Publications

Najib Razak has once again dominated the centre of attention among Malaysians and the interested entities internationally. As the Pardons Board “mercifully” gave a 50% discount on jail term and another 76% discount on fine, the disappointing decision was greeted with disbelief among Malaysians as it was seen to be of double standard to other ordinary citizens. Despite the uproar, the reform agenda previously synonymous with the Pakatan Harapan (PH)-led government failed to provide proper justifications to the public, resulting in heightened dissatisfaction. This was expressed by the CSO Platform for Reform in their press statement on the 2nd of February 2024, and further echoed by Bersih in their press conference on the 7th of February 2024. However, the unexpected finds its way when Najib Razak’s lawyer, Dr. Muhammad Shafee Abdullah finally shed some light into the conundrum claiming that it was the then Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s (YDPA) intention of granting full pardon; as opposed to the Pardons Board consensus of Najib Razak serving the remainder of his jail term. Filling up that vacuum, Bar Council Malaysia together with CSO Platform for Reform organised a forum in hope of addressing the worries and concerns of the people.

The cocktail of opinions among experts
Intended for an academic discussion, the forum had successfully gathered a well-balanced representative in a platform to share their wisdom with the general public. The distinguished line up consisted of Professor Emeritus Datuk Dr. Shad Saleem Faruqi as academic, Dr. Oh Ei Sun as political analyst, Dr. Muhammad Shafee Abdullah as the lawyer of Najib Razak, Cynthia Gabriel as the voice of anti-corruption and good governance monitor, Karen Cheah representing the legal fraternity and Najwa Hureen as a representative of the youth. Whilst Prof Shad’s part was the heaviest to digest and comprehend, he elaborated fair equitable comments on Pardons Board decision in accordance with Malaysian constitutional law with alternative perspective based on the practices of other countries. His concerns about the existence of royal pardon weakens the rule of law as it is at risk for manipulation of judicial decisions and echoes the concerns of the citizens, indicating one may avoid accountability if he or she is part of the high society. With Prof Shad proposed reform initiatives such as more transparency in the justifications of a pardon and improvement in the composition of Pardons Board such as an attorney general who is not concurrently a public prosecutor; the proposals were agreed to solve a major part of the deemed judicial fiasco as echoed by all the other panellists.

Najwa Hureen expressed the concerns of the youth regarding the persistent existence of double standards and lack of transparency within the judiciary system, which could set a precedent for the future. These concerns hit close to home as the case is being observed nationally and internationally; its impact would not be limited to only a certain portion of the country. Consequently, a detrimental effect would infect the public perception of the country; a red flag for our country’s image and political narrative in future elections. It was evident that the outcome of the previous elections was mainly affected by the youth vote, as they are sensitive to public perception.

The highlight of the forum came upon Tan Sri Shafee’s turn, pinpointing on the importance of the court of mercy (royal pardon) that stands above the court of law as it embodies the compassionate and humane part of the justice system. He emphasised that the Pardons Board decision should remain unquestionable as it was deemed to be at the discretion of the YDPA. Staying firm in his previous statements, he reiterated that Najib Razak was not given a chance for a fair trial in the Federal Court, depicting a failure in the process of justice. Touching on these crucial points, an ordinary citizen would be in a dilemma as it encroaches on the domains of race, religion and royalty (3R). As a loyal Malaysian adhering to the Rukun Negara, the sanctity of the royalty that played a huge part especially during our previous political instabilities should be preserved. However, the royal pardon seemingly placed us in an awkward situation as if we are required to decide whether to uphold the Malaysian Constitution Law versus the sanctity of the royalty.

