Tit for tat on sodomy trial will get Umno nowhere

Continuing to attack Anwar Ibrahim over the sodomy conviction will only make Umno look guilty of meddling in the judiciary.

COMMENT

Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin intends to launch a lengthy campaign to counter the by-now-myriad allegations of misconduct against the government regarding the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trial.

And why shouldn’t he, one could ask. Surely some action should be taken, considering that so much criticism has been levied from all sides, including and up to the governments of other major countries.

The main accusation thus far is that the decision to jail Anwar was politically motivated, and that it was a ploy by the ruling party to put away an otherwise formidable political opponent.

It must then seem from Khairy’s perspective that the integrity of the Malaysian ruling party is in deep danger of being questioned. What can one do in the face of such a situation?

“We have kept silent for six years,” Khairy said at a forum yesterday. “Do you expect us as a political party to keep quiet?”

Yes, we do.

A party is, by definition, partisan. It is going to be very hard for one to defend something that the Prime Minister’s office has already insisted was a decision made by the independent Malaysian judiciary.

And it’s a matter of ensuring one’s integrity. How do you, as representatives of the ruling party bent on keeping its position of power, intend to explain a decision made by the Federal Court – an institution supposedly upheld by the constitution as being completely apolitical – without the slightest tinge of bias? Can you honestly defend what was supposed to be a completely judiciary decision without descending in any way to petty insults and slander, especially when the majority of the criticism comes from the opposing parties?

The only thing that such an action would achieve is a spiralling cycle of debate from both sides. You cannot look at the political climate and say that anybody in the opposition will give way to you, or acknowledge the validity of your statements.

Besides, the point of debate is ideally to gain a middle ground between two sides. No one position is completely indefensible. But no middle ground will be gained here, not when both sides are equally adamant on their stands.

This will not be a debate. This will be an ugly, personal fight. And you will set the tone for vicious idiots on both sides to start hurling abuse at each other. That may be par for the course for the Malaysian political scene, but you’ll only be losing ground if you apply that to this case.

Leave it to the third parties and the experts of law. It is their job to examine, criticise, defend. If truly the decision made was apolitical, leave it that way.

Even Shafee Abdullah, in all his graphic grandstanding glory, made sure to counter the accusations made within the boundaries of law. The facts as they have been presented will, if trustworthy, defend themselves well enough.

“The truth is like a lion. It does not need defending. Let it loose. It will defend itself.” St Augustine said that, and it is true in this case.

And if it doesn’t, maybe it’s time to question just what you stand for.