anwar verdict

Anwar injustice shows that real perversion is Mahathir

By Peter Hartcher

The judge's decision to sentence Anwar Ibrahim to nine years' jail for sodomising the family chauffeur brought gasps of astonishment in the Kuala Lumpur courtroom yesterday.

But the verdict on Malaysia's former deputy prime minister is not the point of this ridiculous affair.

The real issue is not whether Anwar is guilty as charged, for sodomising the man at 7.45pm on a date specified only as "one night between the month of January and March 1993" after the defence delivered alibis for every more specific date, forcing the prosecution to twice change the details of the charge and finally fudge it completely.

Nor is it the length of time the former finance minister will spend in jail - a cumulative total of 15 years, including an earlier sentence of six years for corruption, meaning he will be released at the age of 67.

The central issue is the process by which this absurdity has occurred. That is the true perversion in this matter.

Determined to extend his 19-year rule by any available means, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, perverted the operation of the police force, the prosecutor's office, the media and the judicial system to defeat a political rival.

Because that is all this is about. We know from both Mahathir and Anwar that the origin of the persecution was entirely political.

Both Mahathir and Anwar, the leader and the man he had publicly nominated as his heir apparent, have said that Mahathir confronted Anwar on September 2, 1998.

Kuala Lumpur was aswirl with rumours that Anwar was preparing to challenge Mahathir for the prime ministership, and so Mahathir decided to act pre-emptively. He gave his deputy an ultimatum: resign by 5pm or be sacked.

When Anwar defied the older man, Mahathir ordered him sacked, the electricity to the deputy prime minister's official residence was cut off at precisely 5pm, and charges laid. It was a co-ordinated political repression.

There was nothing independent in the operation of the police or the prosecutor's office, or the judiciary. Nor was there any independence in the scrutiny of this machinery by the media, which operates at the discretion of the Government under a licence system.

Witness the contrast now at play in South-East Asia. Indonesia strains valiantly to install the institutions and habits of democracy, while the Philippines and Thailand labour to cement their democratic systems.

And there next door is Mahathir's Malaysia, which has had the benefits of a democratic system virtually since its birth, frantically perverting its principles and its practices. All so that Asia's longest-ruling leader can remain as such.

Anwar may or may not be guilty of sodomy. That is really quite irrelevant.

The real culprit here is Mahathir, and history will yet deliver its verdict against him.

Malaysia: Anwar's trial backfires on Mahathir
By Peter Symonds
10 November 1998
The trial of former Malaysian deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim has only been under way one week and already the testimony of the first prosecution witness--Police Special Branch Director Mohamad Said Awang--has created a major political dilemma for the government of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.

The case concerns four of the ten charges against Anwar of corruption and sexual misconduct. He is charged with having used his political influence in August 1997 to interfere with a police investigation into allegations brought by his former personal driver Azizan Abu Bakar and by the sister of his private secretary Ummi Hasilda Ali who said Anwar had sex with her brother's wife, Shamsidar Taharin.

According to Said, Anwar had approached him to arrest Azizan and Ummi and to force them to retract their statements. The special branch director proceeded to tell the court of the police intelligence unit's techniques for compelling witnesses to change their evidence and even their stated political beliefs.

"Basically we do a quick assessment of our target, then we see how the possibilities are to turn over their stand," he said, "If it is a certain political stand, we may neutralise the stand if it is a security threat." He said it was known as "a turning-over operation," but refused to provide details of the threats, torture or other methods employed, saying that it was "a great secret".

Said claimed that he had ordered his subordinates proceed even though they had raised objections. When the first retractions were not explicit enough, he demanded that new ones be written. "I wanted it to be more committed. It was not clear enough. I thought the letter was not good enough to be sent to the prime minister. The sentence construction and the apology wasn't there," he said.

Under cross-examination by Anwar's lawyers, Said agreed that if the allegations were false then Anwar would not have been wrong to ask for a retraction. When questioned on his own role, he claimed that he had felt under pressure to follow the orders of the then deputy prime minister.

He was asked by a defence lawyer: "If someone higher than the deputy prime minister were to instruct you to come and lie to the court, would you do it?"

"Depends on the situation," Said replied.

At which point, High Court Judge Augustine Paul interjected: "So you may lie?"

"I may or I may not," he said.

Anwar's lawyers backed the Special Branch chief further into a corner when they forced him to admit that he had sent written reports to Mahathir concerning the allegations against Anwar. Having previously denied the existence of the documents, he then had to produce his report written in August 1997.

"Through our sources, the allegations do not have, [or] contain, any proof, and the sequence of events appears to be deliberately created," he said, reading from the report.

"Apart from that, there are indications that there exists a certain group that may have their own agenda and played a role behind the scenes to urge Ummi and Azizan to smear Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim."

Defence lawyers also questioned Said about a second report dated September 3, 1997 which they claimed contained details of the involvement of high profile political figures, including Mahathir's close ally and businessman Daim Zainuddin who was appointed as a special economic minister earlier this year. The prosecution has been asked to produce this document in court.

Taken together Said's statements underline a fundamental contradiction in the prosecution's case. Even if the charges against Anwar are true then the obvious question arises: why did Mahathir and other leading figures from the ruling United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) go along with a conspiracy to intimidate and threaten witnesses and cover up the truth? According to the police, allegations of sexual misconduct first surfaced as far back as 1992.

If the claims were not true, why the sudden change of heart by the police and the government? Anwar's defence read out newspaper reports of comments made by Mahathir last year stating that he believed that the allegations were false. The prime minister is expected to be one of more than 50 prosecution witnesses to be called in the case.

