Based on what the police, ministry of health and Umno leaders in government have been saying in response to the leaked medical report by Puswari's Dr Mohamed Osman Abdullah, it is clear they have made up their minds to pooh-pooh the medical report and insist that the only relevant and legal report is the one issued by Hospital Kuala Lumpur.

They have already tried to downgrade Dr Mohamed Osman’s medical report to merely notes from a non-specialist who only performed a superficial examination. Further, the leaked document will be used by the authorities and Umno to cast aspersions on Pusrawi Hospital, raising doubts on its and its doctors’ credibility and professionalism to further justify their attempt to rubbish the leak.

But, really, what is the difference between notes given by a doctor to a patient in writing as opposed to proper reports? If such ‘notes’ are irrelevant or meaningless as the authorities seem to suggest, does this not mean that all patients could and should ignore the ‘notes’ they routinely get from doctors upon medical consultation and insist on being given ‘reports’ (however it might appear) before they agree with the doctor's diagnosis and drug prescription, that are also the basis of reference to which other doctors make?

Further, if ‘reports’ are more formal communication than ‘notes’, shouldn’t the content of a ‘report’ be based on what’s in the ‘notes’, hence similar for both forms of communication?

Dr Mohamed Osman obviously is not a specialist and did not act like one. All he did was to give his medical observation. It must also be noted that Saiful did not seek out a specialist at that point. And based on anyone's experience with doctors, Dr Mohamed Osman performed like a doctor, even down to the scribble of a doctor’s handwriting!

Saiful told the doctor he believed he was sodomised. But the doctor observed that his overall demeanour did not appear to match one who had undergone such a trauma. The doctor also did not find evidence of skin tearing, active bleeding and of traces of pus. What then should he conclude?

That Saiful was still sodomised because Saiful insisted he was? Further, when the doctor wrote ‘to rule out’ (TRO) sodomy, he even suggested that Saiful go to a government hospital since he continued to insist he was sodomised.

What all of the above suggests is the doctor could not be faulted at all as a professional. That should give credence to what he has written down unequivocally for Saiful and that it is a product of his professionalism.

It is fine for the ministry of health to punish the hospital for the leaked report or whoever the culprit might be. But that should not take away anything from the professionalism that Dr. Mohamed Osman exhibited when examining Saiful and when writing down what his medical observation told him.

The two - punishing the culprit for the leak and Dr Mohamed Osman’s professionalism - should not be treated as the same. The former should not be made to cast doubt on the latter.

All the above should obviously be given due consideration in a court of law if or when Anwar is charged for sodomy against Saiful. Ultimately, it comes down to the presiding judge as to how he or she is going to treat the above and rule on them. Given what had transpired in court at Anwar’s first sodomy trial, one cannot help but have a bad feeling that Anwar may end up denied the rule of law again.

Some might say but was not Anwar exonerated finally when the high court overturned the lower court’s ruling that found him guilty of the first sodomy? Yes. The problem is that, by the time of the high court’s ruling, Anwar had been in jail for corruption and not allowed to enter politics until April of this year. His political career was derailed at a time when he was close to becoming the PM until now.

This second sodomy charge now cannot but be seen as another attempt to derail his political career again. And should Anwar be found guilty by another kangaroo court, it would ‘kill’ off Anwar politically for good this time given his age, again at a time when he appears close to becoming PM or at least returning to parliament as opposition leader.

Sceptics and critics will say all this is nothing but a conspiracy theory. But there are conspiracy theories and there are conspiracy theories. This is one precisely because it is backed by far too many unexplained questions, irregularities and apparent evidence to strongly suggest that this second sodomy charge against Anwar is politically-motivated.

People who blindly and readily toss this notion of conspiracy theory to make their case are actually not using their intelligence and good sense. They invoke this idea of a conspiracy theory in order to dismiss the issue out of hand because they really do not have any good logical arguments to counter what has been presented.

This kind of response is actually more a mindless or knee jerk response based on nothing more than the general sentiment that denigrates a conspiracy theory just by mentioning its name. Such people are ignorant of the evidence or not giving it the proper intelligent treatment.

And they are usually the same people as those who blindly believe in our institutions of the judiciary and law enforcement and are fond of mindlessly saying, ‘Let’s just stand aside and let the police and the courts do their job’.

This despite all these years - since the time of Dr Mahathir Mohamad as PM - that showed how both institutions have been bent, twisted or threatened to serve the interests of the BN government.

These folks are actually far more damaging to the well-being and future of a democratic Malaysia that aspires to be nothing more than having all Malaysians governed by the rule of law.