 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 20 - 26 May 1999 Issue No. 430 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
 |
 |
|
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 20 - 26 May 1999 Issue No. 430
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
|
|
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Supplement Travel Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Malaysian malaise
ByMohamed KhaledThe recently-concluded trial of Anwar Ibrahim, the ousted Malaysian deputy prime minister, was the longest in the country's legal history, having run for a total of 78 days. His sentencing to prison has been an equally momentous event, triggering protests and street demonstrations, and provoking much harsh criticism of Malaysia's judicial system, whose independence and ability to deliver a fair trial have been widely questioned.
The official response to such accusations has been to deny flatly that the executive has any influence whatsoever over the judiciary. "Malaysian law provides for a strict separation between powers, executive, legislative and judicial," M N Haji Azman, Malaysian ambassador to Cairo, told Al-Ahram Weekly. He cited several examples of cases involving ministers where the judiciary had ruled against the government and the ruling party. "UMNO, as the ruling party, has even once been declared illegal," said Azman.
Ibrahim was convicted on four corruption charges. He was found guilty of using his position to get the police to cover up sexual misconduct allegations against him. Ibrahim for his part has denied all the charges, describing them as a political conspiracy against him.
An official statement issued by the Malaysian government in defence of the court claimed that Ibrahim's trial had been fair, open and transparent. "He was able to employ nine councils of his choice to defend him in court," argued the text. "They were considered the best in the country."
In a defiant statement to the court delivered shortly before verdict was passed against him, Ibrahim said he had "no hope of justice". He vigorously denounced Prime Minister Mahatir's vendetta against him, claiming his former colleague was determined to "continue to hold on to power at whatever cost, even if it means sacrificing what little is left of the judiciary's integrity".
However, not everyone was impressed by this demagogical tactic. According to Augustine Paul, the Malaysian High Court judge who handled the case, "Anwar's statement to the court before the sentence was not a plea in mitigation. It consisted mainly of the claim of a political conspiracy against him and attacks on the judiciary."
The judge said Ibrahim had persisted in reading his text, even when reminded that his own interests would be better served by a proper plea. Repeated requests to the defence council also fell on deaf ears. "Thus I had to proceed to pass sentence on the basis of the material available to me," said Justice Paul. "The offences of which I found the accused guilty were not merely inadvertent and technical in nature, but premeditated and executed over a period of time. I was therefore of the opinion that the accused must be given an appropriate custodial sentence."
According to Malaysian official sources, the judge had earlier issued a gagging order to prevent anyone, including the executive, from making statements concerning the guilt or otherwise of Ibrahim. This fact is adduced as proof that there can therefore be no legal basis for the claim that the judiciary was influenced by the executive in its conduct of the trial.
Yet just as the legal battle seems set to continue, so does the war of words between the government and Ibrahim's supporters. Mahatir's administration is determined to refute the arguments of its opponents both at home and abroad. "Ibrahim's defence council were given the widest latitude possible," official sources stated. "Permission was even given for foreign experts to be engaged. The trial was open both to the public and to local and foreign media. It was a well-contested case, in which both the defence and the prosecution were allowed to submit every relevant point of law and evidence for consideration by the judge."
Nevertheless, the threat posed to the government by the widespread unrest that has followed should not be underestimated. The issue, according to some observers, has spread far beyond the trial: it is the country's stability and development which are now being called into question. The political crisis which followed the sacking of Ibrahim last year is widely believed to be also, in part, a consequence of the economic crisis that swept through the region in 1997. As the Malaysian government seeks to embark on the road to economic recovery, politics is increasingly seen by the government as an "obstacle".
The Malaysian people too have begun to voice their worries about the climate of unrest. "We would like to direct all our efforts to building our nation in an atmosphere free of chaos and demonstrations," said one university professor.
In such a context, the government may well have to revise its strategy, as it attempts to settle both the economic and the political crisis simultaneously. According to Azman, however, the government's major concern remains the welfare of the country. "Economic recovery needs fundamental political stability, which depends on many factors. The political, the social and the economic are all interlinked and cannot be separated," he told the Weekly.