However, Cynthia Gabriel responded by reminding the audience of the gravity of the 1MDB case, which significantly impacted the country's economic situation and entangled other nations into this kerfuffle; all under the leadership of the person entrusted with the responsibility to protect and lead our country towards economic growth. Following Cynthia’s points, the same principle should apply to The Malaysian Royals and elected leaders, ensuring they safeguard our interests in a fair and just manner across all matters in the country. The public’s perception is of great importance for consideration as the responsible parties must consider that factor in any decision. Cynthia then concluded by calling on the Madani government not to harass concerned citizens who voice their opinions on this matter; reminiscent of the accused kleptocratic previous governments they had long fought against.

Dr. Oh Ei Sun seconded the perspective of Prof Shad for the need of transparency in the justifications of royal pardon and added that the decision must not be less than the recommendations of the Pardons Board. Agreeing with Prof Shad’s points, Karen Cheah took off by reiterating that the call for judicial review must continue and a common law must be developed for this issue. She ended with the recommendations for guidelines to be structured for the royal pardon’s criteria such as remorse or repentance of the offender, gravity of the offence committed, serving substantial part of the sentence, health conditions of the offender and absence of other ongoing cases. These good practices should be a standard operating procedure to prevent the royal pardon to be deemed arbitrary and avoid tarnishing the image of the YDPA.

Key takeaways from the forum
This initiative by the Bar Council and the CSO Platform for Reform has successfully demonstrated the urgent need for more reform initiatives to prevent such occurrences in the future. While the monarch is the sovereign head of state or country in Malaysia within their own jurisdiction, they are subjected to the constitutional law as per our principles of constitutional monarchy. With that said, it is of utmost importance that the selection of members for the Pardons Board is guided by relevant and credible requirements such as appointing an Attorney General (AG) who does not concurrently serve as the Public Prosecutor (PP). This approach enables more concrete and fair decision-making in the justice process, thereby fostering public trust. The aforementioned concerns can be addressed by exercising the freedom of information (FOI) to the public, especially regarding the justifications for royal pardons, clarity of decisions made either by the advice of Pardons Board or the discretion of YDPA, and information on the members of Pardons Board. Despite limited information accessible to the public, it is praiseworthy that the panellists were able to provide accurate and justified recommendations which ultimately leads to establishing common laws for this matter as proposed by Karen Cheah. With better inclusivity and adequate information, the concerned Malaysians would be able to provide and initiate progressive alternatives, thus aiding the monarch and elected leaders to manage our beloved nation better. True enough, it is enshrined in our Rukun Negara for the people to oblige their loyalty to the monarch, the country and the elected leaders. However, it must also be remembered that it is the responsibility and duty of the monarch and elected leaders to make decisions in the best interest of the citizens. For any unintended consequences due to miscalculated judgement, it will be the common people who will be slapped with the impact such as the debt due to 1MDB that will be inherited till generations to come.

Seems good, can we do better?
While the Facebook live session provided accessibility for viewers from all across the nation to be part of the conversation, it is recommended to be taken up a notch so that these forums can be organised more frequently in the future; especially on other established media platforms such as AWANI or Sinar Harian for more ease in viewing. The moderator did an excellent job of handling the discussion, especially “provoking” more answers from the panellists for more information but it would be better if a summary of the key points was made at the end of the forum for the convenience of the general public or lay people to understand the discussion. Perhaps, a far-fetched idea, having a member of Pardons Board present would ultimately be the best-case scenario as the individual may serve as a living witness to share with us the stories behind the closed-door discussions amongst the board members.

Conclusion
With all the points elaborated in the discussion and excellent programme management, the public would be able to gain a further understanding of the current issues and be part of the conversation for the betterment of our country and advocate together with civil society organisations on Institutional Reform. As the forum was covered by many media practitioners, more conversations should be taking place on various platforms so that the government should be aware of the public dissatisfaction and demands for justice to be served. Due to that, the principle of inclusivity as frequently echoed by many civil society organisations and Malaysians, from the ordinary citizens to people of status, shall be embodied if we have more open discussions to prevent anyone from getting left behind. Then, maybe, one day, we will be able to witness a more harmonious, inclusive and better Malaysia, as a continuum to the dreams of our forefathers.

Back