As an ordinary citizen observing the ongoing political melodrama, the following questions come to mind and the consequent inconsistencies arising from a scrutiny of the various events are nothing short of glaring.

Are not the missing immigration records of the Mongolian women a national security threat and are the police investigating this incident? They are, as a responsible police force, obviously concerned with security hence the 12 roadblocks on Monday to thwart the appearance of one man at parliament.

Why is it possible for the deputy prime minister and his wife to issue denials in the face of alleged criminal acts to the satisfaction of the police unlike in the case of Anwar where such denials were not accepted?

Is it normal police procedure to take statements from a minister's wife at home and in the same breath is it normal police procedure to have 15 police cars ambush a suspect who has confirmed his attendance at the police headquarters and to be arrested by police personnel wearing balaclava?

Why was the same level of security afforded to Saiful Azlan not given to P Balasubramaniam? The former appeared (on TV) to have been escorted by five to six heavily tinted four-wheel drive vehicles whereas the latter has left the country fearing for his safety, ironically, his last meeting being with the police.

What is the need for fresh DNA evidence when Anwar's prior DNA profile is with the authorities?

The former prime minister, who suffers from selective amnesia, is convinced that Anwar has done it again – likening certain habits like smoking as being difficult to rid off. That being the case, it is highly coincidental for both accusations, the recent and the 1998 ones, to come at a time when Anwar is on the verge of taking over national leadership.

Since sodomising is a habit difficult to rid off, there must be other 'victims' of Anwar between 2004 (when he was released) and 2007. The police may like to establish this? No?

In both sodomy allegations, the 'victims' had approached the former PM (1998) and the DPM (currently). Why has there never been an instance when the victim goes directly to the police? Is it that easy to see top officials of the government if you have been sodomised?

Or is it a case of those officials taking a special interest in the case given who the suspect is? Or perhaps the sodomy stories originated from…?

A copy of the police report lodged by the victim has not as yet been provided to Anwar or his lawyers. Interestingly, the MP for Rembau appears to know the contents of the report.

Does not the accused have a right to receive a copy of the report made against him? Denying him the report is perhaps part of the police procedure Syed Hamid is very proud of.

The Jerlun MP, the self-proclaimed brave son of the former dictator, is convinced as to Anwar's guilt in this instance. Hence, the police may like to obtain a statement from him as he appears convinced, in no uncertain terms, that Anwar is guilty. He may have some evidence to share, just like his father 'had' 10 years ago.

The former PM sacked his deputy on account of two unidentified 'victims' relating their ordeal to him. The current DPM has a statutory declaration written out on him.

Perhaps prime ministers are not obligated to follow precedents? Or more likely, the current PM is following the due process of the law i.e. innocent until proven guilty. Hence what did the former PM do?