Thoughts of a former minister: Horror!
IN Chua Soi Lek with a post titled “Anwar’s DNA” which is reproduced below in full:
Allegation against Anwar for sodomy continues to dominate the headlines of local press. It is surprising that Anwar had refused lab test to be conducted in order for the DNA profile to be constructed. Normally this will be the easiest way to prove his innocence. DNA profiles do not lie. So, I do not understand why Anwar deny himself of this opportunity to clear his name. If you’re worried about fabrication, then you should get an independent medical team to supervise the collection of blood and the profiling of DNA. If you do not avail yourself of this opportunity to prove your innocence, then it is not convincing to prove your innocence. It is not easy to fabricate DNA evidence.
Take Chua’s short post, break it up and then see if his prose makes sense.
Chua: It is surprising that Anwar had refused lab test….
Given the history of treatment at the hands of the police, doctors and prosecutors how should Anwar’s reaction be “surprising” to Chua? And Anwar is not refusing a lab test: he is refusing to hand over pathological samples, his tissue and fluids, under duress and to the police, one of the last institutions to be trusted, not just by Anwar but down almost every home, in almost every street, in almost every town.
Chua: the easiest way to prove his innocence…
How does a DNA profile, in and of itself, prove innocence in a charge of sodomy? Easiest?
Chua: DNA profiles do not lie.
Nor a stone; nor a tree. And who says, and what science says, DNA does? The issue with Anwar is not about the veracity of a DNA, but what might the police do with the fluid and tissue samples.
Chua: DNA profiles do not lie …. It is not easy to fabricate DNA evidence.
See the contradiction? “It is not easy to fabricate”, which is to say it is possible. Hence, once fabricated, then is not the evidence, the DNA profile, a lie?
Chua: If you’re worried about fabrication, then you should get an independent medical team to supervise the collection of blood and the profiling of DNA.
What we have is a man hijacked in daylight, at gunpoint, spirited away, forcibly moved to a hospital, and Chua is suggesting the same man could dictate terms on when and how samples are taken and tested.
Chua: If you do not avail yourself of this opportunity to prove your innocence, then it is not convincing to prove your innocence.
Since when has – and what law says – the innocent has to prove innocence, or the guilty has to prove guilt? “Avail yourself”? Tell to the dead in the police lockups. “If you do not avail yourself… then it is not convincing…” Is this a new kind of tautological idiocy from Chua?
All this is to suggest that every line in Chua’s 120-word prose is so full holes, you wonder therefore about the intellectual level and capacity that goes into the management of Malaysia, into its governance, into its political life, everything. Small wonder Malaysia, with the like of Chua in government, is today run to the ground. Reading Chua, one is reminded of the judgements delivered from Augustine Paul.
At this point, the question has to be asked: why even bother with a rebuttal? And, Chua is given the credit of a “Top Blog” in Malaysiakini. Top Blog?
