40 Reasons why the Sodomy Charge against Anwar is too Ridiculous to Believe

Commentaries: from the 40 Dalils, can we all assume that the Sodomy act was actually consensual ?  is this true ? Anwar Ibrahim did not "rape" that poor bastard but actually had consensual same sex relation with Saiful Bahari ? 

By Malaysian Spring

It seems a simple enough plan. Get a willing pro-Umno young man. Stick him in Anwar’s office and let him get close to Anwar. Then have him accuse Anwar of sodomy. The police, the judiciary and the government machinery will do the rest. This will put Anwar out of the political scene for good and he will never threaten Umno’s power again.

But something happened on the way to the courthouse. The public is not buying this story. Too many holes have appeared until the whole rickety structure of deceit has all but collapsed. No doubt there are a few clueless souls in Umno trying to maintain this ridiculous charade but they are flogging a dead horse. They only succeed in earning the contempt of the people.

Saiful made many mistakes before and after the alleged act by failing to conceal his movements and being an incredibly lousy actor.  Perhaps he thought playing the victim isn’t important as the powerful players behind him will take care of everything. But there’s a limit to how much idiocy the public can take. A real victim of forced sodomy or male rape does not appear smiling and waving to the press in public as if he’s damn proud of it.

It all looks like a hastily conceived, bumbling, incompetent and ill-thought out plot. So here are 40 reasons why the sodomy charge against Anwar is too ridiculous to believe.

The Charge

1.     The charge of consensual sodomy is structurally flawed as it does not a tally with Saiful’s public stance of forced sodomy for which he has already sworn on the Koran.

2.     The government has absolutely no interest in prosecuting consenting gays so why the sudden interest in prosecuting Anwar for alleged consensual sodomy? How about all the gay activities going on under the nose of the authorities in the seedy streets of KL? Nobody has been prosecuted for consensual sodomy since independence except Anwar and his alleged partners in Sodomy I.

3.     Why isn’t Saiful prosecuted as a consensual partner? Shouldn’t he be at least prosecuted for indecent behaviour against the order of nature for allegedly bending over out of his own free will?

Saiful’s behaviour

4.     Claimed to be have been sodomized a total of eight (8) times. Why did he tolerate it for so long? To keep his RM1000 a month job? What can he possibly fear from an opposition leader who holds no influence in government?

5.     Despite being a 24 year old big strapping youth, this lowlife claimed he was sodomized against his will by a 62 year old man with bad back. How ridiculous can you get?

6.     Made a police report 2 days after the alleged incident. Was he waiting to see if he was pregnant?

7.     Went to work as usual next day and was seen walking straight.

8.     Attended a function at Anwar’s house in the evening with Anwar present and served coffee to the guests. Would a rape victim do that?

9.        Sent a friendly quit e-mail to Anwar that he was resigning because he was lazy and incompetent. No mention that he couldn’t take the sodomy.

10.   Show no sign of being victimized and traumatized. Smile and wave to press after he made his police report. Looks proud to be a victim of male rape.

11.   Met and photographed with senior officers in DPM dept a few months before the alleged incident. Claimed to have gone there to apply scholarship but the DPM Dept is the wrong place to go for scholarship. Why all the lies?

12.   Met Najib who was Deputy PM at his official residence 2 days before the alleged incident. Najib at first denied the meeting, later claimed Saiful wanted a scholarship? Is the Deputy PM so easy to access? Why would college dropout need scholarship?

13.   In a final twist Najib said he advised Saiful who was traumatized to lodge a police report. But this was before the alleged act!

14.   Met police office SAC Rodwan in Room 619 of Concorde Hotel Shah Alam 1 day before the alleged incident. Were they discussing scholarship?

15.   Saiful’s god mother Mumtaz Jaafar is a close friend and ‘bag lady’ of Rosmah Mansor, Najib’s wife. It is widely believed that the plot was hatched by Rosmah and Najib.

16.      Known to be a rabidly pro-BN while in college.

17.      Went to Pusrawi hospital to get a medical examination and told the doctor that he had been sodomized by a plastic object. The doctor said he looked and behaved normally. Why didn’t he go straight to the police?

