that they offer. It is of no concern to me whether Fukuyama was right when he declared that in view of the success of liberal democracies all over the world and the collapse of communism, mankind had achieved the pinnacle of success and history was dead.

There are less esoteric reasons but as, if not more, compelling ones. Indonesia's transition to democracy since the end of military rule in 1998 showcases these. The majority of Indonesians have embraced democracy, religious tolerance, and religious pluralism. In addition,
a vibrant civil society has initiated public discussions on the nature of democracy, the separation of religion and state, women’s rights, and human rights more generally.

These developments have contributed to a gradual improvement in conditions for human rights, including religious freedom, over the past few years. Since 2003, Indonesia has also overtaken Malaysia on the Reporters sans Frontieres Press Freedom Index, moving up from 110th place to 100th out of 169 countries covered. Malaysia on the other hand has dropped from 104th place to 124th place in the same period.

I am not surprised. In 1999, Indonesia passed a new press law
that, in repealing 2 previous Suharto administration laws, guaranteed free press through the introduction of crucial measures. This new law allows journalists to freely join associations, guarantees the right of journalists to protect their sources, eliminates prior censorship of print or broadcast news and makes the subverting of the independence of the press a criminal offence. It also establishes an independent body to mediate between the press, the public and government institutions, uphold a code of ethics and adjudicates disputes.

Progress has not stopped there. On April 3, this year, Indonesia passed its Freedom of Information Act. This latest law allows Indonesia’s bureaucracy to be open to public scrutiny and compels government bodies to disclose information. To enforce disclosures and to adjudicate disputes, a new body has been created under the new law, independent of government and the judiciary. While there remains some debate about the penal sanctions for misuse of the law, the passing of the act clearly is a step in the right direction.

The lessons of the African and the Caribbean states are there for all to see. Do we emulate Zimbabwe or do we take Botswana as our political and economic model? How is it that Haiti is far behind the Dominican Republic in economic terms when they both achieved their independence at about the same time, and have the same resources?

Singapore’s success is mainly attributed to its commitment to good governance and rule of law, even though political dissent is not tolerated. Democracy, a system of government based on fair and transparent rules and laws, and the respect people have for institutions of government – these make the difference. Economic prosperity drives democracy but stifle true democracy and the inevitable outcome is economic ruin. It is useful to remember that freedom is vital for economic development.

The critical feature of a constitutional democracy to me is the test of constitutionality itself. Does the government allow its own legitimacy to be questioned? Does it permit executive decisions to be challenged? Written constitutions normally provide the standard by which the legitimacy of government action is judged.

In the United States the practice of judicial review of congressional legislation ensures that the power of government to legislate is kept under check. Bipartisan debate and votes of conscience are not only encouraged but also expected of congressmen and representatives. More recently the basic law of Germany and Italy provided explicitly for judicial review of parliamentary legislation.

We have the opposite situation here. The jurisdiction of the high court can be, and has been, ousted when it comes to challenges of executive decisions even if such decisions impact on fundamental liberties and other rights under the constitution. For instance, where government compulsorily acquires land for a public purpose, the courts are prevented from questioning the bona fides of the acquisition.

Where a discretion is exercised by the minister of home affairs under the Internal Security Act, the court is barred from examining the exercise of the discretion except so far as to ensure that the procedural requirements have been followed. Such detention without trial would be considered repugnant in any system predicated on the rule of law.

Nation building is not a simple process. It is not achieved through tinkering with political ideologies or injudicious use of the coercive powers of state. These do not promote the lasting peace and stability that we crave for. We have failed miserably in dealing with complex issues of society by resorting to a political culture of promoting fear and division amongst the people.

A renewed national consensus needed

The Ketuanan Melayu model has failed. It has resulted in waste of crucial resources, energy and time and has distracted from the real issues confronting the country. Tan Sri Muhyiddin (Yassin), the DPM-in-waiting it would seem, suggested that there is a need for a closed-door forum for leaders of the BN to develop a common stand; a renewed national consensus grounded on the social contract.

This is positive step but it should include all political leaders and be premised on the social contract that was the foundation of independence. The results of March 8 (elections) clearly show that the BN no longer exclusively speaks for the rakyat. Promoting discourse and dialogue is essential, as we must learn to talk and to listen to one another again.

The recent pronouncement by the Malay rulers underscores the urgency with which we need to look at rebuilding the politics of consensus. Communication and trust amongst the people must be reestablished. The founders envisaged a government for all Malaysians. Even Tun Dr Mahathir (Mohamad) spoke about it. One of the elements of Vision 2020 as envisaged by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed was the creation of a united Bangsa Malaysia.

How can such a vision be achieved if the government is not willing to listen to the grievances of a substantial segment of Malaysians? Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad introduced the idea of Bangsa Malaysia in a speech entitled “The Way Forward”. This is one of nine central and strategic challenges of Vision 2020. Although he only mentioned Bangsa Malaysia once, its use had sparked enthusiastic debates.

The creation of Bangsa Malaysia is the challenge of establishing a
united Malaysian nation with a sense of a common and shared destiny. This must be a nation at peace with itself, territorially and ethnically integrated, living in harmony and full and fair partnership, made up of one Bangsa Malaysia with political loyalty to the nation.

Different meanings have been given to that term Bangsa Malaysia. Many believe that it was intended to bolster the non-Malays through the envisioning of a united country where their cultural and religious uniqueness would not be threatened; Tun Dr Mahathir in fact explicitly mentioned this.

On the other hand, some believe that Bangsa Malaysia was just a neat reference to a Malaysia united under Malay or, more appropriately, Umno hegemony. Whatever the case, I would like to believe that whilst the government of BN has done little other than pay lip-service to the concept, principally by issuing pandering slogans, since Dr Mahathir left, the country will nevertheless in the future move towards a more pluralistic society.

The integration of different ethnic groups would occur naturally through the expansion of economic life and through the unintended effects of globalization so much so that ethnicity will be depoliticised. We nonetheless need to actively promote efforts at an institutional level if we want this notion of Bangsa Malaysia to materialise. The political parties making up government may not want to do so for their own short-term interests but as a whole, the people will call for it.

This brings us again to the democracy and the rule of law. We will not succeed in promoting, a united country and allow for the evolution of Bangsa Malaysia if we do not subscribe to the rule of law. We need the openness, freedom and social justice that will be possible only with it in place. and democracy. How do we bring unity to the people if we are not prepared to respect their dignity?

To achieve the aspirations of the New Economic Policy, bumiputras need to be given thinking tools to participate in the global economy. At present their attention is kept focused, almost on a daily basis, on race related issues even though there are serious issues such as the economy and the lack of trust in the institutions of government to deal with.

The obsession with the Ketuanan Melayu dotrine has in fact destroyed something precious in us. It makes us lose our sense of balance and fairness. When a certain Chinese lady was appointed head of a state development cooperation, having served in that cooperation for 33 years, there were protests from Malay groups because she is Chinese.

A new economic vision is necessary, one that is more forward looking in outlook and guided by positive values that would serve to enhance cooperation amongst the races. This will encourage change for the better; to develop new forms of behaviour and shifts of attitudes; to believe that only economic growth will serve social equity; to aspire to a higher standard of living for all regardless of race.

We need to meaningfully acknowledge that wealth is based on insight, sophisticated human capital and attitude change. A new dynamics focused on cooperation and competition will spur innovation and creativity.

Some might say that this is a fantasy. I disagree. How do we go about transforming the culture and values of the bumiputras so that their ability to create new economic wealth can be sustained? By changing our political and legal landscapes with freedom and democracy.

Dr Mahathir was right to ask that Malays embrace modernity. He fell short of what we needed by focusing on the physical aspects of modernity. He was mistaken to think all that was needed to change the Malay mindset was science and technology. He should have also promoted the values of freedom, human rights and the respect of the law.

If affirmative action is truly benchmarked on the equitable sharing of wealth that is sustainable, then we must confront the truth and change our political paradigm; 40 years of discrimination and subsidy have not brought us closer. There is a huge economic dimension to the rule of law and democracy that this government must learn to appreciate.

Syariah or secular principles

Relations between Islam, the state, law and politics in Malaysia are complex. How do we manage legal pluralism in Malaysia? Can a cohesive united Bangsa Malaysia be built on a bifurcated foundation of syariah and secular principles? Will non-Muslims have a say on the operation of Islamic law when it affects the general character and experience of the nation? This is a difficult challenge and the solution has to be found.

Leading Muslim legal scholar Abdullah Ahmad an-Na’im is hopeful. He believes that the way forward is to make a distinction between state and politics. He believes that Islam can be the mediating instrument between state and politics through the principles and institutions of constitutionalism and the protection of equal human rights of all citizens.

Whatever the formula, we can only devise a system that rejects absolutism and tyranny and allows for freedom and plurality if we are able to first agree that discourse and dialogue is vital. Democracy and respect for the rights and dignity of all Malaysians is the prerequisite to this approach.

A compelling argument for a constitutional democracy in Malaysia is that only through such a system will we be able to preserve and protect the traditions and values of Islam and the position of the Malay rulers. For a peaceful transition to true democracy of this country, one of key issue that requires care is the position of Islam and its role in the political system of the country.

In fact I regard this to be of paramount consideration. Although the expression Islamic state is heard from time to time, and whilst it is true that Abim (Malaysian Muslim Youth Movement), PAS and lately Umno had the concept a key part of their agenda, the areas of emphasis differ and are subject to the contemporary political climate.

For reasons too lengthy to discuss now, I would say that the "synthesis of reformist Islam, democracy, social welfare justice and equity" would be sufficient to appease the majority of Muslims in so far as the role of Islam in public life is concerned. This state of affairs could be achieved peacefully and without tearing the constitution apart.

