Anwar's 9-year Jail Term: Cruel and Harsh

If Anwar's guilty verdict was a shocker, his sentencing was mind-boggling. Every thinking Malaysian will view his sentencing as cruel and harsh.

We have a right to wonder why his second 9-year jail sentence could not have run concurrently with the first. By ruling that his sodomy jail-term should run consecutively with the earlier 6-year corruption jail-term, Anwar will now be incarcerated for 15 years.

This cruel and harsh sentence not only robs Anwar of 15 years of productive life and freedom, it has also effectively denied him 20 years of political life and activity.

By all accounts, this is an extreme form of punishment. Viewed against the claim of political conspiracy, Anwar would be seen as a political victim who has been rendered incapable of mounting any challenge to Dr Mahathir and the Barisan Nasional during Mahathir's lifetime.

Thinking Malaysians will not dismiss the political aspect connected to Anwar's case. They will be wondering whether it is the political challenge posed by Anwar that was the cause of the prosecution or the abhorrence felt against sodomy that triggered the trial.

If it is the abhorrence against sodomy that hastened Anwar's prosecution and denied him his bail, we are obliged to ask whether this abhorrence is consistent.

Students of history many recall that way back in 1987, a sordid story of sodomy committed on a helpless blind boy by a man at St. Nicholas School for the Blind, Penang, was reported. The wheels of justice did not move with similar speed to secure a judgment then. The culprit was thought to be an UMNO man. He was granted bail and the case moved ever so slowly.

Finally, in 1990 or so, he was convicted, sentenced to 5-years jail, and ordered to be given 9 strokes of the rotan. He appealed and he is still out on bail. He has escaped the whipping since he is over 50 years now. But the case, as far as we know, has not yet been disposed of.

It was a very reprehensible crime committed by this criminal who took advantage of a helpless blind boy.

But why is this culprit still walking free? Have the wheels of justice ground to a halt?

The contrast between these two cases raises serious questions of fairness, prompting us to ask if justice is really blind to personalities.