18.      Went to mosque to swear that Anwar sodomized him against his will during the Permatang Pauh by-election so that BN can make political capital out of it.

19.   Must be the most publicity hungry rape victim in the world, male or female, bar none!

Police & prosecution

20.   Why are huge resources and manpower devoted to this case as if consensual sodomy is the most heinous crime in the country, worse than the murder of a Mongolian woman? How does an alleged consensual partner in sodomy suddenly become a victim for whom the whole apparatus of government must be marshalled to seek “justice?” Tie this with no. 2 and see if you can make any sense.

21.   A copy of the police report was given to Anwar only after he had been questioned by police and after much pestering by his lawyers. Usually a suspect should be given a copy of the police report before taking his cautioned statement to prevent him unwittingly incriminating himself. Why was this procedure not followed? Did the police upset the procedure to design the charge and fabricate the police report to fit in with Anwar’s movements?

22.   Why was Anwar unnecessarily held overnight in jail cell when he could have been released on the same day? The next morning he was asked a few perfuntionary questions and released. But it was revealed that his jail cell was carefully swept by forensic after his release. Were they looking for traces of his DNA?

23.   Anwar was asked to give a blood sample during the medical examination but he refused. After that Umno leaders made public calls for him to give a sample. Why such a tussle to get Anwar’s blood sample with no safeguards whatsoever? In view of the fact that his blood sample had been planted on a mattress in sodomy I, why should Anwar make it so easy for them?

24.   After Anwar refused to give his blood sample a new DNA Identification Bill was proposed in which the police are allowed to forcibly take blood sample from any suspect, custody of DNA samples will be managed by the police, the accuracy of DNA evidence cannot be challenged and the judge must consider DNA evidence to be conclusive. The Home Ministry wanted to rush this bill through parliament. Do you smell a rat here? Thankfully this DNA Identification Bill has not been passed into law yet after much opposition.

25.   The prosecution fought tooth and nail to transfer the case from the Sessions Court to High Court without giving any creditable reason. If they have real evidence they could have convicted Anwar in any court under any judge so why the lengthy fight to transfer the case as if their whole case depends on who hears it?

26.   The prosecution also fought all the way to the Federal Court to deny giving Anwar document necessary for his defence according to the Criminal Procedure Code, not even most basic list of witnesses. Why such unbecoming and sordid loser behaviour if they have a real case with real evidence?

27.   In any sexual offence where penetration is a crucial factor no prosecutor will proceed without favourable medical evidence. In this case the prosecution decided to proceed with unfavourable medical evidence (see no.28 & 29). Were they depending on a compliant judge? (see no. 25)

Medical

28.   A medical report by Dr. Mohamed Osman of Pusrawi Medical Centre, a Burmese expatriate doctor with 30 years experience certified that Saiful rear orifice had never been penetrated.

29.   A separate medical report by 3 specialists at Hospital KL also confirmed that Saiful is an anal virgin.

30.   The prosecution claimed that they have DNA sample extracted from Saiful’s rectum which incriminate Anwar but experts say that this environment is very hostile to semen and prone to contamination. It is unlikely that any usable DNA can be found after 2 days.

31.   The prosecution refused to give Anwar a DNA sample for independent verification so any claim of positive identification is just the word of the government chemist against his.

32.   The prosecution cannot prove that the DNA sample in question was actually extracted from Saiful’s rectum although they claim it.

33.   The possibility exists that any DNA sample may have been spiked with Anwar’s DNA collected covertly. (see no. 22 and 23)

Anwar’s Personal Life

34.   Anwar is 63 year old grandfather with 6 children and a loving wife. Would a homosexual person father 6 children and have a close relationship with his wife?

35.   If Anwar’s sexual inclination is true then where are the other partners? Why has nobody come out of the woodwork to claim a relationship with him? Anwar’s associates who were convicted of sodomy with him all repudiated their confessions as extracted under torture the moment they were released.

36.   Anwar had just led the opposition to stunning gains at the March 2008 polls and was plotting to take over the Federal government by engineering defections. Why would Anwar risk everything for this college dropout? If indeed his lust is so great, ther must be many others so where are the other partners?

