The rot in Malaysia’s judicial system is pervasive and extends to
the highest offices of power, both past and present. And now there is a
videotape that many Malaysians — including many in the local bar —
believe to be proof.
Last month, I released a videotaped recording
showing a prominent local attorney, V.K. Lingam, discussing the
appointment of top judges to the federal court. The person on the other
end of the line appeared to be none other than Malaysia’s top judge,
Ahmed Fairuz. The substance of the conversation leaves little doubt
that what transpired was influence peddling and fixing of judicial
appointments.
Since its posting on my Web site, the recording has been viewed
hundreds of thousands of times and has sparked public rallies
throughout Malaysia. I have not disclosed how I received this tape in
the interest of protecting the witness’s personal safety. (Interested
readers can view the video at http://www.anwaribrahim.com.) I vouch for its authenticity.
In the video, which was recorded in 2002, Mr. Lingam is seen and
heard describing conversations and meetings the purpose of which were
to gain influence with then-Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed to make
favorable judicial appointments. The substance of his legal work,
boasts Mr. Lingam, would be meaningless unless he did his part in
securing friendly judges who would rule in favor of his clients. On the
tape, Mr. Lingam remarked that “. . . half the time we are talking
about judiciary rather than doing the work. But if I don’t do this
part, my work will be useless.”
For Mr. Lingam, this kind of lobbying is par for the course. In
1994, for example, he enjoyed a lavish vacation in New Zealand with
another chief justice, Tun Eusoff Chin, allegations that Mr. Lingam
denied until photographic evidence and copies of travel itineraries
from an insurance investigation put the two families on the same flight
and at the same tourist destinations.
The contents of the video came as no surprise to many Malaysians,
who recall Dr. Mahathir’s orchestrated efforts to emasculate the
judiciary in 1988. At that time, Dr. Mahathir’s sacking of Tun Salleh
Abbas, the then-chief judge, and other senior judges, left me deeply
concerned about the breakdown of constitutional checks and balance
inherent in our parliamentary democracy. Dr. Mahathir’s handpicked
judges signaled the beginning of an era when the judiciary became
enslaved to the executive branch. Since then, the executive has given
short shrift to matters of accountability, governance and transparency
in the judiciary.
Which brings us to today’s scandal. Mr. Lingam’s close ties to Dr.
Mahathir, a former chief justice and the late attorney general, Mohtar
Abdullah, as well as his relationship with the current chief justice
have put him at the center of this most recent controversy. Yet he
appears to be immune to the legal process, shielded by the unseen hand
from the nation’s law enforcement agencies, which seem bent on
persecuting the whistleblowers rather than catching the culprits.
After the video was released the government established a
three-member panel with virtually no powers of investigation to probe
the authenticity of the videotape. Three weeks after this panel began
its work, it has produced no results and seems to have no mandate to
look into the questions of corruption that the videotape raises.
Meanwhile, the federal Anti Corruption Agency has threatened to arrest
two individuals who helped bring the tape to light unless they divulge
the identity of their source, and recent comments made by the head of
the agency suggest a similar ultimatum may soon be issued against me.
Such measures do not inspire confidence.
They have, however, sparked public outrage. Last month, the
Malaysian Bar Council staged an unprecedented demonstration in Kuala
Lumpur. More than 2,000 lawyers marched to Prime Minister Abdullah
Badawi’s offices to demand accountability and judicial reform.
Political parties from the opposition including the Justice Party
(Keadilan) as well as a few hardy voices from within the government,
have demanded that an independent Royal Commission be established to
investigate this scandal. Other independent bodies, such as
Transparency International, have joined the chorus for a full and
transparent inquiry.
Yet the government’s response has been uninspiring. Prime Minister
Badawi came to power in 2003 promising to clean up corruption and
depoliticize the judiciary. His lack of action since the video’s
release demonstrates how little he has accomplished on both fronts. He
has rejected demands to establish the Royal Commission and instead has
spent more than a month calling for verification of the authenticity of
the video — a task that requires no more than a few hours of laboratory
work.
Meanwhile, Cabinet members, some of them implicated in the
videotape, have issued statements to the media telling them to report
“responsibly” on the issue. “On this earth, we can do whatever we like,
but you must remember that when you die, you have to answer to
someone,” Tengku Adnan, minister for tourism, told reporters. His name
is mentioned in the tape no less than 10 times as someone who could
facilitate meetings with the prime minister to discuss judicial
appointments. The two men best able to explain the tape, Mr. Lingam and
Mr. Fairuz, have remained silent, apparently hoping that a combination
of public apathy and the absence of an independent media will soon kill
the story.
Sadly, none of this should be surprising to those who do business in
Malaysia. Multinational corporations operating in the country often
seek redress of their grievances in overseas courts in Singapore or
Hong Kong rather than take their chances with the Malaysian judicial
system. Other potential investors opt to steer clear of Malaysia
altogether, planting themselves in neighboring countries that offer
greater transparency, accountability and assurance of the rule of law.
As the late Tun Suffian, a former chief judge with an impeccable
record, once remarked in a speech in 2000, “When I am asked what I
thought, my usual reply is that I wouldn’t like to be tried by today’s
judges, especially if I am innocent.”
A government so complicit in the abuse of power and the destruction
of the judiciary can hardly be expected to follow through on the
structural reforms that are now required — namely, a complete overhaul
of the process of judicial appointments, including the creation of an
independent council with oversight powers and autonomy. The executive
must be kept out of this process. The Conference of Rulers, a council
comprising the nine rulers of the Malay states, must assert its
authority and play its constitutional role as the people’s guardian
against arbitrary action of the powers that be.
In this regard, the observation of Sultan Azlan Shah — the chief
judge of the high court before his ascension to the rotating Malaysian
throne — bears repetition: “The erosion of public confidence in the
judiciary’s independence would ultimately lead to instability and it
would certainly take a long time and would be an arduous task to
restore it.”
* * *
Malaysia celebrated its 50th birthday in August to rather muted
fanfare. Fifty years since we gained our independence, the country
remains a dim shadow of what it could be. Economic indicators show
rising inflation, increasing unemployment and declining foreign
investment. Ignoring the need for economic, judicial and electoral
reform, the government uses its monopoly on the media to project an
image of strength and stability. Meanwhile, the delicate balance among
Malaysia’s diverse ethnic communities is quickly coming undone as each
group begins to scapegoat the other for its own problems.
There is compelling need to return to the founding principles
enshrined in our Constitution to ensure that Malaysia’s future is a
truly democratic one marked by tolerance, economic vitality and the
rule of law.
Mr. Anwar, who is barred from running for political office until
April 2008, is the de facto leader of Malaysia’s opposition Justice
Party (Keadilan). He is a former deputy prime minister.