By D J Muzaffar Tate

In truth, Anwar was not on trial for the criminal offence of sodomy, which in any event, an objective medical examination of the victim will show unproven. It was a political trial and his real offence was to have dared challenge the authority of his political master, Dato' Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, our prime minister.

Perhaps this charge of political conspiracy, like that of sodomy, was not conclusively proven in court, but this was only because the court refused to permit hearing of the weighty circumstantial evidence which bears it out.

The passing of this verdict marks an occasion which should cause all thinking Malaysians to feel profoundly sad and also to feel profoundly ashamed. It marks yet one more step down the road to tyranny.

Indeed, the court's findings mark a very sad day for those Malaysians - of whom there are not a few - who believe in equality before the law, in the independence of the Judiciary, in the impartiality of its courts, and also in the role of our judges in upholding the civil liberties enshrined in our constitution.

One does not have to be a lawyer to see that the Malaysian Judiciary no longer reflects these principles. The technicalities of the law may be observed but the spirit of truth and justice is dead.

The erosion of these principles has been only too clearly demonstrated during the course of the second Anwar trial. The prosecution got their dates mixed up; the only witnesses to the purported offence were the alleged perpetrators and the alleged victim, and the alleged victim himself turned out to be highly unreliable and inconsistent - a point which even the judge conceded during the course of the trial but failed to confirm in his judgement.

The court refused to allow consideration of the wealth of circumstantial evidence pointing to the existence of 'a conspiracy at the highest level' and found grounds for denying the right of the defence to call its most important material witness, Dr. Mahathir himself, who in any case had committed contempt of court by giving his verdict while the case was still sub judice.

This is to cite only a few of the irregularities in and around the trial which have justifiably aroused the gravest doubts in the minds of independent observers as to the impartiality of the court and the legal propriety of its proceedings.

The contents of these proceedings can be easily verified by reference to the accounts published, however incompletely, in the main newspapers as it progressed, as well as in full from the actual transcripts of the trial itself.

Something Terribly Rotten

An awareness of these facts should make us all feel even sadder for they reveal - beyond all reasonable doubt - that there is something terribly rotten in our judicial system. There is plenty of corroboratory evidence to show that the rot started when the Executive interfered with the Judiciary by procuring the ousting of Tun Mohd Salleh Abas, then Lord President, from his post in the late 1980s.

Since then the erosion of the Judiciary's authority and independence has proceeded apace and has been marked by a series of shocking decisions by the courts. Matters have come to a head over the last three or four years.

To cite a few examples : we have the notorious Lim Guan Eng case; the curious episode of Dato' Nalla Karuppan's trial and verdict; the sudden transfer of the magistrate who could find no fault with Azmin Haji Ali, Anwar's private secretary; the extraordinarily light sentence imposed on the former Inspector-General of Police for launching a felonious assault on Anwar Ibrahim while in police custody, etc., etc. etc.

In other words, the Judiciary, the last line of defence in any democratic system of government, has demonstrably lost its independence and its impartiality and has fallen under the undue influence of the powerful Executive headed by Dr. Mahathir Mohamed. In short, Malaysia has started its march down the well-trodden slope leading to dictatorship.

There is plenty of corroborative evidence for this too, which although involving other aspects of government and public life has also got a direct bearing on the working of the Judiciary. There is, in the first place, the issue of freedom of expression and of access to information. The tampering by the Executive with the freedom of the mass media to provide unbiassed news and information and to give space for the inclusion of all views in a controversy is obvious to the most Simple-minded observer. This interference becomes still more obvious at election time, and has never been more blatant than during last year's General Election.

Since then four regular publications which allowed alternative views to those of the BN to be presented have failed to get their licences renewed or have been restricted in other ways.

Distorting Facts

Needless to say, this masking of the media in favour of the interests of the ruling coalition also affects the Judiciary, because the one-sided, selective coverage of court proceedings obviously distorts the facts of the case. A classic example of this is provided to the Star's recent coverage of Anwar Ibrahim's appeal in the Federal Court against the High Court decision not to allow the defence to call the prime minister as a witness.

The Star's condensed version of the proceedings completely left out the very telling points that Anwar made to explain his objections to Tun Eusoff Chin being one of the three appeal judges hearing his case. As a result, the reader is left with the impression that Anwar's stand was unfounded and unreasonable, which it most certainly was not.

The erosion of the Judiciary's independence and the restrictions on access to information and freedom of expression are complemented by the restrictions imposed on the right of public assembly.

