SOMETIMES YOU CAN CHARGE BOTH BUT NOT FOR EVERY CASE

MANY have posed the question about why Mohd. Saiful is not charged if you say the alleged act of sodomy with opposition man Anwar Ibrahim was consensual. Anwar himself posed the same question after coming out of the court-room yesterday. Somewhat pointed out that in khalwat both man and woman are charged. True but that's for khalwat, which is a different offence in the sense that neither one of the couple engaged in the act is a complainant. Usually they are caught after people report their tryst to the Islamic Religious Affairs Department.

A different law applies to rape or sodomy, whereby there is a complainant, who in all likelihood was the passive partner. That's how it goes. But imagine if both are charged when in fact the case goes that far as to reach the courts only because one of them had lodged a report. Strange isn't it? The other point that makes the difference is that where sodomy is concerned, with or without consent does not alter the fact that under the law an offence has been committed.

There was yet another poser: If it was consensual why did Saiful lodge a report which in essence means why is he complaining about it now? That, my friends, is something I can't answer for you. Only Saiful can help you there and I don't know him and neither have I had the opportunity to ask him. The bottomline that remains, the constant if you like, for the court to consider later is "Was an offence committed?". If it was, the next question the court would want answered before ruling on the outcome is "Has the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt?"

Which is why I keep on repeating this advice to friends -- be patient, wait for the facts and arguments to be presented in court. Why anyone would want to preempt this and ask questions we don't have the answers too and in the porcess make it stressful on yourself is something I have difficulty comprehending. I think it's a miserable position to be in.

Those who want a clearer picture should read the New Straits Times of today (Page 6 -- "Syed Hamid: Leave it to the courts to decide"). In that news item is an explanation from Gurbachan Singh, one of Anwar's lawyers for the 1998 case. Better to read his statement than asking people not trained in law.

I also read a news item on the purported statutory declaration by Myanmmar Dr. Mohamed Osman, the second medical officer to attend to Saiful when he went to the Pusrawi Hospital in late June. In it he is reported to have said that he stands by his report on Saiful (which no one should begrudge him) and declares that he had nothing to do with the leak. If the declaration is his then it means another document originating from him has again been leaked in a matter of two weeks, which is not going to make it another easier for him. If he had made the declaration on his own free will it's not too bad because the responsibility is all his so to speak but if someone tutored him into doing it, he could be in a lot of trouble, more than he could ever imagine.

Have to end this now. Have been bothered by a splitting headache since late afternoon and still have to join friends later tonight to celebrate my birthday which is tomorrow. You bet our evening is not going to be a stressful one.