Friday, April 25, 2014


Raja Petra Kamarudin
Anwar Ibrahim said he is convinced he will be sent to jail for sodomy. And that is why he withdrew from contesting the party presidency. I wonder what would have happened if he had not withdrawn? Would his wife, Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, withdraw instead? Or will this be the first time in history that a husband and wife go head-to-head to become the next Prime Minister of Malaysia (which is what this whole thing is really about in the first place, the Kajang by-election included)?
When Anwar says he is convinced he will be sent to jail for sodomy he means this is because the court will be instructed on how to rule rather than because he really did commit the crime he was alleged to have committed. In other words, the Malaysian judiciary is corrupt and can be manipulated.
Actually, if you were to draw up a list of court cases that the opposition people and anti-government activists won compared to the ones they lost, say, over the last 15 years since 1999, you will be quite surprised to learn that they have won more cases than they have lost.

Anyway, Anwar is not concerned about the many cases the opposition people and anti-government activists won (even though they won more cases than they lost). He is not even concerned about the many cases (civil suits included) that he himself won. He is only concerned about the one or two cases that he lost or is about to lose. And if he loses even just one or two cases as opposed to the 500 that the opposition people and political activists won, this means the Malaysian judiciary is corrupt. Only if the opposition people and political activists win 100% and not ‘just’ 99% of the cases can the Malaysian judiciary be regarded as clean, just and fair.
A few years ago, an old school friend of mine came over to buy 30 of my books. I asked him what he wanted to do with so many books and he replied he was going to distribute them to various judges. I then asked him whether these judges would want to read my books and he laughed and replied that it was the judges who had asked him to buy the books for them.
Another friend of mine, a lawyer, told me that he went into one of the judge’s chambers to discuss a certain matter and ‘caught’ the judge surfing the Internet. “And guess which website this judge was on?” my friend asked me. “A porn site?” I asked. “No,” my friend replied. “He was on your website.”
Actually, not all judges agree with what the government is doing. I mean, judges are not stupid and they know what is happening in the country. I once even received a personal handwritten letter from one judge’s daughter thanking me for my support. She told me that her father was very touched by what I wrote and she thought she should write and tell me about it.
Nevertheless, the judges are professional enough to not allow their sentiments or personal opinions stand in the way of their decisions. If you put on a good defence, or the other side argues a weak case, they would rule in your favour. If not then you would lose your case. It has to be about the merits of the case and not about whether the judge is pro-government or pro-opposition.
And this is how it should be. I worry when a certain judge commented (I think it was a year or two ago) that as a Muslim he would decide the case based on his religious beliefs and not according to the law. Do you remember that one? I would want the judge to rule according to the merits of the case and according to the law and not according to what he believes the Qur’an or the Hadith says. After all, he is not a judge of a Sharia court. Hence, while he may be a good Muslim he would be a bad judge.
Anyway, regarding my earlier statement above about whether Anwar is guilty of the crime of sodomy or not, I would like to discuss the issue of sodomy or anal sex (in this case meaning gay sex, of course) being a crime in Malaysia (and some other countries as well). I have already talked about this in an earlier article where I said not only anal sex but also oral sex is a crime in Malaysia. And it would still be a crime if the anal and/or oral sex were between husband and wife. This is the law and you can get sent to jail up to a maximum of 20 years and get whipped as well if you are below 50 if the judge really wanted to throw the book at you.
Why should something that is done between two consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom, even between husband and wife, be a criminal act? There is no harm done. It is not rape, or even statutory rape. It is consensual sex between two adults whether of the same sex or whether between husband and wife.
This, too, I have already written about before. Malaysian laws were inherited from British laws and British laws, in turn, were inherited from church laws. Hence what Christianity forbids Malaysia also forbids. You may argue that Islam also forbids such things. Well, yes and no. Islam does not forbid oral sex. Some scholars even argue that Islam does not forbid anal sex between husband and wife (they are divided on this). Islam only forbids homosexuality.
Nevertheless, we are not talking about Islamic or Sharia law here. You will not get charged for sodomy, anal sex, oral sex, or whatever, under Sharia laws in a Sharia court. You will get charged in a non-Sharia court under non-Sharia laws. So the argument that Islam also forbids these acts does not apply. Anwar, for example, did not face trial in a Sharia court for an offence under the Sharia. So leave Islam out of this.
In short, as much as you may deny it and as much as you may protest my conclusion, if you commit a crime of sodomy, even with your own wife, you will get punished under a Christian law that forbids what Christianity classifies as ‘unnatural’ sex.
In fact, even ‘spilling your seed’ is a crime under Christianity. So, practicing birth control (whether by using a condom or by withdrawal), plus masturbation (like when your wife gives you a hand-job), will open you to the risk of God striking you dead, like what is reported in the Bible.