The progressive elements in PAS, inspired by Dr Burhanuddin Helmi in 1956, are still alive. PAS leaders of today who have carried that torch also make reference to a more accommodating vision of Islam that puts a premium on substantive justice and the welfare of the people as major policy initiatives.

Umno's approach (or more accurately Dr Mahathir's approach) to Islamic content in public policies was articulated in the early 1990s. This however achieved little in changing the political system. His "progressive Islam" was more nationalistic than PAS, and designed to usher new elements of modernity into Islam.

Science and technology were touted as the means to defend Islam and the faith. The approach taken was short on the ideas of human rights and social justice, and the rule of law and designed more to convince the rakyat of Islam's compatibility with elements of modernity like science and technology..

Anwar Ibrahim, the present opposition leader, articulated a brand of reformist Islam that was more individual centered and liberal. Drawing its humanist thought from the great Muslim scholar, Muhammad Iqbal, Islam Madani gave emphasis on human rights and freedoms. Islam Hadhari came on to the scene just before the 2004 general elections as another form of progressive Islam, possibly inspired by the thinking of another noted scholar, Ibn Khaldun. Unfortunately, nothing much came out of this effort.

Whichever model or line of thought that will find permanence in our political landscape, Islamic aspirations and ideals will certainly become an important component in the realm of public policy. To prevent conflicts and ensure that various beliefs are absorbed and accepted into the political system, it is imperative that no force or compulsion is used.

This is where the merit of a government adopting democracy and rule of law becomes apparent. The discussions and deliberations of even sensitive and delicate issues will make the participants aware of the value of ideas and the value of peaceful dialogues. Managing disputes through a determined, rules-based process will allow for a peaceful resolution of problems.

The tolerance shown by the protagonists in Indonesia over delicate religious issues bodes well for that country and serves as as a useful illustration of what could be. Approached this way, Islam in the context of Malaysian politics will be prevented from being as divisive and as threatening as race politics.

In this, the issue of conflicts of jurisdiction still requires resolution. Our civil courts are denuded of jurisdiction to deal with matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the sharia courts. No court has been given the jurisdiction and power to resolve issues that may arise in both the sharia courts and the civil courts. The present separation of jurisdictions presupposes that matters will fall nicely into one jurisdiction or the other.

However, human affairs are never that neat. What happens to the children of a marriage where one party converts to Islam and the other party seeks recourse in the civil Court? Or when the sharia court pronounces that a deceased person was a Muslim despite his family contesting the conversion? Or where the receiver of a company is restrained from dealing with a property by a sharia court order arising out of a family dispute? Where do the aggrieved parties go? I had suggested the establishment of the constitutional court, but that plea has fallen on deaf ears.

Marked increase in draconian measures

There is marked increase in the use of harsh draconian measures in dealing with political and social issues. Some people say that groups such as Hindraf (Hindu Rights Action Force) advocate violence and therefore justifies the use of such measures. They may have overlooked the fact that violence begets violence. Was not the detention of Hindraf leaders under the Internal Security Act itself an act of aggression, especially to people who consider themselves marginalised and without recourse?

It is time that the people running this country realise that we will not be able to resolve conflicts and differences peacefully if we ourselves do not value peaceful means in dealing with problems. The situation has been aggravated by the absence an even-handed approach in dealing with organisations like Hindraf.

While I applaud the prime minister for calling upon the Indian community to reject extremism, should not a similar call be made on the Malay community and Utusan Malaysia? I call on the prime minister, both the outgoing and the incoming, to deal with such issues fairly. Start by releasing the Hindraf leaders detained under the ISA. The release would create a window for constructive dialogue on underlying causes of resentment.

I also appeal for the release of (Malaysia Today webmaster) Raja Petra (Kamaruddin) from his ISA detention. He is a champion of free speech. His writings, no matter how offensive they may be to some, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be seen as a threat to the national security of this country.

The Malays are now a clear majority in numbers. The fear of their being out numbered is baseless; they are not under seige. The institutions of government are such that the Malays are effectively represented, and the there is no way the interest of the Malays can be taken away other than through their own weakness and folly.

The BN government must abandon its reworked concept of the social contract and embrace a fresh perspective borne out of discussions and agreements made in good faith with all the communities in this country. It is time for us all to practice a more transparent and egalitarian form of democracy and to recognize and respect the rights and dignity of all the citizens of this country.

At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves what it is that will allow us to protect all Malaysians, including the Malays? Good governance is about good leadership; and good leadership is all about integrity. We must have leaders of integrity in whom people can place their trust.

If there is no integrity in leadership, the form of government is immaterial – it will fail. Integrity in leadership is the starting point to creating a just and fair society. Integrity of leadership does not lie only with the prime minister or his cabinet. It needs to permeate through all the organs of government. A key organ of government, the one tasked to protect the rights of the common man against the excesses of government, is the court. The rule of law in a constitutional democracy demands that the judiciary be protective of the nation's subjects be they, I would say especially, the poor, the marginalised and the minorities.

The courts must act with courage to protect the constitutionally guaranteed rights of all citizens, even if to do so were to invoke the wrath of the government of the day. Even though not all judges will rise to be chief justice, in they own spheres they must show courage. For example, in PP vs Koh Wah Kuan (2007), a majority bench of the federal court chose to discard the doctrine of separation of powers as underlying the federal constitution apparently because the doctrine is not expressly provided for in the constitution.

This conclusion is mystifying as surely the court recognizes that power corrupts absolutely and can thus be abused. If the courts are not about to intervene against such excesses who is? Checks and balance are what the separation of powers is about. Surely the apex court is not saying that the courts do not play a vital role in that regard?

The reluctance of the court to intervene in matters involving the executive is worrying. In Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors v Nasharuddin Nasir, the federal court ruled that an ouster clause was constitutional and was effective in ousting the review jurisdiction of the Court if that was the clear intention of parliament. The apex court so readily embraced the supremacy of parliament even though the constitution declares itself supreme.

There is nothing in the federal constitution that explicitly sets out the ability of parliament to limit the court's review jurisdiction. The court could have just as easily held that as the constitution was the supreme law, in the absence of express provisions in the constitution the court’s review jurisdiction remained intact.

Is it not possible that in vesting the judicial authority of the federation in the high courts the framers of the constitution intended the review powers of the courts to be preserved from encroachment by the executive and legislature? In India, the supreme court has held on tenaciously to a doctrine of 'basic structure' that has allowed it to ensure the integrity of the democratic process and the rule of law. Any attempt to denude the courts of the power to review by amendment of the constitution has been struck down.

The rule of law has no meaning if judges, especially apex court judges, are not prepared to enter the fray in the struggle for the preservation of human rights and the fundamental liberties. Supreme court judges in other jurisdictions have done so time and time again. Though it is far less difficult to accommodate the will of the government, that must be resisted at all costs, particularly where justice so demands.

Only then can we say that Malaysia is grounded on the rule of law. To all our judges I say discard your political leanings and philosophy. Stick to justice in accordance with the law. As Lord Denning reminded us: Justice is inside all of us, not a product of intellect but of the spirit. Your oath is to the constitution; shield yourself behind it. Without your conviction, democracy is but a concept.

I would like to say more about law, democracy and about our beloved country. But time does not permit. In any event, I have to be careful. The more we say, the more vulnerable we become. But my parting message is this: The people of goodwill must continue to strive to bring about change, so that we can rebuild the trust of all Malaysians.

From that trust, we can rebuild the country where we do not live in fear, but in freedom; that the rights of all Malaysians are acknowledged, respected and protected by the system of law that is just and fair. There is no quest more honourable and a struggle more worthy of sacrifice.


This is the full speech delivered by former de facto law minister Zaid Ibrahim at the LawAsia 2008 conference in Kuala Lumpur this morning.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

No hollywood script beats this script

A chilling statutory declaration

Nov 21, 06 12:28pm

The following is the Nov 7, 1998 statutory declaration detailing Dr Munawar A Anees’ harrowing treatment by the police after he was detained under ISA. [Warning: Contains explicit language].

I, Dr Munawar Ahmad Anees, hereby declare and state as follows:

1. At about 10.30am on Sept 14, 1998, I was at home at No 474, Jalan 17/13A, Happy Garden, Petaling Jaya.

2. I had just started checking my email on the computer when I noticed that about 10 to 12 people had suddenly come into the compound of my house. The front main gate into the house was open at that time. I heard the noise of people inside the house. I came down from the first floor of my house and on the way down told my wife, Nadia, that lots of people had suddenly come to the house. She came down as well.

3. As soon as I entered the main living room on the ground floor, one man from that large group came to me and identified himself as Inspector Mazlan. He said that he was arresting me under the Internal Security Act for posing a threat to the national security of Malaysia. He immediately handcuffed me. By now, I noticed that some from that group of people who had come in had seated themselves on chairs in the living room while others were talking to my driver.

4. The entire group were in plainclothes and had no visible identification on them that they were police officers. I was not shown any warrant for my arrest. No one produced any search warrant.

5. As soon as I was handcuffed, one person who did not identify himself asked to go to my study. I asked for my handcuffs to be removed. He refused. About five to six of them then went to my study. The way they walked about in my house indicated familiarity with the place. They entered my study without my permission and ransacked the entire room. They went through everything there: all the drawers, my computer, the software, papers, magazines, books, everything that was there. This exhaustive search took them about an hour. They were careless and rough in their search and showed no regard for things. They removed everything that they could take: videos, audiotapes, faxes, disks, books, photos, magazines.

They even opened several sealed letters that had just come with the mail. They took things from inside drawers, from the bookshelves, from within files. They took my tax returns and my personal and family photographs that were there.

6. At one point one of the members of that group asked about the room that faced the study. I told him it was my daughter's room. Several of them went into that room but I do not know what, if anything, they removed from that room.

7. My wife was with me all the time. She was frightened and terribly shaken at what was happening to us in our own house and was trembling. She was holding onto me and we were both trying to encourage each other, she more than me because I was already suffering from heavy palpitations at this point.

