AI (Artificial Intelligence) sees the need for deep reforms in the legal system in Malaysia and notes the importance of various issues including Agong’s Decree based on Discretion on Najib’s RM42m SRC International case and consistency in sentencing!
From AI (artificial intelligence) App . . . Artificial Intelligence (AI) sees the need for deep reforms in the legal system in Malaysia and emphasises the importance of the Agong’s Discretion in Najib’s RM42 million SRC International case, calling for consistency in sentencing.
Amid a swirl of public commentary on former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s recent apology, much of it has missed the broader context of his ongoing political persecution. Those who have taken potshots at Najib’s statement—focusing narrowly on his apology without understanding the larger legal and political framework—have failed to see the reality: Najib is a political detainee, having spent almost 2.5 years in jail, unjustly denied house arrest.
Joe Fernandez, a columnist for the New Malaysia Herald, has been one of the most vocal in defending Najib against these baseless attacks. Fernandez criticizes the opportunists who have turned the apology into a tool of ridicule without grasping the rationale behind it. “It is clear that Najib’s apology was not a plea for leniency but rather a recognition of the unfortunate events that transpired during his time in office. People should stop the nastiness, and recognize that Najib remains a victim of political games,” Fernandez argues.
AI Feedback
AI feedback gathered for the article also resonates with Fernandez’s stance, emphasizing the importance of legal reforms in Malaysia. It highlights how Agong’s Discretion could play a critical role in determining whether Najib deserves to remain in jail or be granted house arrest. The Basic Features Doctrine (BFD), which ensures protection for certain constitutional principles, is another factor AI sees as potentially offering Najib a path to justice. BFD, recognized in other jurisdictions such as India and the US, has yet to be fully utilized in Malaysia.
“What many fail to realize,” Fernandez continues, “is that Najib’s continued incarceration only serves to underscore the selective justice that pervades our legal system. The same law that Najib is being held under is not being applied equally to others, such as former Sabah Chief Minister Tan Sri Musa Aman, who admitted in court to receiving a substantial political donation without facing significant consequences.”
Fernandez also highlights the failure of the Attorney General (AG) to pursue civil actions against those involved in the RM42 million SRC case. “It’s baffling that the nine individuals who received the money have not been pursued, while Najib is continuously victimized,” Fernandez says. This selective application of the law, he argues, only serves to deepen public skepticism about the integrity of the judicial system.
The AI analysis also touches on the role of public perception and political narratives. Many, such as Projek SAMA’s Thomas Fann, have expressed doubts about Najib’s sincerity. Fann suggested that Najib’s apology could be a calculated move to gain home detention, further fueling suspicions of favoritism for the elite. But Fernandez counters these claims, stating that Fann’s perspective lacks legal grounding. “There’s no evidence to suggest Najib’s apology is insincere or that it’s tied to any ulterior motives. What’s troubling is how quickly some are willing to dismiss the apology without considering the broader political machinations at play,” Fernandez remarks.
Systemic Reforms
With Najib’s 1MDB trials ongoing and his political imprisonment dragging on, the AI analysis and Fernandez agree that the public conversation should focus on systemic reforms. “Rather than taking cheap shots at Najib’s apology, people should be asking why political prisoners like him are still being denied house arrest,” Fernandez says. “This is a gross violation of the rule of law, and those responsible should be held accountable.”
As the nation watches the continued legal battle, Fernandez and AI warn that the current approach to Najib’s case risks eroding public trust in the legal system. AI’s feedback echoes Fernandez’s calls for transparency and consistency in the legal process, stressing that “without a fair system of justice, Malaysia’s democratic foundations are at risk.”
For now, Najib’s fate remains in the hands of a system in need of reform. Fernandez hopes that Agong’s Discretion and a clearer interpretation of the Basic Features Doctrine will eventually bring justice to Malaysia’s former prime minister, who many believe is being wrongfully imprisoned.
We asked reader JuliusGill for assistance on putting three comment pieces at the end of this Article through the AI (artificial intelligence) AP for feedback. The response supports the earlier feedback from AI carried in the beginning of this Article.
AI, it must be stressed at the very outset, is neutral and democratic.
We will push BFD (Basic Features Doctrine) further down this Article and highlight Agong’s Discretion. BFD, besides Agong’s Decree on house arrest based on Discretion, remains the only other reason that can save former Prime Minister Najib from jail.
The US Supreme Court and Supreme Court of India have ruled on BFD. BFD also includes Articles which cannot be amended. In Malaysia, there’s lacuna (gap) in local law on BFD.
In law, if there’s lacuna in local law, case law from other jurisdiction especially Commonwealth can be used as Advisory Opinion for declaring local case law.
The Allah case in Malaysia not so long ago, cited the Ananda Marg case law in India, albeit erroneously, and ruled against the Church.
