well, so anwar had to spent the night in the police custody. however, malaysiakini reported that it was not sure if he would be spending the night in the KL police HQ or some other locations.

the reason, the police gave for him to be detained overnight, was for further questioning. huh? he was already in police custody for over 5 hours, what did they do with him? let him sit around and makan angin? it was really a silly reason. methink the police just want to detain him overnight to see the reaction of his supporters. they are hoping that his supporters will demonstrate! i hope his supporters will stay calm and not fall into their trap, as what the press statement from anwar’s office had stated.

anwar’s arrest had been making (and still is) waves all over the blogosphere… and of course into the world too. once again, malaysia is world famous! yippy! will we get to see the same drama that unfolded 10 years ago, like seeing a mattress being carried in and out of the court? a black eyed anwar?

it is really embarrasing to me to see that such news made world headlines. i mean the sodomy charge news. sodomy in many countries is not illegal. and to me sodomy is something private/personal between 2 persons, why should it be wrong? if we made world headlines such as ‘anwar arrested for corruption of1 billion’ or ‘anwar arrested for being a US spy’ – these are not so bad but for sodomy? gee, we will be made a laughing stock in the world!

speaking of the sodomy charge, let’s assume that anwar really did it to saiful… then it would be very safe to say saiful consented to being sodomised! it would be very silly to think a young healthy 23 years old man gave in to an old 60 years old man with back pain to be raped!! and also why did he waited so long to report, if he really was raped? it just doesn’t figure. oh yeah and if the police believe that anwar sodomised saiful, then why shouldn’t saiful be arrested too, as he too was involved in an illegal (hic. personal) act? oh silly me, the police believe saiful – that a 60 years old man raped him, so they didn’t arrest saiful.

i was pretty irked when i read a comments in one of anil netto’s post which said:

Of course he would be arrested as he is involve with his sodomy case. You don’t expect suspect of the case to be walking freely in this place, right?

It doesn’t matter if he is innocence or otherwise, let the law of justice decide it all.

how naive! law of justice? do we still have justice in malaysia? law? what law! we are now a police state!

"of course he would be arrested as he is involve with this sodomy case." – oh yeah right, and saiful was not involved?

"you don’t expect suspect of the case to be walking freely…" – very very naive! you mean to say every suspect of cases must be arrested? then all the lock up/prisons in the bolehland won’t be enough to hold them! oh yeah… and ‘every suspect’? wasn’t a certain no. 2 person a suspect in the altantuya’s case, especially after the infamous statutory declaration by PI, bala? but he was not arrested! not even hauled up for questioning! so where’s the law, you tell me. ("damn lucia! you are so silly. there are 2 laws in bolehland lah!" a voice rang in my ears).

ok going through many of the blogs that talked about anwar’s arrest, i found several comments which i can relate to and fully agree. i will share some here. first from lim kit siang’s blog:

The Inspector-General of Police’s statement that the arrest is a due process of the law is inane to these point of absurdity. Anyone with even the faintest knowledge of the due process of the law is able to understand the difference between a police report and a criminal case. The police is obliged to investigate a police report and can instruct the person concerned to attend and give a statement. If this person refuses, the police can apply to the court for a warrant of arrest. The court is obliged to satisfy itself the a crime has been committed involving the person names in the warrant. However if the police is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence that the person so detain has commit crime tot eh extent that a criminal charge can be preferred against This power is limited to a short duration after which the police will have to apply to the court to extend the remand. What the police cannot do is to modify this due process. It cannot arbitrarily arrogate to itself the right to declare that a mere police report constitute sufficient evidence to be classified as ‘sufficient evidence’ This is a fundamental tenet of the rule of law without which we would be living in a police state. This must surely be the last nail on the coffin of BN. What is the difference between Malaysia and the fascism of Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF government in utilising a state apparatus of the state to suppress the opposition – for its political end..

good coments there about the process of law. oh and yes, sometime ago, someone did mentioned about malaysia turning into a fascist country!

the following comment was also from the same post of lim kit siang:

My God! A 60 year old man accused of forcibly sodomizing a 23 year old youth and the police threw all their resources at it like it’s the security of the nation is threatened.

yep! the police/goverment is afraid of one man!

don’t the police have other better things to do? isn’t it more important to use all their resources to search for the killers of little nurin or the disappeared sharlinie?

the following comment i spy on susan loone’s blog, but i think this person had made similiar comments in other blogs too.

anwar turns to syariah court – so said the headline in malaysiakini yesterday. is this good or bad? what made anwar came to this decision? was it because of the call from putera umno president challenging him to swear on the quran?

