Accountability is essential, but Malaysia must also ensure that legitimate executive judgement is not confused with criminal conduct. The distinction matters not only to politics, but to investor confidence, Corporate Malaysia and the ability of future governments to make difficult decisions.
There was something unsettling about the sight of three former prime ministers facing separate legal proceedings in Malaysia today.
For some, it was apparently a moment to celebrate. For others, an opportunity to gloat.
I find that response disappointing.
Not because former prime ministers should be above the law. They should not.
Not because those who have held the highest political office should not be held accountable. They absolutely should.
And certainly not because anyone should be protected if there is evidence of corruption, abuse of power or personal enrichment.
But because the spectacle raises a much bigger question — one that goes far beyond Najib Razak, Muhyiddin Yassin, Ismail Sabri Yaakob, UMNO or Bersatu.
What does this say about the way Malaysia understands executive power, political accountability and the exercise of judgement at the highest level of government?
That is a question Corporate Malaysia and investors should be asking.
Nobody should be above the law. But neither should every decision become a potential crime.
A Prime Minister is elected precisely because we expect that person to make decisions.
Some will be good. Some will be bad. Some will be controversial. Some will ultimately prove to be mistakes.
That is governance.
Prime ministers make decisions on infrastructure, procurement, national security, foreign investment, subsidies, GLCs, public-private partnerships and economic policy — often with incomplete information and competing interests.
If a decision made in good faith subsequently produces a bad outcome, that does not automatically make it corrupt.
There is a fundamental difference between bad judgement and criminal conduct; policy failure and abuse of power; political accountability and criminal liability.
If we lose sight of those distinctions, we risk creating a government culture in which nobody wants to make a decision.
Imagine being the next Prime Minister
Imagine being a newly elected Prime Minister.
You are expected to make bold decisions, attract investment, approve major projects and take calculated risks in the national interest.
Then you look at the leaders who came before you and ask:
“If I make a difficult decision today, can someone ten years from now decide that my judgement was wrong and turn that decision into a criminal allegation?”
That is not a healthy question for any executive government to contemplate.
Nor is it healthy for civil servants, government-linked companies, boards and corporate executives who must implement those decisions.
The result can be decision paralysis.
People stop taking responsibility. Approvals multiply. Everyone wants another committee, another opinion, another layer of protection.
The safest decision becomes the one nobody makes.
And countries do not become competitive that way.
Investors are looking for predictability
Foreign investors do not simply ask whether Malaysia has good infrastructure, skilled workers or attractive incentives.
They ask whether Malaysia is predictable.
Can a company rely on a government contract?
Will a regulatory decision survive a change in administration?
Are institutions independent?
Are rules applied consistently?
Can legitimate business decisions be defended years later?
Capital is mobile. Investors can choose Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore or elsewhere.
The competition is not merely about tax rates or incentives.
It is about confidence.
Today’s enforcement action can, of course, send a positive message if it demonstrates that no political leader is above the law.
But there is another side to the equation.
If investors begin to believe that legitimate executive decisions can be revisited years later through a politically charged lens, that too becomes a risk.
The rule of law must mean more than the ability to prosecute. It must also mean predictability in how the law is applied.
Should Prime Ministers have some protection while in office?
Perhaps Malaysia should be prepared to have this difficult conversation.
We could consider a form of qualified immunity for a sitting Prime Minister in respect of bona fide official acts undertaken in the exercise of constitutional and executive functions.
Not blanket immunity.
Not immunity for corruption, bribery, embezzlement, personal enrichment or deliberate abuse of office.
Rather, protection for legitimate executive decision-making while a person is entrusted with running the government.
The principle should be simple:
Protect the office. Do not protect corruption.
Once the person leaves office, accountability should resume.
But any reform must be extremely careful about retrospectivity. Parliament should not create a new criminal offence and then apply it to conduct that was lawful when it occurred.
If Malaysia is serious about reforming the relationship between executive authority and legal accountability, the answer should be to establish clear rules for tomorrow — not rewrite yesterday’s criminal law.
This is not about protecting three men
Perhaps this is what some of my friends are missing when they snicker at today’s events.
You can believe that Najib should answer for whatever the courts determine.
You can believe Muhyiddin should face trial.
You can believe Ismail Sabri should answer the charge brought against him.
And you can still believe that Malaysia needs to think very seriously about what this means for the institution of executive government.
Those positions are not contradictory.
This is not about Malays.
It is not about UMNO.
It is not about Bersatu.
It is not even about three former prime ministers.
It is about whether Malaysia is building a political system governed by strong institutions — or one in which every change of government risks turning the decisions of the previous government into a new battlefield.
That distinction matters enormously to Corporate Malaysia.
It matters to CEOs and boards. It matters to civil servants. It matters to foreign investors.
And it matters to the next Prime Minister.
We should want our Prime Ministers to be afraid of breaking the law.
We should not want them to be afraid of making a decision.
Malaysia needs leaders who can exercise judgement, institutions capable of holding them accountable, and laws clear enough to tell the difference.
That is not weakness.
That is institutional maturity.
And perhaps, instead of laughing at three former Prime Ministers appearing in court on the same day, we should be asking ourselves a much more consequential question:
What kind of country do we want the next Prime Minister to inherit — and what kind of country do we want investors to believe Malaysia is? – NMH
Datin Hasnah is the co-founder and CEO of New Malaysia Herald based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
With an extensive background in mass communication and journalism, she works on building up New Malaysia Herald and it’s partner sites. A tireless and passionate evangalist, she champions autism studies and support groups.
Datin Hasnah is also the Editor in Chief of New Malaysia Herald.
Facebook Comments
Facebook Comments