Harvey Stockwin
HONG KONG: As it has long threatened to do Malaysia this week finally saw its tolerant and democratic past dissolved into an intolerant dictatorship.
The outward appearance was that former Malaysian deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim was sentenced to a nine year prison term for sodomy -- which he will serve on top of the six years term he is already serving for abuse of power. The inner substance was that Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad hammered home the last nail in Malaysia's democratic coffin as he firmly consolidated his dictatorial rule. Once again democratic India appeared to be silent in the face of injustice, seemingly unmindful of the fact that when freedom is destroyed anywhere, it is also diminished everywhere. Many other Asian nations were similarly tongue-tied.
But as statements rolled on from the rest of the world criticising the Anwar verdict, --from US Vice President Al Gore, Australian Prime Minister John Howard, the European Union, from no less than three Canadian cabinet ministers, from the New Zealand foreign minister, from various law and human rights organisations, from the president of the World Bank, and many others --they all, in an important sense, missed the point. They all -- implicitly or explicitly --assumed that this was merely a departure from Malaysia's democratic practice, a momentary aberration in Malaysia's rule of law. But as Mahathir imprisons his own former Deputy for fifteen years, he puts his dictatorial rule beyond any meaningful democratic, legal or personal challenge.
The complete absence the next day of any criticism whatsoever of the Anwar verdict in the mainstream Malaysian media further emphasized this point. The one last lingering hope was that Anwar would be declared "not guilty", as a result of the flimsy evidence presented at what was obviously a political show trial.
It was not to be. The utter absence of any meaningful rule of law was not merely illustrated by the harsh Anwar verdict. As Tian Chua, the vice president of Keadilan, the National Justice Party founded by Anwar's wife and others, was kicked and beaten while detained by the police after demonstrating peacefully against the verdict, it underlined the extent to which the police now dutifully support Mahathir's dictatorship.
Mahathir has been able to so abuse the Malaysian system that he has been able to crush Anwar politically, though he has not yet been able to crush Anwar's spirit. Whether Mahathir's has finally discredited Anwar in the eyes of Malaysians remains very much in doubt. Mahathir gains because those doubts are not expressed openly, except occasionally on the Internet.
Presenting his mitigation plea in court, Anwar gave another feisty performance, saying "I never dreaded this judgment. It has no legal basis. It is unjust, disgraceful and revolting. It does not disgrace me, it disgraces you (the judge), the judiciary and this nation of ours. I reiterate my innocence with a clear conscience. I will fight even from behind iron bars and prison walls. Truth and justice cannot but prevail. Let the plotters plot all they want, for God is still the best of schemers." Brave words --which Malaysians can only read if they have a personal computer and access to the Internet.
Anwar's show trial was a travesty of the rule of law. One date for the alleged sodomy was fixed by Mahathir's prosecutors at a time when the building in which the sodomy allegedly took place had not yet been constructed. Faced with this fact, the prosecution moved the time of the crime to another date. When this also proved questionable, the prosecution moved to yet another date. During the trial, the date moved from 1994 to 1992 and then to any day between January and March 1993.
On these grounds alone, the case against Anwar almost certainly would have been thrown out of court in any jurisdiction where the rule of law actually operates. There are others. The man who was allegedly sodomized recanted his evidence not once but several times, and had been found guilty of lying to another court.
All along Mahathir was making statements asserting Anwar's guilt. Elsewhere he would have been guilty of contempt of court. But not in Malaysia. There were numerous other questionable rulings, most notably when the judge constantly refused to allow Anwar to call Mahathir to the witness stand, since Anwar justifiably claimed he was the victim of a Mahathir conspiracy.
Perhaps `the Mahathir vendetta' would have been a more appropriate term. Additionally, one of Anwar's defence lawyers was convicted for contempt and another is on trial for sedition for what they said or did in court, during the trial. Lawyers statements in court are traditionally privileged, but not, it seems, in Mahathir's Malaysia.
The trial was such a mockery of due process, that one can only hope that one of the legal bodies which try to defend the rule of law globally will publish a thorough and detailed critique of the dubious proceedings. But there can be little doubt that, within Malaysia, the rule of law has become subordinate to Mahathir's bidding.