Amidst the noise and the haste that we are subjected to by the print and broadcast media on the highly controversial Sodomy II trial of Anwar, it clearly appears that the rule of law is being enforced for a political purpose. Saiful is a college dropout. He claims to idolize Anwar. He was engaged as a political assistant. The oral evidence he has placed before the court under the examination in chief all the more goes against the grain of common sense or logic. It seems more of a myth. Why is it so?

The Star of 04.02.2010 carries a headline on its front page which is Captioned “Sex proposal” and goes on to report that Anwar asked Saiful point blank if he could have sex with him. The prosecution has stated that they will prove their case from the semen specimens taken from Saiful’s anus.

What seems to be amiss here is the evidence of Saiful which goes against the grain of common sense and defeats logic. In one breadth Saiful said that he was “angry and scared” and he rejected Anwar’s request. Then he states in evidence “I told him I did not want to do it.”

Then in the next breadth Saiful states that after he had said no to Anwar, he was told to go into the master bedroom, which he did. Then Anwar comes in and closes the curtains and switches off the lights and Saiful stood still. WHY?

Then Anwar asked Saiful to “clean up” in the bathroom and Saiful removed his clothes and washed up and took a towel from the bathroom and donned it. When he returned to the bedroom where Anwar was standing on the edge of the bed clad in a towel. Then Saiful said “ He directed me to go to him and then hugged me while we were standing.” The rest is heard in camera.

Now this sneak preview of the opining salvo of the prosecution’s case has given rise to a tremendous amount of criticism in the alternate media and to a larger extent these criticisms are generally constructive and thereby are highly disturbing.

In the first stage the prosecution is endeavouring to plainly paint a picture that Anwar is a Maniac. The script is not a script as depicted in court. We the right minded people look at it objectively, because in one breadth Saiful states “I rejected his request. I told him I that I did not want to do it.” Then in the next breadth Saiful states that Anwar became angry and he asked him to “clean up” and Saiful became “obedient” and went into the bathroom and cleaned up and took a towel from the washroom and donned it.

How could this situation be possible? The accusation is devoid of any merit whatsoever. We have our own daily interaction with our children or family members or staff in our office or our friends or acquaintances and from our experience we know that when we ask someone to do something they do not like, and when they say “NO” it is not possible to show our “anger” and get them to do what we desire. The result would always be in the opposite of what we expect.

It is an established fact of life that when we compel someone to do something against their will and when we get angry the other party would also get equally angry. That is why there is so much of disorder even within the nuclear family, in this modern day and age. So how then would it be with our employers, coworkers, friends and acquaintances?

No doubt the time will come for the defence to cross examine Saiful, if at all the judge decides to call for Anwar to enter his defence. At that stage Saiful would be left open to the defence lawyers to hound him.

Saiful would not have the pleasure of being on the top of things. Would he have the memory to remember all that he has given in evidence in chief? May be his biggest weakness as the truth would ultimately have to prevail and the cat may come out of the bag.

It is certain that he would have his weakness and he would demonstrate the flush on his face. He would barely be able to control his rage and at that stage Saiful would find life to be empty, lonely and unfulfilled and it would not be further from the truth that Saiful would feel lost, panicky and scared. It may hit him not in his anus but in the pit of his stomach and he may have to put things right.

As much as it is too early in the stage of the trial to predict any thing, but there are some factors that have to be rationally considered. In 2008 Anwar was 62 years of age. Saiful was 23 years of age. Anwar suffers from severe problems of the spine. Over and above that at that age almost all men face some form of impotence.

So why could Saiful not stand up against Anwar which any decent human being would do but instead Saiful allowed an almost impotent man to have allegedly sodomised him?

At this early stage of the trial this seems to be the most puzzling part of Saiful’s testimony. There is another part of Saiful’s testimony as reported in the Star on 06.02.2010 where Saiful states that he did not pass motion for two days after he was allegedly sodomised on June 26 of 2008.

This form of evidence is to be considered as an exaggeration of what nature would not permit to prevail. Just carry out an investigative report of sodomy amongst consenting adults and one would be made to realize that what Saiful is stating in evidence is incorrect and a myth. This is owing to the fact that the rectum is not like the vagina that would contain semen may be up to two days.

But in the case of the rectum it by nature dispels anything foreign without retention. You can get the confirmation from any homo or write to Elton John and he may give you an appropriate reply. It is of common knowledge that every one of us after a sexual act would wash up. But the prosecution has conveniently not raised this issue. We wonder why?

It is apparent that Saiful has been coached into the giving of the evidence. It also appears that Najib  and UMNO want to give this charge of sodomy against Anwar a great deal of sensationalism hoping that it will in the process discredit Anwar.

On the contrary the court of public opinion is much more mature that the mediocre UMNO leadership. The general voting populace see this script as a deviance and a diabolically conceived act and if all things were to be in order this could be the final curtain that has to be drawn on the demise of UMNO.

Hence the “Charge” against Anwar is only in existence in the mind of an inferior politician like Najib and therefore is not in existence in reality.



  1. boscopa Says:


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: