The Far Eastern Economic Review July 6th, 2000

Revelations made during the two trials of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim may have damaged the credibility of the government

By Simon Elegant and S. Jayasankaran/KUALA LUMPUR

MALAYSIA'S MEEK MEDIA rarely get a chance to expose allegations of corruption and abuse of power. But with the country's leadership apparently happy to have former Deputy Premier Anwar Ibrahim portrayed in as bad a light as possible, the media have had plenty to report.

Over the past year, the pages of the usually polite press have been occupied with courtroom allegations ranging from vicious political infighting among the country's most senior leaders to police brutality, sexual misconduct, corruption and abuse of power.

Whether or not the details of the allegations and testimony in Anwar's two trials are true, few observers disagree that the litany of revelations could change the way Malaysians view their government and the people they elect to run it. In short, despite its legal basis, the prosecution of Anwar may have backfired on the government, effectively undermining its own credibility.

"We don't know who to believe in any more," says a pharmacist, her brows furrowed beneath her Muslim headscarf. "I can't even tell my children they should grow up to be policemen or judges or lawyers . . . or politicians."

Says S. Ramasamy, a political scientist at the National University of Malaysia who's not actively involved in politics: "Some of the things that have emerged make you wonder what kind of system we practise here. It reflects very badly on us and it's no wonder the country is perceived so badly overseas."
SHOCKING TESTIMONY

After the first trial, Anwar was sentenced to six years in jail for abuse of power in a police investigation; in the second, he was prosecuted on charges of sodomy--"unnatural sex" being a criminal offence in Malaysia. The second trial has now closed and a judgment is expected in early July.

While the detailed allegations of sexual relations between men may have shocked many Malaysians, the testimony at the trials included even-more-sordid details about politics in Malaysia. Anwar's defence was built around an allegation that he had been framed as part of a conspiracy by political enemies. Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has repeatedly denied this claim; even so, the evidence gave Malaysians a chilling peek into the inner workings of their government.

One of the most startling pieces of testimony came on June 12, in the waning days of the second trial, when a former head of the government's Anti-Corruption Agency, Shafie Yahaya, took the stand. Shafie testified that Prime Minister Mahathir personally ordered him to halt an investigation of Ali Abul Hassan Sulaiman, then chief of the powerful Economic Planning Unit, which supervises privatization projects. This allegation was particularly explosive because of Shafie's seniority as a former law-enforcement official.

Shafie said the ACA had raided Ali's office and discovered a large amount of cash that could not be accounted for. Afterwards, Shafie testified, Mahathir said: "How dare you raid my senior officer's office?" and ordered Shafie to stop his investigation immediately, accusing him of fabricating the case against Ali. Ali was later promoted to the post of governor of the central bank, and retired in May.

Shafie's allegation of political interference was all the more potent because, as senior opposition politician Lim Kit Siang was quick to point out, it bore a close similarity to the charge of abuse of power levelled against Anwar in his first trial. Lim, who heads the Democratic Action Party, said in a statement: "Mahathir should be arrested and prosecuted under the same charge as that levelled against Anwar."

When asked about Shafie's claims, Mahathir told reporters, in apparent reference to Anwar: "I don't know. What I do know is that there was one person who tried to prevent a case from being tried in court, but as far as I tried to interfere . . . I don't know."

On June 25, several opposition politicians filed a police report against Mahathir based on Shafie's testimony. The police are obliged to investigate such a complaint.

In sworn testimony, Anwar alleged that a cabal of senior politicians, including cabinet ministers, had conspired to topple him. He claimed that the prime minister himself had instructed him to illegally use treasury funds to compensate a private company, Ekran, after its dam project was cancelled. Anwar claims that his refusal to cooperate then, as well as on another occasion when he refused to carry out orders that would have benefited the Renong conglomerate, soured his relations with Mahathir. He also alleged financial impropriety among several senior politicians in the government.

In the first trial, witnesses detailed examples of police persuading witnesses to change or even completely reverse their testimony. And in a startling admission, a senior police officer said he would lie on the witness stand if ordered to do so by the prime minister.

In the second trial, lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon, a defence witness, alleged that two of his clients had been coerced by police to sign statements accusing Anwar of sexual misconduct. Manjeet said police told Anwar's former tennis partner, S. Nallakarupan, that if he didn't sign statements, drafted by the police, alleging sexual impropriety by Anwar, "he would be hanged under the Internal Security Act and nobody would be able to save him."

Manjeet said the police employed "classic interrogation techniques" to break his client's will. "They humiliated, threatened and kept bringing his family into it."

Some of the revelations didn't come directly from the trial, though they were related to the proceedings. In November 1999, just before general elections were called, former central-bank assistant governor Abdul Murad Khalid alleged he had personal knowledge that Anwar had amassed a slush fund of 3 billion ringgit ($790 million), money he said was used to pursue Anwar's political aims. Murad alleged that "the debts of his cronies were cleared or settled using the profits from deals using the influence of Bank Negara," the central bank.

All these revelations have caused Malaysians "to become even more cynical than we used to be," says Megat Najmuddin Khas, a senior official in the ruling United Malays National Organization and president of the Malaysian Institute of Corporate Governance. He adds: "Things like this make my job, to instil corporate governance, even more challenging."

Yet there are some who argue that the Anwar trials have had a beneficial effect in reviving interest in issues such as transparency and accountability in government. "The positive thing that's emerged from all this is the strengthening of civil society, a greater courage to speak out even among members of the establishment," says Zainah Anwar, a member of the newly formed Human Rights Commission.

Zainah notes that the idea of setting up a human-rights body pre-dated Anwar's trials, "but its final establishment may have been catalyzed by the Anwar affair." This, she says, is part of the concept of a civil society, "which will have to grow" if political change is to take root in Malaysia.

Many of the allegations didn't surprise more-cynical Malaysians. But optimists believe they could portend change: Their hope is that the government will be forced to become more accountable, or risk paying a price at the next elections.

"The government is not responding fast enough yet and if they don't by the time of the next general elections, they will have a much tougher time," says Zainah. By then, she notes, an extra 1.2 million young voters will have come onto the electoral rolls, "all more politically aware, all more questioning, all more critical."