I asked her for some water. She got me the water.

8. The police placed all items taken from the first floor of my house and my study in a cardboard box which they had brought with them. They took me down to the living room and there announced that they were taking me away. I was never told what my offence was and I was never shown any search warrant or warrant of arrest.

9. I turned to my wife and held her. She was on the verge of tears and my parting words to her were to be strong.

10. I did not see my wife again after that until Sept 19, 1998 when I was taken to the court by the police.

11. The police bundled me out of my house pulling me along by the handcuffs. I was placed in the back of an unmarked Proton car which had been driven into the compound of my house.

Inspector Mazlan sat in the front passenger seat of the car and two other officers sat on the back seat with me, one on either side.

12. After about a half hour drive I arrived at what I think was the Travers Road Police Station. The entire team of police officers got down from the car and once again I was bundled out of the car. The rest of the group of police who had been at my house also arrived there shortly after that.

13. My breathing at this time was laboured as my palpitations had worsened and my arms had gone numb. I complained to Inspector Mazlan but he ignored my request that I needed medical attention for my heart condition.

14. I was taken into a room somewhere within a building at that police station. There in that room I was left standing while one of them emptied the contents of the cardboard box onto a large table and started to group and separate the things they had taken from my house. Inspector Mazlan then started writing a list of the items and when he was finished he asked me to sign several documents. I was neither given a copy of these documents nor was I allowed to read them. I have no idea of what was recorded on these documents and whether the list prepared of the items taken from my house was in fact a complete list.

15. All throughout this process I was left handcuffed and standing.

16. When they had finished, one of the officers seated at that table turned to me and told me, once again, that I had been arrested under the Internal Security Act but he gave no details of the offence or any reasons for my arrest. He just told me that I was a threat to Malaysia. I could not understand this at all as I have never in all my years in Malaysia involved myself in anything that could be described as a threat to the country. He then wanted my personal particulars and started taking them down. This officer never at any time identified himself. He wrote down all that I gave him on some paper and asked me to sign. When I asked to read what had been written, he just snapped at me to sign and not to interfere in his work. I signed.

17. All this while my palpitations were causing my breathing to be very laboured. I complained once again that I needed medical assistance. This request was ignored, again, but I was given a glass of water and a cigarette to smoke. I felt strangely lightheaded after the cigarette.

18. I was kept in that room all the while.

19. A little later another police officer brought in a typed document which he said was the official police report. It was in Bahasa Malaysia and again I was told curtly to sign it. I did so. I was not allowed to read it and it was also neither read nor translated to me.

20. All the things taken from my house were then placed back in the cardboard box. When they were done, Inspector Mazlan came over to me and said that I was now being handed to some others. He did not identify them but added that I would be in safe hands and that I must cooperate with them. He then left the room.

21. After Mazlan left, two of the men who were there in that room came over and held me in a tight grip so much so that I could not even struggle. A third man came over and blindfolded me. I was then led out of the room and guided and dragged into some sort of a vehicle. The entire exercise of getting me into the vehicle took some time. My vision was completely blacked out by the blindfold.

It was necessary to climb up some steps to get into the vehicle and while the officers tried to guide me, I found my feet and legs suddenly heavy and weighed down. I found it difficult to walk and an effort to move. I was finally placed in a cage-like metal contraption in that vehicle. This contraption, which I examined with my hands, was triangular in shape and very small so much so that I could only crouch in it.

I was left alone for a while in that cage in the back of the vehicle. It was hot and airless in there. After sometime I heard the sound of an engine starting and then the vehicle moved off.

22. I think the vehicle traveled for about 30 to 40 minutes.

At the end of the journey, when it stopped I heard sounds of metal doors being opened and footsteps coming into the vehicle. I was pulled out of the cage and then out of the vehicle.

23. I had no idea where I was.

24. Still blindfolded and handcuffed I was led/dragged away by two men. I heard other footsteps around me at this time but no one spoke to me or amongst themselves. I recollect I was taken through several doors because I heard them being opened and shut. They finally stopped and someone removed my blindfold and handcuffs.

25. I found I was a small room. There were four men in that room. They were all in plainclothes and they immediately adopted a very aggressive confrontational stance against me.

They were exceptionally rude and coarse in the language they used. They asked me to strip naked. I tried to resist but had no option but to accede to their request.

26. My clothes, slippers, watch and glasses were taken away.

27. One of them then took then took my fingerprints. It was a long session as he took multiple impressions on some 10 or so forms or other documents.

28. I was then weighed.

29. All the while these things were being done the four men kept making disparaging remarks in a dismissive humiliating style. I was pushed against a wall and my height was taken.

30. I was then given a dark blue loose pajama type of pants and a T-shirt, and told to get dressed. I did so. I was again blindfolded and handcuffed and then taken through a series of doors and probably up a flight of stairs.

31. I was finally pushed through a door and when my blindfold was removed and my eyes adjusted to the light, I saw that I was in a cell of approximately 8 feet square. There were two wooden platforms placed against the cell walls, one on each side. There was no other furniture of any sort. The cell had no window and ventilation was through two tiny ratholes at the bottom of one wall. There was no bedding or blankets.

There was a small thin towel on one platform and beside it was a plastic bowl. The room was brightly lit by an overhead light that was never switched off throughout my stay there.

The glare of the light could not be avoided from any position in that small cell. There was an old vent on one wall that made a continuous horrendous grating sound. This vent did not seem to be moving any air about and was also never switched off. No sound from outside came through the door. The cell was literally soundproof though at times I thought I heard the sound of coughing and heavy breathing as I was led out of the cell to various other places.

32. Before my captors left the cell I was told, again rudely and in a dismissive style, that I had henceforth no name or identity, that I was number 26 and that I was only to answer to that number each and every time it was called.

33. About 10 to 15 minutes later the door of the cell was slammed open and a man walked in and shouted out `26'. I was slow to respond and was severely reprimanded for that. I was again blindfolded and handcuffed, led out of the cell and moved about 10 paces or so. When my blindfold was removed I saw I was in another room. There was a man with a camera there. My handcuffs were removed and about 20 to 30 photographs were taken of me from various angles. I was then again blindfolded and handcuffed and returned to my cell.

34. Whenever I was in the cell a small viewing hatch on the door was opened every few minutes to check on me.

35. About 10 to 15 minutes later - I can only guess as to the time - the same guard again entered the cell calling me by my number `26'. I was once again blindfolded and handcuffed and made to walk about 10 paces or so. When the blindfold and handcuffs were removed I saw I was once again in a room. This time there was a chair in the middle of the room. The chair had arms but no back. I was forced to sit in it and, against my will, shaved bald. I was then given a dustpan and a small broom and asked to sweep up my hair. When I resisted, I was made to do so by my captors.

36. When I had finished sweeping up my hair I was once again blindfolded and handcuffed and returned to my cell.

37. Within a space of a few minutes - I had hardly time to sit on one of the wooden platforms - there was a loud knock on the door and it was violently swung open. This ritual of a loud knock and the door being violently opened was followed each time I was taken out of my cell.

38. This time the guard walked in, looked at me seated on the platform and shouted that I was rude at not having wished him. I was warned that I was to get up and greet whoever entered the cell. Once again I was warned that if my number was called I was to respond immediately.

39. I was now directed to take a bath. I was not asked if I would like to take one. I was directed to do so. I was given a small thin towel and a little piece of soap. I was not blindfolded or handcuffed but was told to keep my head down and not to look up. I was led out of my cell and one of the guards walked beside me forcibly keeping my head bent down. I walked down a long narrow corridor.

There was just enough light in the corridor to walk by. On one side of the corridor I saw about five similar doors like those on my cell. At the end of the corridor there was a bathroom. I was asked by the guard to switch on the light in the bathroom. When I did so I noticed a sink and a squat toilet that had no door. There were protrusions on the wall from which presumably water was to come.

40. As I got ready to take a bath the guard yelled at me to get on and to hurry up. The water was very cold. I started my bath but when I was halfway through it and while still having soap on my body he stopped me and then got me to dress and to get out of the bathroom. I forgot to switch off the light and the guard became angry and screamed at me that he wasn't there to serve me. I was rushed back to my cell with my clothes still damp. All the way back, my head was once again kept forcibly down so that I couldn't look up.

41. The one vivid memory I have of that dark corridor is that of a single waste basket outside one of the many doors - the only sign that I saw during my stay there that perhaps I was not the only occupant in this hell.

42. A short while later the door opening ritual was repeated.

I stood up to meet the guard. He walked in, handed me a small packet, said nothing and left. When I opened it I saw that it had a little rice and a small piece of fish in it. I couldn't eat the fish. I tried it and it had a peculiar rancid taste as if it was off. I ate some of the rice. I had hardly done that when the door opened again. I stood up and the packet was removed.

43. By my estimate the time would now have been about 8 to 9pm on the night of my arrest. I thought that I would now be left alone. I was tired, dazed and disoriented, still having very heavy palpitations and laboured breathing and intensely worried about my family. The heavy feeling in my legs and lightheadedness had returned after the rice meal and I felt very lethargic.

44. Once again there was the now familiar bang on the door and my number ‘26' was shouted out. I stood up. The door opened and this time two guards walked in. I greeted them.

They did not speak. They first handcuffed and then blindfolded me but this time the blindfold was different. It consisted of black glasses that wrapped around my eyes and blinker-like sides that completely cut out all light. I could see nothing.

45. They led me out of my cell. They held me for a short distance and from then on gave directions and allowed me to grope my way. They were always by my side or a step behind.

They always asked me to open doors. We went up a flight of stairs - there were 50 steps over five landings. At each stage one of the guards would position my cuffed hands on the railing and ask me to follow it up. I was told to count to 10 steps and then turn to my left. I think I walked up five floors.