"I have sought the advice of ulama and they told me that it is unnecessary to swear on the Quran to prove my innocence,” said Anwar, stressing his decision not to respond to the call.

“They have also strongly advised me against doing so as it will transgress Islamic rules. This is a criminal act and it must be investigated. There’s nothing in Islamic law that allows you to take an oath under this provision.

“If it is a criminal offence, the burden of proof is with the accuser. Otherwise you could be involved in a murder and you (could) swear on the Quran and you would get off scot-free.”

i also remember, i think, from a letter in malaysiakini, that to swear on the quran will be meaningless for a non god-fearing person. true. no point using your religion/faith to ‘escape’ something if you are not a devout or committed person to your faith. i remember too how when i was a child, my parents used to tell me "do not swear", "swearing is no good", "swear only at the very last resort". this had taught me not to take swearing lightly!

ok coming back to anwar bringing his sodomy case to the syariah court, where i had asked ‘is this good or bad?".  well… good in a way for anwar that the syriah court stated one need to produce 4 witnesses… and of course usually in sodomy or rape cases, it’s quite impossible to produce 4 witnesses.

bad? well it may set a precedent for others to do what anwar did. all criminal matters might be refered to syariah court, and especially for genuine rape cases, what if the victim can’t produce 4 witnesses?

continuing the report from malaysiakini:

Anwar explained that only the Syariah Court can decide whether or not he has to swear on the Quran to prove his innocence and that this was not for Putera Umno to demand.

Kamar Ainah (photo, far left) said it is the duty of the accuser to swear on the Quran.

“In Islam, a man is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty and whoever made the accusation must present the evidence – swearing or taking an oath is a form of evidence,” she said.

“Therefore it is not the duty of the accused to take oath and prove his innocence. It is the accuser who has to do this.”

so now it looks like saiful is in a fix? he’s the one who is suppose to swear on the quran?

Anwar claimed that his opponents are using religious laws as part of their strategy to go on the offensive.

well i guess it is "two can play at that game" with anwar. that putera umno president started it… mentioning religious laws (well not really but to swear on the quran… something to do with religion), so he too had to resort to religious laws – the syariah court.

hmm…. interesting indeed. let’s see what further drama will unfold.

for the benefit of those who do not subsribe to malaysiakini (what are you waiting for? you should! good read there and you’ll be supporting malaysiakini), here is the full article:

—————————————————–

Sodomy: Anwar turns to Syariah Court
Syed Jaymal Zahid
Jul 9, 08 12:27pm

PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim today turned to the Syariah court to clear his name over the sodomy allegation against him by his former aide Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

MCPX

Anwar, who was accompanied by his wife and PKR president Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, filed a complaint against Saiful with the Federal Territories Islamic Affairs Department.

His lawyers Kamar Ainiah Kamaruzaman and Ahmad Shabrimi Mohamed submitted the complaint this morning to Mohd Ajib, director of the syariah enforcement department. 
“On the advice of ulama (Islamic scholars) and my lawyers, I have filed a complaint with the enforcement department of the Syariah Court to have them clear me and my family’s name of the malicious allegation,” Anwar told reporters.

"This slander is a major issue because it involves a sexual crime and the attempt is of course to mislead the Muslim population, to attack me and my character."

The complaint, referred to as qazaf in Islamic law, is to request a probe into ‘false allegations’ pertaining to adultery or sexual misconduct.

Kamar Ainah said qazaf is an offence under section 41 of the Syariah Criminal Offences Act 1997. It covers false allegations of zina (adultery, pre-marital sex or any sexual conduct viewed as illegal in Islam).

Under syariah laws, Saiful will be required to produce four credible witnesses to back up his claims, lawyers said.

If he fails to do so, he can be declared a fasid or unreliable person, and faces three years imprisonment, or a fine up to RM5,000, for bearing false witness.

“I am glad that the enforcement department has promised to take prompt action on the complaint and we hope the investigations will be concluded as soon as possible,” she noted.

Anwar clarified that the complaint has nothing to do with the civil suit he has filed against Saiful, as the current move is a means to clear his name under the Islamic law.

He also said this was a response to various parties who have invoked Islamic principles in demanding that he proves his innocence.

