Several events that took place during the past two years have shown how the main institutions in the country, particularly the police, the judiciary and the media, were undermined by the government itself.

In fact, the popular perception is that the government, or more specifically Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, has full control of all these institutions and that they are often forced to carry out his bidding. The police conspiracy to shame Anwar Ibrahim through their affidavit against S. Nallakaruppan, the police chief's cruelty inflicted upon Anwar, the FRU violence against people at peaceful gatherings, and the recent police action on those who wanted to commemorate Anwar's first year in prison, did not help to convince the public that the police force is people-friendly.

As for the judiciary, Anwar's trial particularly, has created a strong impression in the minds of the public that it is no longer independent. Since the case of Rahim Tamby Chik, the Melaka chief minister who was freed by the Attorney General's Chamber from all charges for alleged mandatory rape, confidence in the AG and the judges has eroded.

It was eroded further when Lim Guan Eng, a DAP deputy secretary general and MP, was prosecuted and convicted to one and a half year's jail for publicising the case of Rahim. To make it worse a secret document was circulated among certain circles, making allegations on and giving specific examples of corruption among some judges. It turned out that the writer of this document was also a judge, and he was retired because of his action. No action was taken against him or the judges named in the document.

Anwar's trials have made it clear even to a layman that he was not getting full justice. This point was strongly made by Anwar recently, after he failed in his bid to bring the PM to court to testify in his case. The PM ignored warnings about contempt of court by repeating several times that he believed Anwar was guilty of sodomy. He also ignored it when he was subpoenaed to be present as witness.

Later, when there was a hearing to decide if he should be called, the same judge who heard Anwar's case decided that it was irrelevant to call the PM. Anwar accused the judge of already making his decision even before the hearing finished, perhaps to serve the interest of the PM, and the judge had no answer to it. He did not even charge Anwar for contempt.

As regards the mainstream media, they have mostly lost their credibility. Their role during the elections have been considered as most unbecoming and an insult to press freedom. Most of them fear the Home Ministry and the Printing Presses and Publications Act.

In 1987, during the Operasi Lalang, when about a hundred political and NGO activists were detained under the ISA, three newspapers, namely The Star, Nanyang Siang Pau and Watan were closed down by the government. These incidents still haunt the media. Before Anwar was sacked, as mentioned earlier, two chief editors of the main Malay newspapers - Nazri Abdullah of Berita Harian and Johan Jaafar of Utusan Melayu group - and Yunus Said, the head of programme for TV3, a private television channel were removed because they were considered to be "Anwar's boys".

Recently, A. Kadir Jassin, group editor of New Straits Times, who has always been considered a strong supporter of Mahathir and Finance Minister Daim Zainuddin also lost his position. Apparently, the straw that broke the camel's back was that he allowed the paper to publish three articles which questioned why the positions of Umno president and his deputy should not be allowed to be challenged in the forthcoming party elections.

It looked as if 100 percent loyalty was still not enough. And a number of monthly and weekly papers have had their permits withdrawn or suspended for not being too supportive of the government, or even for aspiring to be neutral.

Opposition parties and dissenting groups appear to continue being hounded. In the past the government has quite easily resorted to the Internal Security Act to curb their influence and activities. I myself had the unpleasant experience of being incarcerated without trial for nearly six years. There were many others who were detained for much longer periods, some of them for up to 15 years.

I was detained, together with Anwar, for being involved with demonstrations to support rubber small-holders protesting against the fall in the price of rubber and the rise of price of essentials, which caused hunger among some peasants.

Initially about 2,000 students and lecturers were arrested. But later about 40 of them were detained for two months under ISA. Out of them, 11 had their detention extended. Anwar was detained for nearly 22 months then. A few weeks before Anwar was released, I was taken to Kuala Lumpur, to be put in solitary confinement in an unknown place for more than six months.

During solitary, I was slapped, spat on and mentally tortured for refusing to admit that I was a communist, and that at one time I was some kind of a link between Mahathir with the communist underground. I was promised early release if I admitted to both. But how could I when I was neither?

The basis of the allegation was that when Mahathir was in a limbo after he was sacked from Umno in 1969, following his attack on the then PM's (Tunku Abdul Rahman) handling of the racial riot that year, he was reported to have made a speech in Australia saying that there was possibility that Malaysia would turn socialist at the beginning of the 21st century.

After he was re-admitted into the party and rose to become deputy PM, there was an attempt by the then home minister to frame him up so that he could be detained under ISA. Three deputy ministers, three opposition leaders and two newspaper editors had already been picked up earlier, allegedly for being pro-communists or involved in communist activities. Then Home Minister Ghazali Shafie was an ambitious person who wanted the position of deputy PM.

The ISA has long been criticised as undemocratic and a violation of fundamental human rights. Under it, a person can be detained indefinitely without trial. Following the detention of Anwar and his colleagues under this draconian law in 1998, opposition against it became much stronger nationally and internationally. As a result now, it seems, the method of repression has been altered.

A person held under the ISA can still be active politically. In fact, a number of detainees have stood for elections, and one of them succeeded to get a huge majority. In view of this, the government has opted to use different kinds of criminal or civil laws to act against those they wish to cripple politically.

That is why the ISA was used against Anwar only for the short while when it was necessary to hide his injuries after being beaten up by the IGP. He was later charged under criminal law. That is the reason too many of the opposition leaders have been brought to court under different types of criminal and civil charges. Although the government does not favour this method because trials often take a long time and may cause embarrassment to the authorities, yet they seem to have decided that it is the better of the two evils.

A person given a sentence of more than RM2,000 fine or exceeding a year's jail will be disqualified for five years to stand for election. An elected representative to Parliament or the State Legislative Council, similarly sentenced, would have to vacate his seat, and cannot stand for election up to five years after his release, if he served a prison sentence.

Thus the law has been blatantly used to serve party political interests. There have been allegations that prosecution has often been selective, and in many cases the bases for these allegations have been strong. A number of those held on remand before being charged have made official complaints that they were physically injured by the police during that period.

Another method used is to sue critics of government to court with demand for huge sums of compensation. A well-known journalist, M.G.G. Pillai, together with another journalist and an academic, was sued by a corporate figure, Vincent Tan, who is known to be close to the PM. They all lost and Pillai was ordered to pay Tan RM10 million, which he has refused to do until now.

An academician, Professor Jomo has been sued for RM250 million by the same businessman for an article published in the Asian Wall Street Journal, for allegedly suggesting that he was a crony of Mahathir. This is one method of silencing fair criticism of the government in public interest. But of course, it is not clear if this businessman acted on his own accord or with the blessing of some government figures.

What seems to be clear is that the Malaysian courts do not seem to entertain anymore "fair comment". This trend has become clearer especially after the dismissal of the Lord President (chief justice) and two judges a few years ago.

By way of a brief conclusion, it may be said that of late the face of politics and repression has changed very fast in Malaysia. The state has become more authoritarian, with power held increasingly in the hand of one person. The opposition coalition has become multi-ethnic and more united and stronger. It won more seats during the last elections, although failing to reduce the two-thirds majority in Parliament, which has been held by the government after almost every election.

PAS has emerged strongest of the parties in BA, winning most of the opposition seats in Parliament and controlling two state governments. The Umno and the BN coalition government it leads appear to be threatened that they might be defeated in the coming elections four years from now.

In the recent elections held in November 1999, they have lost many seats in Malay majority constituencies to PAS and also to KeADILan and that their voting majority has been significantly reduced in many ethnically mixed constituencies. It is not surprising, therefore, that they have been increasingly resorting to religious and communal bogeys to create fear among the people of any change in government.

The government has become more repressive, and has succeeded in controlling the police, judiciary and media, thus undermining the neutrality and independence of these important state institutions. It restricts peaceful public meetings and assemblies, although the right to hold them is guaranteed under the Federal Constitution.

In order to curb the opposition and punish groups and leaders, who are perceived as trying to undermine the authority of government, the ISA is less often used now. Instead the government chooses to charge them under various criminal or civil laws. Changes that have taken place have put democracy and justice in greater jeopardy now, since the government-declared emergency, suspended Parliament and established the National Operation Council, following the May13 Incident of 1969.

That day marked a great tragedy for Malaysia, when ethnic conflicts erupted in Kuala Lumpur, causing deaths and destruction that were completely meaningless. In every election the government resorts to fear tactics by manipulating public memory of this tragedy. Now they are trying to continue with it even after elections. These are very retrogressive steps to take. Justice and democracy for the people could ultimately be killed. They need to be saved.

[#1]Part 1: Seeds of Anwar's destruction (May 23)[/#]
[#2]Part 2: Mahathir's post-elections strikes (May 24)[/#]



This is the last of three parts of a paper which formed the basis of addresses to students and academics in Cambridge, London (LSE & SOAS), Manchester, Oxford and Warwick Universities, during PRM president Syed Husin Ali's seven-day "lecture tour" in the first two weeks of May.