Thank goodness the Sodomy II trial has ended, not that I had dedicatedly followed its twists and turns through its long tortuous course. I have no interest in the private life of Anwar Ibrahim, alleged or otherwise - none of my business. It’s his politics, performance and policies that I keep an eye on.
Who then is the winner and loser of the trial's outcome?
I leave that to the experts though I do know of only one loser, the Bench!
Alas, very few Malaysians have faith in the independence and integrity of our judiciary, and can you blame the majority?
As the Court dismissed the charges against Anwar Ibrahim, the Pakatan ‘experts’ are already analyzing, now get this, WHY the court had not found him guilty, instead of expecting that the verdict was, as Karpal Singh predicted, a natural outcome for the prosecutor’s paucity of solid evidence.
Look, even Anwar Ibrahim himself was surprised by the verdict.
For an example of the deep set suspicion by many about the motives of the court, and by the alleged nexus, therefore of UMNO, see Charles Santiago’s Seeing through the shadow play where he wrote:
We all know that regimes use ‘bark on’ intelligence to manipulate long-term favourable outcomes. Today, we saw this unfold in Malaysia when Anwar Ibrahim was acquitted of a sodomy charge despite the fact that he will certainly continue to be a thorn in the side of the BN-led federal government.
Anwar's potential to embarrass government, coupled with its hysteria and fears, mean that the father of six would have been better off in jail or at least convicted of sodomy.
Whichever way the verdict had gone, no one in Pakatan would praise the independence and integrity of the judge, and even if one has, he/she would only grudgingly express sympathy for a ‘foolish’ judge.
In a letter to Malaysiakini titled Anwar's acquittal: Why? and What happens next? Abdullah Junid wrote:
Or it could just be that Justice Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah really decided to acquit Anwar based purely on the (suspect) evidence. If that's the case, the good judge is a very brave and hopefully not foolish man.
… indicating his disbelief at the judge’s ruling.
Also do note my underlining of the word 'Or' indicating the writer's afterthought as to what he had surmised in the first place, which was, '... the Najib administration either gave in to fear or grabbed a high-profile opportunity to put the opposition off-balance and earn PR brownie points on a global stage ...'.
Charles Santiago summed it up best by stating: Likewise they must understand that Malaysians will not translate Anwar's acquittal to mean the judiciary is independent. They can see through the shadow play by Najib to regain the confidence of the people.
Today's judgment is a victory for the people. It demonstrates the power of the people.
If I were to translate the above statement in the worst possible light, then Charles Santiago (bearing in mind I’m a DAP supporter) has virtually stated, unwittingly if I may add, the judge gave in to mob rule, and not because the prosecution failed to make a case against Anwar.
Of course I'm being devilish, as in playing the 'devil's advocate', wakakaka.
As I mentioned at the top: Alas, very few Malaysians have faith in the independence and integrity of our judiciary, and can you blame the majority?
Incidentally, because the expectation, especially by PKR, was for a guilty verdict which would have seen Anwar Ibrahim sentenced, many prematurely went berserk when RPK pronounced that Anwar would receive a fair trial.
But in spite of the court finding in favour of Anwar Ibrahim, given the dominance of conspiracy theories that the ‘not guilty’ verdict has been Najib’s conniving plot, there won’t be any relief for, let alone an apology to RPK wakakaka.
Thus a correction to what I had said earlier about knowing one loser; we could say RPK, like the judiciary, is also a loser, but by default. My advice to RPK is a quote by Pat Riley:
"You have no choices about how you lose, but you do have a choice about how you come back and prepare to win again."