By Zairil Khir Johari | January 05, 2012
The Malaysian Insider
JAN 5 — Three-and-a-half years ago, in line with the fad of reviving old TV drama serials such as “90210” and “Hawaii-5-O”, Malaysians were treated to a remake of a soap opera that began its first run in 1998. Though the original had been universally panned by industry critics and foreign audiences, it nevertheless enjoyed somewhat limited domestic success. Of course, it also helped that the producers of the drama also controlled every media outlet in the country.
As is the case with unimaginative remakes, the same formula is once again rehashed. And while a coterie of new characters including a young, tall and handsome antagonist was thrown into the fray in an attempt to inject some semblance of freshness, the same actor, now visibly aged, was re-casted as the reluctant protagonist.
In staying true to the spirit of the original version, Malaysians were once again treated to a roller coaster of absurd plot twists, logic-defying scenarios and draggy story arcs involving numerous sub-plots detailing tales of sordid sex, DNA manipulation and — in keeping with the times — leaked video tapes.
Now, 3½ years on, we have come to the cliff-hanger that customarily punctuates the series finale. Thus, with less than a week to go, the question on everyone’s lips is: come 109, will Anwar Ibrahim go in or stay out?
There are a few ways it could end. In the first and most widely expected scenario, our protagonist will be found guilty. In all likelihood this will also entail a prison sentence long enough not only to strip him of his parliamentary seat, but also to ensure that he cannot contest for five years following his eventual release. In other words, it will be the death knell to his political career.
The basis for such an action would be to precipitate a leadership crisis within the opposition coalition. Rendered headless, Pakatan Rakyat will be left flapping around directionless. On the flip side, however, a renewed campaign for Anwar’s freedom will almost certainly provide a populist election theme.
In a second and more unlikely scenario, Anwar will be acquitted. By some miraculous occurrence, the absurdities of the trial will be admitted for what it is and justice will be seen to be served. Or more realistically, some technical flaw will deem the case invalid thus providing no recourse other than to release him.
Such an event will then set the stage for an all-out contest between the prime minister and the opposition leader in the coming general election. Unbound by his legal chains, Anwar will finally have the freedom to lead his motley coalition against the might of the government. Until he is re-arrested on a third round of sodomy charges of course.
There is a third scenario that may occur. In this instance, Anwar will be convicted and sentenced. Except he will also be granted a stay of execution pending an appeal that will last even longer than the original trial. This will have the effect of branding him guilty, yet at the same time avoiding any unnecessary martyrdom. Though Anwar will be “free”, he will remain severely handicapped and distracted.
Whichever way the outcome goes would depend very much on who the puppet masters behind the scenes are. If the first scenario occurs and Anwar is sent to jail, then it will mean that his former mentor still remains as relevant as ever. Jailing him would be the ultimate coup de grâce taken directly out of the Machiavellian handbook of power — crush your enemy totally. After all, if the job had been done right the first time around, we wouldn’t be here today.
The second scenario would be too risky a move. It is one that could end up being a masterstroke, or potentially a regime-ending mistake. In other words, it is not a move that would be made either by a risk-averse prime minister or those who have invested so much — and stand to lose much more — in Anwar’s downfall. Therefore, given the players involved, an acquittal is highly unlikely.
Unlike the surgical strike of the first scenario and the heavy risk involved in the second, the third, and in my mind likelier outcome, would be one that bears all the trademarks of the current administration. It will be a decision that brings neither any benefit to the incumbent regime nor any significant disadvantage to the opposition. There will be no clear winner or loser. In other words, it will be status quo. A wishy-washy solution befitting a wishy-washy regime.
In my mind, whatever happens, whether Anwar Ibrahim turns out to be the prime minister who will usher us into a new era of democratic reform and good governance, or whether he will become the sacrificial lamb that will pave the way for a peaceful revolution, the bottom line is that Malaysia is already on an irreversible path towards change. And while there is no doubt that Anwar has been pivotal in catalysing change in our country, there should also not be any doubt that change will happen, with or without him.
And so, whether the verdict results in a killing blow or a surprise twist or just more of the same, 109 must be the day that Malaysia moves on. Or be doomed to suffer another remake.
Zairil, There is another possibility. Release DSAI in the High Court. Win the Fence sitters votes. Then after winning GE13, nail DSAI in the Appeals Court. That may be a win-win scenario for Najib
-Sam9W2CFS
///the bottom line is that Malaysia is already on an irreversible path towards change…..///
Agreed. No Malaysian in his right mind would tolerate a government which turns a blind eye to corruption. There is a limit of people’s tolerance to government’s inaction on corruption. Beyond that limit, they will take to the street (the uprising in the Middle East is a case in point). Lim Guan Eng said even the Malays are losing patience with the government’s inaction on corruption (he was referring to the cow condo scandal). Lately Ong Tee Keat said the Chinese abhor corruption more than an Islamic state. I believe corruption in high places is the flashpoint that leads the country to an irreversible path towards change.
