Sex videos and scandals have been the bane of politicians since time-immemorial.
American presidential hopeful, John Edwards, is currently in a tussle with a former political aide over a video showing him and his mistress. Former California governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is separated from his wife after news surfaced of a love-child he fathered; a secret he kept hidden for 10 years. 74-year old Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, is embroiled in a scandal involving a 17-year old belly dancer which is sending Italy into “turmoil”.
And Malaysia has the Datuk T video extravaganza.
The case that made the headlines the day the Sarawak state assembly was dissolve to pave way for polls to elect a new state administration. The timing can never be coincidental, in politics nothing is by chance but all things are engineered for maximum impact.
In-spite of the scandal, Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim made the rounds in Sarawak, which helped returned the opposition an increased representation in the state parliament.
A police investigation is still pending, and now the question on every one's mind is; why is it taking so long? Even Anwar Ibrahim is wondering.
"The police have been giving political statements but taking no action, as if the investigation is as complex as the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder case," Anwar had told an online news portal last week.
When you try to prove an insinuation
Why is this case complicated? It has nothing to do with the investigation process, instead it has everything to do with trying to prove insinuation.
Proving a video tape is authentic is like proving human beings breath air. Anything that has not been altered in any manner can be said to be 'authentic'. To prove their point, the police made doubly sure to have the 'authenticity' of the tape proven. Expects in Hong-Kong and the United States were engaged.
But, so what? Yes, the tape is authentic but it merely proves that point. There is nothing wrong with the tape, it could be the most famous pornographic video Malaysia has ever produced courtesy of the Datuk T trio.
Proving the authenticity of the tape can also say that the video can now be classified as pornographic material which means, Datuk T is now guilty of publicly screening pornographic material. This is an offence and he should be rightly charged and the police know it.
The act of screening the material is separate from determining the authenticity of the material. An uncensored sexual performance that is screened to a public audience puts that video into the pornographic category. Thus, not only are the Datuk T trio liable for prosecution, the mainstream media that showcased it on local television should also be charged.
But no charges are being preferred against the men who make up Datuk T - Shazry Eskay, Rahim Thamby Chik and Shuaib Lazim. Instead, the police are still trying hard to prove the insinuation, a self-initiated accusation and this is why it is hard.
If Anwar is innocent, then Datuk T is guilty and so too would Umno be
From the very beginning, it was insinuated that the character in the video was Anwar Ibrahim, and this was mentioned even before any investigation was conducted.
Anwar was judged and pronounced guilty before a court of public opinion, engineered by the government-controlled mass media and the gang of three who each have obvious ties to UMNO.
The police are now hard-pressed to produce evidence to prove this insinuation. This is where things get complicated. If the evidence speaks to Anwar’s innocence, then it also speaks loudly about the guilt of the UMNO-linked trio and the government of the day.
In Malaysian politics, the government of the day cannot be seen as having made a mistake. This explains the protracted nature of the investigation.
This is nothing new in Malaysian politics.
Najib was “cleared” by the police from being investigated in the murder of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu the day Abdullah Badawi issued the statement that he did not believe Najib was involved. Would the police ever want to come out and say the Prime Minister was wrong in his statement?
The same is also happening in the Christian Prime Minister investigation. The police are trying to prove insinuations because if evidence proves that there is no case, then Utusan Malaysia and everyone involved in glorifying the claims would be liable for charges of sedition.
Anwar Ibrahim was right in asking if this case is as complicated as the Altantuya case. It is, because in both case, the police have to provide evidence to prove insinuations. Not the facts.