46. After the 50th step, I was asked to stop. One of the two swung me around and punched me in the stomach and said that he was ‘Mr Nice Guy' and that I was ‘Dr Feel Good'. I was then turned around again and pushed against a door and asked to open it. I did so, and when told, went inside. One of the guards came from behind and adjusted my blindfold partially.

I could see where I was from the corner of my eyes and partially from below the blindfold.

47. I was taken through a series of doors and then through something that had the appearance of a long dark corridor. I saw a red light at the end, somewhat like red light that one sees in a photographer's darkroom. On the left there were some doors. I had the distinct impression that there was an abyss on my right side and that if I took one step wrong I would fall into it. I was told to turn to my left. I did so.

My handcuffs were now taken off. A moment later, one of the guards took my blindfold off. I saw I was facing an open room. It was brightly lit. I was dazed, fazed out, blinded by the intense light and for the first few minutes after the blindfold was removed, could make no sense of things.

48. When I was finally able to focus I saw four stonefaced expressionless men seated on chairs behind a table. The two men on either side looked Chinese, the one in the middle left Indian and the one other Malay. My guards left me standing in front of the table. There was silence in the room.

49. Suddenly the Malay man thumped the table and shouted at me in Bahasa Malaysia. I did not understand him and apologised in English for not being fluent in Bahasa. The Malay man then switched to a mixture of Malay and English and abused me for not speaking the language. He repeatedly kept saying ‘fuck', ‘fucking' as he abused me. The other three joined in as well. This went on for something like 20 to 30 minutes. I tried explaining that I could write and read Jawi but that as most of my work was in English and that all my friends spoke English, there was never any great need to become fluent in Bahasa.

After about 30 minutes or so, the four of them stopped and the Malay officer suddenly slammed the table again and shouted at me in English that I had no manners, that I had entered a place where there were four seated officers and I had not greeted them. I was startled by his actions. I apologised to him, said I was sorry, that I had lost all track of time and place, that I did not know what to say to them. The Malay man stared at me and then said in Urdu "thum bahat jau" - you sit down.

50. From then on, my interrogators abused and assailed me mainly in English.

51. There was a small double conical plastic stool in front of the table. It had no back or arms. I sat on it and found that it was unstable and rocked and swiveled at even the slightest move. I was unsteady on that stool and one of the two Chinese men shouted at me to sit properly. I tried to explain but before I could even do so he shouted, "Learn some manners, otherwise things are going to be difficult for you". I apologised to him and said, "Sorry, sir, the stool is unsteady."

52. There was then suddenly a barrage of questions directed at me. One interrogator would ask a question, I would be in the middle of my answer when another would cut in with a second question. I would turn to the second officer and the third would attack me with a different question. I would turn to the third and the first would yell at me demanding his answer. As I tried to recollect my thoughts between the first, second and third questions, the fourth officer would cut in with yet another question.

The questions were never related, there was no link between them though they were all directed at my personal particulars, about my work, something about everything but nothing indicative of any subversive or criminal activities. This style of questioning was consistently followed throughout my interrogation there though at times some of the interrogators would leave the room leaving behind two and, at times, one interrogator. I can only guess they went to rest but they never let me rest.

53. While this was going on, I heard the door behind me being violently kicked open. I turned and saw a man walk in. The four behind the table stood up. The man who walked in was carrying a thick heavy file. He walked up to me and hit the back of my head with the file and then shouted at me that they knew everything and that there was no need for me to misguide them or to hide. He said that they knew everything I did with Anwar.

When I tried to protest that I did nothing except help write speeches, this officer menacingly said "I am giving you 24 hours. Within that period come up with what we want or we will be very very nasty with you." He went on to say that his superiors wanted the information from me within 24 hours, that by tomorrow they must complete the matter. He then hit the back of my head again with his file, thumped the floor with his shoes, shouted ‘Hidup Malaysia', turned and left. The door was heavily slammed shut behind him.

54. When this officer left the room, the Indian-looking man at the table pointed at me and warned me that the officer who had just left was the top-notch officer and added “You know what he wants. He wants facts, information. We want facts." I again protested that I had done nothing irregular but they were not interested in my protestations and continued haranguing me.

They alternated in questioning me about my personal particulars, about my family, my work, regularly interspersing the barrage of questions with warnings that my arrest was under the Internal Security Act because I was a threat to the national security of Malaysia, that under the Internal Security Act I would never be bailed out and that no lawyer could ever see me.

55. They would then switch to telling me that the Internal Security Act was not punitive but preventive, that they had invoked it in order to prevent perceived threats to the national security of the country, that I should not feel ashamed of my presence there before them, that they had arrested members of parliament, chief ministers and other high profile figures. They described to me an attempt by a person known as Kitingan, who tried to secede from Malaysia.

56. In between all the verbal abuse, threats and advice, the Malay officer tried to impress me with his knowledge of Urdu by the use of the odd word or two or by singing a snatch of some Hindi song.

57. I kept telling them, whenever they would let me, that I had made no attempt to attack Malaysia, that I had done nothing illegal or criminal and could not understand my presence before them and for their treating me in such a humiliating and degrading manner. They never answered me on that but would always turn things around and tell me that I was at a transit station and that my presence there was a favour to me and my family.

One or other of the four would always warn me that if I did not cooperate, I would be sent to a detention center for two years and that the detention would be further extended in two-year multiples. I was repeatedly told that I would never see my family again and that I should consider this opportunity a blessing since everyone was giving me a chance.

58. I couldn't understand what they wanted and what was this chance they were giving me. I would tell them this. They would then emphasise, in turn, repeatedly, about how senior people had been arrested for their own rehabilitation. They warned me that my perception of no wrong was mine and not necessarily correct, that in someone else's or his (the officer's) mind I had done wrong. They warned me that the Internal Security Act was to retrain minds towards goodness, to offer me a chance to realise my mistakes and an opportunity to repent.

They would repeatedly emphasise that I could not lie as they knew everything and that my perception of events and ideas was totally wrong. They said that they would correct me and I must accept their perceptions. They warned me that they wanted me to cooperate and that if I did so the interview would finish quickly and I would be free but that if I didn't, I would go to the detention centre and it would be the end of my and my family's life.

59. These warnings were repeatedly given to me every time I was tired from the questions that were being continuously hurled at me. There was no let up in the interrogation or the threats or the warnings despite their being aware of my medical condition and my state of exhaustion.

60. I had had just one small meal since my arrest early on the morning of the Sept 14, 1998. I had had no rest or sleep and had lost all track of time. I was sick. My interrogators did not care at all about my condition. At some point of time, in the night or the early hours of the morning, shortly before they returned me to the cell, they began asking me whether I knew why I was there in their hands.

I said I did not know and they would then tell me that it had to do with Anwar. When I would tell them that I was his English speech writer, they would respond by saying that they knew. They would then ask me to think of my position and that I had to help them and the nation. They would tell me how.

61. I knew of nothing wrong in my status of being Anwar's speech writer and friend. They would then alternatively yell, shout or advise that my perceptions were wrong and that they would tell me how to help them and the nation.

62. They finally asked me to think of my status and that they would see me soon.

63. After hours of this rough and humiliating interrogation I was once again blindfolded and handcuffed and led back down the five flights of stairs to my cell. I was pushed in and my blindfold and handcuffs were removed.

64. I had been barely in my cell for a few minutes when the peephole opened and someone peered in and jeered at me. The person muttered abuse in Bahasa before slamming shut the peephole.

65. I did not know what time it was. I could only guess that it was well into the morning of Sept 15, 1998. I was exhausted. I tried to rest on the wooden platform but was unable to do so with the overhead bright light and the noise from the vent.

66. There was the loud knock on the door again and once more my number was called out and the door opened. I was already on my feet. I was asked to take my bath. Fazed out, dazed, exhausted I was led to the bathroom, my head held forcibly down. The water from the overhead pipe was cold. I had hardly started when I was told to stop and to get out. I did not even dry myself but hurriedly put on my pajama pants and the T-shirt. I forgot again to switch off the light and got yelled again because of that. I was led back to my cell, head down. My clothes were wet and uncomfortable and with the light on and the noise from the vent, I could not sleep.

67. A short while later there was a knock on the door. The number calling and door opening ritual was repeated. I was asked to put my plastic bowl outside the door. I did so and a guard poured plain tea in it. A slice of white bread was placed on a grill bar in the door and I was ordered to pick it up. I carried the bowl and bread into my cell. This was my breakfast.

68. A little later my number was called out again and a man walked into my cell. He asked if I remembered him. He said he was ‘Mr Nice Guy'. He said he was taking me to the hospital.

69. My chest pains, palpitations, breathlessness and numbness in my arm had continued from the morning of Sept 14 right through the night's interrogation.

70. I was once again blindfolded and handcuffed and led down one or two floors. I was then put in a vehicle of some sort.

I was unable to see out and both the blindfold and handcuffs were kept on throughout the entire journey. When the van stopped, someone came into the back of the vehicle and removed my blindfold and handcuffs. I saw that it was the officer calling himself ‘Mr Nice Guy' who had done that. He warned me that this was a special privilege being given to me and that I was to behave myself while with the doctor. He warned me that I was under their complete surveillance all the time.

71. I can only guess that the time now would have been somewhere after 8am.

72. When I was first brought out of the van, the sunlight bothered my eyes. I saw the emergency services signboard of the General Hospital, Kuala Lumpur. There were four police officers constantly circling me. I was taken to a see a lady doctor who wore a tag that, I think, read ‘Dr Shymala Devi'.

My number was given to the doctor. They also handed to her a file which they had with them. I was sent for an ECG and a urine test. I also had a chest x-ray done and then was brought back to the same doctor. She did a cursory physical examination and then prescribed five different medications which were handed to the police officers. I was returned to the van, placed inside it, once again blindfolded and handcuffed and taken back to my cell.

