Malaysia’s Democracy on Trial


By Chris Wright | Australian Financial Review, February 2 2010

When Anwar Ibrahim walks into the Kuala Lumpur High Court today, he will at least know what to expect.

Anwar, Malaysia’s one-time deputy prime minister and now the de facto leader of the first credible opposition in Malaysia’s independent history, is facing the third incarceration of his life. The first was a 22-month detention when a student leader in the 1970s; the second a six-year stint in 1998 for sodomy (overturned in 2004) and corruption, during the administration of his one-time mentor, Mahathir Mohamed. Now, he faces another sodomy charge, and the potential of 20 years in jail. Locally the press are calling it Sodomy II, like a sequel. “They use the same script,” he tells the AFR in an interview in his Kuala Lumpur offices. “I’ll leave it to the lawyers. I don’t have any trust in the system.”

That’s no surprise. Anwar’s trial represents an enormously significant moment for Malaysia, because it could make or break the opposition movement at a time of intense racial tension on a scale the country hasn’t seen since the race riots of the 1960s. Malaysia, though a sometimes uneasy patchwork of a Muslim Malay majority and significant Chinese and Indian minorities, has for decades been amongst the most moderate and peaceful of Muslim nations. Yet in recent months it has become a place where churches are firebombed over the right for Christians to use the word Allah, and where cows’ heads are kicked around outside Hindu temples.

Some feel these forces have been inflamed by the country’s UMNO party, the leader of the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, seeking to secure its hold on the Malay vote; Anwar calls it “desperate measures to frustrate this peaceful transition.” But at the same time Anwar’s own rise, with his multi-racial coalition securing one third of the votes and five out of 13 states in landmark elections in 2008, has become something of a catalyst for this expression of tension. “Yes, of course that is true,” he says. “You can see the press, controlled by UMNO, blaming me for causing this, for giving courage to non-Malays to express themselves. But I think the contrary: we are giving that right of expression to all. There is a new generation of Malays who are asserting themselves with greater confidence.”

Another jail term for Anwar could do one of two things. It could wreck his coalition, which despite its outstanding 2008 performance has widely been viewed as fragile: it unites a party formed by Anwar’s wife, Wan Azizah Ismail (who is still officially its president), during Anwar’s 1998 jail term, with a sometimes hard-line Islamic party and another whose key constituency is overseas Chinese. Lacking a charismatic leader to glue it together, the alliance could fail well before the next elections, due in 2013, although Anwar insists detailed contingency plans are in place among the three parties. “There is already an agreement what to do in the event – the unlikely event – I am convicted, yet again. The coalition will stay with or without Anwar.”

Alternatively, another conviction could unite opposition behind a cause and give it renewed momentum. It is also not likely to go down well overseas, where doubts over Anwar’s earlier conviction are already widespread; public figures who have already voiced their concern for him range from Al Gore to US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and, right up to his death, former Indonesian president Abdurrahman Wahid.

The uncertainty is not helping Malaysia, where foreign direct investment numbers are flagging even after accounting for recession: from M$62.8 billion in 2008 to M$12.6 billion in the first nine months of 2009. “Foreign investors are asking me about Anwar and the firebombings all the time,” says one foreign banker in Kuala Lumpur who deals with major foreign investors. “If Anwar ends up back in the slammer it’s going to have major negative consequences on Malaysia. Whether or not it will mean riots on the streets I don’t know, but it will certainly harm the government.”

Anwar is an appropriate figurehead for his country’s painful change. It’s easy to forget it now, but he was once the chosen one to succeed Mahathir: he was deputy leader and finance minister through the Asian financial crisis and was trusted so implicitly he was made acting prime minister for two months in 1997 when Mahathir took a holiday. But he wanted reform in governance and institutions, and when he started linking Mahathir with improper contracts and bailouts for family members and cronies, his time in the sun came quickly and brutally to an end. His 1998 trial raised concerns worldwide; Amnesty International considered him a prisoner of conscience, and the injuries incurred in jail cause him back pain to this day.

Because Anwar’s corruption conviction was never overturned, he was banned from politics until April 2008, and took to teaching in the US. Malaysia’s then prime minister, Abdullah Badawi, timed the 2008 elections to be just one month before Anwar’s ban expired, fearing his popular voice, but it didn’t work: Anwar simply canvassed for his wife’s party, and when his ban expired she surrendered her seat and he won it in a by-election. For a time his momentum seemed unstoppable: by September 2008 he was claiming to have secured 30 parliamentary defections that would give his coalition a majority. He demanded a vote of no confidence.

But then things stalled. First, he couldn’t force that vote, and he says he couldn’t expect his converts to declare openly until the moment of truth on the parliament floor – consequently, there’s no proof that he ever had the numbers at all. “In any democratic country we would have taken over by now, because we had the numbers, but there’s no way to go about it,” he says. “In this climate of fear and repression you can’t expect people to declare openly now except for the critical moment when the motion is tabled.” By this he is referring to the string of opposition figures, including a number of state leaders, who have been comprehensively investigated by federal institutions since the election.

Momentum was further derailed when in June 2008 a new sodomy charge, from a young aide called Saiful Bukhari Azlan, appeared with a convenience of timing that many have found deeply troubling: the taint of sodomy, illegal in this Muslim country, is considered a death knell to an aspiring politician. Whether people believe the charge or not, defending it has been time-consuming and helped to take the wind out of the challenge’s sails. And many events in the build-up to the case – the team of commandos sent to arrest him when he was on his way to the police station to make a statement, the dispute over whether the prosecution should have to let the defence see evidence prior to the trial, confirmation that Saiful visited current prime minister Najib Razak’s residence days before filing his police report – seem to bode badly for him.

But while Anwar is under pressure in the court, it’s the incumbent government, and in particular the UMNO party at its heart, that is struggling, and not just with those election results. Even in a country with a largely compliant mainstream press (but a vibrant alternative media), the government and the country’s other key institutions have found themselves mired in scandal: the death of opposition political aide Teo Beng Hock, who fell from a 14th floor window during questioning by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC). There’s the murder of the Mongolian model Altantuya Shaariibuu, the mistress of Najib’s foreign policy advisor, who prosecutors claim was killed by government commandos in 2006 and whose body was destroyed by C4 explosives. There have been scandals over contracts for French submarines, jet engines that have gone missing, and a dispute over the legitimacy of a state government in Perak.

And most recently, a court case regarding the use of word Allah by non-Muslims has flared up. In December the High Court, in dealing with a long-standing dispute between the government and the Catholic Herald newspaper, ruled that the government had no power to prohibit the use of the word Allah or to make it the exclusive preserve of Muslims. Numerous acts of arson on Christian churches have followed the ruling, while the original debate has become a somewhat farcical exercise in semantics, with the government – which, incidentally, is in the middle of a major public relations tilt called One Malaysia aimed at promoting racial and religious unity – ruling that Christians in East Malaysia can use the word Allah when speaking Malay, but that those in West Malaysia cannot.

Many of Kuala Lumpur’s business community are increasingly alarmed. “You see Najib on one hand talking about One Malaysia and a multi-racial tolerant country, and on the other you see the complete opposite of that driven by the establishment,” says a banker, who like all commercial figures in this article wished not to be named for fear of damaging relationships with government. “This may sound over the top but I would describe Malaysia as almost anarchy at the moment, because all the institutions of government believe that their job in life is to restore BN back to its previous power. The judiciary believes its job is to prosecute the opposition. The police: that their mission is to prosecute the opposition. MACC, the same. The guys in power are stoking racial unrest because they believe it’s one way of supporting the Malay vote.”

