A Doctor in The House: A Memoir of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (108 page)

The sodomy trial began on 7 June 1999. Following its progress in the newspapers was depressing, as the prosecution bungled their case on several occasions. In one instance that particularly annoyed me, the defence claimed that sodomy had not taken place on a particular day as was charged. The Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah did not say anything, as if agreeing that the crime had never occurred, and the newspapers then reported that there was no case of sodomy. But even if it had not taken place on a particular day, it did not mean that it had not happened at all. The problem with our prosecutors is that they are civil servants and they do not know the criminal mind. It was very frustrating to watch because they were not doing a good job and I could not do anything about it. They presented a lot of irrelevant evidence in court and the public became increasingly cynical, and began to be less convinced that there was a case. Even though the High Court eventually found Anwar guilty, he was able to score several points and leave many Malaysians convinced that he was the victim of a political conspiracy.

But how anyone could believe this, I really could not understand. To conspire against Anwar in this way I would have had to take the police, the Attorney-General and his prosecutors, their witnesses, the judge, the forensic laboratory experts and many others into my confidence. Surely someone in this small army of co-conspirators would have eventually leaked details of our plot to the public. Though some witnesses were hostile towards me, nobody came forward to say that I had forced him to tell lies to support me. One of these hostile witnesses was the former Director-General of the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA), Datuk Shafee Yahya, who had earlier accused me of interfering with an ACA investigation into then-Director-General of the Economic Planning Unit, Tan Sri Ali Abul Hassan Sulaiman. In 1998 I had received a complaint that the ACA had been offensive during his investigation and so, knowing how Government officers could sometimes be overzealous in their duties, I asked Shafee to explain the situation. Our meeting did not go well and Shafee became angry, accusing me of interfering with his duties. Actually, the affair with the ACA had nothing to do with Anwar’s case. But Shafee had his day in court and seemed to be happy to vilify me.

Though the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction by the High Court, the Federal Court, by a majority decision, quashed the conviction and freed Anwar of the sodomy charge. The Federal Court said that the evidence did not corroborate Azizan’s story, i.e. that he was sodomised by Anwar and Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja (Anwar’s adopted brother) at the specified time, date and place. Most Malaysians are ignorant of the contents of the judgment of the Federal Court, which acquitted Anwar on a technicality due to the error relating to the date of the incident. They are not aware that the majority of the Federal Court had held that in their judgment they found “… evidence to confirm that the appellants [Anwar and Sukma] were involved in homosexual activities and we are more inclined to believe that the alleged incident at Tivoli Villa did happen, …”
[6]
 Although the conviction has been quashed on a technicality, the conclusive judicial findings of the Federal Court that Anwar and Sukma were involved in homosexual activities, remain intact.
 

Another alleged element of my “conspiracy” against Anwar involved my supposed interference with the judicial system. I have often been accused of emasculating the courts, humiliating the judges, and of being hostile to the legal profession. I have dealt with these matters elsewhere in these pages. Here I only need to say that Anwar was tried in court in a case that I thought was clear-cut. Malays are generally religious and conservative and, for them, sodomy is a sin. They will not condone such acts or show any sympathy for people who indulge in them. But Anwar’s reputation for religious piety persuaded many people that it was simply absurd to accuse him of behaving as he did, even when the courts found that he had.

The local and foreign Press were also loath to let go of the image of me as a dictator. The foreign Press, especially, judged Anwar to be innocent and some Malaysians agreed with them. The Opposition parties and their newspapers never failed to put me in the worst light possible. I was made to feel as if I was the one who was on trial, and if one were to believe them, my whole life and work were devoted to destroying Anwar and his career.

Anwar again sued me for defamation based on the response I gave to a question posed by a journalist after I had delivered my opening address at the conference entitled “Human Rights and Globalisation”, organised by SUHAKAM
[7]
 on 9 September 2005. To a question relating to the Anwar issue, I explained that in our society, sodomy was not acceptable and that I could not have a person who was like that in my Cabinet, who might succeed me and become the Prime Minister. I also said: “Imagine having a gay Prime Minister, nobody would be safe”.
 

However, the High Court struck out Anwar’s defamation suit against me, again on the basis that I was protected by the defences of justification and qualified privilege. Anwar’s subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal was also struck out due to several defects in his Appeal Record filed by his lawyers.
[8]
 On 24 November 2010, the Federal Court delivered its judgment dismissing Anwar’s application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court.
 

At the time of Anwar’s dismissal, members of the UMNO Supreme Council often complained about the Press and would invariably recommend that the critics be removed, especially if their criticisms were directed at me personally. Then, when senior editors were removed or transferred, I would be blamed by people outside the Supreme Council, who assumed that I was the one who had initiated or demanded their removal. I must admit that I never refuted these allegations, but I went along with the Supreme Council decisions because I did not want people who were so apparently concerned about me to feel that I was letting them down. I thought they were very sincere in their show of support. But once I stepped down from office, they became equally quick to turn against me in order to please their new boss. It was under the new boss’ leadership, incidentally, that Tan Sri Abdullah Ahmad, the editor of the
New Straits Times
, was removed with no qualms. There were several other senior editors of the
NST
and
Utusan Malaysia
who were also removed. No one accused my successor of acting against the editors who did not support him.

Like it or not, I must accept that this is what Malaysians are like. When you are the top man people will try to read your mind and try to do what they believe you want. They get angry on your behalf, and you will disappoint them if you are not as angry as they are. As I related earlier, when former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating called me recalcitrant I was not angry—he was just saying that I was refusing to fall in line with everybody else and that description generally applies quite well to me. I don’t always do what others do. Most Malaysians like that side of me, as it has allowed our country to show that it is able and ready to stand up for itself. But people expected me to be offended by Keating’s remark and they were insulted on my behalf. As I did not want to embarrass them, I played along.

The Anwar affair and the currency crisis destabilised Malaysia and it was my duty to restore the country’s political and economic balance. By late 1998 the economy was already showing signs of restored health, but the political situation did not improve as much. Anwar’s Reformasi movement and the setting up of his Justice Party, or Parti Keadilan, were accompanied by more street demonstrations and large public rallies.

Although I retired as Prime Minister some years ago, the allegations of Anwar’s homosexual activities did not fade into oblivion. Eyebrows were raised again when fresh allegations of Anwar’s homosexual activities surfaced. This time Anwar’s 23-year-old aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, alleged that he was sodomised by Anwar on 26 June 2008 at a condominium in Kuala Lumpur. On 7 August that year, Anwar was charged in court for sodomising Saiful.

On 15 August Saiful swore on the Quran in front of mosque officials at the Federal Territory Mosque that he had been sodomised by Anwar. This was Saiful’s way of proving that he was speaking the truth. Saiful then challenged Anwar to also swear on the Quran and deny sodomising him. On 16 August, I dared Anwar to swear on the Quran to prove that he was indeed innocent. I said that as a prominent figure on the Malaysian political scene, Anwar should act in accordance with public sentiment and take the oath on the Quran and give a sworn statement on the sodomy allegation made by Saiful. Anwar did not take the oath on the Quran to deny that he had sodomised Saiful. As the trial is ongoing, I will refrain from making any comment on it.

Anwar is an undeniably charismatic man and he knows how to get people to support him. All that I had done for Anwar in the past has been brushed aside. I was seen as having victimised him and throwing him into jail, as if there were no trial. Whenever my name is mentioned in a book or article, I am described as the Prime Minister who threw his deputy into jail. The fact that he was properly charged and tried in court is never mentioned.

I am a forgiving person by nature, and I rehabilitated the careers of many people who tried to undermine me politically. I even named one of them as my successor after Anwar was sacked as Deputy Prime Minister. But I find it difficult to forgive Anwar for demonising me in the eyes of the whole world.

Anwar should have been the Prime Minister of Malaysia today. But if he is not, it is because of his own actions. He left me no choice but to remove him and I did what I thought was best for the country. I may have made many mistakes, but removing Anwar was not one of them.

ENDNOTES

[
1
] On 18 August 2005, the High Court awarded RM4.5 million in damages to Anwar in his libel suit against Khalid, who died from complications arising from chronic diabetes just a few days after.
 

[
2
] Today Mohd Azmin Ali is Deputy President of Anwar’s Parti Keadilan Rakyat (People’s Justice Party), Member of Parliament for Gombak and State Assemblyman for Bukit Antarabangsa.
 

[
3
] Kamunting is a maximum security detention centre located near Taiping, Perak.
 

[
4
] Aliran Kesedaran Negara (Aliran) is a civil society movement that began in Penang in 1977. It publishes a magazine, 
Aliran Monthly
, that seeks to address important social issues in Malaysia.
 

[
5
] The judgments of the High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court are reported as
Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Dato’ Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad
[1999] 7 CLJ 32 HC; [2001] 1 CLJ 519 CA; [2001] 1 CLJ 663 FC.
 

[
6
] The Federal Court Judgment is reported as 
Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v PP & Another Appeal
[2004] 3 CLJ 737 FC.
 

[
7
] SUHAKAM is the Malaysian Human Rights Commission.
 

[
8
] The judgments of the High Court and the Court of Appeal are reported as 
Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad
[2007] 5 CLJ 118 HC; [2010] 1 CLJ 444 CA.
 

Today I think of 1998 as one of my most challenging years as Prime Minister. It was the year of the Asian financial crisis, the Commonwealth Games and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s dismissal. Ironically, it was also the year when I had planned to step down from office.

I had intended to go after the 16th Commonwealth Games, which was the biggest sporting event ever staged in Malaysia and the first Commonwealth Games to be hosted in Asia. I thought it would be the high point of my premiership and the perfect time to retire.

I had been keen to host the Games as they would raise Malaysia’s profile and draw people to the country to see the progress we had made. I was fed up with people half believing that we lived on trees. Holding the Games would also be good for tourism, not just for the duration of the event but for long afterwards. The prestige that comes from holding international events is far-reaching, and the Commonwealth Games are second only to the Olympics in terms of the number of participating countries and athletes. Some of the competitors would even be Olympic champions.

The ability to organise such complex, large-scale, multifaceted events was also something we wanted to develop. I had set up a unit to stage international conferences shortly after becoming Prime Minister, but I noticed that our people were still not doing things properly. For example, they would fail to provide interpreters and protocol officers, and the routes to be taken by visitors were not correctly identified and mapped out.

We made our bid to host the Games in 1992 and it involved much effort. We were up against Adelaide and the Australian delegation went all out in their bid. They said Malaysia was only interested in boosting tourism, and they also claimed that athletes would find it very difficult to perform in our hot and humid climate. On our part, we simply invited those who were involved in organising the Games to see Malaysia and judge for themselves whether we were capable of hosting. This was where our policy of being friendly to developing countries proved to be useful, as they were now inclined to be fair to us. In the end, that made the difference. Small developing countries were not going to make us rich, but there would be occasions when we needed friends and supporters, and this was one of them. Malaysia was chosen by a majority of the 66 Commonwealth Games Federation members who cast their votes in a secret ballot on 21 July 1992 in Barcelona, Spain.