Sodomy II: Who’s the liar?

Francis Paul Siah

Found among the wreckage of the Toyota Alphard, the utility vehicle in which Karpal Singh met his tragic end that fateful Maundy Thursday morning on April 17 were the “X” files of Sodomy II.

As his son Gobind had related, documents pertaining to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s appeal against his sodomy conviction were among Karpal’s belongings recovered from the badly smashed-up vehicle.

It was clear that Sodomy II was very much on Karpal’s mind in his final hours. According to Anwar, Karpal’s wife Gurmit Kaur had recollected her husband’s last moments to him before the veteran lawyer’s untimely demise.

Anwar’s appeal against a charge of sodomy was apparently bothering Karpal, and he was busy preparing for it as the lead counsel. Karpal was supposed to be preoccupied in the coming days drafting arguments for an appeal to the Federal Court.

Now that Karpal is no more, Anwar will have to depend on the other members of Karpal’s team to continue his fight in court.

Let us now let the good man, Karpal Singh, rest in peace and move on.

Like many Malaysians, I have to honestly say that I’m tired and fed up of the sodomy shows in court. Fifteen years ago, we saw Sodomy I. It dragged on for a number of years. Most of us would probably only remember the “juicy” details such as the stained mattress of that court episode. Other than that, we would have forgotten other incidents which took place then.

Now comes Sodomy II. This is not a new case actually. It has been dragging on since 2008 and that is a good six years, wasted or otherwise. Since Sodomy II emerged, Malaysians were forcefully dragged into another circus show both in court and outside.

This is not funny anymore. Fifteen years of having to put up with court hearings plus the amount of public funds wasted just because some men decided to have sex with each other (or did they?), is no longer funny or something to laugh about.

No matter the political intrigues behind the sodomy cases, I think Malaysians have enough of them. This has gone too far and for too long. It has to end somehow, the sooner the better.

The law can be weird at times, so too its practitioners. As Sir Winston Churchill said, “If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law.”

So can we conclude then that the law and its practitioners are actually strange bedfellows – with the practitioner attempting to get the better of the law all the time.

Well, many have little or no faith in the judiciary anyway. Why should they? Just look at Sodomy II. Anwar had earlier been acquitted because of a technicality. Just days before he was scheduled to contest in the Kajang by-election, he was found guilty of sodomising his former aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan. What did those court judgments smack of?

Ordinary Malaysians who have no interest in politics but are concerned for the country would want to know the truth. One of them is the liar. Is it Saiful or Anwar?

According to the court of law, both are liars. When Anwar was acquitted, it was Saiful the complainant who was not telling the truth. When Anwar was convicted of the sodomy charge, we were informed that the opposition leader is a liar.

So who is the liar here? If we believe in the court decisions, then both are liars.

Now, let’s move away from the court and the law and examine the case from another perspective to see whether we can get nearer to the truth.

What if it was consensual sex? It is felt that if this was the case, then it should not have been brought up in court in the first place.

The ugly truth is that if the person alleged to be involved was not Anwar, it would have been a non-starter in the first place. Herein lie the political intrigues of the case.

Now let us examine the repercussions if either Saiful or Anwar was the liar.

Question One: What if Saiful was the liar?

Well, here was a young man being used to set up a prominent politician, allegedly for some quick gratification. People will just consider him a bad and greedy boy after a good life. As for his swearing on the Quran, that’s up to the Almighty to judge him.

Question Two: What if Anwar was the liar?

There are definitely serious repercussions. Anwar is no ordinary citizen. He is after the position of prime minister, the key man to lead Malaysia. This will mean the end of his political ambition.

What is worse is that those who believe in his innocence will feel a deep sense of betrayal. This will probably be more devastating for Anwar and his family than the end of a political career.

There are many Malaysians who are probably not concerned with the sexual preferences or private indiscretions of political leaders. But they will be clearly disappointed and disillusioned if they have been betrayed and led on for so many years by a liar of a leader.

Finally, allow me to close this article with the greatest respect for the late Karpal Singh with a quote from his biography, “Karpal Singh: The Tiger of Jelutong” which he launched last September.

While there’s an entire chapter dedicated to Karpal’s representation of Anwar over the course of 15 years, he refrained from sharing his personal thoughts. Did he think Anwar was innocent?

“Well, he pleaded not guilty and I defended him. I felt I should help. Whether someone is innocent or not is not for me to judge,” Karpal pointed out.

For those able to read Karpal’s thoughts, the truth is not that difficult to grasp. Surely, from where he is now, Karpal knows the truth.