The Case against Anwar Ibrahim

(Plenty of headaches for Anwar due to the on-going sodomy allegations. Image source: http://www.itsmylifeclub.com)

The Opposition Leader, Anwar Ibrahim have busy in the courts lately. His sodomy case is coming up soon and Anwar have been busy filing the motion to get the necessary police report and transfer of the case from one court to another.

Is Anwar really guilty of a crime? Blogger, Pink Turtle outlined 10 misgivings in Anwar’s case and one of the best is this:-

Timbul isu terbaru bahawa laporan rasmi HKL turut bocor dan laporan tersebut menyatakan bahawa Saiful memang tiada tanda-tanda diliwat dan mustahil Saiful diliwat. Ini menunjukkan Saiful tidak ikhlas membantu BN.

Sekiranya Saiful komited membantu BN, Saiful sepatutnya pergi ke Lorong Haji Taib dan menyuruh pondan-pondan di situ meliwatnya beberapa kali agar kesan liwat ketara. Ini menunjukkan perancangan lemah BN dan ketidak ikhlasan Saiful dalam membantu BN.

Translated in English, it will mean something like this:-

Latest revelation is that HKL official report has been leaked out as well and the report states that Saiful did not have any signs of been sodomised and it was impossible that he was sodomised. This shows that Saiful was not sincere in helping BN.

If Saiful was really committed in helping BN, he should have gone to Lorong Haji Taib and ask the transvestites there to sodomise him several times so that the sign of sodomy is evident (during medical check up). This shows the weak planning by BN and insincerity of Saiful in helping BN

Read the rest of the misgivings here, it is very interesting indeed

Read Also

Latest Bombshell from RPK

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “The Case against Anwar Ibrahim

  1. “Translated in English, it will mean something like this:-

    Latest revelation is that HKL official report has been leaked out as well and the report states that Saiful did not have any signs of been sodomised and it was impossible that he was sodomised. This shows that Saiful was not sincere in helping BN.”

    Your comments in this regard is another of those legal fictions being bandied around by members of Malaysia’s alternative media and the Malaysian Bar: I will state my reasons for disagreement with you and the Malaysian bar including Anwar’s lawyer one Sivarasa.

    It is firstly important to understand that a hospital of itself does not have the power or the capacity at law to make a ‘finding’ in respect of any evidence relating to any matter before the courts. In this case a publication called the “nutgraph” makes such a claim on the ‘leaked finding’ and no one has come forward to rebut that statement including the KLH. Sivarasa does not seek to vary or modify that claim either.

    A finding is a conclusion for a court or more specifically a judge or relevant officer sitting in a properly constituted court or tribunal to make on all of the evidence properly put before them.

    Reference is made to an article published in the Malaysian Bar website in respect of the matter of the allegation of rape in the form of sodomy by Anwar Ibrahim on another. That article must be read in context of the article by a Nutgraph writer as they are consubstantial.

    The legislative provisions of the offense may describe the act in its own unique and novel fashion but it remains an allegation of rape by definition.

    Perhaps what Anwar’s supporters are relying on in the Malaysian Bar and the article in The Nut Graph on the subject, is an opinion, from a source within the Hospital Kuala Lumpur (“HKL”) that the source or HKL failed to find any medical evidence or proof to corroborate a claim by the plaintiff that he had been sodomised. The leaked report says as follows:

    “No conclusive clinical findings suggestive of penetration to the anus and no significant defensive wound on the body of the patient (Saiful Bukhari).” How such a statement can justify dismissing the allegation that Saiful (the plaintiff) was not raped (or sodomised) defies logic.

    Such a statement is of itself contentious for the admission it makes in what must have been “defensive wounds” evident in the patient’s body (presumably his anus).

    The fact that those wounds were “not significant” cannot therefore be construed as being evidence that penetration did not occur or that wounds consistent with penetration were not present.

    It merely qualifies the wounds as being “not significant”. And there is a clear distinction to be made here in the statement. Further the statement allegedly leaked from the report says the “findings” are “not conclusive”

    A question that needs to be raised and answered when testing the validity of the hospital’s report or the weight to be given it, based on the physical examination of the “patient” is this. How soon or how long after the alleged fact of sodomy did the hospital actually conduct a physical examination of the patient?

    And depending on whether or not there was actual force (voluntary or consensual) used in the act there are a number of possible outcomes a physical examination would reveal.

    These would then, depend on a number of other factors including
    a) the time lapse between the occurrence of the event and the examination,
    b) the nature and extent of force, resistance (voluntary or consensual) applied,
    c) the physical and medical disposition of the patient, and
    d) the capacity of the perpetrator’s penetration to inflict visible injury.

    Interestingly none of these questions or possibilities are canvassed or dealt with by either the HKL or Anwar’s defence team.

    Clearly results would vary from individual to individual in such circumstances depnding on their physical make up and their pre disposition to any such act and the report cannot be relied on to do anything but perhaps corroborate to some degree the claim and the defence.

    Instead of a more profound and professional report the defence should seek to obtain in its client’s interests, we are subject to conveniently leaked information, which adumbrates a situation based on generic definitions vague to the core which Anwar’s legal team appear to hang on to as their smoking gun in reverse.

    The Bar Association website article on this subject further refers to Anwar seeking to take his case overseas.

    Taking his case overseas is likely to bring the courts into disrepute and question its authority and its legitimacy without proper cause (if he had one) which is more than an insult on the integrity of all Malaysians and that of the courts of Malaysia.

    Anwar for all of his colourful rhetoric, his courtship of foreign dignitaries, the media and the legal fraternity to cloak himself with respectability he otherwise lacks, demonstrates a shallow sense of statesmanship.

    He is clearly ill advised or reckless as to the implications of his conduct in this regard more than anyone else in his camp.

    If Anwar has no faith in the system or claims it is biased or unfair against him to the extent he is unable to secure for himself a fair and just trial in Malaysia, then there are procedures to accessing other forums. Perhaps he may even consider the international courts of justice at the Hague, although he is unlikely to be given a hearing there because he has not yet exhausted all municipal remedies in Malaysia.

    Clearly Anwar is ill informed because he fails to inform himself of the implications of his actions or of how a fair and just system ought to work. His position as victim, a role he clearly revells in will eventually relegate him to the ranks of “also rans” in a nation at a watershed of politics where clear alternatives appear like him to be nothing more than mirages.

    Gopal Raj Kumar

    Like

    1. Chill out bro, Pink Turtle’s post was not meant to be a detailed legalistic analysis of the case but rather it was one in form of sarcasm too (and it was brilliant!)

      Like

  2. Funny how that happens. When challenged on their posts they suddenly hide behind the thin veneer of sarcasm. Nonethless ignorant sarcasm which you think is brilliant?

    Well maybe I am now expecting too much from you Bro!

    Like

Please let us have your reply...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s