The story is now on BBC and is a top story of the Sunday Times (Singapore).

Badawi: ‘No, the government is not involved in the sodomy allegation.’

Ms. curious: ‘Anwar has denied sodomising his aide. What do you think?’

Badawi, ‘Well, it is usual for the culprit to deny when he/she is accused of an offence.’

Ms. curious: ‘Does it apply to your denial a few seconds ago?’

Mr. observer: I think Badawi may reply as follows: ‘Well, I said “it is usual”, but my denial is an exception rather than rule.’

That’s why we need justice in this country.

Pace Kasim Amat, the second allegation resurfacing under dubious circumstances (look at the pictures of the accuser posing with various BN leaders) after the first legally OVERTURNED and in many respects clearly concocted allegation reaffirms the likelihood of fabrication.

But will he be allowed to leave the country?

I think Godfather has a point here.

By the way, I’m not an Anwar fan.

But everything seems to clearly indicate that all these are fabrications.

Well, if the judiciary is in general unreliable during the relevant period, then neither the acquittal in 2004 nor the conviction earlier in 1998(?) are reliable.

In that case the dubious circumstances involved in both allegations (in 1998 they were irregularities like an alleged victim changing the story many times, the prosecution changing the dates of offence many times, and the reference to a condo which had not been built at the time of the alleged offence) cast aspersions to the truths of both allegations.

Note that if neither the acquital in 2004 nor the conviction earlier in 1998(?) are reliable, there is no reason to think that the first allegation in 1998 is true.

The assumption of the unreliability of both the acquital in 2004 and the conviction in 1998 is NOT a case of self-referential defeat. If the original conviction in 1998 is unreliable, an unreliable acquital a few years later does not cast aspersions (i.e. doubt) on Anwar’s innocence, because the subsequent acquital (whether reliable or not) becomes unnecessary once the original conviction is found to be unreliable.

I would like to ask Amat Kassim a question:

If A believes that system J is generally reliable (note: generally reliable does not mean absolute infallibility. It means reliability in, say, 70-90% of the time).

System J examines case S in 1998 and yields a result g.
System J reexamines case S in 2004 and yields a result ~g.

Given that A believes that J is generally reliable, is it rational for A to believe g?

If A answers yes, then he is saying that J is reliable in 1998 but unreliable in 2004. That is consistent with his belief that J is generally (not infallibly) reliable. However, A clearly assumes that a generally reliable system can fail at times (i.e. it fails in an instance in 2004). Without assuming this, he would have to accept that the ~g result in 2004 is reliable and thus rationally defeating his answer that it is rational for A to believe g.

Now the punchline is this: If A has to assume that a generally reliable system can fail at times, why can’t someone think that a generally unreliable system can be reliable at times?

Therefore, those who believe that the judiciary is generally unreliable between 1998 and 2004 don’t have a problem at all with claiming that Anwar is probably innocent. They can either say that
(1) even if both the conviction in 1998 and acquital in 2004 are unreliable, this still shows that Anwar is innocent (assuming the principle of English law: innocent until proven guilty) (I have elaborated this point in my previous comment.)
OR
(2) As I say in this post, a generally unreliable system can sometimes yield reliable result (e.g. the 2004 acquital).

In response to undergrad2′s request, Let me try to rephrase one of my previous comments.

Amat Kasim implies that those who believe that the Malaysian Judiciary (let’s call it J) is unreliable cannot rationally believe that Anwar is innocent for being acquitted in 2004.

His reasoning may be analysed as follows:
You PR supporters believe that J is unreliable
J acquitted Anwar in 2004
Therefore, PR supporters who believe that J is unreliable cannot rationally believe that Anwar is innocent.

This reasoning is only correct if one assumes that the only grounds for believing Anwar’s innocence are the acquital in 2004.

But this assumption is false, unless Amat Kasim were to adopt the principle of Dutch law (i.e. one is guilty until proven innocent). In fact, according to the fundamental principle of English law (i.e. one is innocent until proven guilty), we are rational to believe that Anwar is innocent until there is reasonable evidence (i.e. at the very least, evidence without the kind of irregularities and inconsistencies involved in the 1998 conviction) to prove that Anwar is guilty. But those who believe that J is unreliable in 1998 is rational to believe that the conviction in 1998 is unreliable, and therefore rational to believe that Anwar is innocent.