‘… Anwar Ibrahim should not worry about giving his DNA samples if he were interested to seek the truth behind the sodomy allegations against him, said Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar.’
‘…among the options the police were looking at was to bring in a DNA expert of Anwar’s choice so as to dispel any notion of a conspiracy involving the police.’
‘…DNA does not lie. Give your sample and let the expert read it," Syed Hamid said.’
(Read: DNA doesn’t lie. Anwar refuses to co-operate in a DNA test. Therefore Anwar must be guilty).
Disingenuous, or (willfully) ignorant, or both?
If it wasn’t clear to the Home Affairs Minister, then Sivarasa Rasiah, Anwar Ibrahim’s lawyer (and a geneticist to boot) has just reiterated that it was not the accuracy or reliability of DNA test results that were at issue: it’s the credibility, impartiality, and professionalism of the Malaysian police that is in question, as they proceed with their investigations and collection of evidence.
PAS’ leaders evidently didn’t need foreign DNA experts to understand this. In other words, a DNA match with a sample taken from Saiful’s orifices or stained garments or mattress proves nothing to the politically savvy ulama , for the reasons spelt out by Sivarasa Rasiah
The political purpose of this charade is not to establish the factual truth of the matter, which will unavoidably be contestable as long as the possibility of planted DNA samples cannot be ruled out.
Since the matter cannot be resolved unequivocally, the political purpose rather is to resuscitate and to prolong in the minds of some, the plausibility that Anwar might be a sodomist (irrelevant to me, but still a salacious detail that titillates my mee suah vendor who is a Pakatan Rakyat supporter and regularly engages me in coffee shop talk as he did today).
Dr Mahathir of course has an interest in encouraging this having conveniently forgotten the dictum of the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels: a lie, no matter how outrageous when repeated often enough eventually acquires the appearance of truth (or plausibility, which may be good enough).
It's astonishing for instance that a simple detail like Anwar's state of dress during his medical examination while in custody (was he stripped naked?) can remain a matter of ambiguity for the public record, amidst the media spin and the (seemingly) contradictory statements of the parties directly concerned.
Syed Hamid Albar has declared that his remarks to the press on the ongoing police investigations ‘were aimed at preventing confusion among the people’.
On the contrary, I believe.
The way things are going, would it be surprising if at least some are persuaded that when nothing is certain, anything is possible, if not plausible. Like patriotism, ambiguity and confusion can be a convenient refuge for scoundrels.
In between mouthfuls of mee suah and kopi o , we eventually agreed that it’s not so much about forensic science or evidentiary truth.
It’s about politics, and perception and its manipulation, i.e. about strategies of persuasion and power.
