[source: Times of India ONLINE, Sunday 13th
August, 2000]
Malaysia ruled by Mahathir's law
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.
