"Contohnya, dalam kes rasuah, orang yang didakwa menerima sogokan kebiasaannya akan dituduh dan bukannya orang yang memberi serta membuat laporan" (translation: For e.g. in corruption case, the person who is alleged to have received bribe is normally charged and not the person who give bribe and lodge a report)
Sounds logic right? But when people are not telling the truth, it is not easy to lie. They look fool when they try to but do not know how to fool others. That is how best to describe Hamid Albar.
Section 10 of the Anti Corruption Act 1997 provides among others that; -
Any person who by himself…
(a) corruptly solicits or receives…;or
(b) corruptly gives…to any person,
any gratification as an inducement to or a reward for…shall be guilty of an offence.
So, the “brilliant” and yet dumb Syed Hamid, where is it stated that the giver should not or cannot be charged for corruption?
In fact, in one way or another, I think Hamid Albar has just confirmed the theory that allegation of sodomy against Anwar is a political conspiracy.
Here is the excerpts from The Star online: -
Saiful Bukhari Azlan is not being charged because he is the key witness in the sodomy case against PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, said Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar.
He said that in a criminal justice system, when a person comes forward to report on a matter, the person would be protected.
“Usually, the victim is given protection,” Syed Hamid said after the MoU signing ceremony between Malaysian and Australian Governments on immigration cooperation here yesterday.
His answer shows his immaturity in dealing with such questions. What Hamid Albar is suggesting is that if for example “A” and “B” commit armed robbery and the distribution of their “profits” is not fair in the sense that “A” gets more than “B”, if “B” lodge a police report against “A”, the police will give protection to “B” and charge “A” simply because “B” is the complainant in this case and “B” will be the key prosecution witness against “A”. Sounds stupid isn’t it?
So, in Anwar’s case, the question was why Saiful was not charged together with Anwar? The answer should be (if Hamid Albar has a little bit of brain) police investigation shows Saiful was not a willing partner and therefore, he is a victim and there is no need for the police to go after the victim or something like that. End of the story.
However, when this idiot by the name of Hamid Albar said that Saiful is not being charged because he is the key witness in the case against Anwar, in one way or another, it simply shows that there is a conspiracy against Anwar because Saiful does not seems to be the victim but just a key witness. Why he is the key witness? Because he was Anwar’s partner in the sodomy act (as alleged by him). And it goes back to my example above between “A” and “B” who commit armed robbery.
Perhaps Anwar should also lodge a police report against Saiful for engaging in sodomy, so that Anwar will be given a protection as he will be the key witness against Saiful and in the end, there will be no case against both of them because they are key witness against one another. Solve the problem.
So, if the authority takes what this idiot by the name of Hamid Albar said as good, then I believe the case involving all policemen in Gemas police station (read here http://rozaimims.blogspot.com/2008/07/corruption-is-everywhere.html) should be closed because both parties lodged police reports against one another and in future, all the criminals can just lodge a police report because by doing so, they have turned their status from a “criminal” to a “key witness”.
Well done Hamid Albar. Now go back to school and study law. Oooops, I think this guy is a lawyer by profession. No comment!!!