From Economic Intelligence Unit

Country Analysis 5th May 2000

The Malaysian appeals court's recent rejection of Anwar Ibrahim's plea against his 1999 conviction for obstruction of justice is the latest in a recent series of reversals for opponents of Dr Mahathir Mohamad's government. The prime minister's determination to silence dissenting voices, if it continues, could threaten the country's fragile stability. One of the government's principal tools for stifling dissent, the court system, has also come under attack from international organisations for its lack of independence and impartiality.

The Court of Appeal ruled on April 29th that there were no valid grounds for departing from the controversial verdict handed down a year ago by High Court judge Augustine Paul, who found the former deputy premier, Mr Anwar, guilty of abusing his office by seeking to cover up allegations of adultery and sodomy, and sentenced him to six years in jail.

During the appeal hearings lawyers for Mr Anwar, who was sacked from the government and arrested in September 1998, argued that improper conduct by police investigators and prosecutors, and questionable rulings by Mr Paul, had deprived their client of a fair opportunity to defend himself. Above all, they contended that the charges were fabricated and politically motivated because Mr Anwar was seen as a threat to Dr Mahathir.

Noting that many Malaysian and foreign observers found the original trial flawed, the US State Department said it was "deeply concerned" by the dismissal of the appeal.

While Mr Anwar can still appeal to the Federal Court, it seems unlikely his conviction will be overturned. Moreover a second trial on a charge of sodomy, now nearing conclusion, also seems destined to yield a guilty verdict, despite defence witness testimony that appears to support his claim of a high-level conspiracy. And with four other charges of sodomy -- which is punishable by up to 20 years in prison -- yet to be heard, Dr Mahathir's most popular critic will probably remain out of active politics for the foreseeable future.

The lack of independence in Malaysia's judicial system, especially in cases involving the government, was brought late last month in a report prepared by several international legal groups, including The International Bar Association and the Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers of the International Commission of Jurists.

The report noted that in the vast majority of cases that come before Malaysia's courts, no allegations of impropriety are lodged. But in cases that are considered to be of political or economic importance to the government, the report says "there are serious concerns that the judiciary is not independent, and this perception is also held by members of the public."

The report criticised a wide range of government actions towards the judiciary, and expressed "serious concerns about the fairness of the trial of the former deputy prime minister...and the independence and impartiality of the trial judge." The legal groups went on to recommend sweeping changes, including: non-interference by the government with the judiciary; an end to threats against the bar council; more careful consideration of the choice of judges in high profile cases; restraint by the prime minister's office from speaking out before a trial judgement; the abolition of the Internal Security Act and other restrictive legislation; and the establishment of a judicial services commission to recommend appointments to the judiciary.

The judiciary's treatment of Mr Anwar reflects Dr Mahathir's intolerance of those who challenge his leadership. Some felt the heavy losses suffered by his United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) in last November's parliamentary elections -- largely a consequence of disaffection over Mr Anwar's plight -- would render the prime minister more accommodating towards a reformist opposition that won 43.4% of the vote.

But Dr Mahathir seems to have regarded the sharp swing in support away from UMNO as a challenge to his authority, and began criticising opposition parties and politicians even more vehemently than he had during the election campaign.

Predictions of a post-election crackdown were borne out in January when four prominent opposition figures were charged with sedition, and another was arraigned for violating the Official Secrets Act. All the alleged offences, on which the courts have yet to rule, involved condemnation of UMNO or the treatment of Mr Anwar. US officials described the move against the five as a "transparent and cynical attempt to intimidate government opponents and stifle legitimate political discourse".

A sedition charge against Karpal Singh, deputy chairman of the opposition Democratic Action Party and one of Mr Anwar's lawyers, is seen as especially ominous. It stems from Mr Karpal's suggestion last September during the sodomy trial, after tests supposedly revealed the former deputy premier had unusually high levels of arsenic in his blood, that "people in high places" were trying to poison the defendant. Fellow advocates have rallied behind Mr Karpal, with the 8,000-strong Malaysian Bar Association denouncing his prosecution as an unprecedented infringement of a lawyer's right to speak out on behalf of a client in court.

Also charged with sedition in January were the publisher and editor of Harakah, the newspaper of the opposition Parti Islam sa-Malaysia (PAS), over an article on the Anwar case describing elements in the police, judiciary and media as "subservient tools in this massive conspiracy hatched by Prime Minister Mahathir". Having moved in January to curb street distribution of Harakah -- a key contributor to big electoral gains by PAS in November -- on the grounds that it was only licensed for sale to party members, the government decreed in March that the paper could only be published twice monthly instead of twice weekly. It denied the restrictions were politically motivated.

Dr Mahathir has been directing his most trenchant criticisms at PAS, which, having tripled its representation in the national assembly and won control of a second state legislature, now nurtures ambitions of replacing UMNO as the party of choice for Malays and forming a government at the centre. He routinely accuses the party of dividing the dominant ethnic community and threatens legal action against other members of the party said to have slandered his administration.

The courts will be busy over the coming months hearing all manner of cases against opposition figures. Nor are the authorities likely to tolerate many more street demonstrations, as a tough mid-April police crackdown on supporters of Mr Anwar seeking to mark the first anniversary of his conviction underlined.

Dr Mahathir's strict stance against anti-government activists has also helped him subdue simmering discontent within UMNO. All but one of its 165 divisions have nominated him again for the post of party president -- the job entitling its holder to the premiership -- ahead of internal leadership polls next week, thereby assuring him another three-year mandate.

Dr Mahathir is likely to portray his carefully engineered reconfirmation as a vindication of his policies, despite the growing desire within Malaysia and UMNO for political reforms, as underscored by the strong opposition support in the November election.

The EIU believes this strategy is a dangerous one. Despite Dr Mahathir's seemingly secure position as head of government, opposition parties have never been more popular, united or ambitious. If the government persists in seeking to silence their leaders through questionable cases in discredited courts, it risks alienating more Malaysians.

Back Home