Anwar – who took some strident positions on Islam himself in his youth – has sought to preach a less radical middle ground. “I have asked the world’s most renowned authorities on Islam and nobody, not one, disputes the fact that Allah can be used by anyone,” he says. “It’s been a non-issue for 1,400 years among the Muslims.” Even PAS, the Islamic party in Anwar’s coalition, normally known as the voice of those with a more traditional and inflexible view of Islam, has publicly said they have no problem with Christians using the word: the fact that the purely Islamic party is now on more moderate ground than the government has cemented a feeling that the government has been playing the race card to try to win back disgruntled Malay voters.

The government has not been blind to change and has taken some reformist measures itself. The most significant concern the New Economic Policy, the measures enacted in the 1960s – by Najib’s father – in support of the local Bumiputra (“sons of the soil”, or Malay) population. It guaranteed them, among other things, a certain proportion of civil service jobs, and a minimum share of any stock market float. While understandable in the context of its time, many, Malays included, have come to see it as a crutch that has become a hindrance, damaging competitiveness and breeding complacency. Late last year Najib began some modest repeals.

So does Anwar believe change can be effected peacefully in Malaysia? “Well for the first phase, the five states [in the March 2008 elections], it did,” Anwar says. And despite doubts about his coalition’s durability, he argues its very cross-faith existence is enormously positive. “It means that in Malaysia, if political leaders don’t continue to incite hatred and use the race card in politics, we can survive,” he says. “The problem is UMNO: they have become an obsolete party of the past.”

But Anwar is not a Mandela and will never quite be embraced in that way. For a start, there is the fact that, having started out a somewhat radical student and youth leader, he switched allegiances to Mahathir in the 1980s and made his name soaring through the ranks of the party he now dismisses as “the last refuge of scoundrels”. He argues that when he joined Mahathir in 1981 he did so because the leader was talking about reform, and that through much of the 1980s they were effective; it was when a more authoritarian style came into effect that he objected, at great personal cost. “But can I absolve myself from the entire policy, decisions, excesses? No I cannot. I have made that very clear to the people.” Did he ever engage in the money politics commonplace in UMNO at that time? “When I announced my candidature (as deputy leader) 80% of the UMNO cabinet members, all chief ministers, were with me. So I didn’t need to go beyond that. The culture on the ground, you have big fees, but nothing compared with this cash being paid [in UMNO now].”

Additionally, some accuse him of opportunism in his career, and of inconsistency: a chameleon quality (he uses the word himself), saying what the audience of the moment want to hear, which raises questions about how he would fare in office when there can be only one decision for all audiences. Some say he is disorganised too, and unable to give his closest staff a clear mandate. “He is a great politician inasmuch as his oratory skills are fantastic, and he can definitely speak to a crowd,” says one observer. “But he can’t administer and he can’t organise.” Another stresses that “what happened in the election was a vote against government, not a vote in favour of the opposition.” On top of that mainstream media is unlikely to take his side, though the advent of Twitter, Facebook and blogs have helped dramatically, and it is noticeable how much stronger his support in well-connected and tech-savvy urban areas is than in rural Malaysia.

Listening to him in English, fluent but understated and sometimes a little unclear, one wonders how the chameleon projects to the heartland.

The answer comes later that night at a rally in a community hall in the Kuala Lumpur suburb of Cheras. Here, in the local Malay language of Bahasa, the delivery is utterly different, voice playing the ranges from aggression to a whisper, arms expressively aloft, the audience by turns brought to laughter, indignation and applause.

For sure, this is a home team crowd, but it’s largely a Malay Muslim crowd, supposedly the very core of UMNO’s appeal, and they are packed 50 deep outside the hall exits, arms folded, listening intently. Some have brought their children, drooping flopped on shoulders; it is 11.45pm on a Thursday night.

He will do the same on alternate nights leading up the trial, campaigning steadily when an election could still be years away. Over noodles with his chief ministers and supporters, well past midnight, he tells the AFR about the forthcoming weekend rallies where he expects crowds far greater than the 1,000 or so who turned up tonight.

It’s no surprise he looks tired. Earlier the AFR had thanked him for his time, remarking how busy he must be. “Not busy,” he says. “Under siege.”

  1. #1 by ekompute on Thursday, 4 February 2010 - 11:33 am

    “When Anwar Ibrahim walks into the Kuala Lumpur High Court today, he will at least know what to expect.”

    No doubt about it. To most people, I believe that they are convinced that the judgement has already been made and this trial is just another wayang kulit, LOL. Whether it is true or not is another matter but if I were to bet, I bet you know which way I would do so.

  2. #2 by boh-liao on Thursday, 4 February 2010 - 12:02 pm

    Next time your boss asks “Can I phark u today“, u know what 2 do lah
    Even if u r angry, scared n refuse or cannot bear to do it, just strip n don a towel
    Position yourself nicely with your A-hole pointing up in d air 4 your boss 2 enter u loh
    Then 2 bodies become 1 mah, 1M’sia
    Ful of sai had set d standard angry, refusal reaction 2 “Can I phark u today

  3. #3 by frankyapp on Thursday, 4 February 2010 - 1:33 pm

    I think GOD has been mobbed once.HE is not letting it to be mobbed twice. GOD would use HIS oun way to tell the judges of this case to be honourable and fair in their final judgement. Once GOD has decided,there’s no turning back. I think Anwar is innocent and I have hope he would be victorious.

  4. #4 by k1980 on Thursday, 4 February 2010 - 3:56 pm

    Saiful will be revealed as bolehland’s Tony Chan, who tried and failed to get billions through deceit and lies.

    ( And Rosema will throw away her wig and copy Nina Wang’s hairstyle)

    http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2279&Itemid=204

  5. #5 by boh-liao on Thursday, 4 February 2010 - 5:35 pm

    Aiyah, Karpal, Y asked for d coffee-boy’s testimony to be heard in-camera, Y Y
    1M’sia n d world want 2 listen 2 d evil, frivolous lies of d coffee-boy lah
    This is 1M’sia at her best, from 1M’sia with love, sex education to d world
    Nothing 2 hide 1, oredi got sodomy I, now sodomy II
    Reporters fr all over d world so disappointed, no graphic details 2 report n sell newspapers
    This sodomy II trial puts 1M’sia on world news once again, good 4 tourism n publicity

  6. #6 by dagen on Thursday, 4 February 2010 - 5:44 pm

    Guess the korek korek korek guy has been summoned to write the judgment to nail anwar. Maybe he has already written it. What we now will witness is a mere go-through process.

  7. #7 by frankyapp on Thursday, 4 February 2010 - 6:09 pm

    #3,sorry wrong word.it should be “mocked” not “mobbed”

  8. #8 by boh-liao on Thursday, 4 February 2010 - 6:29 pm

    What kind of Muslim is d one full of sai
    He alleged he was liwated n 4 2 days he kept d semen stains on d outer and inner part of his anus, no mandi, no pan sai, no wiping or no say ka’chng
    During dat period, he got or no got pray 5 times a day?
    If got praying, no washing ah? Hai yah, susah 2 visualise lah
    Anyone kena liwated b4 can share with us if this is d normal behavior of a person liwated

  9. #9 by monsterball on Thursday, 4 February 2010 - 7:05 pm

    In Malaysia…you can cheat big…by the billions…..tell lies…commit murder…go against God’s will…and all can be PMs..except…no sodomy…no no no…taboo….most terrible sin…a Muslim can ever commit.
    That’s UMNO BARU’s interpretations..for anyone who wants to try to be PM.
    UMNO BARU sucks!!
    The whole world is laughing again.
    History repeating itself….although history was proven wrongly judged…..never mind…best game to get Anwar into jail.
    Will be have another Paul Agustine?

  10. #10 by k1980 on Thursday, 4 February 2010 - 7:20 pm

    Saiful, 25, said he was afraid when Anwar, 62, allegedly asked “Can I f*** you?”