73. They left me alone for a short while after that and then brought a small packet of rice with a piece of fried fish which again had the same rancid taste and was inedible. I forced myself to eat some of it but felt sick and uncomfortable and lightheaded immediately after doing so.

74. After this ‘lunch', I was removed once again from my cell after being first blindfolded and handcuffed. I was taken up the 50 steps to the previous night's interrogation room. The same four officers were there. Their attitude, initially, was different. They started by talking about the hospital, how about they cared for me and how they were not taking any chances with me. One asked me to sit. The chair was unstable and I said that I would rather stand. I remained standing.

After a while I was given a different chair.

75. There was at first a preliminary exchange about the medication that I had been given at the hospital that morning. After that, one of the four started on the interrogation. He asked if I had thought about things and about how I could help them and the country. I responded by talking about the journal I had started and about how that had put Malaysia on the world map. They stopped me and warned me that I was on the wrong track. They asked me to concentrate on Anwar.

76. I still could not understand what they wanted from me on Anwar and I asked them. Finally one of them asked if I had read the affidavits that had been published in the papers about Anwar, I said yes but not in any great detail. One of them said that there were sexual allegations, particularly of a homosexual nature, against Anwar in those affidavits. I told them that so far as I knew Anwar was not involved in any such sexual activities and that in all the years I had known him he had always conducted himself with integrity.

I told them that it was easy to make such allegations. They said they would show me evidence. They asked me to think and concentrate on such homosexual activities. I asked if they were making allegations against me. They denied this and merely said they wanted me to think about these things. They said that their senior officer wanted results and once they had results, they would let me sleep and would not disturb me.

I told them that I had never had a homosexual relationship in my entire life. They said they knew that that was my perception of things but that my perception of things was wrong, that they had to retrain my mind to see what was right and wrong, that they would show me how. Once again they went into how the Internal Security Act was there to help to rehabilitate minds and people. They said they would show me how. They said they did not want to fail with me and have me sent off to the detention centre. They said that my family would be completely destroyed if that happened.

77. For the first time at this session they also introduced a threat involving the presence of US agents in Malaysia. They said that the US agents were here and were working with them and were already checking into my background with a view to canceling my pending application for US citizenship and revoking my green card.

78. For hours the interrogation veered between my rehabilitation, the retraining of my mind, the position and well-being of my family, the possibility of my being put away in a detention centre, of losing everything I had, my wife, my children, my work, my freedom, of losing my pending US citizenship, of being ultimately deported from Malaysia. I was constantly reminded that I could help the nation, that Anwar was a threat, that the senior officers wanted results.

The style was always the same with all four of them throwing questions at me and not allowing me to marshal my thoughts and answer them.

79. As the interrogation progressed, one or more of the four officers would, without warning, break into loose vulgar language. One would make statements like ‘Anwar fucks, you fuck', and the rest would laugh. Another would then make a derogatory remark about the Punjabis being big fuckers and offer me a cigarette.

80. I always felt lightheaded after I smoked one of their cigarettes.

81. The interrogation would then switch back to my work, my vulnerability being an alien in Malaysia, my family, and then, just as suddenly switch back to vulgarity and Anwar and homosexuality. They would make lewd remarks, asking me about the size of my penis using expressions like ‘dick', ‘cock'.

They would ask me for its length, its diameter, asking me whether I would like to put it in someone's ‘arse'. They asked how I would feel if I had someone's meat ‘shoved up my arse', whether I would like to put my ‘meat in someone's arse', that they could arrange ‘it' and everything else there, that when I went to the detention centre, I would have ‘it' done to me regularly.

82. This switching in the interrogation continued unabated right throughout the time I was with them. Except for the brief periods I was in the cell, the interrogation never let up. Sometime in the course of the second day one new interrogator joined the team but the interrogation was usually conducted by four of them at any one time. Gradually they began to introduce Anwar's name more into the abuse and began to make him play a more active part in their lewd descriptions of homosexual and non-homosexual sex.

They began to make suggestions that Anwar enjoyed homosexual sex. They asked me to think about homosexual sex, about ‘fucking' Anwar, about Anwar ‘fucking' me. They asked me to groan as if I was being ‘fucked' and enjoying it. In that situation, in their hands, I had little choice but to groan and moan as my captors wanted me to. I acted as they wanted me to. They were bullies and I was in their hands.

They asked me if I sucked cocks and then asked me to pretend I was sucking a big lollipop. They asked me if I had seen Anwar's cock and then asked me to pretend I was sucking the cock of the ‘DPM', as one officer crudely put it. As I acted out the demeaning, humiliating parts they gave me, they laughed and asked if it was good.

83. By the end of the second day, the long hours of interrogation, the lack of sleep, and the lack of decent food had left me completely disoriented and exhausted. My health was deteriorating and I was extremely worried about my family.

84. I was only given my medication when my captors remembered to do so.

85. I remember the second day's interrogation ending with my interrogators' warning to me to think about all they had said and that they would be seeing me again shortly. They said that I could give a great gift to the nation and that the country would be forever grateful to me. Their parting words, in unison, were ‘Fuck Anwar'. I was then handcuffed and blindfolded and led back to my cell.

86. I had no idea of time.

87. My cell had no pillow or anything that even remotely resembled comfort. The wooden platform that was to be my bed was half my height. If I lay down straight half my body hung over the side. The only way I could lie on the platform was in the fetal position. The light and the sound from the vent made sleep impossible.

88. The walls of the cell were thick and appeared soundproof.

89. Each time I was made to walk the corridor outside my cell, the silence of the place had overwhelmed me. I heard no sounds other than an occasional cough and so sensed there were others in the cells adjoining mine.

90. Lying there curled up in that fetal position, I could only replay in my mind what my captors had repeatedly drummed into me: the sex acts they asked me to act out, the vulnerable position that I was in, that my wife and children were in. I thought repeatedly about the US agents I had been told were already here working with my captors and wondered what lies were being told to them.

In that silence, in that cell I was alone and very far from normalcy and truth and felt increasingly that no one could help me or my family. We had no money, no savings, nothing. I thought of being detained indefinitely, of losing my job, of my family being destitute and alone in a foreign country, of the influence of the Malaysian police on the US government to cancel my immigration green card and my pending US citizenship application. I thought of being penniless, of being deported with no visible means of support. I thought of all this and I thought of sleep and food and the love of my family and I cried.

91. I had done nothing wrong but I was deeply frightened. I felt hopelessly outnumbered and very vulnerable.

92. I dreaded the knock on the door and the calling of number ‘26'. But it inevitably came with my bathtime. I was slow again and again I was scolded as if I was a child. I was bundled down the corridor, with my head held down, into the bathroom. Once again I was hurried out of the bathroom, the bath incomplete and sent back to my cell.

93. A little later, I was given breakfast. It was the same weak tea in a plastic bowl and a slice of plain white bread that was placed on the grill bar for me to take as if I was a beggar.

94. Another knock, another call of number ‘26' and tired as I was I stood up, waiting for my captors. This time they came with the blindfolds and the handcuffs and I was once again, alternately led, guided and dragged by the cuffs up the 50 steps. At the top of the 50 steps, the blindfold was taken off and the guard made lewd gestures with his hands and fingers and then pushed me through the door.

I was not made to turn left as previously but dragged past a maze of doors along the corridor which was dark save for a red light, as in a darkroom, in the far distance. I kept fearing the impression of a black abyss that seemed to flank the corridor on my right and feared stepping off into some sort of void. I was taken through a final door and walked into a room which was as before brightly lit.

95. There was one man seated alone at a table. I had never seen him before. He asked me to sit. I did so and he then asked me for my personal history. I was too tired to resist or to ask why they were asking for the same information repeatedly. He wrote everything down. He questioned me on everything I had done, my childhood, my studies, my work, my family, everything. It was a long exhausting session.

Everything was ‘Why?'. Even as to the birth of my children it was ‘why? why were they born?', or the death of my father, ‘why? why did he die?' At times, this officer drove me to desperation and to despair. But he never stopped hammering away at me.

96. Sometime during this interrogation, the original four officers entered the room and joined this fifth officer. They then took over the interrogation while the fifth officer left the room. The four reverted to the trend of the first two days. They warned me and then threatened me and abused me in turn. They threw questions at me but did not wait for answers. Each cut into the other's line of questioning and kept interrupting my train of thought. I was warned that I had been sacked from my jobs, that the US investigators had completed their work and were about to return with their recommendation that my green card and citizenship be revoked, that I still had time to cooperate to save myself and my family, that they would tell me how I could help the nation and myself.

They kept on drumming into me that my perception of things was wrong, that I had forgotten, that I had to listen to them. The abuse centred around my penis, its length and size, human genitalia, vaginal and anal sex. They never stopped talking about sex, repeatedly stating that they had to fuck Anwar. They made me simulate anal sex by lying down on the floor. They instructed me to first ‘fuck' someone and then be ‘fucked' by someone. They asked me to groan and moan while I was doing it.

97. The fifth officer came back into the room and joined the original four. He took over the questioning but this time went on a new and different line. He said that he had been to Pakistan, said that sex there was repressed and regressed. He said that homosexuality was a way of life in Pakistan and suggested that I should share my sex life details with them.

98. It became apparent that this routine and the haranguing was going to go on forever. Truth and my denials were getting me nowhere. I was at the point of collapse and could not go on. I knew I had to play along with them.

99. The fifth officer took out a cigarette from a pack that was in his pocket and offered it to me. I was always given a cigarette from a black pack. The officers when they smoked always seemed to take cigarettes from other packs. The cigarette tasted unusual but good. Every time, I smoked one of their cigarettes I felt strangely lightheaded and `woozy'.

