Anwar 'main belakang' remark taken out of context, KJ tells court

Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar has claimed that his allegedly sexual remarks about former opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim had been taken out of context.

He denied today that the words he used in 2008, which include the phrase 'main belakang' (play from behind), were meant to have any sexual connotations.

Instead, he explained that the words could have other meanings such as being backstabbed, betrayed, or played out.

He told the Kuala Lumpur High Court today that he meant for the words to mean Anwar had ‘played out’ DAP and PAS, rather than for the words to refer to sodomy or sexual intercourse.

“Absolutely not. Political parties cannot have sex. It is just a metaphor,” he said, when the question was put to him by Anwar’s counsel J Leela during his cross-examination.

RM100 million in damages sought

Khairy was testifying before judicial commissioner Azizul Azmi Adnan as the first witness in Anwar’s defamation suit against him.

Anwar is seeking RM100 million in aggravated and exemplary damages from Khairy over a speech he made on Feb 19, 2008, which was subsequently reported by Malaysiakini on the following day.

The PKR de facto leader claimed that Khairy’s speech had given the audience the impression that he is a homosexual.

Khairy was Umno Youth’s deputy chief at the time, and was launching BN’s Lembah Pantai election machinery in the run-up to the 12th general election.

Today is the first trial date for the defamation suit, which had dragged on for eight years over preliminary matters as well as a failed bid at mediation.

At the hearing, Khairy argued that his speech was meant to highlight how the opposition – which would later become the Pakatan Rakyat coalition – is just another short-lived marriage of convenience.

He pointed out that Malaysiakini had reported a part of his speech, but missed the run up to the impugned words that would put the words in proper context.

He was at the time quoted saying, “DAP main PAS dari kanan, PAS main DAP dari kiri, PKR main dua-dua dari belakang!” (DAP 'plays' PAS from the right, PAS 'plays' DAP from the left, and PKR 'plays' both from behind!)

Putting words into context

Khairy said during his examination-in-chief that just before uttering those words, he also highlighted that the opposition parties had stood together in the 1999 and 2004 general elections.

However, he said such cooperation would fall apart shortly after each election, and the 2008 general election would be no different.

In contrast, he said, BN had been in a coalition since Umno joined MCA and MIC in 1955 and have never separated since.

According to a transcript, he then said in Malay, “Tapi pembangkang ini saudara-mara mungkin Datuk Norza tahu istilah ini pembangkang ini dia kahwin muta’ah... Kahwin muta’ah ini saudara-saudara, mazhab syiah dia mangamalkan kahwin muta’ah. Dia kahwin satu malam, dia main malam tu, esok hari dia cerai, untuk menghalalkan maksiat.

“Parti pembangkang ini dia kahwin muta’ah… dia kahwin PAS main DAP ikut kiri, DAP main PAS ikut kanan, Anwar main dua-dua ikut belakang… lepas tu… bila kalah dia cerai.

“Ini bukan untuk masa depan kita saudara-saudara…”

(“But this opposition – perhaps [then Federal Territories Umno Youth chief Norza Zakaria] would know this term – what the opposition is doing is muta’ah [temporary] marriage, which is practised in the Shia sect. In a muta’ah marriage, they marry for one night, they ‘play’ that night, and then they get divorced the next day to legitimise vice.

“Opposition parties are doing muta'ah marriage. They get married and PAS ‘plays’ DAP on the left, DAP ‘plays’ PAS on the right, and Anwar ‘plays’ them both from behind. After that, they get divorced when they lose.

“This is not for our future, gentlemen.”)

A short video of Khairy uttering those words in his Lembah Pantai speech was also shown in court.

Members of the audience could also be heard cheering loudly in the video when Khairy mentioned “Anwar main dua-dua ikut belakang” (Anwar 'plays' them both from behind).

When Leela asked about the cheers, and if the audience had interpreted his speech in a sexualised manner, Khairy replied that he could not control their actions.

Another of Anwar’s counsel, Latheefa Koya, asked if this means Umno is ‘playing’ its coalition partners such as MCA and MIC.

To that, Khairy quipped, “We have been married since 1955. We are not fooling around; we’re serious!”

His comments prompted laughter from the public gallery, which was filled to the brim with Khairy’s and Anwar’s supporters, especially in the morning where some reporters and supporters had to stand in the courtroom all morning due to the lack of seats.

Marriage as an analogy

During re-examination by his counsel Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, Khairy said he had not bothered to ask for a correction to the Malaysiakini report.

He said that as a politician, he found himself often quoted and misquoted, and it was tedious to ask for even a minor correction.

He also told the court that he chose to compare the opposition parties to a muta’ah marriage, since they were often criticised as a ‘marriage of convenience’.

He said he wanted to highlight the transient nature of the opposition’s cooperation, in contrast to the long-term political stability that BN offers.

These arguments are part of Khairy’s defence in pleading that his words could have a ‘lesser meaning’ than what Anwar claims them to mean, and he said he would repeat ad nauseam that this is what he really meant.

'Sodomy cases justify words'

However, Khairy also pleaded that even if the words do have sexual connotations, he said he is justified in uttering them and pointed to the courts’ findings in Anwar’s Sodomy I and Sodomy II trials.

Leela objected to much of these arguments, citing Section 43 of the Evidence Act 1950 that renders findings in criminal courts inadmissible in civil courts except in some circumstances.

She also objected to Khairy’s insinuations that Anwar had betrayed his political allies before, by citing how he supposedly betrayed his former associate S Nallakaruppan and former Selangor menteri besar Khalid Ibrahim.She said there was nothing produced in the court to substantiate these claims, and that it is merely hearsay that Khairy had no personal knowledge of.

In addition, she said what Khairy was doing amounted to making more defamatory statements that were not even relevant to the case.

While Shafee defended this, the judge Azizul said he would reserve his decision on the admissibility of the evidence for the time being, in case testimonies by future witnesses render them admissible.

He added some of the issues raised ought to be argued during the parties’ final submissions instead.

The hearing for the defamation suit continues tomorrow.-Mkini