Testimony during trial

37.      Claimed Anwar was his idol but his college mates say he hated Anwar’s guts.

38.      Claimed he was shocked and disgusted by Anwar’s indecent proposal by still took a shower and prepared himself. So was it consensual or was it against his will as he has sworn in a mosque?

39.      The prosecution produced a tube of KY jelly. Did Saiful come prepared with KY jelly? If it belonged to Anwar wouldn’t it be taken back by Anwar?

40.      Claimed did not pass motion for 2 days in order to hold the vital evidence in his rectum. How heroic. Wouldn’t it be easier to just go to the police immediately? Didn’t he wash the KY jelly from his rear orifice?

More is coming. We haven’t come to the cross-examination of Saiful yet!

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified. To share the above article, please click the followings:

 

 

Robert Fisk’s World: Malaya 1948: another shameful episode in Britain's colonial past

Some 24 innocent villagers were killed by Scots Guards in a pre-Vietnam My Lai

Saturday, 10 April 2010

• SHARE
• PRINT
• EMAIL
• TEXT SIZE
  • NORMAL
  • LARGE
  • EXTRA LARGE

Tham Yong died 11 days ago. I bet there's not a single reader who remembers that name, unless they happen to live in Malaysia or, like me this week, happened to be in Kuala Lumpur and to read the disgracefully weak-kneed report of Tham Yong's demise in the capital's equally disgraceful daily newspapers.

A more grovelling, politically neutered, slovenly form of journalism outside Malaysia it would be difficult to discover, and it was typical that The Straits Times, once a serious journal of record (albeit of the colonial variety) decided to report the 78-year-old woman's death from advanced cancer on page 18.

A bit odd. Because Tham Yong was the only surviving adult witness to the massacre of 24 innocent Chinese Malay villagers by 14 soldiers of the Scots Guards during what the British called the "Malayan Emergency". This was when, in one of their very few successes in a guerrilla campaign, the British crushed the fighters of the Communist Party of Malaya who were struggling for 12 years to win what they called the "Anti-British War".

The slaughter at the village of Batang Kali – the victims were rubber tappers and tin mine labourers – took place on 12 December 1948. Our colonial authorities insisted that the unarmed Chinese Malayan men were guerrillas who had tried to escape their captors and, in the giveaway words of a British police officer in Singapore, "the Scots Guards had been well placed, and the bandits just ran into their guns. Everyone was killed".

Not quite. One villager played dead and escaped the massacre, which was described by The Daily Telegraph's staff correspondent at the time as "the biggest success in any one day's operation in one area since the declaration of the emergency". In fact, one villager was executed the night before the murders; on the following morning, the Scots Guards soldiers shot the rest in the back at close range. This little pre-Vietnam My Lai has long been acknowledged. The People broke the story in Britain in 1970. Several soldiers admitted they lied under oath at the original British inquiry – which had dismissed all charges against the Scots Guards.

Ironically, one of the best accounts of the killings comes from Chin Peng, the still living communist Chinese Malay guerrilla commander, who went to London to research British government documents at Kew. In his huge memoirs (My Side of History, published in Singapore), he recalls the extraordinary Second World War resistance movement he ran with British agents – one of them was Spencer Chapman of The Jungle Is Neutral fame – and of how he was turned into the "Butcher of Malaya" by the Brits the moment he turned against his wartime colonial masters.

In Kew, Chin – real name, Ong Boon Hua – diligently unearthed the records of Malcolm MacDonald, Britain's former colonial secretary and son of Ramsay, who turned out to have been quite an unpleasant man, stabbing successive British officials in the back after he became commissioner general for the Malayan Union and Singapore. I interviewed old MacDonald in 1978 – four years before his death – about his pre-Second World War handover of the Irish treaty ports to De Valera, and he seemed a gentle old man (they often do) as he fussed with a large teapot in his Sevenoaks sitting room. Churchill never forgave MacDonald for giving back the ports to the Irish three years before the start of the Battle of the Atlantic, and hated him almost as much for his Arab sympathies in Palestine before the war. At one point, MacDonald glowered at me, waved his finger, and said: "But you are living now in Beirut because I failed."

