The Case Against Anwar
It's been a month since an aide to Anwar Ibrahim accused the Malaysian opposition leader of sodomy, yet no formal charge has been filed nor has Anwar been allowed to see the police report filed against him. Now, the case against Anwar looks shakier still.
MalaysiaToday's editor, Raja Petra Kamarudin, posted a two-page medical report it said was written by a doctor who examined Saiful Bukhari Azlan on June 28, the day the aide went to the police with his complaint. The alleged report is written in shorthand and signed by Dr. Mohamed Osman Abdul Hamid. It says that a rectal examination showed no active bleeding, tears or injury.
If it's true that Anwar's aide didn't present any physical signs of injury at the hospital, then on what basis was the police report filed? If the aide went to a government hospital to get a second opinion -- as required under the law in sodomy cases, and as the first doctor suggested -- what did that second doctor see? And why is the accuser, Mr. Saiful, still formally under police protection?
This has hallmarks of a case being built after, not before, the purported "crime." In 1998 -- the last time Anwar was accused of sodomy -- the prosecution's case centered around an alleged semen-stained mattress and DNA taken under false pretenses from Anwar. The police's handling of the evidence was so flawed that in 2004, Malaysia's highest court overturned the conviction. Now, the police have requested that Anwar provide DNA samples again. To what end?
And, the Police Say Blog Article On Sodomy Medical Report Speculative, Based On Hearsay ?
What a bunch of clowns !
Dr M: ANTI-CORRUPTION
1. ACA, or Anti-Corruption Agency is now willing to investigate possible corruption based on newspaper reports.
2. It is now doing just that with regard to the huge bill for maintenance of Proton Perdana official cars used by the Terengganu Government.
3. This has prompted the Terengganu Menteri Besar to question why the very costly Monsoon Cup and the Islamic Theme Park have not been investigated.
4. Promptly the Trengganu ACA has decided to do just that.
5. I must congratulate the ACA for its seemingly independent response to complaints of corruption.
6. But I am a little bit disappointed when very quickly the Terengganu ACA stated that preliminary investigations have shown no element of bribery involved.
7. I do not think the ACA should be looking for evidence of bribery. As with the servicing charges for Proton Perdana, ACA should be looking for the cost of the projects, whether reasonable or not. It should also look into how the contracts were awarded and to whom.
8. I know a lot of Terengganu people have complained about the projects. Seems that almost all the contractors and sub-contractors were from outside Terengganu. Could it be that there are no capable contractors in Terengganu.
9. I was on the verge of asking the ACA to investigate Proton's sale of M.V. Agusta, which it bought for 72 million Euro but sold for just 1 Euro. We all know that the unknown buyer who paid 1 Euro then sold M.V. Agusta for a total of 160 million Euro.
10. Proton then claimed that by selling M.V. Agusta at 1 Euro it made 107 million Euro (M.V. Agusta's debts).
11. As one of the commentators on my blog says, he smells fish, a dead one.
12. But I hesitate to ask the ACA to investigate in case preliminary investigation shows no wrong doing.