    A 25 year old young man in the prime of his life afraid of a 62 year old man?!

    Let’s say Saiful was indecently proposed by a 62 year old unarmed man who wanted to take his anal virginity. The judges and police should laugh their heads (and [email protected]) off when they are told that the young heroic looking chap gave away the virginity of his backdoor without a struggle against an old man who has already 1 foot in the grave

  11. #11 by boh-liao on Thursday, 4 February 2010 - 7:32 pm

    “Can I phark u today?“(TM) is now a trade mark n a new form of social greetings
    T-shirts bearing this TM r on sale now
    D company is looking 4 distributors/agents in 1M’sia n other nations

  12. #12 by aiD_kamikuP on Thursday, 4 February 2010 - 7:41 pm

    “Malaysia’s Democracy on Trial”…yes…in fact the HYPOCRISY of BN govt leaders are also on display and the big picture paints the whole nation is being buggered/sodomised.

    Yes, Sodomy and Hypocrisy indeed. Do you recall PI Bala 1SD (i.e the 1st sd), in particular declaration point…

    “25.2 Datuk Seri Na… T.. Ra… informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Aminah and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse.”

    Woh!..ho!..ho!…What more sodomy do you want?

  13. #13 by k1980 on Thursday, 4 February 2010 - 7:42 pm

    Anwar had then “ordered” him to proceed to the guest room where Saiful then stripped and donned a towel before the opposition leader hugged him.

    If the above scenario had been the script for a porn movie, the director and producer would find themselves bankrupt.

    More comments from–
    http://niamah.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-fk.html

  14. #14 by k1980 on Thursday, 4 February 2010 - 7:52 pm

    The judge should dismiss the case with costs because this would serve as a bad example to first year undergraduates who had been sacked from universities. They might seek to entice old men with their backdoors in the hope of getting new scholarships from the PM.

    Luckily Saiful had not been given a scholarship to the US or else George Bush would be impeached for violating that sacked undergraduate’s backdoor

  15. #15 by k1980 on Thursday, 4 February 2010 - 8:08 pm

    Saiful’s favourite song—-

    This old man, he played four;
    He played knick-knack on my door.
    With a knick-knack, paddy whack,
    Give a dog a bone;
    This old man came rolling home.

    This old man, he played six;
    He played knick-knack on my stick.
    With a knick-knack, paddy whack,
    Give a dog a bone;
    This old man came rolling home.

  16. #16 by ekompute on Thursday, 4 February 2010 - 8:51 pm

    k1980 :
    Anwar had then “ordered” him to proceed to the guest room where Saiful then stripped and donned a towel before the opposition leader hugged him.

    Errr… if Anwar ask him to eat dog dung, I believe he will also eat. This Saiful obviously must have ask for it for there is no hint that he showed any objection. So if one is charged, so also must the other.

  17. #17 by DCLXVI on Friday, 5 February 2010 - 12:56 am

    The 1998 ‘Sodomy 1’ conviction was overturned 6 years later.
    Now, obviously convenient for the BN ruling coalition & its domineering UMNO party, there’s suddenly this ‘Sodomy II’ not long after Pakatan Rakyat had made significant gains in the 12th GE of March 2008.
    The diabolically devious architects of this farce must have thought that all Malaysians were born yesterday…

  18. #18 by boh-liao on Friday, 5 February 2010 - 3:24 am

    NR, beaming with pride, declared dat d long awaited economic recovery is here
    This month d nation recorded a hug, sorry huge, jump in export revenue
    D best export product fr 1M’sia 2 d world this month was a top seller everywhere
    Production cannot cope with d awesome demand 4 d latest instant mee, Sodo Mee

  19. #19 by boh-liao on Friday, 5 February 2010 - 3:43 am

    Latest hot juicy backdoor news fr Hollywood
    Among d nominees 4 this year’s Best Foreign Language Film Oscar is a submission fr 1M’sia
    Entitled Sodo Mee II, produced n directed by d famous U-No-Who Hot Lips
    D leading man, Sh!tful, is also nominated 4 d the Oscar for Best Actor
    O sh!t, MMK is crying with uncontrolled joy n pride cos 1M’sia’s entry is competing with USA’s Avatar, Allah b praised, Hallelujah, rejoice

  20. #20 by k1980 on Friday, 5 February 2010 - 8:39 am

    How can a 61 year old man with a bad back can force himself on a fit and tall 24 year old man?

