Two sides in Anwar trial

KUALA LUMPUR — I am in Kuala Lumpur not on any official purpose but with the ongoing Anwar trial — the second accusation of sodomy against the leading oppositionist in Malaysia — it would be remiss as a journalist not to write about it.

So I joined friends to Malaysia’s High Court, hoping to listen in on the proceedings but the courtroom was crowded.

On the way out we saw Anwar and his wife Aziza in the witness room talking with his lawyers. We shook hands and asked him if the proceeding on that day was important. He said yes. “We will now get a chance to grill the accuser,” he said. The trial had been scheduled since July last year but Anwar’s lawyers have continued to delay it.

The hearing that morning was adjourned.

*      *      *

Outside the courtroom rumormongers were actively spreading that the current trial was Part II of the first Anwar-Mahathir bout in the late 1990s.

I wanted to hear the side of former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir. I met him at his office in Perdana L’Ship Foundation in Putrajaya, a government center about 45 minutes from central Kuala Lumpur.

He was indignant that such a connection should be made. The government would be stupid if it were to repeat an accusation only for the sake of repeating it given the uproar it caused then.

He rejected the conspiracy angle as well. It would mean taking in dozens of policemen, prosecutors and politicians into confidence — that was impossible. Therefore we are left with only one thing. The victim plaintiff himself decided to bring the case to court to seek justice.

Mahathir, who is credited for Malaysia’s spectacular success as an Asian tiger economy, said he has nothing to do with government now. Mahathir reminded me that Anwar was freed during Prime Minister Badawi’s time. He was not his friend either. The Malaysian Federal Court overturned Anwar’s sodomy conviction. The three judge panel ruled thus: “two judges saying he may not have committed sodomy on that particular day but he committed sodomy anyway at other times.”

It may not be legal in other countries but it is illegal in Malaysia.

That makes him unfit to be a leader of an Islamic nation, Mahathir added.

*      *      *

It may be useful to look at the history of the Anwar-Mahathir political rivalry. Dr. Chandra Muzaffar wrote an analysis on the first trial of sodomy against Anwar. It is worth revisiting the background of the stormy relations between the two political personalities in the late 1990s.

“It was Mahathir who brought Anwar into government, in 1982. It was Mahathir who groomed Anwar, accelerated his ascendancy within UMNO, exposed him to a variety of governmental roles until he assumed the mantle of Deputy UMNO President and Deputy Prime Minister. Anwar was indisputably Mahathir’s heir-apparent. Though the older man was instrumental in the younger man’s meteoric rise, Anwar himself, there was no doubt, was an astute politician with a knack for mass mobilization and for the intrigues of intra-party maneuvers. Besides, he was also a gifted orator with tremendous rapport with his followers. As Mahathir’s loyal lieutenant he garnered support for his boss,” he writes.

But Anwar had adversaries in the party, some corporate figures considered him a threat to their interests. In June 1997, they circulated a signed document alleging that Anwar had an adulterous relationship with the wife of his Confidential Secretary, on the one hand, and a homosexual relationship with his wife’s former driver, on the other.

This was picked up by foreign media and stoked the controversy further. “It portrayed Anwar, who was also Finance Minister, as a sober and sensible chap who understood global financial markets. Their lavish praise for him created the impression that he was ‘their man’.

Some of them even suggested that Anwar and not Mahathir should be running the country. “Some foreign newspapers even called for Mahathir’s resignation.

Differences in managing the economy also surfaced at the time of the financial crisis. “Mahathir preferred a credit expansionary policy aimed at stimulating the economy and preventing it from sinking into recession. Anwar took the more conventional route and sought to cut back on expenditure and impose a credit squeeze. For Mahathir lowering interest rates was important so that businesses could get back on their feet; for Anwar maintaining a reasonably high interest rate was one way of checking capital flight.”

Mahathir was angered and incensed by what he regarded as his heir-apparent’s betrayal and disloyalty but he was also personally convinced that Anwar was a sodomist.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar’s analysis of the first trial on Anwar’s sodomy coincides with other analysts’. It may be true that Anwar is a sodomist but there is also a power struggle camouflaged by issues of morality and justice.

In the present trial Mahathir is no longer in the scene. Anwar could be jailed for 20 years if found guilty. That would spell the end of his political career. Anwar and his followers denounced the trial as a strategic move to end his challenge to the government. The government denies this and promised he will get a fair trial.

Anwar led a three-party opposition alliance in the 2008 general elections that effectively denied the ruling coalition a two-thirds parliamentary majority for the first time in 40 years.

*      *      *

I thought I would squeeze in a question on what Mahathir thought of the Philippines and its future. “Too many presidential candidates,” he said. The people must allow government to do its job instead of rioting and protesting all the time.

On Charter change he said it is very difficult because only an incumbent president can push the shift to parliamentary government but it will be suspected as self-interest. On the other hand a presidential candidate who believes in Charter change will advocate it but he will soon fall into the same dilemma as an incumbent president.

Mahathir himself fought a grueling battle for constitutional change in Malaysia against all opposition by removing the sultans’ veto on legislation. That accelerated lawmaking and led to successful reforms to advance Malaysia’s economy.