MacDonald's nemesis in Malaya, it turns out – and Chin's, too, by his own account – was General Sir Gerald Templer, the ruthless, communist-hating British hero of the Second World War – he was wounded in the 6th Armoured Division -- who was appointed to run the anti-insurgency war in Malaya. He was one of the supporters of Britain's outrageous security laws – inherited from his days oppressing the Jews and Arabs of Palestine as the War Office's 1946-48 director of military intelligence. Templer's legacy is Kuala Lumpur's Internal Security Act, which continues to neuter all Malaysian political life to this day.

I was delighted to discover from Chin that one of Templer's greatest hates was Louis Heren, South-east Asia correspondent of The Times, whom Templer slanderously described as "typical of all communist muck" after the brilliant Heren had exposed the humiliating failure of a British military operation in Malaya. Under Templer's poisonous influence, the British government tried to persuade Sir William Haley, editor of The Times, to move Heren – which Haley refused to do. And thank God for that – because more than a quarter of a century later, it was Heren – now foreign editor of The Times – who gave Master Fisk the job of Middle East correspondent on the same paper, encouraging me to accept the post because it would be "a splendid opportunity for you, with good stories, lots of travel and sunshine". I still sometimes tell the ghost of the Great Louis that he was right – especially about the sunshine.

Yes, the shade of Palestine – or "Palestine" as we must call it now – darkens so many of our lives, including, indirectly, Chin Peng. Now 85, he originally fled to China and lives today in exile in Thailand because the Malaysian government, with whom he signed a peace treaty, refuses to allow him home on the grounds that he can't produce his certificate of birth in Malaysia's Perak state; impossible, of course, because – as the Malaysian government well knows – the state's documentation was destroyed in the Second World War. The Internal Security Act, from Palestine to Templer's Malaya to Malaysia, allows the structure of occupation to continue to operate.

Up to 10,000 died in the Malayan "emergency", but even the Brits are still frightened of it. After the BBC took statements in 1992 from British soldiers who acknowledged the massacre at Batang Kali, there were calls for another public inquiry. No hope, of course. When the 15 surviving families of the dead sent the Queen a submission in 2008 – pointing out that the British soldiers' evidence of the massacre has never been disputed – the British high commissioner to Malaysia, Boyd McCleary, replied to them with Blair-like oiliness. "In view of the findings of two previous investigations ... and in the absence of any new (sic) evidence, regrettably we see no reason to reopen or start a fresh investigation." Not much point in Boyd trotting off to chat to old Tham Yong, of course, because she's now in her grave. "Regrettably", indeed!

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified. To share the above article, please click the followings:

 

 

Perkasa’s Tribal Worldview

Zeffri Yusof is an ex-journo and all-round informavore. Zeffri believes in the force of Reason, human goodness and dignity, and the "machahood" of man. He's on and off ontwitter.com/zeffri

Related Articles

• Jawatankuasa hubungan antara agama berbeza dengan IFC, kata Jamil
• Perkasa mahu fatwa status jawatankuasa antara agama
• Supporting all the agendas
• Berhujah, berjuang tentang hak Melayu — Firdaus Abdullah
• CC MCA pertahan pendirian Pemuda terhadap Perkasa
• Perkasa pula buat laporan terhadap Karpal
• Perkasa not for political comebacks
• Perkasa mahu ‘ajar’ pemimpin MCA, Gerakan

APRIL 11 — Like them or loathe them, Pertubuhan Pribumi Perkasa Negara (Perkasa) captures the imagination of supporters and detractors alike given their sheer audacity.

In the news — and discussed on Twitter — almost on a daily basis, theirs is a race-based affirmative action movement (they of course call it ‘struggle’) which I suspect nearly all of us understand at a gut level, whether we care to admit it or not.

We can argue all we like about why the movement is incompatible with the pressing realities of globalisation or plural nation-building; but in Perkasa, we have a genuine grassroots movement that has successfully tapped into the most primal of emotions and motivations by invoking a backs-to-the-wall sense of group loyalty.

It’s a potent, combustible mix.

Artificial construct or not, the ‘Malay’ race exists culturally — even if poorly defined genetically.

And if the recent Merdeka Centre survey was anything to go by (with two-thirds of the Malays surveyed sympathetic to its cause), Perkasa has managed to capture the imagination of the majority of Malays by simply playing to the gallery eager to latch on to a faceless bogeyman.

