ANWAR SEIZES THE POLITICAL HIGH GROUND

THE UNSEEN, unspoken confrontation between the Prime Minister, Dato' Seri Mahathir Mohamed, and his erstwhile protgege and deputy prime minister, Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim, finally breaks out into the open. The prime minister, with his absolute control of the cronyistic, 
mainstream, media, kept the lid on, with court coverage, by order, reduced to a bare minium, often contentiously, reporting only what makes the Prime Minister and his administration look good.  So, 
Malaysians lost the importance of this major political change in this David-and-Goliath battle, in which David finally flung a stone at Goliath's forehead.

The venue for this was the courts. On 1 February 2000, Dato' Seri Anwar dispensed with his counsel and argued for the Chief Justice, Tun Eusoff Chin, to step down from the three-man coram hearing his appeal against the Court of Appeal decision the Prime Minister need not appear as a defence witness in his sodomy trial. In a terrifying litany of judicial corruption, involving the chief justice himself, he argued how he could not expect a fair trial if Tun Eusoff sat, why the Prime Minister's rationale of "unfinished business" for his six-months extension on reaching retiring age in June included his continued incarceration.

In a two-hour peroration, he mercilessly dissencted the depths to which the once vaunted judicial independence and integrity had now descended. And the following day, refused to proceed with the appeal. The chief justice was caught in his own trap. In chambers, he begged Dato' Seri Anwar's former counsel to return to argue the appeal, even suggesting ingeniously how they could as amicus curae. Dato' Seri Anwar would have none of it. If Tun Eusoff remained on the panel, he would not proceed. When the court then tried to strike off the appeal, he objected, insisting he would if Tun Eusoff recused.

For the first time since the civil administration of justice was imposed in the Malay peninsula in the late 18th century, an appeal does not proceed because the appellant objects to one judge. More 
important, Dato' Seri Anwar seized the political high ground, along with the moral he had had since his travails. He remains in prison, and can expect to for a long while. But the political iniative from 
now on is his. His friendly, confident demeanour contrasts sharply with the stumbling, uncertain, ill-prepared adversaries in the administration.

Judge Arifin Jaka threw an irreelvant political timebomb into the government's midst. When the sodomy trial ended late last month, he adjourned judgement to 4 August, a Friday. Whether this was deliberate or not is irrelevant. But this gave Dato' Seri Anwar and his supporters a bonus. With his supporters calling for a massive show of force, the government tried to dampen their enthusiasm by 
frightening people, with suitable cine clips of the May 13 riots, of what could happen if these people rioted. But how could they tell Muslims they must stay home and not come to the National Mosque for prayers?

The case had to be postponed, ostensibly because the judgement was not ready. That he is adjudicated guilty is not in doubt. He could not be. Otherwise, the judge could have pronounced him not guilty and give reasons for his decision later. He cannot be found other than guilty, as indeed Judge Arifin Jaka did, at the postponed hearing on 8 August 20000.  But Dato' Seri Anwar's guilt or otherwise is no more the issue.  His well-aimed barbs from his political catapault not only unnerves the administration but bleeds it.

The Prime Minister claims he had irrefutable evidence of Dato' Seri Anwar's guilt, but all the Public Prosecutor could produce was an amateurish bumbling legal team trying to make velvet purses out of sow's ears.  The cases should have been thrown out, but the Prime Minister had politicised it so completely that an aquittal would have caused a political crisis. Dato' Seri Anwar's stoic acceptance of the inevitable, telling his family he would be incarcerated for twenty years or more, that his physical incarceration apart, he leads the masses against an "intolerant, undemocratic supremo". So he has.

What pushed the Prime Minister to destroy a political rival by charging with sexual offences, destroying not just the man but his family as well? What distinguishes the Prime Minister (and his 
visitor from Singapore this month) from the other authoritarian leaders who wanted to destroy their political enemies is how it was done. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, even Pol Pot destroyed their enemies 
politically, not by accusing them of sexual offences. Gandhi, Chiang Ching, Nelson Mandela, even Martin Borman, a homosexual, faced political harassment and trial, not destroyed for their personal 
foibles. But Dr Mahathir and Mr Lee took this route, to send a chilling message that to oppose them is to invite total destruction.

Malay political and cultural beliefs would not have permitted that. Which is why, against the Prime Minister's wishes, the cases in court has dragged as long as this, sufficient for Dato' Seri Anwar to mount a counter-offensive.  The Prime Minister and his administration flounders in a self-created quicksand that threats its right to govern. The longer Dato' Seri Anwar remains in jail, the more 
damaging the political consquences for the Prime Minister, his administration, and UMNO. The Prime Minister could not have thought so when he impetuously began the destruction of Dato' Seri Anwar, but what he has ensured, in the ensuing two years, is the return, as a possible prime minsiter, He Who Must Be Destroyed At All Cost.  Dato' Seri Anwar's inclemental health notwithstanding. Even more dangerous for UMNO is if he does not survive prison life.

Ends