May 24 — It was a Sunday when the phone rang. The Kuala Lumpur Football Association wanted me to attend their referee training session. I was given a one-hour notice, but as any 15-year-old would have done, I accepted.

I had never been to any of the various centres, and when I showed up after my dad dropped me, I found out easily I was decidedly the youngest in the group.

They were trying to build a culture of young referees, which was at the point fairly unusual. The unusual exercise resulted in the most awkward of boys being in the mix. 

They did give a reasonable lunch though.

I remember only one thing, when one of the most senior referees gave us some salient advice. He said that the game of football was simple, but when you have people playing it then it becomes almost unbearable. The human factor does make things slightly more unmanageable.

He said that there were three things that referees were concerned with. Being fit, firm and fair.

That was it, the three proclamations of a good referee, someone who would cover enough blades of the grass to have a good view, then was firm about things when they needed to be decided and more than anything else having a sense of fair. To know between the contestants, there needs to be a mutual conviction that everyone was having a reasonable chance to win.

How do you determine what is fair?

Technically speaking, when you look at your average football match, so many are likely to have made infringements inside the penalty area to merit a penalty kick. However, referees are unlikely to give penalties for claimants.

Penalties are terminal to football matches, therefore it was more important to understand the context before determining if the infringement required a response.

Penalties decide matches. And because they do, referees consider the situation, the context and the unstated elements before giving the penalty away. Because fair is hard to determine, and most following human nature will err on the side of caution.

The charge on Anwar

Which leads us to the newest and sexiest case against Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim.

Why is the state charging him?

Some will say that there was a court order, and on the face of it, he had broken it.

Before we revert to the claim, one has to ask why did the state get the order.

The whole slew of people backing the government of Barisan Nasional (BN) apt at asking the questions likely to support their views, while loathing to ask the hard questions.

The state together with the City Hall for Kuala Lumpur got the order to thwart the efforts of those opposed to their paymasters to allow the masses to express their views on the state of elections in Malaysia.

Drawing back to the 15-year-old I was, the elderly trainer said that each referee is expected to be an expert of the rules, he knows what is on and not.

Just like the laws of Malaysia. Judges, the prosecutors and the ministers who are making the orders are aware of the laws themselves. Their origins, their purposes and their results. They are expected to decide whether the situation they are confronted with deserves the weight of the law they are allowed to exercise.

Do you or do you not apply the full measure of the law?

Fair comes to the centre of the issue.

In Malaysia, you are often confronted by politicians, those in power, who say that their decisions are made based on the law and not on their preference.

This is obviously a lie. It is a lie.

To say that Hishammuddin Hussein was not aware that charges were to be made against both PKR de facto leader Anwar and deputy president Azmin Ali would be a bold-faced lie. To state that the prime minister was unaware that these charges were to be made would be scandalous.

Of course the minister and his cousin, the Prime Minister Najib Razak, were aware. They conceded to it.

Which returns me to my referees’ training. That the person arbitrating is not aware that this was not a popularity contest, he was playing god. And when you play god, you have to understand the concept of balance.

We live in Malaysia, every day, most of us are breaking the law. In a country where lawmaking was the recluse of those without a sense of what was being said, it is disgusting to know that being from the right class means most people leave you alone.

Fair is a debate

The sense of fairness in a highly multicultural affectation is challenging.

For the prime minister not wanting to engage in a debate by his opponents is indicative of a culture where those in power pick and choose. It is always easy to sound good when you are in control of the message.

The prime minister cannot point out that there are laws permitting him to act against his opponents. He has to show that he is being fair to those opposing him. This internal compass which renders his decisions reasonable.

To prosecute his immediate opponent over a limited broach of his “questionable” defence line to Dataran Merdeka, which belongs to all Malaysians, reeks of a political agenda.

No good is being achieved, just a delay to the preparations for a general election.

This is when the prime minister appears to show a lack of a good faith.

He has inherited a set of laws. He had set in motion some amendments. But over all of that, he has to consider what is fair. It is not fair what he is doing.

Saying it is the law, not him bringing these cases.

Just as I was a 15-year-old who passed the referees’ test, the prime minister is in the same position. He has to decide what is fair. He cannot just keep repeating that the law allows him.

He has to show that he is a leader and look at what is right, what is fair. Fair is fair, that is not limited by laws, that is guided by the conscience of men.

* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.