    A. Anwar lied about his age. He’s actually 16 years old

    B. Saiful lied about his age. He’s actually 24 months old

    C. Anwar threatened to order his bodyguards to c4 Saiful’s entire family

    D. Can you trust an idiot who has been dismissed from university for flopping his first semester exam?

  21. #21 by Jeffrey on Friday, 5 February 2010 - 9:00 am

    As Chris Wright says, 2 things can happen by this trial leading to Anwar’s conviction in relation to next elections, due in 2013: either (1) Opposition will be crippled by loss of “a charismatic leader to glue it together” or (2) “alternatively, another conviction could unite opposition behind a cause and give it renewed momentum.” There are also 2 trials: one before Court of Law against Anwar, whether he is guilty under section 377B of Penal Code (consensual anal sex/sodomy, not assault/rape) and the other before Court of Public Opinion against the Govt, whether it is guilty of a political motivated prosecution against the Opposition head in denigration of democratic process. The latter is important as it bears on the equation per (2) above.
    The prosecution is politically high risk and stakes for ruling coalition because it has to satisfy a skeptical Court of Public Opinion that prosecution is not politically motivated. Up till now, I would surmise that the odds are more stacked against the State than Anwar as far as public perception were the arbiter. The reasons are as follows:

    First, unless the participants are directly seen engaged in the illicit act by 3rd party witnesses, it is ordinarily very difficult, I would say almost impossible, to prove consensual anal sex as section 377B implicates. For the participants themselves will not report each other for obvious reasons. Especially so in a conservative religious society where both share the shame and ostracism even if they escape legal punishment. Here lies the first problem when the accuser Mohd Saiful goes to court and tell his story. He will (understandably) never say he did it voluntarily and happily in fear of shame as well as complicity in the very crime he accuses the other of. So he would narrate and skew narration of events to show he was “forced”. Thats where the chief and only witness himself poses insurmountale obstacles for the Prosecution – the facts & law don’t support its chief witness’s storyline, for eg, if he were “forced why did he take 2 days after the alleged act to report the case? It’s not an ordinary behaviour of a person violated against his will. In fact he didn’t even think of reporting the case. It was not his first reaction. He landed in Hospital Pusrawi to see Dr Mohamed Osman to complain, according to the doctor, of pain in anus and abdominal area. According to the doctor, the complainant said a “plastic” (which we could assume was a plastic dildo) was used to penetrate him. This storyline poses a problem because any person violated against his will would immediately report to police first and then taken to hospital for clinical examination – not the other way around, as in this case, where complainant had no sense of urgency/anger and took 2 days to see a doctor first, more to find relief for abdominal or anal discomfort!

    To compound the problem prosecution would have to prove “penetration” and rely on semen resulting from that penetration collected from complainant anus for positive DNA identification of the accused. Proving penetration is difficult. Unless violent force was applied, one could not find larcerations or tear or unusuial distendment in anal area, especially after 2 days had elapsed from time of alleged incidence. Indeed the hospital reports appear to confirm that there were no signs of penetration much less link it to the semen samples. Questions: How could a plastic dildo squirt semen (since the complainant said plastic was used on him)? Unless the complainant did not clear his bowels for 2 days, any call of nature within that period will rid, if not contaminate, the physical evidence of semen in the anus collected from that area.