100. He suggested that it was natural in Pakistan. I looked at him. He stared at me and then pointed at my anus. I was dead tired. I nodded my head. He smiled and said ‘good'. It now became a sequence where they asked questions and I nodded in acquiescence and when they asked for details I made up whatever pleased them. Gradually they made up a story about a non-existent ‘Parvez' and some university liaison. They wanted me to be the active partner and insisted on that feature in the Parvez story. I denied this but they would have it no other way stating that it was the Pakistani way of life.

101. The original four interrogators then repeated the fictional Parvez ‘story' to me and made me repeat it to them, again and again, all the while reminding me that my perception of things had been wrong, that I had forgotten and that they were helping to rehabilitate me and to remind me, insisting that those in a homosexual relationship cannot give it up.

102. At one point in their haranguing and their suggestions that I was a homosexual, I asked if they knew biology and suggested a medical examination would confirm homosexuality.

They ignored this and for a long time made me talk about the male and female sex organs. They wanted graphics and made me draw these, over and over. They talked incessantly about anal sex, giving me extensive biological details about the size and shape of the penis in relation to the male anus.

103. They switched, as they pleased, between graphical and explicit sexual details and threats to me and my family's future, between the good of Malaysia and Anwar being a threat to the country, between prolonged detention for me and the promise of non-disturbed sleep, between being a destitute and penniless and a golden future in a new Malaysia rid of Anwar, between Pakistani society's repressed sexual urges and university sexual exploits in the US that they had read about in magazines.

104. They wanted details of university sexual activities in the US and when I had none to give, refused to take no for an answer. They claimed they knew all about what happened in universities in the US, that the girls did nothing but ‘screw' all day and all night long, that sex was cheap and easy and free there. They insisted, again and again, that I had a free sex life there.

They suggested, in turn, the number of times I had sex a day. One of them would suggest twice daily, then the next would increase to three, the third officer would suggest five times. They settled finally on 5 to 6 times a day and kept on repeating the numbers, asking me to tell them, to tell them, to agree, to agree until in desperation I nodded my head even though nothing like this had happened. And immediately the let-up in their intensity of questioning and the comment, "See we told you. It is there in you. Your perception of things is wrong. We are helping you." A cigarette from the black pack was always given to me a as reward whenever I gave in to them.

105. Then they would start again. Again the same style, the same repetitive questioning. This time they would ask for details of oral sex in US universities. They would describe it and then expect me to endorse things. They asked for names. I had none to give and they wouldn't accept that. They said I had to give them names. I gave them a fictional name ‘Joe', and once again there was an immediate but momentary let-up in intensity. And then they wanted more details about ‘Joe' and I had to make them up. When I did so they gave me a cigarette as a reward. The cigarettes always had an unusual taste.

106. A long time after ‘Joe' was created they stopped, and after blindfolding and handcuffing me they sent me back to the cell. Their parting words to me were that Anwar had brought me to Malaysia to ‘screw' him, that I should think about that, that they would see me soon. They shouted ‘fuck Anwar' and sent me off.

107. I had by now no idea of what day or date it was. I had no idea of the time. My last sight of sunshine or the sky had been when I was brought back from the Kuala Lumpur General Hospital. My passage of time was regulated by the knocks on my cell door, my hasty scurried baths, the scanty breakfasts I was given, the dreaded journey up the 50 steps and the interminable long hours in that room with my interrogators.

108. My division of days in this statement is by the number of `breakfasts' I was served.

109. There was no sleep huddled on that wooden platform in my cell.

110. The ritual hurried bath, accompanied by abuse and rough handling, and the tea and slice of dangled bread came soon after I was returned to the cell.

111. Then there was the same knock, the call of my number ‘26', the blindfold, the handcuffs and the long climb back to the interrogation chamber.

112. This time there was one Chinese interrogator in the room. He was alone and he started the interrogation before the others came by once again taking down my particulars and then questioning me on the journal that I had been editing.

113. Shortly after that a second interrogator came in and cut into the questioning by lecturing me on culture, ideology and religion. He said that he was educating me. When he was tired, the Chinese officer took over and went back to the journal. They switched between the journal, the lectures, my role to Malaysia, the needs of my family, my status, and the cancellation of my detention order.

114. The other two came in progressively and took their seats. There was an immediate warning when all four were there that I was wasting their time and that I had to get on with things, to move on, that their senior officer was waiting for results. They repeatedly warned me that my detention order under the Internal Security Act was ready.

115. They asked for dates and times of sexual encounters. I had none to give. They became angry and abusive and threatening. They went back to sex in the US and asked for more names.

116. I fabricated an ‘Andre'. There was again a momentary let-up in the interrogation, again a statement about my perceptions being wrong, that I had forgotten, that they were reminding me and correcting them, again a warning that if I concentrated the pattern would surface, that I had to have a tendency towards homosexuality. They nodded in agreement, smiled, gave me a cigarette, claimed to know about this fictitious ‘Andre' and said that they had been told about ‘Andre' by the US agents then in Kuala Lumpur.

117. ‘Andre' was someone created by me that morning in absolute desperation.

118. This went on for a long time.

119. Sometime during the interrogation they brought me a packet of the same rice and peculiar tasting fried fish that I had been given previously. All the rice meals they gave me tasted ‘off' and made me uncomfortable and ‘woozy'. I ate what little I could of it but the questioning continued even during that.

120. They then introduced the previous session's sexual scenario into the interrogation and started pressurising me for details. When I had none to give, they asked that I think about them while they waited for their senior officer to come back. In the meantime, they went into other details and descriptions of oral sex.

121. Then they reverted back to their pattern of interrogation but now began to concentrate more on Anwar. They reminded me again and again that Anwar was a homosexual, that I had ‘fucked' him, that they had proof of it. They opened a bag, took out some photographs and threw them on the table. These were normal regular photographs. Two were of me, one alone and one with a person known as Khalid Jaffar. There was another photograph of a person they said was ‘Mior'. I did not know this `Mior'.

122. I remember two of the interrogators leaving at one point and then returning and bringing with them some of my written work taken from my house. One of them made an immediate threat when he came in that I was playing tricks on them. He claimed that he had tried printing material from a disk taken from my house and was unable to do so because I had hidden the material. I denied this, telling him that he had been probably unable to read the file. He warned that the detention order was still pending.

123. Suddenly one of the four screamed at me to stand up. I did so. All four came from behind the table and surrounded me in a very aggressive manner as if they were about to assault me. One of them literally had his face in mine. They all screamed at me, in my ears, loudly, again and again and again, that I had fucked Anwar, fucked Anwar, fucked, fucked, Anwar, Anwar. They screamed and screamed and screamed, in my ears, at my face, at me, again and again, over and over asking me to say ‘yes' until I gave in and broke down saying yes, yes. They stopped screaming. That was what they wanted to hear. They were not interested that it was untrue.

124. They gave me a cigarette and allowed me to smoke it.

125. The interrogation continued.

126. There were frequent interruptions between the interrogators. They kept switching topics.

127. Whenever it suited them I was made to lie on the floor and simulate anal sex with Anwar. I was asked to alternate as if I was on top of Anwar and then Anwar on top of me.

128. All this was humiliating, and depressing and degrading.

It descended into vulgarity both in their actions and in their words. But they never stopped. They embarrassed me, ridiculed me, laughed at me, claimed I had a prized arse, reminded me that not many people in the world had the privilege of `screwing' and being `screwed' by a Deputy Prime Minister.

129. These were all lies but I had to suffer them, listen to them.

130. They repeatedly drilled into my mind that my perceptions were wrong, that they were educating me, rehabilitating me, showing me how I was helping Malaysia and my family, that my only way out from there was to give them what the nation needed.

131. They came back to the issue of sex and placed the photograph of `Mior' on the table. They asked for details of the man. I told them that I did not know him. They said I had `screwed' Mior. I denied that.

132. They went back to Anwar and anal sex and my perceptions.

Step by step, by alternately shouting and screaming and questioning, by cajoling and threatening, by warnings about detention and my family, they made repeat after them again and again, that I had engaged in sexual misconduct with Anwar on several occasions. They made me say that I was sorry about it all, that I was ashamed and repented that all this had happened. At stages they would stop to ensure that the information had been drilled into me and would then continue.

They made me say that I was forced into it because I feared for my job and that if I refused Anwar's advances, my employment would be in jeopardy, that I would lose important financial resources. They made me say that it hurt me a lot that this kind of behaviour was coming from a person who claimed to be a pious Muslim and that he had betrayed a lot of Muslims in this country and the whole Muslim world who had looked up to him as an inspiring leader. They made me say that every time I engaged in this act it was a disgusting experience for me. These were all lies made up by the ISA officers.

133. They wanted to fix details and asked me to choose a month. I could not because there had never been any homosexual relationship between me and Anwar. There was nothing for me to choose. They said they would help and then started going through my work in Malaysia. They went through the details; that I first met Anwar in 1984; that I first came to Malaysia in 1986; that I only visited in 1986, 1987 and 1988; that I first began living in Malaysia in 1988.

My interrogators were struggling to fix a time. My interrogators settled on March 1993 because in their interrogations they determined that after 1993 my speech-writing activities for Anwar were reduced considerably. This was because Anwar became the deputy prime minister and finance minister and his emphasis was more on finance and I could not help. Sometimes when an intellectual speech was to be made, a draft would be faxed to me and I would edit it.

134. They knew from their interrogation of me that in 1993, I lived at Bukit Damansara with my wife and children.

135. So they picked the month - it would be March 1993. I traveled a lot at that time and hoped, to myself, that I had been abroad in March 1993 - I could have been in New Delhi or Casablanca or in Qatar for a conference or back to my home in the US. I did not tell them this.

136. They determined for the purposes of their fabricated version that Anwar would call me over for a chat, that this would be about a week or 10 days after he became DPM, that I would go over, that this would be my last informal contact with him.

