The Kangaroo Trial

The only people who are flabbergasted are those who choose to be so. They are oblivious to the wrongs that may have been committed by Anwar which are now going to be determined by the court of law. It may surprise foreign observers and commentators, that here in Malaysia; we do practise the adversarial system. The same as those adopted in the mature and upper country democracies. The sitting judge will rule on the truth by umpiring the arguments from prosecuting and defense lawyers.

The natural thing or the natural approach to adopt is to allow the due process of law to take place. Let's hear the arguments put forth. Let us see the evidence. The current trial of the former DPM of Malaysia becomes a kangaroo trial precisely because, while the trial proper is taking place, there is also a parallel trial going outside the court.

The parallel court outside is justified on the allegation that the formal and official court is biased. It is alleged to be doing the bidding of incumbent political powers. The troubling thing with such a view is that, it forces us to assume that the defense lawyers engaged by the accused are dullards incapable of exposing the hidden hands of the incumbent political powers. A top notch defense team will be able to expose the hypocrisy of the assembled court will they not?

Could it be, in actuality, the weight of evidence whose intrinsic truthfulness will be reinforced in the coming days by reasoned arguments by the prosecution, are so overwhelming that the defense team and the accused know- THIS IS IT!

The truth is, there is only one justification for setting up a parallel trial with the carnivalesque aplomb of organized chaotic heckling abetted and amplified by a cacophony of noises from foreign observers- that the accused wants to have a court assembled on his terms. To which the only answer we can give- we shall have none of that!

Now, what is wrong with that? The glaring defect is that the accused wants special treatment given to him whereas the same 'bad' judicial system is commonly applicable to common people. It implies the accused has a choice; whereas the common people have none. Now, what can be more unjust than to have a situation when a particular accused has a choice when the whole world and us the rest, have none?

The opinions and arguments that matter are those said and going to be said in court. The heckling outside and the parallel trials held by supporters of the accused and those carried out with such vehemence by those who despise him, are not relevant.