Despite being convicted, Najib remains in the august house of Parliament – a key institution of democratic governance, JD Lovrenciear writes.
There were cases in history of criminals gunned down whom local folks praised for helping the poor and needy.
For instance, Botak Chin was a criminal also known for his Robin Hood-style, ie robbing the rich and helping the poor – so goes the local gossip.
Former Prime Minister Najib Razak, who was recently convicted by the High Court, claims the verdict was “unfair”.
According to the disgraced former prime minister, who surprisingly remains a Member of Parliament, he spent the 1MDB-related money – all 99% of it – to do good, including corporate social responsibility (CSR).
Never mind that the cornerstone of CSR, as understood the world over, is the cardinal rule that what belongs to society ought to be returned to all of humanity, guided by ethical concerns.
It seems, as Najib spelt out, much of the money spent also went towards helping orphans. If what he proclaims doesn’t amount to Robin Hood-style politics, tell me what does.
As the talk of the town goes, when a person is convicted as charged in the High Court of Malaysia, is he or she not a convict?
But Najib thinks otherwise. He maintains he is a “victim”.
Netizens have also asked if an ordinary person was charged and convicted in court for criminal misdeeds like misappropriating funds, would the convict remain in employment or would he or she be in prison until an appeal materialises?
Despite being convicted, Najib remains in the august house of Parliament – a key institution of democratic governance. How come?
What confusing times we live in.