137. Then there would be the demand that I endlessly repeat the details they had settled on until they were drilled into me.

138. And so it went on and on until they had made up the whole story. There was no rest for me, no let up in the intensity of their interrogation.

139. When they were finally satisfied with my repetition of the details they switched back to telling me that the higher authorities had been contacted about me, that they were happy with my cooperation and performance. They offered me a cigarette and then left me alone in the room for a short while.

140. A little later another officer walked in. This was the person who eventually took me to see a magistrate for a statement to be recorded from me. He was very stern when he walked in. He shouted at me to stand up. I did so. He came and stood in front of me. He said that they were canceling my identity card, that steps had been taken to send me to the detention centre and then eventually to deport me.

He declared that my US citizenship was in serious jeopardy and that the US agents in Malaysia looking into things had decided to revoke it. My family had been told to pack up. He warned me that I had nothing left unless I agreed to serve the country, that I had only one option and that was to cooperate with them. He then started on a very emotional speech about loving Malaysia, about sacrifices, about fighting for and giving one's life in defence of Malaysia, about defending Malaysia, about going to jail for Malaysia.

He screamed at me whether I was prepared to do all that. He screamed ‘answer, answer, answer.' I was stunned and all I could say was ‘yes, yes, yes'. He thumped his shoes on the floor, raised his arm in the air and shouted ‘Hidup Malaysia' and then turned and walked out.

141. I stood rooted to the floor and was still standing when the four interrogators walked back in. They asked me to sit and told me I had done a good job. They offered me a cigarette and told me that it was only four to five months and that I shouldn't worry. This was the first time there had been any mention of these four to five months and I asked them what they meant. They said that was the sentence I would get. I protested but they said I was not to worry. They offered me another cigarette and laughed, and said I had a great ‘cock'.

142. The earlier officer walked back in again. He asked me to stand again and told me that he had spoken to his seniors and everything had to be done that day, that night. He was waiting for his senior officers to arrive. He left the room in the same way, a thump with his feet on the floor, a raised arm and a screamed ‘Hidup Malaysia'.

143. A little later he returned and spoke privately to the four interrogators. Two of the four then left the room. At this point, four new officers walked in. I had never seen them before. All those in the room saluted the four newcomers.

Three of the newcomers went and sat in the chairs that had been originally occupied by the four interrogators. One of the four stood near the door. The ‘Hidup Malaysia' officer also remained standing. The remaining two original interrogators now left the room, shutting the door behind them. The others addressed the man who sat in the middle as ‘Dato'.

144. This ‘Dato' spoke first in a cold tone. He started by telling me that they were after Anwar and that they wanted him. He said that Anwar had done great damage to the nation and that I could help them a lot by agreeing to admit to a homosexual liaison with Anwar. He added that this would be a service to the nation and would be a sacrifice for which I would be handsomely rewarded, that all my problems would be resolved, that I would be given Malaysian citizenship, that I would be given very well paid jobs, and more importantly that I would be a free man and that my family would remain intact.

He assured me that they would liaise with the US agents to resolve my US citizenship status satisfactorily. He said that his officers had told him I had agreed to die for the nation but that he had no desire to punish me since I was a victim of Anwar's lust and after all what was four to five months when compared to death. He concluded by telling me that by helping them to get Anwar, I was helping to rid the nation of a traitor and that they were after Anwar and not me.

145. The man on the Dato's left then took over. He said that they would arrange for me to be taken to make a statement of a sexual liaison with Anwar and that things would be all right after that. He said that they would make all these arrangements subtly, that their officer would brief me further on the language but that they could not come into the picture as otherwise Anwar and his men would accuse the police. He made no mention of court proceedings, of a sentence or of a jail though he kept assuring me to believe in them and to trust that they would look after all of my and my family's needs. They consoled me that my wife could call on them for help at any time and that my safety and that of my family was their main concern.

146. I was numb from fear and worry.

147. When he was finished the three seated officers stood up.

The junior officers saluted, everyone of them shouted ‘Hidup Malaysia' and they all left.

148. This must have been very late into the night. I was left alone for a few minutes. Then all the four interrogators walked in. One came over and slapped me on my back and said that I had done a good job and that they could now ‘fuck' Anwar Ibrahim.

149. One of the four interrogators left the room. A little later he returned with their ‘senior' officer. The senior officer told me that he was happy with me and that my NRIC (identity card) would not be canceled. He added that he would discuss the details of the matter with his seniors and would come back to me but that in the meantime I should think about things and should rest.

150. I was then blindfolded and handcuffed and taken down the 50 steps and returned to my cell.

151. Once again, I was asked to take an early hurried bath and then given my tea and slice of bread. But unlike the previous days, I was not after that immediately taken to the interrogation room. Instead I was left in my cell.

152. Some time later, one of the guards came into the cell and told me that they were taking me out. I did not understand what he meant. He handed me the clothes and slippers that I had been wearing when I was arrested and asked me to get dressed.

153. I was then once again handcuffed and blindfolded and led out of the cell. I think I was taken one or two floors down and then put into a vehicle. I recollect the vehicle being driven for a long time. It then stopped and I heard a door being opened and a short while later my blindfold was removed. I noticed I was in a van with oversized blacked-out windows. They immediately replaced the blindfold with a pair of glasses which were "fuzzy" and did not allow me to focus.

154. They then transferred me to the back seat of a Proton car. I was wedged between two officers. The car moved off and after a short drive someone suddenly removed the fuzzy glasses . I noticed that we were in the vicinity of the Sultan Abdul Samad Building. One of the officers beside me put a jacket over my handcuffs, presumably to hide them. I noticed that the car was being driven erratically. One of the officers pushed me down on the seat so that I could not be seen.

155. When the car stopped, I found that I was at Bukit Aman. I was asked to get out of the car and one of the officers removed my handcuffs. I then saw one of the senior officers who had interrogated me walking towards the car. He spoke to two of the officers who had been in the Proton car. The three of them took me to a cafeteria where they ordered some food.

This was the first meal I had had since my arrest.

156. While we were at the cafeteria, Inspector Mazlan who had arrested me came to the table and told me that that he was now handing me over to another officer. There was an Indian officer with him at that time. This Indian officer was later identified to me when I was warded in the Cardiac Rehabilitation Ward of the Kuala Lumpur General Hospital as `’Rajakopal'. I am now told by my lawyers that Rajakopal is the named complainant on the charge sheet filed against me in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court. I had never met or seen this Rajakopal before that day. This Rajakopal only stayed there a short while.

157. Throughout the period, I was at that cafeteria the three interrogators stayed with me.

158. After Rajakopal left, the senior officer once again started telling me that my family would be proud of me and that they were safe. He reminded me that I was doing them and the nation a great service for which I would be remembered.

He then said it was time to take me for the statement to be recorded from me the way I had been briefed the night before and then added as an obvious warning that all my Internal Security Act detention problems would be resolved after I had given the statement.

159. They again put me in the car and hid me by making me bend forward. When the car finally stopped and I was taken out, I noticed that I was in the court complex.

160. At the court while we were walking, I was constantly being reminded of what I had to say in my statement to the magistrate.

161. We sat down in one of the rooms for a while. I think they were having trouble because photographers were following them. They wanted to avoid the exposure. We went to an office on 2nd or 3rd floor. They had hustled me through a maze of corridors. I could not keep track of where we were going. I was then brought down and made to walk to a room where I was told a magistrate was waiting.

162. ASP Mazlan had accompanied me to the Magistrate's Court.

A senior ISA officer was also there. ASP Mazlan went into the magistrate's room and took me in. The ISA officer waited outside.

163. The magistrate talked to me in Malay. I said that I needed an interpreter. An interpreter, I think he was called Affendi, was brought in. At that point, the magistrate told ASP Mazlan and the other police officers who had accompanied him to leave the room. That left only me, the magistrate and Affendi in that room.

164. The magistrate wrote some particulars on some ruled paper. She had some sort of guide-sheet on her left to which she kept referring. She wrote a paragraph or so; her name, etc. ... am here with ... my name ... She wrote and read it back to me.

165. She asked me whether I agreed; whether I wanted to change anything or add anything, etc.

166. I said, "no".

167. She wrote my name, her name, my I/C., her I/C no, etc.

168. Then she signed and asked me to sign.

169. At some point she asked if I was there of my own free will and made a remark about my being alone in her room. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry because she was completely missing the point that I had been brought there by my captors and interrogators, that they were waiting outside her room and that when I was finished, I was going to be handed back to them and taken back to my small cell.

My life and my freedom and that of my family was in the hands of the police. They would surely know everything that was done or said in that room and they had in fact told me that they would get a copy of what had been recorded there, so what free will could I exercise.

170. The irony of her writing that I was making a statement of my own free will and reading back that statement to me and then asking me to sign it hit me very hard. She read back that statement to me. She signed. She asked me to sign. She repeated that only the three of us were present in that room.

We signed again.

171. She then asked me to give my statement.

172. I narrated all that I had been asked to state by my captors.

173. After she recorded my statement, I signed as she requested. When she was finished she called back ASP Mazlan.

The other Internal Security Act officers were waiting outside. After I had been handed back to ASP Mazlan and the Internal Security Act officers, I was handcuffed, placed in a car and taken to Bukit Aman. There I was made to sit in a room in the tower block. I think this was on the 10th floor in ASP Mazlan's office.

174. While there, I was once again fingerprinted and photographed.

175. A little later, ASP Mazlan came to me and commented on the statement I had given to the magistrate. He said that it was weak and that it had no dates or time in it or places or details. I told him that my interrogators the previous night, in particular the senior officer, had briefed me on what to say in the statement. In fact, that senior officer had reminded me once again that afternoon of what was at stake in my life if I did not stick to what was expected of me.

