Anwar's alleged victim Saiful also have rights that need protection..

Let us all be calm and not get too emotional about that alleged new police report filed by one Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan aleging that Anwar Ibrahim had allegedly committed the offence of sodomy.

Let us not forget:-

a) Presumption of Innocence until proven guilty.....for now all that has happened has been that a police report has been filed. That is all.

b) We must also not forget the right of the VICTIM of a criminal act - in this case it is that Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, and his right to make a police report must be recognized and respected. It is wrong that some parties have been coming out and making all kinds of allegations about the character of this complainant - and this is not right at all.
(It may be Anwar Ibrahim who may be the VICTIM of a false police report, and it is his right to make a police report against the said Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, or respond otherwise. Anwar's response is that it is NOT TRUE.

c) What some are doing to the said Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan reminds me of just what the PM and the BN personalities (and/or their agents) did to that Yong fellow, the president of SAPP -- demonize him...discredit him...and that is very wrong.

d) No one is above the law - not even the Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Najib Tun Razak or Anwar bin Ibrahim --- we really should not advocate the use of tactics that would put fear into the small person victim when it involves allegations against some big and powerful personality.

e) Looking at what is now happening to Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan ...what happened to that Yong fellow (president of some small BN party) - persons in Malaysia would, in the future, be afraid of the consequences that will follow if you complain against or about some big powerful person... we certainly do not want that in Malaysia. All victims should fearlessly come forward and demand justice.

f) The defamation suit allegedly being filed with regard a complaint to the police is a SHAMEFUL act ....and THAT again is something that should never be done when someone makes a complaint to the police. So what now, will "Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan"now have to do - rush find some lawyer, and expend more money defending a defamation suit. This is VERY wrong and I am shocked if Anwar did indeed file a defamation suit JUST with regard that police report. If that Saiful came out and made some public statement about it, then you can file a defamation action.[ When it comes to a police report - no one can use the report as a basis for a defamation suit - I believe that is the law. If not, everytime someone files a police report against another, there will be a defamation suit against the complainant -- and surely after that no poor person who is victim of a crime is even going to dare to make any police report....].

I hope that if Anwar did, on bad advise, react too fast and file a defamation suit based on the allegations so contained in that report, he MUST now withdraw that suit..for such an action goes against the values and principles so far being advocated by the Pakatan Rakyat.
(see Malaoysiakini, Änwar files defamation suit against aide", http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/85288)

MOST of us do not believe the allegations of sodomy made against Anwar - but let us allow time for the complaint to be investigated.

Pakatan Rakyat, or Parti Kedailan Rakyat, will not and should not fall just because Anwar has been found guilty of a crime - there are so many leaders in the Pakatan Rakyat. Anwar, may be described as the "defacto leader"but really he is only the adviser. The party and the opposition coalition has so many more good leaders there - and even the "political assasination"or even ässasination"of one should not at all affect Pakatan Rakyat too much.

All this has really become a great DISTRACTION from the so many real issues that is facing Malaysia, and let us not be too distracted.

For one, there is that Local Council Elections issue - and sadly there has has been almost no response about the fact that Selangor is going to appoint local councillors for 4 years - 1 year probation and 3 years contract thereafter - which means possibly no local council elections anytime before the next General Elections...

It is also time for Human Rights bodies, and civil society bodies to be careful with the statements that they make -- let us not allow our bias, our affliations, our nearly achived dream of a non-BN government for Malaysia cloud the real issues of rights and justice.


*****
Just a case that shows that not just police reports, but also other statements and communications made to the police with regard a criminal investigation cannot be the basis for a Defamation suit.

June 7, 2007 (Times Online)
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article1895802.ece

Complaints to police are privileged

Queen’s Bench Division

Published June 7, 2007

Buckley v Dalziel and Another

Absolute privilege and immunity from suit were available to a person who provided information to the police to set in motion the process of an inquiry into possible illegality.

Mr Justice Eady so held in the Queen’s Bench Division on May 3, 2007, when granting an application for summary judgment under Part 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules by James Stewart Dalziel against the claimant, Mrs Barbara Buckley, in her claim for defamation against Mr Dalziel and his wife, Mrs Melanie Dalziel. Mr Dalziel had made a witness statement and Mrs Dalziel had held three telephone conversations with Greater Manchester Police in which they had complained that Mrs Buckley, who was their neighbour, had arranged for boundary trees to be pruned in their absence.

Mrs Buckley claimed that Mr Dalziel was responsible for libel and that Mrs Dalziel was responsible for slander. Mr Dalziel argued that he was entitled to absolute privilege and immunity from suit.

HIS LORDSHIP said that following the guidance in Taylor v Director of the Serious Fraud Office ([1999] 2 AC 177) it was necessary to protect those who provided evidence to the police in the course of an inquiry.

It was not unreasonable, in weighing the competing considerations, to give priority to the protection of those who provided such information.

The public policy considerations applied with equal validity to those who were witnesses and to those who were initial complainants.