Something is not right with Anwar’s police report
AIDCNews – 23/03/11 – When Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim lodged the police report yesterday, we at AIDC immediately went into discussion mode to ascertain several questions that had arisen from the contents and motive behind the action.
Mstar – Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar said, the police report made by opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim relating to the disclosure of a purported sex video shown to the media Monday will be investigated under the offence of possessing and distributing pornographic material. According to Ismail, the case will be investigated under Section 292 of the Penal Code.
The police report was similar to the one made by Anwar in 1998 against the late Datuk Khalid Jefri, author of the book, “50 Reasons Why Anwar Cannot Be Prime Minister.” The report called on the police to arrest and take action on the writer and not on the libel, which was the book itself.
In 1998, Anwar’s psyche war efforts won over many people. This was firstly because of his courage to make a police report, and secondly because they were influenced by the book and the conspiracy surrounding it.
Notwithstanding all this, the police discovered a host of evidence that differed from what Anwar had claimed.
Mstar: Anwar made the report Tuesday at the Dang Wangi Police Headquarters over allegations that a man calling himself Datuk T had shown to local and foreign media a sex video clip claimed to involve an opposition leader and a foreign prostitute. Anwar described ‘Datuk T’s’ action in screening the video to journalists as criminal intimidation or extortion besides an attempt to defame himself and his family.
Amidst all these, something seems amiss in Anwar’s police report. Instead of giving priority to the attempt to defame his family, Anwar chose dwelled on Datuk T’s action in showing the video. Why was this so?
Why did Anwar see Datuk T’s action as ‘criminal extortion?’
Anwar’s rationale seemed to be in tune with that of his defence counsel Karpal Singh, who demanded that the police immediately arrest Datuk T for transgressing Section 5(1) of the Film Censorship Act, 2002 and Section 292 of the penal Code.
Did Karpal advise Anwar to make the report?
As is common knowledge, Karpal had known all along Anwar’s bad habits, but instead used his legal knowledge to manoeuvre the process to Anwar’s advantage.
To Karpal the important question is not Anwar’s morals, but the technical loopholes, which may get his client free.
If Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan’s sodomy case is used as comparison, one should be able to count the number of times Karpal had asked the court to drop the case, and failed.
In the present case why then would Karpal in haste asked the police to arrest Datuk T? What is the arrest worth for Anwar?
Datuk T Asks an Independent Commission of Inquiry to Investigate the Video
Today’s The Star paper reported Datuk T sending an email to the media and NGOs asking for their sympathy so that the commission of inquiry would act freely to establish the authenticity of the video.
Datuk T wanted a public commission to be the jury and judge to ascertain the authenticity of the recording. “I will surrender the original recording once the public commission is set up,” he said, adding the commission could engage forensic experts from any country to ascertain the authenticity of the video. Datuk T called on the media fraternity and non-government organisations to join forces to…
In an email he sent, Datuk T said he was willing to handover the video for verification by a public commission comprising media practitioners and NGOs.
He said the commission could invite forensic experts from any country to verify the authenticity of the video recording.
Datuk T also touched on the Omega watch owned by the political figure.
“Let the commission engage forensic experts to verify if the DNA traces found on the watch matches Anwar’s…”
According to Datuk T, he was still keeping and willing to surrender the Omega watch found in the hotel room, which he claimed belonged to the political figure and was inadvertently left in the hotel room where the recording was made.
He said the commission might send the watch for DNA analysis by forensic experts to determine if traces found on it match Anwar’s DNA.
When asked by reporters about the watch during the media conference at the PKR Headquarters in Petaling Jaya, Anwar’s answer did not sound very convincing.
Malaysiakini: Anwar was asked by reporters, “have you lost a piece of Omega wristwatch? Anwar instead tried to correct them by saying the right question would be whether he owned a watch of that brand. Anwar subsequently said he had a watch like that…”…ask (Wan) Azizah…she is keeping it…” he said with a smile.
At the media conference, Anwar did not deny owning the watch but did not produce it because his wife, Wan Azizah, kept it.
Perhaps, the media had hoped for a different answer from Anwar, one that would prove he did dot have any links to the man in the video…things like denying he had over owned or worn an Omega wristwatch.
However, when Anwar instead confirmed that he had a watch like the one mentioned but was being kept by his wife; it threw some doubts in the mind of the reporters because Anwar had already known the issue relating to the Omega watch since it was reported widely by the media.
Anwar should have taken that window of opportunity during the media conference to put the issue to rest. However, that did not happen.
Justice for Anwar and Datuk T
Anwar’s intention when making the police report was to ensure the police arrested Datuk T for his role in showing the obscene video under Section 292 of the Penal Code, which forbids the possession, distribution and display of obscene films and other material.
On Datuk T’s part, he asked for sympathy so that he would be allowed the opportunity to prove the truth about the contents of the sex video clip, which portrayed a political figure committing sexual acts with a prostitute.
Datuk T wanted an independent commission formed to verify the authenticity of the video clip, and he indicated readiness to cooperate by surrendering the video and Omega watch for the purpose.
The Star: Datuk T said he did not want to surrender the original recording to the police as Anwar had a tendency to accuse the authorities of conspiracy if the outcome of investigations did not favour him. “I want the public to be the judge and jury,” he added.
Thereon, Anwar lodged the police report but Datuk T on the other hand did not want to do so due to other reasons.
Anwar’s motive in making the police report was not to find out who the political figure cavorting with the prostitute in the video was, but instead wanted the police to arrest Datuk T so that the contents of the video would be not disseminated widely.
However, Datuk T did not make a similar move and did not wish to surrender both materials as evidence.
According to him, if a police report was made it will give Anwar a chance to claim the authorities would conspire against him should the outcome of the investigation did not favour them.
According to Datuk T, the imperative for making a police report was not the priority because the case involved morality and he did not have the right to make such a report considering that he was not the one involved with the prostitute.
Like the Saiful Bukhari case, the prostitute should have made the police report, but instead allowed the activity to persist since her work depended on payment from the client.
There was a possibility based on this premise that Datuk T chose this approach because the political figure’s morals was not his concern and not what he had wanted to expose. Furthermore, it was not a question for the law to determine since both the individuals in the video were willing perpetrators based on payment and agreement.
To be fair, we still do not know who Datuk T is and his connection with Anwar. It is the same as not knowing who Saiful was and his connection with Anwar when the sodomy II case came upon the public on June 28, 2008.
It was only after three years that we came to know about the relationship between Saiful and Anwar, although initially the de facto PKR leader vehemently denied being close to his erstwhile assistant.
FMT: Elaborating further, Badrul Hisham (Chegu Bard), who is also Chairman of the Malaysian Youth Solidarity (SAMM) said Anwar by right should know “Datuk T” if it is true the man is his friend. “Datuk T’ claimed being Anwar’s friend who was asked to look for the watch left. It is as though before this I did not know Saiful Bukhari (Azlan) until his case blew up,” he added. Meanwhile, former Kedah PKR Secretary, Zamil Ibrahim said he was shocked with the latest expose. He, too, suggested the setting up of an independent commission to investigate the authenticity of the video.