A second royal pardon has been granted to former Prime Minister Najib Razak, allowing him to serve the remainder of his prison sentence for the SRC International corruption case under ‘house arrest’.
Najib was convicted of corruption of the highest order. His initial sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment and a RM210m fine was already reduced by a royal pardon to six years’ imprisonment and a RM50m fine in 2024.
He was separately convicted of abuse of power and money laundering by the High Court in the 1MDB-Tanore case and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment and an RM11bn fine, and is still facing other corruption charges in court.
Yet he was deemed befitting of further leniency.
The Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center)is gravely concerned with the implications of this development. If this is how corrupt leaders can expect to be treated, what hope do we have of ever eliminating corruption in Malaysia?
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN), Maybank a/c 507246118995 or CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a pledge or schedule an auto donation to Aliran every month or every quarter
- Become an Aliran member
Now that this decision has been made, we must reckon with the repercussions. What does this mean for governance in Malaysia?
We cannot deny the truth of the matter: this marks the death of the rule of law in this nation. If a leader whose guilt in this case was affirmed by multiple layers of the judiciary can nevertheless receive leniency for the largest ever act of robbery against the Malaysian people, what hope can anyone have left for our justice system?
Further, what message will this send to members of the public who wish to blow the whistle on acts of corruption that they are privy to. What is the point of taking the risk of becoming a whistleblower when this is the expected outcome?
And what of his conviction in the 1MDB-Tanore case, or his remaining charges for other corruption offences still in court? Can we expect to see further pardons for any other convictions, or will those prosecutions simply be dropped with little justification, as seen with other politicians like Zahid Hamidi and Mahiaddin Yasin?
Najib also has an outstanding summary judgment of about RM1.7bn in unpaid taxes due to the Inland Revenue Board. How will that be enforced, if at all?
Taken together, we see no ability for the justice system to effectively discourage political leaders from committing corruption and abuse of power when those alleged to have committed such crimes are treated with such mercy.
In the light of the sluggish pace of reforms, this decision will further incentivise corruption and abuse of power by our leaders.
Indeed, what has materially changed since Najib Razak’s administration?
The prime minister can still hold other cabinet portfolios, including that of the finance minister, who is granted wide discretionary powers to decide on government contracts.
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission lacks independence as it still sits under the prime minister’s office, while its chief commissioner is appointed by and reports directly to the prime minister.
The public prosecutor’s role remains under the office of the attorney general, who is appointed at the discretion of the prime minister.
The Official Secrets Act 1972 remains unamended and available for any administration to hide any document they wish.
Malaysia still does not have a law that regulates political party financing.
Neither the laws or institutions which remain open to misuse, nor this prevailing sentiment of mercy towards those who have ‘contributed to the nation’, presently operate to dissuade corrupt acts.
So what will stop a future prime minister from committing crimes on the scale of Najib’s?
We are equally concerned by the opacity surrounding the implementation of this ‘house arrest’, which has no clear legal basis under Malaysian law.
Who will monitor compliance? What authority will supervise him? Who will report breaches, and what mechanism exists for independent oversight?
How is the public expected to have confidence in the integrity of the justice system when the terms under which a convicted politician is allowed to serve his sentence are themselves unclear?
We have seen politicians speak valiantly about fighting corruption and upholding good governance, but this simply has not reflected reality.
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim waxes poetic about his anti-corruption stance, and in fact, just recently stated that Najib’s royal pardon does not deter the government from its commitment against corruption and the primacy of the rule of law.
The lack of institutional reforms, the ever-tightening constraints against civil society organisations and their freedom of expression, and the complete refusal to act against major corruption allegations clearly show that rhetoric and empty words are the extent to which this government is willing to act.
Enough has been said. Those in power have shown time and again that they do not have the nation’s best interests at heart.
The public cannot hope for salvation from those who do not understand the struggles of the common person. We must now decide for ourselves how to rebuild our nation. – C4 Center
AGENDA RAKYAT - Lima perkara utama
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
