Saiful’s Contradictions

ARCHIVES 2010

By admin-s On Jun 3, 2010

A truthful account of events does not need any scheming, planning or coordinating to make the details logical and consistent. It does not care for unexpected events, unknown circumstances and unexpected witnesses getting in the way because they will all automatically validate each other. Truth has a beauty and simplicity which does not require anybody to make improbable assumptions, illogical explanations and unlikely postulations of human behaviour to fit the narrative.

By Malaysian Spring

Mark Twain once said, “Always tell the truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said.”

Conspirators can try to fabricate imaginary events and cover up the truth with lies and deceit but the truth will eventually come out like water dribbling out of a leaky container. Small details which do not fit get in the way like jagged edges which rip the story apart. Lies may need more lies to cover up the holes that appear under examination but more lies may punch more holes in the framework until the whole thing collapses and the deception is exposed.

In Saiful’s allegation of sodomy against Anwar Ibrahim, so many contradictions and gaping holes have appeared in his story that it has all but fallen apart. No reasonable person will believe that the alleged act actually happened in the face of such contradictions and illogical explanations bordering on the bizarre and the ludicrous.

A contradictory charge

In the first place the charge itself is a serious contradiction to the star witness’s public insistence that he was sodomized against his will.

So why was Anwar charged for consensual sodomy under Section 377B when it should have been Section 377C for non-consensual sodomy? This is not a matter of the Attorney-General’s prerogative to prefer a charge which carries a lighter sentence as claimed by the prosecution. Whether there was consent or not changes the whole nature of the act and the thrust of the prosecution. In 377C the prosecution must prove force was used, in 377B it need not. In forced sodomy the prosecution has a co-operative witness to testify against the accused, in consensual sodomy it must find other ways. In real life one does not the luxury of a co-operative witness AND not having to prove force which is clearly a distortion of the truth and prejudicial to the defense.

Naturally the prosecution would rather not take up the daunting task of proving how a frail 62 year old man with a bad back can forcibly sodomize a lad bigger and stronger than him. But now we have a case in which the charge does not tally with what the accuser claimed happened. In any healthy judiciary the case would be thrown out of court based on this crucial contradiction but we do not have a healthy judiciary.

If indeed the act was consensual why mobilize the whole apparatus of state to investigate and prosecute Anwar with countless manhours and millions spent when the act was allegedly between two consenting adults? Why such ferocious effort when has the government shown no interest in prosecuting anybody else for consensual sodomy despite a thriving gay community?

Saiful’s contradictory behaviour

Saiful claimed to have been sodomized a total of eight times against his will over a period of months so why didn’t he report to the police the first time it happened? We know that he is not gay as he has a fiancé and being sodomized must be downright humiliating and disgusting so it is incredulous to think that he did nothing but tolerated the act.

Bearing in mind that Anwar is physically no match for him and as an opposition leader has no power to put him in any fear, Saiful’s claim of being sodomized multiple times is a serious contradiction to his public stance that the act was non-consensual.

After the last alleged incident in the condominium, Saiful waited for two days before making a police report. He went to work as usual the next day and in the evening attended a function in Anwar’s house where he served drinks to the guests. The next day he sent a cheerful quit e-mail to Anwar. By no stretch of the imagination is this the behaviour of a person who has been forcibly sodomized against his will.

Saiful’s public insistence of non-consensual sodomy goes beyond the material contradiction in the charge preferred against Anwar. He had sworn this on the Koran in a mosque during the Permatang Pauh by-election campaign under the glare of the press and TV cameras and allowed BN to make political capital of this against Anwar. If we believe his claim in court that he had no political motive we have to admit that he must be the most publicity hungry rape victim in the world bar none, male or female.

Although Saiful’s response to the supposedly non-consensual acts is bewildering and abnormal, details of the persons he met prior to making his police report would blow any doubts of a political conspiracy away.

Saiful’s meetings

Saiful has admitted in court that he met Najib Razak who was the deputy prime minister at that time two days before the last alleged act to discuss his problem. For an ordinary citizen to be able to gain access to the second most powerful person in the country is highly suspicious but what he told the court of the DPM’s response is even more unbelievable. According to Saiful, Najib said his problem with Anwar is a personal matter and he could not do anything.

We are asked to believe that Najib passed over the opportunity to capture and destroy his greatest political nemesis over a criminal act. Bearing in mind that Section 13 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that it is an offence for anyone to withhold information and not to make a police report if they know a crime has been committed this would mean that Najib knowingly abetted a crime.

Saiful also admitted that he met a high ranking police officer, SAC Rodwan in the Concord Hotel Shah Alam a day before the last alleged sodomy act. Prior to this he had talked to Rodwan on the phone at least 8 times. Rodwan is well known for his dubious role in spiking a mattress with Anwar’s blood sample in sodomy I. Furthermore, Saiful has also talked to the IGP Musa Hassan at least once over the phone.

Why would a meeting with a police officer ostensibly to discuss his sodomy problem be held in a hotel room if not to keep it secret? Why the need for such secrecy if not to discuss something shifty? Why did the police fail to set a trap for Anwar to catch him red handed and with video recordings “Chua Soi Lek style” if indeed the sodomy claims were true? The reason why such a trap was never set up was because no sodomy ever took place.

Saiful also said that he met Ezam, political turncoat who betrayed Anwar’s trust and Mumtaz, an aide of Rosmah Mansor, Najib’s wife and both of them advised him against lodging a police report. We don’t know which is more incredulous – that he shared his humiliating problem with people whom he has no close personal relationship with or that they advised him not to make a police report.

Saiful’s court testimony

Saiful testified in court that he was propositioned indecently by Anwar in a condominium in Kuala Lumpur and he was shocked, horrified and disgusted by Anwar’s direct advance.

Let us pause a minute here. This is a man who claimed to have been sodomized no less than seven (7) times before all over Asia so why the shock, horror and disgust? The details do not match the alleged circumstances.

Even more telling is his description of what happened later. After his supposedly “shock, horror and disgust,” he took a shower, emerged with a towel and lay down on the bed after which Anwar pulled the curtains, switched off the lights and the alleged non-consensual act took place. Surely this is stretching the definition of non-consensual too far?

Saiful also claimed that he did not wash his anus and did not pass motion for 2 days to preserve the evidence. If he had wanted to nail Anwar why didn’t he go immediately to the police instead of engaging in such heroics for 2 days before making a report?

Saiful’s claim that Anwar was his idol is contrary to his college mates who said he was known to be very pro-BN and anti-Anwar. In an interview which was recorded on video, one college mate said that when he heard that Saiful has taken a job in Anwar’s office he assumed that Saiful’s intention was to do something bad to Anwar.