Over the past two years the police have applied a very selective control over the holding of public meetings by Opposition parties or public gatherings on current political issues. Permits have frequently been denied to the organisers, while at times even when issued are cancelled at the last moment. The excuse is always the same - the danger to public order, life and property. etc. But reflection will show that no ceramah held during the recent General Election campaign ever ended up in rioting and the destruction of property but took place perfectly peacefully. Where rioting' (and Malaysian 'riots' are very mild affairs compared to riots in other countries) has taken place, say, in the wake of the Anwar episode, any injuries incurred or damage to property (which have been minimal) have been as much the result of aggressive police action as that of the 'rioters' themselves.

There are, of course, so many other examples of the way in which the fundamental rights and liberties which form the basis of a civil society within the framework of democracy, all of which are enshrined in our Constitution, have been steadily eroded, by-passed or annulled under the Mahathir regime. The continued existence of the 40-year old ISA is one glaring example. The Official Secrets Act and the Printing Press and Publications Act, both of which place ministerial decisions beyond the right of appeal, is another. The Universities and University Colleges Act is a third.

Loss of Faith

Added to the flagrant disregard for democratic principles, there is also the sickening and ever-lengthening list of political and financial scandals which have pockmarked the BN's long tenure of power and which have never been satisfactorily explained or resolved.

In fact, the collective impact of the authoritarianism of the Mahathir regime and the series of scandals with which it has been associated has created in our national society a widespread atmosphere of frustration, unease, and ultimately loss of faith in the government. There is a silent but widespread distrust of authority and of what authority says. The effect has been to convert us into a nation of cynics.

How deep that cynicism has penetrated the minds of our society can, perhaps, be measured by the public reaction to the Sauk Incident. Why else should members of the public - and they are by no means confined to members of PAS - be so sceptical of official explanations as to regard, however mistakenly, the whole episode as a BN sandiwara?

This is a reaction not conditioned by thirty years of indoctrination of hate by any particular Opposition party, but one conditioned by twenty years of living under an increasingly authoritarian regime which is apparently ready to do everything it can to hold on to power. As far as the maestro is concerned, the ends justify the means and government is administration by the politics of expediency.

In short, all the indications are that we are acquiring the attributes of a full-blown dictatorship, and are fast moving out of the status of being a 'phony democracy' which best describes our present situation.

Shameful Situation

This is where our sadness must give way to shame. Most of us are perfectly well aware about what is happening in our country and we do not like it. We do not like abuse of power and privilege, the restrictions on our personal rights and liberties, the never-ending scandals and the lack of transparency, the lies and distortions, cronyism, corruption, etc., which seem to have become the hallmarks of government. But there seems to so little that we can do about it.

The Judiciary is hamstrung. The Press and media are muzzled. The Opposition is pilloried and unable to make its voice heard. Open dissent can result in loss in business or of government contracts, dismissal from employment, denial of promotion, and other threats to personal security. And since none of us are starving, we all keep quiet. It is shameful situation to be in.

That is why there is a very real need for reform, reform in the sense not of revolution but of restoration. It is not a question of debate on current political issues - foreign investment, drug abuse, illegal immigrants, wawasan schools, etc. - that is the stuff of party politics. The proper focus must be on the fundamentals or democracy, or the framework within which the body politic functions. There must be action to restore and uphold basic democratic principles.

Free and fair elections, freedom of expression and assembly, transparency and accountability, freedom of opinion and belief and, above all, impartial justice are the stuff which democracy is made of,. They are all provided for under the heading of fundamental rights in our Constitution. Without them democracy does not exist.

In other words, there must be a restoration of the basic democratic and human rights which over the years, particularly over the last twenty years, have been whittled down, for they form our political heritage which we are now in danger of forfeiting for ever.

Enough is Enough

However, despite all the sadness and the shame, it is still not too late. There are many good people of honour and principle to be found at all levels and in all sections of our national society. It only requires a few of them, men or women who hold responsible positions in public life be they politicians, professionals, academics, figures in the corporate world, artists, writers, or other men and women of prominence and distinction - to have the courage of their convictions and to be sufficiently bold, in the face of the mounting perversion of our civil rights and liberties, to speak up and say: 'enough is enough'.

If they will only do this, then there will be an overwhelming response from ordinary, decent citizens who will follow their lead and give them their support.

One man, Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim, has already given a lead; another man, Datuk Arifin Jaka, has missed that opportunity.

As for the rest of us, we too must be willing and ready to play our roles as active, concerned citizens, each within his own sphere and at his own level, abiding by principles of justice, honesty of purpose and social commitment, and not isolating ourselves on the island of complacency and self-interest.