  22. #22 by Jeffrey on Friday, 5 February 2010 - 9:01 am

    (Continuing from preceding post)

    Still one may ask how then did the govt’s chemist get semen sample for DNA identification? The trouble is the public is already skeptical with the independence and professionalism of findings of any govt’s expert based on Teoh Beng Hock’s case where govt forensic experts found that TBH has “committed suicide” against widespread public disbelief and the findings of Thai pathologist Dr Pornthip.

    We’re talking here of a large segment of people whose mind is, at the outset, inclined to believing that the prosecution is politically motivated and which is entirely skeptical about sodomy allegations. Ultimately it is of this “Court of Public Opinion” that really counts bearing on the political equation raised by Chris Wright. How to convince and change this perception that the case is not politically motivated?

    There are two problems here. The fact that the complainant Saiful coincidentally visited the PM at the time immediately before the alleged incidence does not help the State’s case. Even if the complainant said that it was for a scholarship, skeptics would wonder what transpired beyond that!

    Secondly there’s an element of selective prosecution. Section 377B of Penal Code (for which Anwar is charged) is about unnatural sex which includes not just anal intercourse but also oral one! So people will ask in respect of the unnatural anal one, why if its consensual, Saiful were not charged like Anwar – and in respect of the oral one, why Chuah Soi Lek was not charged? Again these kind of selective prosecution does not help in efforts of changing people’s mind already made up!

    For all these reasons and under these circumstances of doubts and inconsistencies of the Complainant’s and Prosecution’s positions the pursuing of the 377B charge on the Opposition head may be ill advised and backfire on all who seek it to unglue the Opposition. The opposite could likely happen especially so when such trial promises to be protracted, continuing well to the time of next election before the appellate process is exhausted. It is also no good for the nation in image, investment and economic terms.

    One cannot pursue a 377B charge based on consensual sodomy unless evidence is very solid with no surrounding circumstances to contradict it. One is ill advised to pursue it when the chief witness the complainant himself is going all out to show he was forced when all circumstances contradict that position and hence cast a long shadow of doubt on the credibility and value of his testimony, the benefit of the doubt of which ought whether in the Court of Law or Court of Public Opinion be given to the accused!

  23. #23 by Jeffrey on Friday, 5 February 2010 - 9:34 am

    Some people are one tracked minds. They think DNA from semen samples are compelling scientific evidence with 99.999 % accuracy and will, unlike Sodomy I, conclusively seal the case under Sodomy II.

    They are wrong. Their minds are focussed only on winning the case in court for legal legitimacy. They fail to grasp the wider picture and angle that there’s more to it – because here the other Court – the Court of Public Opinion, whether domestic or international, needs to be satisfied and convinced.

    Can Public Opinion ever be satisfied (just because of the conclusiveness of DNA identification) in light of the surrounding circumstances highlighted in preceding 2 posts?

    It does not take a genius to recognize the folly of taking another to court on a charge of consensual sodomy when the chief and only principal witness – the complainant himself – has an interest in self preservation to narrate a version of events conistent with him being coerced/forced (rape) but inconsistent and conflicting with the gravament of the section 377B charge itself based on consensual sodomy with which the trial is concerned!

    One ends up having one’s own chief witness telling a version which inherently contains contradictions sabotaging one’s own case based on 377B!

    How to convince and change a Public Opinion/perception that has pre-set idea that sodomy story is a fabrication?

    If Public Opinion is not convinced what’s the point of the entire exercise, the publicity of which brings shame and dishonour to the Country? Arguably it will not do the prosecuting party any good either because if people’s minds are not changed, then their minds become fortified and angered by what they perceive, and are now doubly convinced is persecution of a victim twice and will demonstrate that anger in their votes!

  24. #24 by k1980 on Friday, 5 February 2010 - 9:37 am

    If it was not consensual, Saiful would had been shrieking like Janet Leigh in the shower scene in Psycho at the sight of the nude 61 year old man about to do the big naughty on him

  25. #25 by Lee Wang Yen on Friday, 5 February 2010 - 9:47 am

    Whether the DNA evidence can establish the claim in the court of law is itself in question.

