Like many Malaysians the US believes Anwar has not been fairly treated.

The 'black eye' incident shamed the nation and won Anwar much sympathy, especially when it was fecetiously suggested by Mahathir that Anwar had inflicted it upon himself. It was adding insult to injury and hurt Mahathir's image perhaps more than Anwar's eye.

So US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice's concerns for Malaysia to abide by the rule of law and be transparent are not unfounded. The US despite a change of administration has been consistently critical of what they probably view as a victimization of Anwar in a political conspiracy.

While Anwar could be on trial again many feel the Barisan government is the one on trial now.

The Barisan government's involvement in the Saiful and Balasubramaniam cases leaves much to be desired. It is not the function of the administration to influence police cases. Police matters should not be directed by politicians. Even PM Abdullah has waded in and made unhelpful comments.

While wanting the US to butt out it seems rather odd that the foreign minister should conduct a briefing on Anwar's sodomy case to foreign embassies on what is fundamentally a domestic issue. Did it conduct a similar briefing on the Altantuya case? After all this would be more in the national interest as a future prime minister has been implicated and its seriousness has resulted in a criminal charge against the one who made the public allegation.

The number of excellent online letters explaining how DNA works and shortcomings in police procedures again expose the weakness of the case. To many it seems the police are trying to build up a case of straws. Either they are incompetent or those who believe in conspiracy may be right. Whatever the truth, it looks like another controversy.

If the government claims innocence in any involvement in the cases they should stand back and let the police do their job and not be seen to be interfering. Then they are less likely to be accused of the diabolical plot to destroy Anwar's political plans through another conspiracy. As the jigsaw pieces together it appears the government will have an uphill battle in convincing the public. Even to outside observers it smells fishy and the US Secretary of State would not make such serious comments if she didn't think so.

Inul's Gyrations

About PAS Youth's objections to the Inul Darastita concert, after watching some of the youtube clips, I think she is a talented singer with some very sexually provocative dance moves that some people could find offensive. Some of her gyrations seem gratuitous. But much of her dancing, if you could call it that, is innocuous. Like many young talented and good-looking performers sadly a good voice is not enough and the temptation to win popularity through sexually titillating presentations is hard to resist.

Michael Jackson's crotch-clutching moves and today's scantily clad performers are the symptoms of a society that has thrown modesty to the wind and demean musical entertainment. Good performers do not need to resort to raunchy moves and simulation of the sex act in their performances. There is a difference between art and titillation and I have to agree with PAS Youth that some of Inul's moves can be interpreted as erotic almost simulating the sex act. Perhaps even Elvis the Pelvis may be shocked.

I think there is a place for modesty among performers especially in a country like Malaysia. We should celebrate our sexuality in a proper way but obscenity is a different matter. It is easy to be desensitized and accept lewd behaviour as the norm. One man's taste may be another's offence but some things are clearly objectionable, and I would include some of this popular singer's gyrations.

Perhaps banning her concert entirely may seem harsh. All that is needed is for her not to include the objectionable dance moves in her performance. She needs to convince her audience that she can actually dance without the raunchy moves and frankly I think she'd win more fans. Some people need guidance more than condemnation and to outrightly ban shows would seem unfair.

We live in a sex-crazed world and those who are religious often fight a losing battle against sexually titillating entertainment. Banning public displays may alleviate the level of offensiveness but ultimately people must realise that morality like religion itself cannot be imposed on someone but must be something people learn to accept and must come from the heart.

Let the show go on but keep the sexy bits for the bedroom. Then no one will be offended. And public morality is all about offensiveness and not every one who is offended is a prude, not that being one is wrong. Let's keep the music and dancing flowing but with propriety. (By STEVE OH/ MySinchew)