Putera Umno president Azeez Abdul Rahim had challenged Anwar last Friday to swear on the Quran.

"I have sought the advice of ulama and they told me that it is unnecessary to swear on the Quran to prove my innocence,” said Anwar, stressing his decision not to respond to the call.

“They have also strongly advised me against doing so as it will transgress Islamic rules. This is a criminal act and it must be investigated. There’s nothing in Islamic law that allows you to take an oath under this provision.

“If it is a criminal offence, the burden of proof is with the accuser. Otherwise you could be involved in a murder and you (could) swear on the Quran and you would get off scot-free.”

‘Burden of proof on Saiful’

Anwar explained that only the Syariah Court can decide whether or not he has to swear on the Quran to prove his innocence and that this was not for Putera Umno to demand.

Kamar Ainah (photo, far left) said it is the duty of the accuser to swear on the Quran.

“In Islam, a man is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty and whoever made the accusation must present the evidence – swearing or taking an oath is a form of evidence,” she said.

“Therefore it is not the duty of the accused to take oath and prove his innocence. It is the accuser who has to do this.”

Anwar claimed that his opponents are using religious laws as part of their strategy to go on the offensive.

“We saw the same modus operandi being used by the same players (attorney-general Abdul Ghani Patail and inspector-general of police Musa Hassan) 10 years ago,” said Anwar.

Accuser Saiful, 23, has been under police protection since accusing Anwar of sodomising him – the same charge that saw the opposition leader jailed a decade ago.

Anwar was sacked from all his government and Umno posts in 1998 following a fallout with premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad and was then charged separately with corrupt practice and sodomy.

He served out a six-year sentence on the corruption charge, but won his appeal in 2004 against the conviction and sentence on the sodomy charge.

since there had been and still is many news on this sodomy issue in malaysiakini, here’s some lessons on sodomy by yours truly.

do you know that the word ’sodomy’ had its origin from the bible? yes, indeed, in the story of sodom and gomorrah taken from the book of genesis in the bible. sodom and gomorrah are 2 cities in ancient palestine. according to the bible, the people of sodom are ‘living in wicked ways’ thus god send fire and brimstones to destroy the cities.

what wicked ways? well, the men like to have sex with men! the story went that this person by the name of lot in sodom, had 2 angels as guests. when the men of sodom knew about it, they marched to lot’s house and demanded that lot handed the 2 angels to them as they said "where are the men who came to your house tonight? bring them out to us that we may have intimacies with them."

see? ‘have intimacies with them’. well lot pleaded with them not to and even offered his own daughters to them but the men refused and instead got violent and wanted to tear lot’s house down to get to the 2 angels. what happened next? read further from the bible!

well so you see, it is because the city of sodom, the men’s evil way is having sex with the same person, that the word ’sodomy’ came from. nothing much was mentioned about gomorrah further down the line (but sodom was mentioned) so i guess that’s why we don’t see the word ‘gomorraised’ or ‘gomorry’ instead of ’sodomy’.

although the dictionary do mention that ’sodomy’ means copulation with the same sex, it also mention that it is anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex. the sex dictionary has some interesting definitions of sodomy. one of them "a vague legal term for a variety of sexual-acts including sex between men (anal intercourse)"

yes although ’sodomy’ means anal intercourse between same sex or diffrent sex but mostly it seems that everybody think it is anal intercourse between men.

and why is "he sodomise me" sounds so wrong, just like, "he rape me"?? is sodomy a crime like rape? apparently it is in our country. well if sodomy means anal intercourse, it is just a form of sexual act, why is it wrong? unless of course only when the 2 parties invovled, one of them is not consenting, then it is wrong – then in this case not only sodomy but oral sex, natural sex, etc is consider wrong!!  so it shouldn’t be "he sodomise me" that is wrong by rather "he rape me by sodomising me".

i had said it before a person’s sexual orientation is none of our business. if it is true that anwar like to sodomise men BUT with the exception that the men he sodomised agreed for him to do it willingly, so what’s the big deal? it’s anwar’s personal life!

i notice that many people do agree on this point and some of them had found it sickening that the government had used this ’sodomy’ issue to rally people against anwar. there is a petition on facebook "don’t let homophobia undermine democracy". please hop over there, read it (to understand what is homophobia, if you don’t yet) and endorse it. btw, this endorsement also appears in malaysiakini’s letter page.