176. ASP Mazlan then asked me whether I had a lawyer. I said I did not. He said to me that I was not to worry and that he had one for me. ASP Mazlan never at this point of time, or before or after that, tell me that my wife had already engaged a lawyer for me and that that lawyer had already been in contact with police headquarters right from the first day of my arrest.

177. He then made a telephone call and spoke to someone. I did not know who he was talking to. He mentioned a name to me - Yacob Karim - and after telling me that he was to be my lawyer handed the phone to me. This Yacob Karim reminded me that we had met at a conference in Sarawak. This was once some six years ago. I had never met this Yacob Karim after that and did not know where his office was or his telephone numbers.

I was nevertheless relieved that here at last was someone I had met, even if once six years ago, and that perhaps I would get some assistance from him. Yacob Karim said that he would see me soon. I thought I was speaking to Yacob Karim while he was in his office.

178. About five to 10 minutes later, ASP Mazlan said to me that he was taking me to this lawyer, Yacob Karim. We left his office and ASP Mazlan took along a copy of the statement recorded by the magistrate.

179. I was mentally prepared to being driven out of Bukit Aman to some office somewhere. Instead the elevator stopped at either the 3rd or 5th floor. I thought that ASP Mazlan was stopping there to pick something else up. He asked me to get out and follow him. We entered a room in which I saw a table and two chairs. I was asked to sit. Hardly had I done so when this Yacob Karim walked in through another door.

180. All I can say is that it was a pre-arranged thing and that when ASP Mazlan spoke to Yacob Karim a little earlier, this Yacob Karim was already there in the police headquarters.

181. Yacob Karim sat at the table across from me. His first statement to me was that he was sorry that it, the sodomy, had happened to me. I was shocked at this as it showed that he had been briefed by the police and even more shocked that he believed it. He had a copy of the statement with him.

182. ASP Mazlan and another unidentified police officer were present throughout the time I was with Yacob Karim.

183. Yacob Karim then proceeded to tell me that arrangements were being made and that I would be taken to a Sessions Court the next day and that I would have to plead guilty to a charge and to admit to the offence. I asked him why I was being asked to plead guilty and he replied that otherwise they could not proceed with the case against Anwar.

He said arrangements had been made to get me a light sentence. To every question that I asked him after that he gave me a stock answer - "Don't ask me. Ask the police."

184. He then proceeded to ask some brief questions about my background, made some handwritten notes and added that he had got my background from the police. He kept assuring me throughout that the sentence would be lenient and that it would be a few months. I tried telling him that I had done no wrong but he in reply told me that I should not worry and that I was doing a great service to the nation, that the nation of Malaysia would remember me for these services.

185. Yacob Karim left after that.

186. Yacob Karim never at any time spoke about fees or being retained by me or about informing my wife about my situation.

I am now not surprised at the way he attended to me that afternoon since his conduct then and subsequently clearly showed that he was working together with the police in denying me my rights.

187. After Yacob Karim left, three of my previous interrogators came into the room. One of them was the Malay officer who had persistently interrogated me since my move to the interrogation centre. They reminded me of the arrangements made for the next day and warned me of the consequences if things went wrong. I was reminded that my family was vulnerable and that my sacrifice was small for their and my well-being. I was told that the US agents were waiting for the next day's proceedings and would leave after that and that my US citizenship was secure. I was told that the nation was proud of me, that it was only a small favour for Malaysia.

188. I was cautioned to be strong the next day and to plead guilty as the lawyer had told me to do. I was told that I had to believe the senior ISA officers and that all their promises would be fulfilled. They told me that I had to understand their difficulties because Anwar's people were now my enemies and that they would try to burn my house down and to hurt me and my family.

They said that I had to be away for five to six months so that things would quieten down but that after I come out of prison there would be a job waiting for me. During these five to six months, they said, my family would be looked after and that they had already talked to my wife. My wife now tells me that no one from the police headquarters called her or gave her any information about my whereabouts.

189. After all these warnings, I was locked up in a cell at Bukit Aman and left for the night.

190. By next morning, I was a wreck of a man with worry. I was asked to dress in the same clothes that I had worn when arrested. I had slippers on my feet and was given a skull cap to wear to hide my bald head.

191. I was taken to the court complex by ASP Mazlan and several other police officers. They adopted various cloak and dagger tactics to initially keep me hidden and away from the hordes of photographers there. I was finally taken into a court. I was shivering and my palpitations were very strong.

My breathing was laboured and I had difficulty controlling my bladder. I remember at some stage somebody giving me something to wear to stop the shivering but it did not help.

I remember at some point in the middle of the court proceedings being no more able to control my bladder and having to be allowed to go and urinate.

192. I was then taken into a court by ASP Mazlan and many other police officers. Yacob Karim was in that court. I saw ASP Mazlan and the other police officers spread themselves around the court. Yacob Karim came to me and handed me two documents. He said it was the charge which I had to admit. I saw the documents for the first time that morning. Even in my condition I was shocked at the details.

Yacob Karim told me not to question anything, just to plead guilty and then, when asked, to acknowledge that I knew I could be punished for the offence. He then showed me another sheet which he said were the facts of the case. He said that when the facts were read to me I was to admit them and say nothing else. He told me that he would attend to the rest and that everything had been taken care of.

193. At one point before the judge came into the court, I saw a man come near me. He said that he was a lawyer and that my wife had appointed him to act for me. This man pointed at Yacob Karim and asked who he was. Yacob Karim came to where I was and stood there. This man spoke to me rather abruptly and asked who appointed Yacob. I pointed at ASP Mazlan. ASP Mazlan appeared angry and immediately gestured that I shouldn't involve him and pointed towards Yacob. I saw some of the other plainclothes police officers start to move.

I panicked, wondering what was about to happen and feared for my wife and children. Yacob who had been quiet suddenly found his voice and said he was my lawyer. I lost control of myself then, out of sheer fright. My head was full of the Internal Security Act, the threats made to me and my family, the presence of the police there in the court, the warnings that Anwar supporters would kill me and my family, the need to keep secret the details of the police as they had demanded. I felt that if I made a single move that displeased the police, my family would be hurt, that they would bring down their full force to bear down on my wife and my two young children.

I had already felt the force of their strength.

194. I screamed at this lawyer words to the effect that he had no right to communicate with my wife or to invade my privacy. I hoped with that outburst to appease my captors so that they would leave my family alone. I then spoke out loud for ASP Mazlan and the other police officers to hear that I had nothing to do with that lawyer coming there.

195. At some point when I was in that court, I saw my wife there. She appeared petrified, as if cast in stone. She seemed unable to move like an animal caught in the glare of the headlights of a moving car. She didn't even blink. She was totally helpless. So was I.

196. This was the first time I had ever been in a court. I haven't even had a parking violation in my 23 years of continuous living in the US.

197. The proceedings moved fast after that. I did what the police expected of me. I was trembling uncontrollably throughout the proceedings. Even a jacket which was placed over me did not stop me from shaking and shivering uncontrollably. No one seemed to care. The words, sounds, sights all floated around me as if I was in a daze. Yacob's mitigation was now in a written form. I was sentenced and then handcuffed. Yacob came to me and told me not to worry.

ASP Mazlan came to me and said I now had to face the cameras.

I was taken out and met by hordes of photographers. I was moved to a cell in the court complex. Before leaving me there, ASP Mazlan came once again to me and said that the inspector general of police was very happy with the way I had handled myself in court.

198. After the court proceedings, I was sent to Kajang prison and from there, on Sept 23, 1998, because of my deteriorating health, I was rushed to the Institute Jantong Negara (National Heart Institute) and then transferred to the Coronary Rehabilitation Ward (Ward 29) at the Kuala Lumpur General Hospital.

199. While I was at the CRW (Ward 29) in the General Hospital, I was visited at various times by police officers together with Yacob Karim. They were uninvited visitors who kept on trying to alternately threaten, convince and advise me against filing or proceeding with an appeal against the false conviction and sentence recorded against me on Sept 19, 1998 by the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court. One of the officers who came to the CRW ward 29 was a chief inspector Rajakopal whose name is recorded as the complainant on the charge sheet filed in Sessions Court in my case.

200. The prison officers guarding me at the General Hospital are maintaining a log book of all my movements and visitors while in hospital. This has records of the various visits by Yacob Karim and the police officers coming together, sometimes beyond regular visiting hours or days.

201. I state categorically that I have never had a homosexual relationship with Anwar Ibrahim or with anyone else. I further state categorically that the details of the alleged homosexual relationship contained in my statement made to the magistrate and those given to the court by the prosecuting agencies and Yacob Karim on Sept 19, 1998 were untrue and were fabricated by the police.

202. I was interrogated over long and continuous sessions. I was always removed from my cell as No 26, always blindfolded and handcuffed. I was systematically humiliated by my captors who always remained unidentified. They stripped me of all self-respect; they degraded me and broke down my will and resistance; they threatened me and my family; they frightened me; they brainwashed me to the extent that I ended up in court on Sept 19, 1998 a shivering shell of a man willing to do anything to stop the destruction of my being.

203. I have done no wrong and I am innocent. I am a happily married man with two lovely children. I was just doing my work and enjoying it. My captors and my interrogators have destroyed all that. They have wrongly made me a criminal and taken away my freedom. They have destroyed my self confidence and embarrassed me. They have shattered the peace, harmony and happiness of my family and my simple home.

204. I have had a long standing worldwide reputation of being a respected intellectual individual. It took me years of hard work to achieve this status. The bibliography of my work annexed to this sworn declaration is testimony of my work. My captors for the purposes of their criminal objectives have unjustly destroyed my image.

205. I did no wrong and I am innocent. God knows that.

And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act, 1960.

Subscribed and solemnly declared by the above-named Munawar Ahmad Anees at Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan, this 7th day of Nov, 1998.

Before me,

Manmohan Singh a/l Chanan Singh
(Commissioner for Oaths, Malaysia)