Anwar's operation - is it about him? Or about Human Rights?

This post is in direct response to Suara Malaysia's posting about this issue. The quotes in italics in between are from that posting.

For another viewpoint, read the SUHAKAM press release at http://www.suhakam.org.my/bm/media/terperinci.asp?id=74 (you have to read the PDF file for the full text).

Personally, I agree that Dato' Seri Anwar should not be accorded greater rights than any another prisoner, so all arguments made for him should apply to all prisoners. I believe that this debate is especially heated because of the personalities involved.

I also agree that the decision will set a precedence. The point here, to me, is the freedom a prisoner has in deciding how his health is managed. For long-term prisoners, this is a critical issue.

Any assumption made that laws should be bent to accommodate a single man's wishes is missing the point: that this is an issue affecting all, brought into sharp focus by this individual case.

> Under Malaysian law they are only obliged to treat an individual at another country if the said procedure is not available
> in this country.

In fact, I'm not sure there is such a law. The law merely says that if a prison has inadequate facilities, the prisoner may be removed to a government hospital. The Prison Act seems to make no statement as to what should happen if the government hospital has inadequate facilities (nor as to who decides this).

> Under what grounds are we letting Anwar go to jail? Is it because he's an ex-Minister? Or is it because some parties
> believe that he's a political prisoner?

I think you mean "what grounds are we letting Anwar go _abroad_". I think the grounds are that he is a prisoner under Malaysian Law, and as such, the Government is partially responsible for his well-being. The debate is now to what extent.

> If we do allow him to go to Germany, will we allow any other ordinary prisoners to seek overseas medical attention?

If the circumstances were similar, the answer should be 'yes', shouldn't it?

> More importantly, who is going to foot the bill of Malaysian prisoners in the future who decide
> to seek treatment overseas?

I quote the final paragraph of the SUHAKAM press statement:

"In addressing the concerns of the authorities, (Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim) has assured SUHAKAM that he is willing to bear all risks and expenses should he be allowed to pursue his personal choice of medical treatment overseas. DSAI has also intimated that he is willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the Government including those restricting him from taking any actions of a political nature."

The key phrase here is "all risks and expenses" - I assumed this included "costs for government precautions".

> Who's to foot the bill for the precedence created if they let him go?

This statement isn't clear what precedence you're referring to - that prisoners are allowed free access to medical care of their choice? That the Government will have to entertain every request for overseas medical treatment? Why is either a bad thing?

Finally, I would like to point out one paragraph in the SUHAKAM statement that seems to strike at the core of this issue:

SUHAKAM notes that DSAI has been provided with the best of medical care at KLH and the Sg. Buloh Prison and this was acknowledged by DSAI during SUHAKAM's visit. However,SUHAKAM reiterates that from the medical, legal and human rights perspectives, DSAI should be allowed to exercise his right of choice of medical treatment.