By M Santhananaban
There is much evidence of strong undercurrents both for and against the continued incarceration of former Prime Minister Najib Razak.
Najib began serving his 12-year prison term on 23 August 2022, exactly a month after his 69th birthday. An attempt by Najib to review the Federal Court’s findings that day failed on 31 March.
Since then, there has been a flurry of activities and some debate and discussion about Najib’s status as the country’s most prominent prisoner.
As a prison inmate now, Najib would be subject to the usual rigorous prison regulations and restrictions on personal freedom, expression and movement. Prisons – as punitive, correctional or rehabilitation institutions – are not required to provide the ideal conditions for comfortable and cosy country club living.
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara, CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a pledge or schedule an auto donation to Aliran every month or every quarter
- Become an Aliran member
But basic or spartan living conditions are guaranteed. A prison inmate receives enough sustenance, appropriate medical care, exercise time and adequate living space in a confined area, apart from other basic amenities.
Some exception or variation of these rather rudimentary or basic conditions are only provided for sickly prisoners or during festive seasons, when visitors are allowed under prescribed conditions.
Najib, a personable, pleasant and populist politician, was accustomed to an affluent aristocratic background. So he would probably find prison conditions difficult and demeaning. Some sympathy for him over his plight and predicament is not out of place.
For his family, friends and his strong supporters, Najib’s incarceration is no doubt distressful, even traumatic. Their great desire and impatience to initiate the process for a pardon is understandable.
For most people in Malaysia, however, this entire case involving their former formidable prime minister is a unique and unusual experience.
A sizeable segment of the intelligentsia who understand the repercussions, consequences and implications of impetuous and impertinent white-collar criminal actions that led to Najib’s prosecution and conviction would agree and accept that his actions warranted such an outcome.
The dedicated and dutiful investigating officers, prosecutors, the court officials and the judges would have found the process irksome, tiresome and troubling and not at all an exultant or triumphal one. They had to play their allotted role, putting aside their personal preferences.
This whole prosecution, conviction and incarceration process has been an enervating one for the country, and any perceived slight infringement of court proceedings would have been pounced on by a watchful public.
But there is no animosity or misgiving against the officials involved in the whole prosecution and trial process.
Najib’s lawyers, as responsible officers of the court, had a duty to do their best for their important client. They made some unforgivable and unforgettable tactical errors when the case reached the Federal Court in August 2022.
Those blunders were caused and compounded by Najib himself, who, as it must be finally accepted, was the author of his own misfortune.
A petition for a pardon for or against his continued incarceration creates further division and dissension in an already polarised Malaysian society.
This important issue has to be left to the defence lawyers, and it has to go through its own procedural pace.
Why are peaceful, law-abiding folk being asked to express their support or opposition to this issue when an overwhelming majority of the people are respectful of the court’s judgment, resigned to it, somewhat indifferent to it or do not have any strong views on the subject?
It seems pathetic and somewhat provocative that when there are so many other pressing problems in the country that require attention, this issue has taken centre-stage.
Is it worth it?
Some consideration for a remission or a full pardon has to be addressed eventually.
That said, the nation’s current priority should be to enable the Anwar Ibrahim government to consolidate itself after the ineptitude of four prime ministers over as many years. The baby steps, including infirm ones, towards long overdue reforms have to be nudged and carefully nurtured.
At this early rehabilitative stage of a nation recovering from a deplorable governance crisis, the judicial and legal service has a crucial and critical central role.
Even a hint of a pardon can be tantamount to an act of undermining the work of the judicial and legal service as a fundamental pillar of the executive wing in our system of democracy. The judiciary has a more fundamental overarching constitutional role, which has to be respected.
Moving from a regime of kakistrocracy and kleptocracy towards greater accountability, good governance and transparency should be our preoccupation and priority – not this politicised pardon matter.
Dato’ M Santhananaban is a retired ambassador with 45 years of public sector experience
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
A convicted crook is a crook. In some countries, the guy will be quartered and hung.