CREDIBILITY
On June 21 2008, someone I know went to the court in person to make a Statutory Declaration. He walked in and he walked out his own man. So I know that he did so on his own free will and accord. There was no coercion of any kind. He said what he himself wanted to say and there was no grounds for me to doubt that this was what he wanted to do and say. It was a completely transparent act.
On June 28 2008, someone I do not know went to the police station in Jalan Travers, Kuala Lumpur to lodge a report of sodomy against someone else I know. Like anyone else he had every right to do so without fear or favour. But I need to know in his case whether he has done so on his own free will and accord and the reason why.
And in both cases, the so-called whistle-blowers’ safety as well as the safety of the persons they have implicated should be guaranteed.
Within the space of seven days, two accusations have been made—one in relation to a sodomy case, the other in relation to a murder case. Justice should be extended to all concerned. To be sure no one is guilty (neither the accusers nor the ones they accused) till proven so conclusively and without reasonable doubt. And so long as the trial is fair and objective.
The reason for my curiosity about this new sodomy case is when this last happened, that is, the sodomy trial of this someone I know from June 6 1999 to July 18 2000, the “statements/confessions” of the complainants/victims/consenting partners weren’t so transparent and coercion and torture were in fact claimed in court as well as in statutory declarations. In fact their convictions have since been set aside.
But this is where the problem lies. Those court trials, premised on not so transparent investigative and confession-gathering processes, took a very long time to resolve—from allegations made to the extended trials to the conviction and sentencing to the jail terms to the series of appeals to the eventual acquittal of the accused.
In the first sodomy case it took from September 29 1998 till his acquittal on September 02 2004.
Between September 1998 and September 2004, the accused’s reputation and credibility were under a cloud. If my memory has not failed me, at first in the trial which started on September 29 1998, the prosecution had brought the charge of sodomy against him and made presentation on their case against him but before his defence was called, the sodomy charges were separated from the charges of abusing his office. Thus, he was denied a chance to defend himself till the separate trial for sodomy was commenced at a later date. “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
That is the reason why instead of just waiting for the police to act and a possible court case, the person mentioned as the perpetrator of a criminal act in this new police report has instructed his lawyers to file a defamation case against the person who has accused him.
Malaysia has now become known as a land of coincidences. Please prove me wrong but with the speed in which these series of coincidences have been taking place, I have no doubt whatsoever that this new sodomy issue will have the effect of discrediting the person who is the single greatest threat to the powers-that-be to stay in power at a most critical time in the nation’s affairs.
But to my mind, it is the credibility of the powers-that-be that is in dire need of absolution and public acceptance. And the powers-that-be already have a flawed reputation to defend from the previous trials involving the same accused person and the same type of charges.
Another infinitely long investigation and trial will obviously stymie if not effectively end the political contribution of the man who had played such a key role in bringing about the political changes during the recent general elections.
The question is whether as a nation we will be prepared and able to have a dark period of our history repeat itself and undergoing another six years in court.
I don’t see this as Anwar Ibrahim’s trial (in life or in court) but the nation’s trial. The verdict will come from the rest of the world, how it sees Malaysia and Malaysians, our constitutionally-provided institutions, the separation of powers, the institutional apparatus, and the protocols whether or not they are in place and in proper use, how Malaysia will acquit itself as different from other nations who have abused their institutions of state and their resources. More importantly, will the rest of the world judge Malaysians as people who love justice and will protect and defend it? As self-respecting people, we must be vigilant and compel the authorities including the police, the attorney-general’s chambers and the judiciary to do what is right and honourable.
Credibility is precisely what the present government desperately needs and Malaysians conscious that the rest of the world is watching them closely, will need to watch every step, move and turn the authorities will take in dealing with these latest allegations.
Will we as a nation be found guilty or will we be acquitted?
Already the frequency of coincidences of events are troubling and in themselves shake the very foundation of credibility.
Comments
Comments are subject to moderation.