Anwar Ibrahim: "Shouldn't Saiful be charged too?"

But before they [the angels] lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know [have sex with] them.

And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door. - (Genesis 19:4-11)

The above paragraphs are from the Biblical Book of genesis which talks about Sodom and Gomorrah, where the inhabitants were so depraved they would rather ‘know’ two strangers (jambu-looking angels) than Lot’s two virgin daughters. The sin (and Malaysian crime) of sodomy has its origin in those biblical cities.

Fast forward 4 thousand years to 07 August 2008 - 'If consensual, why charge me only?', the damning query from Anwar Ibrahim was published by Malaysiakini to the embarrassment of the Attorney-General who gave the instruction for the PKR’s de facto leader to be charged for an alleged offence of sodomy.

In the charge the prosecution had quoted Section 377B of the Penal, namely 'committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature' which means the sex was consensual, because the more sinister Section 377C says 'committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature without consent', meaning rape.

Malaysiakini reported that the DPP argued that "the interpretation of section 377B is open on whether the offence was done with or without consent as the provision is silent on the word ‘consent’."

Even as a legal layperson I would say that’s bullsh*t argument by the DPP because where Section 377C exists, the prosecution cannot and should not charge a person under Section 377B and insist on alluding to the possibility or existence of sex ‘without consent’.

Obviously, the prosecution has opted for Section 377B instead of 377C of the penal Code because it’s far more difficult to prove rape unless the police can come up with supporting evidence of physical force or even non-physical coercion.

There may be a number of possibilities arising from this damning challenge, namely if the charge has been Section 377B (consensual sex), then why hasn’t Saiful Bukhari Azlan been charged too for committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature?

Possibility 1
The prosecution may well charge Saiful tomorrow under the same Penal Code Section. This may be done to neutralize Anwar’s very legitimate query. I imagine the prosecution saying: "Now, who said that we weren't going to charge Saiful? C'mon lah, man man lai mah."

But if Saiful was party to the government’s plot to condemn Anwar, then Saiful may well not accept being ‘shafted’ again (excuse the pun) with a criminal charge, and possibly spill the beans.

Possibility No 2
The prosecution may revise the charge to Section 377C but the difficulties then would be in proving Anwar had raped Saiful.

Possibility No 3
The prosecution may bulldoze its way along the DPP's argument that "the interpretation of section 377B is open on whether the offence was done with or without consent as the provision is silent on the word ‘consent’."

A bloody poor and weak approach.

Possibility No 4
Assuming there is a plot to screw Anwar politically, then it may well be that the plan has never been to jail him (either because of the difficulties of gathering the evidence or the adverse diplomatic as well as domestic political repercussions), but to drag him slowly and excruciatingly through a public court case and expose his intimate liaison with Saiful. In other words, use the court case to smear sh*t all over his reputation.

Possibility No 4 will be the most damaging to Anwar where he will win the legal case but lose the political one (with respect to the ‘heartland’).


OK, another issue that jumps to my mind has been the accusation that the alleged sodomy was either an UMNO plot (as described above) or a consequence of a falling out between two erstwhile ‘lovers’ (if the latter, as far as I am concerned, it's none of our business).

If it has been an UMNO plot to screw up Anwar, with Saiful as the alleged accomplice (as he has been accused by PKR), then for him to seek a medical examination with Dr Mohamed Osman Abdul Hamid at Pusrawi was lazy plotting or sheer stupidity.

Then, some have accused Dr Mohamed Osman Abdul Hamid of being an Islamic brethren of Anwar Ibrahim in some Islamic organization, thus his medical report or notes or whatever has been alleged as favourable to Anwar, but I won’t go into that for now.

By the way, there’s also a Dr Raffick who raised some doubts as to Dr Mohamed Osman Abdul Hamid’s assertion that there was no sodomy perpetrated on Saiful – see Malaysiakini Doc stands by 'no sodomy' findings where Dr Mohd Osman has asserted this by resorting to our well-known Statutory Declaration - the stock of Stat Dec forms must be running low by now.

I had blogged on one of Dr Raffick’s earlier analyses on Dr Mohd Osman’s medical report – see my post Dr Raffick dismissed RPK's intepretation of doctor's report. Since then I heard he has written another or perhaps even a couple more, but I leave that to you readers to go find out.

If it has been an UMNO plot, could UMNO’s implementation of the scheme against Anwar be so piss-poor as to have Saiful medically checked by a doctor of ‘unknown allegiance’, and faced the inevitable report that there was no forced banging? Couldn't the UMNO mastermind nominate a doctor out of a host of 'more reliable' doctors?

This has been the most puzzling item in the entire drama. Because of this, there is a strong argument to believe that Saiful went on his own accord to Pusrawi.

One could be easily led to believe that if there was any sex at all as alleged, it would have been consensual, where the aftermath had turned emotionally sour for the pair. What made Saiful believe he was ‘raped’ or sodomised without consent remains open for conjecture and salacious dissections.

Though I am not a Muslim, I've also thought Anwar’s refusal to swear an oath on the Qu’ran that he didn’t do it, hasn't done him much good. This is not so much a legal requirement but more of a socially-moral expectation. I believe Anwar should have taken the oath.

In other countries, consensual sodomy is not a crime but an issue protected from hoteyes and ears by the laws of Privacy. In Malaysia it’s not only a legal crime but a religious and socially-moral sin. The latter is the more damning of the two.

Maybe Anwar’s enemies seek moral rather than legal prosecution and persecution against him. By doing so, they could be avoiding the martyr-ising of Anwar Ibrahim, but instead advocating the muddying of Anwar Ibrahim’s name.