AI
Detailed Analysis of Najib Razak’s Apology and Its Implications
The recent apology by former Prime Minister Najib Razak regarding his involvement in the 1MDB scandal has sparked significant public debate. The skepticism surrounding his sincerity, particularly as expressed by figures like Thomas Fann from Projek SAMA, highlights deeper concerns about accountability, the legal system, and political dynamics in Malaysia.
- Context of the Apology
Najib Razak, who served as Prime Minister from 2009 to 2018, has been embroiled in the 1MDB scandal — a massive financial fraud that allegedly misappropriated billions of dollars from a state investment fund. His apology comes amid ongoing legal battles, particularly regarding his conviction in the SRC International case, where the RM42m case went against him. It’s not clear whether the timing of his apology raises questions. Many observers speculate that it might be a strategy to garner leniency in his sentencing or to negotiate better terms for his incarceration, such as home detention. We disagree with these observations.
- Skepticism About Sincerity
Fann’s doubts about Najib’s sincerity are his Opinion which has no basis as it’s not law. Despite the apology, Najib rightly continues to assert his innocence concerning the larger 1MDB scheme. There’s no contradiction here. One can express remorse while simultaneously claiming to be a victim of political persecution. Fann’s assertion that Najib is either “intellectually impaired” or “complicit” speaks to a broader public sentiment based on contradictions. Apologies can come with accountability and actions that demonstrate genuine remorse.
If Najib were truly remorseful, Fann argues, he would fully cooperate with authorities, providing information that could lead to the prosecution of other individuals involved in the scandal viz. if he had any such information. Furthermore, a true expression of regret would call for the restitution of stolen funds still with parties known or unknown. The notion that “talk is cheap” was unwarranted and may be hitting below the belt. It may not underscore the expectation that sincere apologies must be backed by tangible actions.
- Legal Implications and Public Perception
The article also addresses the potential legal ramifications of Najib’s apology, especially if it leads to home detention.
Fann questions whether this sets a dangerous precedent: could any convicted individual simply issue an apology to reduce their sentence? This concern speaks to a larger fear among the public that justice may be administered unevenly, favouring the wealthy and powerful. If Najib was allowed to serve his sentence at home, it raises significant ethical and legal questions about the integrity of the Malaysian judicial system.
This perceived double standard is particularly troubling for a population already wary of corruption and political favoritism. If the government was seen to grant preferential treatment to Najib, it could erode public trust in the rule of law and the effectiveness of governance in Malaysia.
- Comparative Context: Other Political Figures
The comment by New Malaysia Herald columnist and jurist (legal scholar) Joe Fernandez references other political figures, such as former Sabah Chief Minister Tan Sri Musa Aman, who have faced legal scrutiny but have seemingly escaped the same level of accountability as Najib.
Musa Aman’s admission of receiving a substantial political donation without facing consequences illustrates a systemic issue: the enforcement of laws can be inconsistent.
Joe Fernandez’ point about the Attorney General’s (AG) failure to pursue civil actions against individuals involved in the RM42 million SRC case further exemplifies this inconsistency.
This selective enforcement raises critical questions about the political landscape in Malaysia. It suggests a need for systemic reforms to ensure that all individuals, regardless of their status, are held accountable for their actions. The discussion highlights the importance of transparency and fairness in the legal process to foster public confidence in government institutions.
Fernandez believes that house arrest can be based on Discretion of DG and Home Minister but there must be special circumstances.
House arrest law can restrict Discretion to the above.
Political prisoners would be under house arrest based on no law.
Society can avoid future Najib cases if it does not look the other way on the rule of law.
- Constitutional Considerations
The remarks from retired Judge Dato Seri Hishamuddin Yunus add another layer to this discourse. His assertion that Malaysia is a secular state, and that the Constitution cannot be amended to make it an Islamic state, emphasizes the foundational principles of governance in Malaysia. He argues that the Constitution is designed to ensure stability, peace, and opportunities for all citizens.
The implications of these constitutional principles are profound, especially in the context of Najib’s legal challenges. If the Basic Structure Doctrine (BSD) is invoked, it could offer protections to public officials that complicate legal proceedings against them. The discussion surrounding BFD raises critical questions about accountability in governance and the limits of political power.
- Ongoing Trials and Legal Proceedings
It is crucial to note that Najib’s trials regarding 1MDB are still ongoing, even as he serves his sentence for the SRC International case. The complexity of these legal battles highlights the need for a thorough and fair judicial process.
Fernandez’ concerns about Najib’s previous conviction not being fully perfected in law underscore the importance of meticulous legal standards. The public deserves clarity and justice, particularly in high-profile cases that involve substantial amounts of public money.
Furthermore, the notion that Najib remains a “political prisoner” adds a layer of complexity to his legal status. His supporters may frame his legal troubles as politically motivated, which complicates the public’s perception of justice. This narrative can be dangerous. It can undermine the very foundations of law and governance.
