Fairy-tale ending for Anwar,
Abdullah By Ioannis Gatsiounis
KUALA LUMPUR - Last week Malaysia woke from a
nightmare to a fairy-tale ending. With the overturning
of former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy
conviction, followed on Tuesday morning by the Federal
Court decision to review Anwar's earlier corruption
conviction, which, if it too is overturned, could pave
the way for his official return to politics, most
everyone that matters has come out looking good.
Anwar, 57, gets a crack at reviving his
political career (though if his corruption conviction
isn't overturned, he can't re-enter the world of
politics until 2009). The discredited courts get a boost
in their struggle for legitimacy. Prime Minister
Abdullah Badawi comes off looking like a reformist,
despite a year that's seen little tangible reform; in
turn so does his party, the governing United Malays
National Organization (UMNO), discredited by the Anwar
scandal and widely suspected of squashing dissent and
buying votes in this election year. And finally,
Malaysia wins. A stain is lifted from the public
consciousness, as the international community sings its
praise.
Malaysia hasn't looked or felt this good
in years. It's no wonder, then, that few people want to
broach the subject of whether a deal may have been
struck between Anwar and Abdullah. Those who do swiftly
dismiss the possibility.
They rest their case
mostly on the fact that Abdullah has indirectly
encouraged the judiciary to act independently, without
fear of reprisal from the executive (unlike Abdullah's
predecessor, Mahathir Mohamad, who was known to pressure
courts into bowing to the executive and is thought to
have orchestrated Anwar's convictions for sodomy and
corruption).
There may be something to this. But
it's no place to stop. When all the lingering question
marks are added up - coupled with UMNO's deep connection
with corruption and patronage - it's hard to rule out
the possibility that other forces may have been at play.
Anwar was down to his final appeal for the
sodomy conviction, which if not overturned would have
kept him in prison for least another five years. It only
seems logical that anyone in his position, with powerful
lawyers and political connections, and staring at a
tainted judiciary, would try to strike a deal. Wouldn't
we all?
And yet Anwar's and Abdullah's camps
have both refuted any such brokering.
Some
observers note with suspicion that Anwar's wife, Wan
Azizah, met with Abdullah a few months ago. But both
Abdullah and Azizah say they discussed Anwar's medical
condition, that's all; Anwar has been suffering from a
bad back and swelling of the kidneys.
One of
Anwar's confidants, however, told Asia Times Online that
the two did in fact discuss Anwar's release, and Azizah
recounted the details to him hours after their meeting:
"Badawi was uncharacteristically rude in his reply to
Azizah. He said, 'Don't talk to me about the judges. I
don't control them.'"
This raises even more
questions. Was Azizah, who said after her husband's
release that there was "no political wheeling and
dealing", in a position to speak unequivocally for her
husband? And was Anwar in a position to say Abdullah
"did not interfere", when the politician in Anwar could
certainly comprehend a deal being made without his
consent? Why such certainty stated for the record?
The day before Anwar's release, his lawyer
Sankara Nair told reporters there was some speculation
Anwar would be freed, but he dismissed the buzz as
"rumors". But who was speculating and why?
Law
professor Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi said influence in court
cases has been known to come not only from UMNO but from
the "more 'private' centers of influence". Some suspect
that in its written decision the court was communicating
to these private centers, in particular to one Mahathir
Mohamad, who despite retiring from politics last October
is an adviser to state car company Proton and oil giant
Petronas.
In its statement, the court said it
was overturning Anwar's conviction because the
prosecution's testimony was contradictory. At the same
time, it suggested Anwar was still guilty of improper
behavior.
"Is this a face-saving device for
[Mahathir]?" asked political analyst Abdul Razak
Baginda. After all, Mahathir's press conference after
Anwar's release, in which he said, "I still believe that
he's guilty," was a highly calculated affair - held with
his family in Petronas' executive boardroom.
"He's [Mahathir's] sending the message to
Abdullah that he can decide how UMNO dollars will be
spent," said Tian Chua, the vice president of the
People's Justice Party, which Anwar founded after his
sacking from UMNO at the hands of Mahathir in 1998.
And although Mahathir's power has waned
considerably since leaving office, "There's still a
Mahathir fear factor," said lawyer Param Kumaraswamy.
The court's decision, even with its
Mahathir-friendly clause, doesn't reflect well on the
former premier. It may in fact erode his standing in
Malaysian history. But it reflects exceptionally well on
Abdullah.
Each day that passed with Anwar locked
away in jail and Abdullah not fulfilling his promises of
reform, public pressure mounted for him to deliver. With
that pressure came the need for Abdullah to face the
corrupt UMNO elite head-on, though doing so would risk
putting him on shaky ground within the party. Anwar's
release buys Abdullah a little more time from both
sides.
Those who have worked closely with
Abdullah over the years say they can't imagine him
striking such a deal. But they grow less certain when
contemplating whether others in the party might have
worked something out. "If one sits down and weighs out
all the possibilities, all the interests involved, then
it becomes easier to comprehend how a deal might have
been made," Baginda explained. "But we'll likely never
know."
Some say the best indicator might be yet
to come, based on which political course Anwar decides
to take. Rejoining the opposition would suggest no deal
was made, goes the reasoning. And some suspect that
Anwar may join the opposition temporarily before
rejoining UMNO to obfuscate any deal-making that may
have been made.
Yet even if he does rejoin UMNO,
it's unlikely to indicate whether a deal was struck. Put
simply, Anwar is an ambitious man and many critics
suspect that he will pledge his allegiance with
whichever party will provide the fastest track back to
the political fore.
Others suspect that jail
reaffirmed his commitment to justice, which would run
counter to the culture of UMNO.
Time may or may
not tell whether a deal was struck. In the meantime, it
is not the time to let "patriotism and defense
mechanisms", in the words of law professor Faruqi,
override the virtue of skepticism. After all, many of
the "new" and younger faces in UMNO, such as Education
Minister Hishamuddin Tun Hussein Onn, have performed
more like carbon copies of the old guard than the
reformists they claim to be. Malaysians intent on
progress and justice can't afford to suspend either
their belief of the possible, as in UMNO string-pulling,
or the seemingly impossible, as in the case of a prime
minister courageous enough to leave the system to its
own devices.
Ioannis Gatsiounis is a
New York native who became a freelance foreign
correspondent for various US dailies after moving to
Indonesia in 2000. He has since co-hosted a weekly
political/cultural radio call-in show in New York and
resettled in Malaysia.
(Copyright 2004 Asia
Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