Fearing after 308 of a loss of power, come the next GE, the powers-that-be (what Zairil called the “Puppet Masters”) have no clue of how to arrest the decline of popularity and check the resurgent Opposition except to abnormally fasten their attention on only one focal point –Anwar- as if he were the only source of their problem, proceeding on the assumption that he is the glue to weld PR coalition together, and that once he’s removed in a way that can be legitimised as a normal and ordinary course of law enforcement, the opposition front will be dissolved and rendered a headless chicken, with heap chopped off, awaiting to wilt and die a natural death. This is an assumption that may not be correct. It is not something originally thought out but a mere lazy carried forward from what Tun Dr Mahathir’s did, that even at that time, cost a sizeable portion of Malay/Muslim votes to shift to PAS, for which another repeat now, may just turn Anwar into a Martyr at even greater adverse political costs and consequences to the ruling party.
If the motive were principally to tarnish Anwar’s moral religious and pious credentials, then surely there are other less risky initiatives (eg the Datuk T’s gambit buttressed by US Dartmouth experts’ analysis) than incarcerating Anwar which may turn out to be an over kill – not to mention, on the flipside, the expectation that PR will dissolve as a result of bearing the risk of his incarceration may not necessarily materialise the way it is expected because whether PR will dissolve or not as a result of that (incarceration) is not within UMNO’s control but PR’s control regarding how to meet that eventuality, and it is not strategically wise to base one’s caculations on an event that is not within one’s own control but the adversary’s control. The key aspect of proceeding with prosecution under the cover of normal and ordinary course of law enforcement and not political motivation has to be convincing because here one is not just seeking to convince one’s own law courts but the court of public opinion both domestic and international which, at first instance is already overwhelmingly bias against the government especially after sodomy I!
Can the fact that one is using DNA sample over a hundred hours old obtained by contentious means to make up for the absence of physical penetration, getting the chief and only witness with a credibility impugned by having had a prior conference with the PM and who consistently maintained that he was forced prove a consensual sodomy before a Court of public opinion bias against the prosecutor, especially when the prosecutor prosecutes no one else under this archaic law except the leader of prosecution convince the court of public opinion that this is an ordinary enforcement of the nation’s laws??? One must bear in mind the public are not trained lawyers or judges following the trial closely to understand the probative value of competing evidence, legal logic and application!
Yet to withdraw the case after the charge has been initiated with the hullabaloo and fanfare would seem to be directionless, with the charge being preferred without thinking through the ramifications so it would be natural to let it run its inexorable course. However it would make sense that if after weighing the balance of political costs versus benefit that a guilty verdict leading to incarceration may incur an unacceptable level of political costs then a judicial decision to acquit Anwar may not – from Bn’s angle- be such a disaster as it could crow and propagandise it as a shining example about the independence of judiciary that the BN upholds, and at the same time, appease the likes of the American secretary of state (Hillary) who have demanded that it expects as aspects of the conduct of the case adhere to the Rule of Law. Zairil’s second scenario is not likely only because the Puppet Masters are unable to take off their blinkers having their attention fastened on Anwar as if he is the “be all and end all” of their problems, which is not true….
Correction of post #4 : “…prosecutes no one else under this archaic law except the leader of opposition …”
After all, court process and verdict must adhere to standards of Rule of law and procedure. An acquittal may be explained away that the State has an incompetent prosecution witness or prosecutor or incriminating evidence has by the rules been rendered not admissible as evidence in court and hence an acquittal does not mean the person charged but acquitted is not actually guilty of what he was accused just as much a conviction may be equally due to an incompetent defence witness or lawyer or exculpating evidence not introduced or admissible and does not mean the convicted person may not actually be innocent of the charge now convicted due to miscarriage of justice. All these have happened before, its nothiong new, whats the big deal? The system is not perfect but its best we have and it is important to adhere and to be seen adhering to the standards of procedure and consistently apply it to all without fear or favour. So what’s the big deal, acquittal or conviction? Other considerations should dictate and one’s has to focus on the objective, what’s achievable, what’s not, whats risky on weighing the scales and whether same objective may be attained by alternative ways.
Having gained the advantage of immobilizing Anwar for the better part of the past three years, and realizing that a guilty verdict could bring adverse reactions of Malays who at least realize that there are thousands of gay-incidents not brought to public attention and that the government did not bother about the unnatural sex if not for political gains, Najib might just allow the court to return a discharge not amounting to acquittal. He can then earn the impression that the court might be free.
Does Najib know that enough is enough?