- The Role of Public Opinion
Public opinion plays a crucial role in shaping the narrative around Najib’s apology and legal situation. Many Malaysians feel a deep sense of injustice related to the 1MDB scandal, given its massive financial implications for the country. The emotional weight of this issue cannot be understated; it has a lasting impact on national trust in political leaders and institutions.
Fernandez’ appeal for a rigorous legal process and accountability reflects a broader societal demand for justice. As citizens voice their concerns, it becomes imperative for the government and legal institutions to respond appropriately. Failure to do so may exacerbate public discontent and lead to further skepticism regarding governance.
- Potential Political Repercussions
The potential political repercussions of Najib’s legal situation and public apology cannot be ignored. If Najib were to secure more lenient treatment, it could embolden other politicians facing legal scrutiny to seek similar concessions. This dynamic may set a troubling precedent for how justice is administered in Malaysia, particularly for high-profile individuals.
Moreover, the implications extend beyond Najib himself; they could affect the entire political landscape in Malaysia. The perception of unequal treatment under the law could galvanise public sentiment against the ruling government, leading to electoral consequences.
- Conclusion: The Path Forward
In summary, Najib Razak’s apology regarding the 1MDB scandal raises important questions about sincerity, accountability, and the integrity of Malaysia’s legal system. The skepticism surrounding his motivations was indicative of broader societal concerns regarding justice and equality before the law. The potential for unequal treatment of powerful individuals presents a significant challenge for governance in Malaysia.
Moving forward, it is crucial for the government to ensure that all individuals are held accountable for their actions, regardless of their status. Transparency, fairness, and adherence to the rule of law are vital to restoring public trust and confidence in governmental institutions. As Malaysia navigates these complex issues, the commitment to justice will ultimately determine the nation’s political and social fabric.
By addressing these concerns head-on and prioritizing genuine accountability, Malaysia can work towards a more equitable and just society for all its citizens.
[10/27, 11:01 AM] Joe Fernandez:
The judge in the SRC International case did not say that Najib stole the RM42m.
He said three things viz. the defence was bare denial, they RM42m was not his to spend (in fact the money was transferred by SRC from another company for CSR or corporate socactivities), and that he did not return the money.
There’s no law in Malaysia on political donation.
Former Sabah Chief Minister Tan Sri Musa Aman admitted in court on 8 June 2020 that he received RM380m political donation. It was proven in court that he received the RM380m in the form of personal benefits under the MACC Act 2009. It was bribery and corruption, based on abuse of power, conflict of interest and criminal breach of trust. The money came from timber contracts handed out from Sabah Foundation concession areas.
Musa Aman still keeps the money. The court did not order the return of the money.
The Warisan government, through Sabah Foundation, sued Musa Aman for nearly RM1b but excluding the RM380m. The case was dropped after the GRS government took power on 26 September 2020.
In law, Article 8 in Malaysia, there can be no discrimination.
The court has the list of the nine people who got the RM42m SRC money.
The Attorney General (AG) should have filed civil action against the nine people and frozen, seized and forfeited the money.
Alternatively, Najib could have deposited the RM42m in court. The SRC would have to prove the claim for the money.
The High Court did not visit the jurisdictional and constitutional issues on the RM42m SRC International case.
Under the BFD (Basic Features Doctrine), which permeates the Constitution, the Prime Minister, government and Parliament stands indemnified, has immunity, and implicit Pardon for acts in office. No distinction can be made between acts in public office and private criminal acts while in public office. The threshold cannot be crossed.
The US Supreme Court, implying BFD exists in the US Constitution, declared that the president has immunity for acts in public office but not for private criminal acts while in public office. The court however, in the same ruling, cautioned that the threshold can’t be crossed from acts in public office and consider private act.
The SRC case will haunt future governments.
Najib was jailed, unrepresented, on 23 August 2022 just before GE15 and thereby denied participation in the general election.
Najib’s conviction wasn’t perfected in law for perfection in law. He remains political prisoner who wasn’t placed under house arrest.
Head of Federal Court Review Panel Judge Abdul Rahman Sebli found many transgressions against Najib and ruled DNA. He saw, for the same reasons, retrial as pointless.
Sebli was the only ruling.
The other four judges, led by Judge Datuk Vernon Ong, found the court has no jurisdiction since Review was argued by defence as Appeal for another bite at the cherry.
The four judges struck out the case. — NMH
Related Internal Link . . .
Longtime Borneo watcher Joe Fernandez has been writing for many years on both sides of the Southeast Asia Sea. He should not be mistaken for a namesake formerly with the Daily Express in Kota Kinabalu. JF keeps a Blog under FernzTheGreat on the nature of human relationships.
Facebook Comments
Facebook Comments