Having gone through our much vaunted Biro Tatanegara (BTN) indoctrination myself (twice: once in school and once in Uni), I can still recall the raw, almost cult-like appeal of the particular brand of fascism being peddled by Perkasa.

For some, it can be powerfully seductive and comforting: a big brother that ‘protects’ you from the unfair ravages of the world (except that other factions navigate it just fine without any handouts).

Of course — all of the above is the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of Perkasa.

To satisfy my own inner ‘why’ with regards to Ibrahim Ali and gang, I needed to go off on a tangent and hit the books — which I duly did.

One of the more interesting insights from evolutionary psychology and neuroscience is how the human species is predisposed to pattern-seeking, often to a fault.

On the plus side, through our ability to differentiate similar from dissimilar, we’re able to develop complex systems like language and hierarchical societies.

On the minus side, we also have a taste for narrative that’s quite happy to take short cuts and oversimplifications to arrive at temporary ‘satisfactions’. Many supernatural, pseudo-scientific and conspiracy theory-laden explanations tend to fall into this category.

An interesting corollary to all of this pattern-seeking behaviour is a need to assign an agent as the provocateur of something: if we didn’t have an obvious cause or causer, we would literally need to invent one just to fill in the cognitive gap.

I hope you see where I am heading with this.

This pattern-seeking, agency predisposition was an awfully important survival mechanism for our ancestors, coupled with the fear instinct. The combo was incredibly useful — even when that which was feared was irrational. Our genetic forefathers would have immediately thought “possible predator, move faster or get out of sight” when they heard a rustle of leaves in the wild.

Yet on other days, the very same brain synapses firing would also make them see animal images in cloud formations, a face on a tree trunk, or the outline of a religious icon in freshly cut fruit.

All of this anthropomorphic pattern-seeking was a good thing when it gave our ancestors a safer way to live and deal with their surroundings. But it also made them incredibly wary of strangers, outsiders, and those deemed to be significantly “different” in a non pattern-matching kind of way. These external groups represented a threat (back then genuinely so, given the scant resources).

Our pattern seeking tendencies duly kicked in to differentiate friend from foe, marking out groups different in their ways, appearances and cultural norms. We can see this exaggeration in primitive societies in the way they wear body art, decorate weapons and celebrate coming-of-age — all calculated to include some and exclude others from the ‘inner collective’.

The mechanism wasn’t all physical.

In ancient tribal life; the practice of scapegoating, bigotry and making-up bogeymen; and later on with arising sophistication — ethnocentrism, siege mentality and full-on racism — were socio-cultural memes cultivated for the preservation and continuation of the ‘local’ group and their way of life.

The instinctive refrain is familiar: “All outsiders are out to get you. All outsiders want what you have. If you allow the outsiders their way, it will be the end of you. And by the way, we are better than them because we’re we.”

Often, the arguments for preservation of local culture and privileges against outside influence is just an excuse blanket that covers all of those earlier tribal motivations — which when analysed objectively is not dissimilar to the irrational fear reflex that characterises the exclusionary and chauvinist nature of nearly all historical and inter-cultural meetings (think Cortez and the Aztecs, for example).

Today however, it ought to be patently obvious that mindsets and worldviews which may have been useful for early modern Homo Sapiens 90,000 or so years ago in the African Savannah up to the more recent Fertile Crescent is woefully misplaced in a 21st century where we are face-to-face with a globally interconnected, cross-cultural world in the midst of transitioning into homogeneity from heterogeneity, and inclusion from exclusion.

So in my own pattern-seeking way, I suppose I want put to rest my Perkasa narrative. I believe that I quite understand them, and I am clear in my disagreement. Theirs is a backward gazing, narrow and unenlightened worldview which belongs in the dark ages — a time of ignorance when thunder and lightning were very, very frightening.

I suspect Perkasa symphatisers can’t help their irrational fears either, but hopefully by removing their tongkats sooner rather than later we can force them wake up and smell the 21st century coffee. Many among us — both ‘Malay’ and non-Malay alike — have either outgrown or dispelled such tribal sentiments and it’s time the Perkasa folks realise we’re all just one tribe on the same island anyway.

* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified. To share the above article, please click the followings: