Peningkatan Serangan Media Untuk Penghukuman Esok. Payah Bila Duit Yang Dijanjikan Turki Tidak Masuk dan Bantu Kempen
Phil Robertson, deputy director, Human Rights Watch Asia division: Sadly, I think he’s going to be convicted. I think a lot of people in the international community, other governments think that way as well. There is a great deal of despair about that.
Once again, it is an example of Malaysia shooting itself in the foot. It has lots of issues to deal with, but for some reason the government is obsessed about knocking out the opposition rather than unite the people and bring the people forward.
The reason I think he will be convicted is because the government has worked very hard to pursue this case through the system. We hope that the court will be independent and impartial, and make their decision based on evidence.
What the government has done is tarnish Anwar’s reputation for seven years through this charge, which is very explosive among Malay voters – they have cast him in the worst possible manner, (accused him of acts) contrary to the beliefs of many Malays on sexual orientation and gender, deliberate smearing him with a charge that shouldn’t be a crime, dragging it out, distracting him from his duties as the opposition leader, and trying to put him back in prison.
The whole process, episode has been outrageous and shameful.
The fact that the government continues to go forward with this shows how it completely lacks the vision of how Malaysia perceived in the world. This is an extremely black mark in Malaysia. I think the government will be stunned by the depth of international anger if Anwar is convicted.
Lim Chee Wee, former Bar Council president: Anwar should be acquitted, simply because the evidence is weak. In any event, circumstances suggest conspiratorial and selective persecution.
Dr Bridget Welsh, senior researcher, Centre for Asia Democratic Studies, National Taiwan University: I think it’s not appropriate to speculate on the judiciary, let the judges make their decision and follow the letter of the law.
If that’s the case, from the legal perspective, from the burden of proof, the decision should be that he is acquitted. If it’s something else, then it’s a political decision.
One has to look at the case in totality. There are clearly issues here that raised questions in the application of the law. Ultimately, we should let the judiciary do their job.
The question of the handling of the evidence, the question associated with the application of the law in terms of prosecution of him as opposed to anyone else (was raised). It looks like selective persecution.