    Some argue that DNA evidence can at best supports other substantial evidence indicating guilt.

  26. #26 by Lee Wang Yen on Friday, 5 February 2010 - 9:48 am

    opps… at best SUPPORT…

  27. #27 by boh-liao on Friday, 5 February 2010 - 9:50 am

    Moo-hee-din, beaming with pride n with a smiling KTK by his side, called a press conference this morning 2 announce d successful completion of one vital KPIs in schools all over the nation
    He said his ministry received lots of phone calls yesterday from teachers n parents regarding d successful dissemination of sex education to school children, thanks 2 d conscious efforts of Umno B

    Schools use NIE (newspapers in education) n yesterday teachers were asked Q by their young charges while reading d newspapers:
    Teacher, teacher, what is f**k, liwat, semen, sodomy, anal intercourse, etc ah?
    Teacher, teacher, is it alright for me 2 greet you or my friends “Can I f**k you today”?
    Teacher, teacher, plz explain what “Can I f**k you today” means ah?
    Teacher, teacher, plz show us f**k n liwat. Got or not got difference ah?
    Teacher, teacher, “Can I f**k you AGAIN today”?

    At home too, children, while reading papers, ask their parents similar Q
    Papa, mama, what is f**k, liwat, semen, sodomy, anal intercourse, etc ah?

    This is a nation of instant heightened sexual awareness n sexuality
    1000X better in effect than Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D. H. Lawrence, published in 1928
    Or The Prayer Mat of Flesh (@Before Midnight Scholar)

    A clandestine study discovered that the years after Sodomy I trial n publicity saw a spike in rampant sexual activities among adolescents in our nation
    Some of them subsequently embarked upon a life of debauchery
    Hey, Y not, make easy big bucks by claiming 2 b liwat or by offering A-hole n sh!t canal as a semen collection vessel, rather than 2 remain as unemployable graduate or dropout
    Wonder if full of sai were inspired by Ummi, Azizan, Mee Sodo I
    Wonder too if d now world famous full of sai would become an inspiring role model to thousands of kids in 2010
    One sure constipating way 2 fame n fortune
    We will find out the answer in subsequent years

  28. #28 by mauriyaII on Friday, 5 February 2010 - 10:45 am

    It is so strange yet very logical to the prosecution that a virgin arse can be penetrated (without signs of penetration, of course) to deposit semen inside the rectum and is available for DNA testing after a lapse of about 48 hours.

    Wouldn’t there be a tear on the spinchter muscles? Or is it natural for characters like the guy full of sai to get his arse rammed even without the use of any lubricants. Even virgins show a tear or rupture in their hymen when they are penetrated and that is what doctors look for in a rape case.

    Since Sai full claims that he was an unwilling victim, then it is rape. The police do not take any action over female rape victims if they do not report immediately and if there is no sign of penetration or the presence of semen.

    But in Sai full’s case why is the BN and Najib in particular so sympathetic to this dropout? The funny thing is the guy claime to be sodomised after seeing Najib for a scholarship? When did the BN govt. start giving out scholarship to university dropouts?

    So many inexplicable situations! Really mind boggling but not for our very efficient police and the prosecution. This is truly Malaysia, anything is possible Bolehland.

  29. #29 by cheng on on Friday, 5 February 2010 - 10:00 pm

    25 years young, big size man Vs 62 years old, small size, back pain, unarmed (no powerful status) man, 25 years guy afraid??
    So, if it ever happened, it is not by force, but mutually agreed?? If so, the law said both are guilty, why only prosecute old one?
    If the young one is forced by the old one, Can believe ah??

  30. #30 by johnnypok on Sunday, 7 February 2010 - 5:32 am

    The young one is a pondan. He tricked the old man to park his back hole, and demanded something which the old man cannot do. so he decided to blackmail the old man. Let Ah Lar punish him and send him to hell.

You must be logged in to post a comment.