The police charges have all the hallmarks of a crude smear campaign concocted by Mahathir and his political allies to justify the sacking of Anwar and to block any discussion of the sharp differences over economic policy which erupted within UMNO and business circles as Malaysia plunged into recession.

Anwar was initially arrested without charge under the country's Internal Security Act. He was only charged and put on trial after protests both within Malaysia and criticisms from governments both in South East Asia and internationally. Demonstrations in support of Anwar and democratic reforms continued last weekend.

The government has had to suspend the trial during next week's APEC summit in Kuala Lumpur. Canada, following the lead of the US administration, will not engage in the traditional one-to-one meetings with Mahathir as head of the host nation. Furthermore, Mahathir's proposals for the regulation of currency speculators and international capital markets are likely to come under fire by the US in particular.

The trial of Anwar is not the first time that bitter factional struggles within UMNO have been fought out through the medium of sordid political scandals and the arbitrary use of the courts and the ISA. In previous cases, Mahathir and previous UMNO leaders have enjoyed the backing of international capital and the major powers. Today the government is increasingly isolated. A protracted court battle is likely to further erode Mahathir's base of support and fuel divisions within the ruling elite.

This is a transcript of PM broadcast at 1800 AEST on local radio.

Justice John Dowd comments on the Anwar trial

PM - Tuesday, August 8, 2000 6:20

COMPERE: Justice John Dowd is the President of the Australian section of the International Commission of Jurists. He's been active and vocal in following this trial.

I asked Justice John Dowd about the verdict and sentence a short time ago.

JOHN DOWD: Well under the Malaysian system, which is normally one that one would have to respect with respect to Judges, one would hope that an Appeal Court would look at the absurd evidence upon which Anwar Ibrahim was convicted.

COMPERE: Could you specify for us what you mean by the 'absurd evidence'.

JOHN DOWD: Oh, well, virtually this case - as against the corruption case which he's already serving a sentence - was based on the evidence of one witness who gave a particular allegation in - I think it was 1994, 1992 - then he went to … sorry, 1994 then he goes to 1992 then the flat where it was supposed to have occurred hadn't been completed at that stage so he amended his evidence to early '93.

It is … the Defence Counsel were restricted in the way they could attack this witness. By any standard - Malaysian, Australian or any other - there was more than a defence, a reasonable doubt. This man should have been acquitted and one would hope, as I'm sure the Malayan lawyers hope, that the Appeal Court will see it that way.

This was a very political decision and very difficult to see how any Judge, anywhere in the world, could have come to this decision on the evidence.

COMPERE: Anwar Ibrahim himself made much of the fact that the Judge had not allowed Dr Mahathir, the Prime Minister, to be called as a witness. Do you think that is as important as Anwar Ibrahim thinks it is?

JOHN DOWD: Er, it would have … I mean the decision was obviously wrong but he should have been able to call any witness that he wanted to and the decision not to allow him, of course, is something which is of itself appealable. One of the difficulties, of course, he would have called him as his own witness and he would have been a hostile witness, and I'm not satisfied that Dr Mahathir would have been the best witness for the defence and would indeed have allowed the prosecution to cross-examine someone that was obviously favourably to the prosecution.

COMPERE: Justice Dowd, you indicated earlier that you had some respect for the Malaysian Justice System before this. Do you think that - as Anwar Ibrahim suggests - that this has fatally corrupted the judicial system?

JOHN DOWD: Well, not the system as such because we must believe that there is hope in the Appeal system and if, in fact, the Judge has been influenced by the massive publicity campaign one would hope that, in fact, the decision will be reversed and the Court of Appeal will, in fact, throw it out and if not them, the Federal Court will throw it out.

So, I don't think … I don't go that far, but of course he has had to live with it for a long time and it's a perfectly understandable approach for him to take.

COMPERE: Well there is also the question of how he's going to be treated now. I understand that in the current circumstances, because there has been one case completed - this case not completed - he's had some degree of special treatment. He's now going to be going in, I think, to an ordinary gaol as an … with a conviction for sodomy. Those kinds of prisoners aren't generally treated terribly well in any prison system.

What do you think is going to be his fate now?

JOHN DOWD: Oh, I think we have cause to worry very much about him. This whole attack was designed to demonise Anwar Ibrahim, to destroy him in the eyes of the people and the press which are very sympathetic to the government I'm sure, will blacken his image and he will have as bad a time in gaol as anyone could with this sort of conviction. So, I'm very worried about it.

COMPERE: So is there anything that Australia should be doing? Is there pressure that Australia should or even could put onto Malaysia, given the way that Dr Mahathir tends to react to these kinds of things. Is there anything that anyone can do to help him?

JOHN DOWD: Well I think that the Australian Government should - not publicly - but should convey its views that because he was a political person of some stature and because the matter is on appeal that he should be treated with the best possible conditions that he can be kept in during this appeal process and, indeed, generally.

But there's not going to be a lot that Dr Mahathir's going to take much notice of us.

COMPERE: Well given Dr Mahathir's sensitivities, do you think that there's anything that the world can do?

JOHN DOWD: Oh, I think the world can convey its real sense of apprehension about the future of Anwar Ibrahim in the gaol system and Malaysia has to live with the rest of the world, and I'm sure that if enough fuss is made by the nations that trade with Malaysia that people will understand - that they will understand - that they're just not answerable to themselves only.

COMPERE: Justice John Dowd, President of the Australian Section of the International Commission of Jurists talking about the Anwar Ibrahim trial.