The Bias of Amnesty International - Anwar Ibrahim as prisoner of conscience.

How did Amnesty categorise Anwar Ibrahim as prisoner of conscience?

Some opposition media insist Malaysia Government to treat Anwar Ibrahim as so called "prisoner of conscience" since such status had been given by Amnesty International. Claiming that Anwar Ibrahim suppose to be treated with house arrest, the same status that Aung San Su Chi enjoys. 

Now, a question raised. What is the criteria that make him eligible to such status?

Wikipedia names some of the criteria as such:

..anyone imprisoned because of their race, sexual orientation, religion, or political views.

It seems that one who is sentenced by court of law because of sexual orientation, for example a gay or a person who has acted lewd action can be considered to be listed down as "prisoner of conscience".

So which one is the exact criteria that has become the main reason that he is selected for prisoner of conscience status?

Now, we look at the Amnesty web Portal here to see if there is any information that can tell us the reason why.

At second para as stated in the picture above it is said that Amnesty International believes that the decision made by the Malaysian Federal Court as deplorable judgement. 

Deplorable judgement?

How did Amnesty International come into a conclusion that it is a deplorable judgement. Because up until now, there is no legal writing made by any legal minds on the decision of the Malaysian Federal Court. There is also no intellectual writing whatsoever on criticising the method of the judges in arriving on the conviction of Anwar Ibrahim. 

The summary of the lengthy writing of the judgment has been published and the whole world can access and read it. The summary itself is lengthy and details enough for readers to understand the rational of the judgment. It was clear and one would hardly disagree of the court's finding. 

If there is any disagreement there would be articles and writing disputing the judgements. In rational and intellectual way, of course. But what happened before, the Malaysia opposition parties were against the move made by the leading prosecutor, Dato' Shafie Abdullah to make public lecture on the outcome of the court decision. The public lecture was intended to explain to the public the rational of the judgement and any question raised to be answered by Dato' Shafie.

Logically, if there is reason to dispute the court's finding there would be some dare-devils from the opposition side to attend the public forum and ask on the disputable part of the court judgement. But there was none. The only thing they did was demonstration outside the hall where the lecture took place. This is an irrational way to dispute a well established factual finding.

This shows that in reality there is no issue with regard to the court's judgment itself.

Amnesty International believes this is a deplorable judgment, and the latest chapter in the Malaysian authorities’ relentless attempts to silence government critics. This oppressive ruling will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression in the country.  The ‘sodomy’ charges against Anwar Ibrahim have always been politically motivated, and he should be released immediately.

Since there is no such issue. It is upon the Amnesty International to prove that there is any. It should have done that before granting Anwar Ibrahim the prisoner of conscience status. 

The Amnesty International now claims that the 'sodomy charges' against Anwar Ibrahim have always been politically motivated, and he should be released immediately. This is a baseless allegation made by Amnesty on the said conviction. Otherwise they would have brought up reasons and evidence to support their allegation.

Anwar Ibrahim is a prisoner of conscience – jailed solely for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression. Anwar Ibrahim stated that he is innocent of the charge; that it is the result of a political conspiracy to stop his political career - and that he will never surrender.   The office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed its disappointment with the decision. Several governments, including Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia and the European Union, condemned the decision. Switzerland is reported as planning to take the case to the UN Human Rights Council.  In Malaysia, Democratic Action Party leader Lim Kit Siang charged that Malaysia was descending into a "rogue" state. The attempts to silence the opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim come amidst a wider crackdown on dissenting voices in Malaysia. The authorities have over the past year made increasing use of the draconian Sedition Act to target journalists, politicians and academics they find inconvenient. This practice must end immediately.

There is no case from Amnesty International to dispute the finding the Malaysia's Federal Court. If political conspiracy is the cause, then Anwar Ibrahim should worked it out in the court before and prove his claim. However there was no serious move on part of Anwar's lawyer to prove the allegation. An allegation without proof is only a baseless allegation. Anyone would able to claim anything, but not everyone can prove his claim.

The statement that Amnesty chose to publicise also tell us that it is bias towards the opposition party in Malaysia. Citing what Lim Kit Siang believes what Malaysia is going to be cannot be the basis to grant Anwar, the friend of Lim Kit Siang, the status of prisoner of conscience.

Such granting of status should not be made out of bias and without reasonable basis.

But frankly, even a reasonable human being would find there is something fishy about the case. However that something fishy is not from the Court side.