Friday, January 27, 2012

So What Is Anwar Ibrahim Trying to Say Now?

The Wall Street Journal, posting an article yesterday of an interview the same day, provides another opportunity for one to examine what exactly Anwar Ibrahim is trying to say.

My choice picks follows.

On the his acquittal and appeal,
"The judgment [in the sodomy case] was very strong" and "difficult to appeal," Mr. Anwar said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal at his political party's headquarters here Thursday.
Is Anwar saying that has seen and read the written judgement, when his counsel Karpal Singh just a day before confirmed, "grounds of written judgment of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's acquittal on a charge of sodomising his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan is not yet ready"?

In the absence of the written judgement is Anwar saying the judgement, in a "three-minute oral decision" consisting these few lines as is widely reported,
"After going through the evidence, the court could not be 100% certain that integrity of DNA samples was not compromised, and finds that it is not safe to rely on DNA evidence.

"As such, court is left only with Saiful's testimony. As this is a sexual crime, the court is reluctant to convict based entirely on Saiful's testimony, which is uncorroborated. The accused is thus acquitted and discharged."
a decision that is "very strong" and "difficult to appeal" against?

Is he also saying the appeal process, "which began Jan. 20, would likely take at least six months, meaning it could loom over and outlast the election campaign" not exactly what he meant before when he said that “This is not coincidental, that the end of the case is going to coincide with (general) elections,”

While Anwar has specifically said that he is against same sex mariagges "In response to recent local reports that he supported gay marriage, Mr. Anwar said they were wrong", does that also mean that he specifically does not support gay rights or the LGBT Movement?

And what exactly is Anwar saying while "Malaysia's sodomy laws are "archaic" ", the sodomy laws only "could be amended" and not wholly abolished if it is not his "business to attack people or arrest people based on their sexual orientation"?




Pics from related reading.

Edited 4.10pm

No comments: