I am divided on the whole issue surrounding the sodomy allegation made against Anwar Ibrahim. I really have trouble in expressing myself on the issue from the start and that is apparent in an earlier entry of mine which I was forced to rewrite and added a post-script to express myself better. Over at the Malaysia Forum, Wan Saiful Wan Jan put it in the clearest of terms which I failed to get to clearly in the first place: the allegation of sodomy is not about prosecution of homosexuality but rather, it is about transgression of individual liberty.

I do not agree with the criminalization of victimless crime but again the allegation is not about victimless crime. It is an allegation of rights transgression. For this very reason, I am quite agnostic with a dose of skepticism reserved, about the sodomy allegation. Judgment has yet to be handed and it is only fair to maintain neutrality.

Let the due process takes its place. If the judgment was tempered, then a revolt would be justified. If Anwar Ibrahim is innocent, then by all means punish the accuser for fraud.

All is equal before the law and so too Anwar Ibrahim. Yes, I know, the weight of the law — regardless the value of the law — has not been equally applied to everybody but two wrongs do not make a right. But only those whom do the right thing have the moral authority to preach about being right.

Returning to due process, the biggest issue for me concerns the timing of the arrest. It was made more or less an hour earlier than the presented deadline.[1] I am on Anwar Ibrahim’s side as far as the arrest is concerned because of the police’s failure to adhere to due process. If the police had adhered to the timeline, Anwar Ibrahim’s arrest would have been justified.

On the allegation itself, I am, as I have written before, agnostic.

My position is this: I believe in equality before the law and due process, as long as individual liberty is preserved.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] KUALA LUMPUR, July 16 — Police feared that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was going to barricade himself in his home and resist arrest. That is why they moved in, and arrested him near his house in Segambut as he was making his way back from an interview with the Anti-Corruption Agency — an hour before he was scheduled to show up at the KL police headquarters. [So why were the police in such a hurry?. The Malaysian Insider. July 16 2008]

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

Special thanks to John Lee for lending his hand in clarifying my thought.

3 Responses to “[1725] Of Anwar Ibrahim, liberty, due process and equality before the law”

  1. on 17 Jul 2008 at 09:44 Amin

    You believe in law and due process, as would a lot of people. The thing is though, other cases has not been pursued with such ferocity and high-handedness.

    Why has this case been singled out?

    Why didn’t they send in the SWAT (UTK) team to arrest Lingam, or Najib? For Lingam, there is actual VIDEO evidence. For Najib, there is a statuory declaration. For Anwar.. mere flimsy accusation from one 20-year-old person, who claims to have been sodomized many times before overseas but still kept close contact with Anway, who has a bad back and is 60+ years old.

    The extreme biasness should be evident to anyone, and following the black-and-white is falling into the trap of corruptors who only want to use the law when and if it fits their goals. They will prosecute and uphold the law when it is against their enemies, but do nothing when their own perverts, abused and mock the law and our precious due process.

    So what should we be discussing here? Upholding law and due process in just the Anwar case, or upholding law and process on EVERYONE, regardless of politicial affiliation?

  2. on 17 Jul 2008 at 09:56 Hafiz Noor Shams

    Like said, two wrongs do not make a right.

    What we should do is demand the others to follow the due process, not demand Anwar to be excluded from adhering to due process.

  3. on 22 Jul 2008 at 21:42 Morni

    Referring to RPK’s stat dec, it is a declaration that he was told so and so that Rosmah did so & so….

    Referring to Saiful’s report, it is police report made by an alleged victim of transgression

    I am aghast that people could find those two of comparable value.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply