The decision in the 1MDB-Tanore case involving former prime minister Najib Razak was delivered in open court on 26 December 2025. More than three months on, the full written grounds of judgment have yet to be issued.

This is not, in itself, unprecedented. Delays in the preparation of written grounds have occurred in other complex and high-profile cases, particularly where the record is voluminous and the issues are intricate. But the present situation provides a timely case study — not of any individual judge, but of a broader procedural question.

What happens to the rights of an accused person when the reasoning of the court is not made available in time?

An Unusual Timeline

The 1MDB-Tanore decision was delivered on 26 December 2025, during what is typically a year-end holiday period.

Proceedings began in the morning and continued for much of the day, with the court reading extensively from prepared notes in delivering its decision, right until 8.30 that evening.

In the course of proceedings, Judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah also indicated — upon application by counsel for the accused — that the written grounds would be made available in due course, noting that the material would need to be compiled and arranged in a more methodical form.

These observations are not unusual in themselves. Judges often prepare detailed notes ahead of delivery, particularly in complex cases, and may subsequently refine and organise their written grounds.

However, they do underscore a central point: that substantive reasoning has already been articulated, even if the final written form remains pending.

The question, therefore, is not whether reasons exist — but when they will be made fully accessible.

The Eight-Week Expectation

In Malaysia, the preparation of written grounds of judgment is guided by long-standing judicial practice. Pekeliling Ketua Pendaftar Bil. 1/2002 sets an expectation that such grounds be prepared within eight weeks from the filing of a notice of appeal, with reasons to be recorded if that timeline is not met.

This expectation was reaffirmed in a 2025 communication from the Chief Judge of Malaya, underscoring the continued importance of timeliness within the system.

These are not rigid statutory deadlines. Judges must grapple with complex evidence, detailed submissions, and the need to produce decisions that can withstand appellate scrutiny. Time, in such cases, is not a luxury but a necessity.

Yet the existence of an established timeframe suggests that timeliness is not incidental — it is integral.

When Delay Meets the Right of Appeal

The issue, therefore, is not whether delay can occur, but when delay begins to carry consequences.

The right of appeal is a cornerstone of the criminal justice process. But it must be a meaningful right. Appeals are built on reasoning: on understanding how and why a decision was reached, what findings were made, and how the law was applied.

Without full written grounds, the defence is placed in a constrained position. Strategic decisions must be made without complete visibility. Grounds of appeal may be framed without the benefit of the court’s full reasoning.

In practical terms, the process risks becoming reactive rather than considered.

Lessons from Past Cases

Malaysian appellate courts have, on occasion, acknowledged the importance of timely and complete written grounds in facilitating effective appeals.

In Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor, issues relating to the timing and availability of written grounds were raised in the broader context of appellate preparation, highlighting the importance of full reasoning in enabling effective appeals.

Similarly, in Public Prosecutor v Mohd Radhi bin Yaakob, the courts underscored that appellate review depends fundamentally on the trial judge’s reasoning — reinforcing that written grounds are not a mere formality, but an essential component of justice.

These cases do not suggest that delay invalidates a decision. But they illustrate a consistent principle: appellate justice depends on timely and complete reasoning.

Beyond Administrative Delay

None of this suggests impropriety, nor does it diminish the complexity of cases before the courts.

But where established timelines are exceeded by a significant margin, the question shifts. It is no longer about administrative delay alone, but about its impact on the fairness of subsequent proceedings.

Justice is not only about outcomes, but about process. And process includes the timely articulation of reasons.

A judgment delivered without its full written grounds leaves a gap — one that the appellate process is expected to bridge. The longer that gap persists, the more difficult that task becomes.

The 1MDB-Tanore Delay: A Question Worth Asking

At what point, then, does delay cease to be a matter of practicality and begin to affect the fairness of the process itself?

Justice delayed in its reasoning may not overturn a decision — but it can shape the fairness of what comes next. – NMH

The post 1MDB-Tanore – Delay in Written Grounds Raises Questions of Fairness first appeared on NMH.

Many people have heard of the phrases “kangaroo court” and “hanging judge.”

However, experiencing or discussing these issues in Malaysia is a different matter entirely.

It’s so sensitive that you could even be charged with contempt of court for bringing it up.

This chilling reality is exemplified by two high-profile court cases involving former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

The Missing Addendum

On 29 January 2024, Malaysia’s then King, Sultan Abdullah Ahmad Shah of Pahang, chaired the Pardons Board meeting where Najib’s 12-year prison sentence was halved, and his RM210 million fine was reduced to RM50 million.

Following this, Najib claimed there was a royal addendum allowing him to serve his sentence at home.

Initially, Najib contacted the Attorney-General’s chambers using various mediums about this matter through his defence team, but his claims were ignored.

Undeterred, he took the issue to court.

In July 2024, the Kuala Lumpur High Court dismissed Najib’s application, stating that his claims about the “addendum” were mere hearsay.

High Court Judge Datuk Amarjeet Singh ruled that the affidavits presented were inadmissible, as they were based on what others had “heard” rather than personal knowledge.

Specifically, he noted that statements from Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and Pahang Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Wan Rosdy Wan Ismail relied on second-hand information from then-Minister Tengku Zafrul Tengku Abdul Aziz.

The judge concluded that there was no case warranting further investigation at that time.

However, in January 2025, the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s dismissal with a 2-1 majority ruling, stating that the hearsay argument “no longer stands” due to new evidence.

Another Kangaroo Court

In December 2025, a different High Court judge ruled that the order regarding the addendum was constitutionally invalid because it was never properly discussed or decided by the Pardons Board.

This ruling effectively dismissed Najib’s attempt to enforce the addendum for house arrest, although the debate over the addendum’s existence and validity is likely to continue in legal circles.

First, it was dismissed as hearsay, and then deemed invalid.

This is how the Malaysian courts handled a matter linked to a royal decree when Najib Razak was in the spotlight.

The situation raises serious questions about the integrity of the judiciary and the rule of law in Malaysia.

The Infamous 1MDB Decision: A Judicial Farce

Najib has been handed a staggering 15-year prison sentence and a jaw-dropping fine of RM11.38 billion.

This massive ruling stems from the misappropriation of RM2.3 billion from the beleaguered 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).

The verdict, delivered by Federal Court Judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah, followed Najib’s conviction on four counts of abuse of power and 21 counts of money laundering.

Judge Sequerah firmly dismissed Najib’s claims that he had been misled by his subordinates or the elusive financier, Low Taek Jho, better known as Jho Low.

Jho Low faces charges in several countries over this scandal, where billions have been recovered and properties confiscated.

Yet, in all these countries, Najib was never named as a suspect in the 1MDB affair.

What Integrity?

This raises serious questions about the integrity of the judicial process in Malaysia.

Despite Jho Low still being at large, Judge Sequerah ruled that several “credible” witnesses were sufficient to convict Najib.

Ironically, almost all the witnesses put forward by the prosecution had questionable ties to Jho Low.

Take Jasmine Loo, for instance, who was on the run until she was arrested overseas and later deported back to Malaysia.

Her assets have been seized in multiple countries due to her links to 1MDB, yet she was deemed a “credible” witness in the Malaysian courts.

Then there’s Tan Sri Zeti Aziz, the former Bank Negara Governor, whose husband and son were ordered to pay millions by the Singapore government over 1MDB-related issues.

Despite being at the helm of Bank Negara during the scandal, she was also labelled a “credible” witness.

This is how the judicial system operates in Malaysia, especially in high-profile cases where many have become victims of a flawed system.

Another poignant example of this is our current Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Anwar has faced imprisonment twice: first for abuse of power, then for sodomy.

The 10th Prime Minister has consistently maintained that he is a victim of Malaysia’s judiciary.

It would be enlightening to see Anwar pen a memoir detailing his experiences within this troubled legal landscape. – NMH

The post Kangaroo Court and Hanging Judges: A Disturbing Reality first appeared on NMH.

The Royal Addendum — a written instruction exercising the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s constitutional power of mercy — has been rejected by the courts. Legally, the matter may be closed. Politically and constitutionally, however, the decision widens a dangerous precedent: it signals that even a royal instruction invoking mercy can be dismissed without meaningful engagement with the Rulers themselves.

A Royal Pardon, in this case brought out in the Royal Addendum issued by Malaysia’s 16th King, is not a declaration of innocence. It is not a technical loophole in the justice system. It is an act of mercy — a constitutional safeguard meant to humanise the law when strict procedure may satisfy legality but fail justice.

That is why this is far more than a case about one former prime minister.
It is about the Power of Mercy and the health of Malaysia’s constitutional monarchy.

Royal Addendum – When Mercy Becomes a Paper Tiger

In a constitutional monarchy, the Agong’s powers are not ceremonial. The prerogative of mercy exists as a moral counterbalance to the rigidity of law — a reminder that justice without humanity risks becoming cruelty.

Yet the King’s addendum was rejected largely on procedural grounds, without public engagement with the palace, without transparency on whether legal advice was sought by the Agong, and without reassurance that royal discretion was meaningfully weighed.

If mercy can be so easily constrained today, what happens tomorrow when a case involves another citizen, another monarch, or another constitutional test?

The silence of the Malay Rulers on this matter is deeply troubling. Silence risks normalising a future in which mercy exists only in theory — acknowledged in law, but sidelined in practice.

From Royal Instruction to Political Celebration

Then came the politics.

DAP’s Yeo Bee Yin posted: “Another reason to celebrate this year end.”

Separately, Raja Sara Petra Kamarudin summarised the outcome starkly:

The King’s addendum rejected.
House arrest denied.
Three years remain in Kajang.

Both statements are legally accurate. Only one is celebratory. And that distinction matters.

Yeo Bee Yin’s post caused more damage than the courts themselves — not because Najib Razak is innocent, but because it confirmed what many within UMNO have long suspected: this was never solely about law or justice. It was also about humiliation.

Justice demands restraint.
Mercy demands humility.
Celebration demands neither — and has no place when constitutional prerogatives are at stake.

UMNO’s Silence Is the Real Test Of The Addendum

This is where the focus shifts from Najib to UMNO.

UMNO sits in government. UMNO provides parliamentary stability. UMNO bears the political and emotional cost of a unity government — repeatedly.

Yet when a senior figure from within the same government publicly celebrates Najib’s continued incarceration, UMNO is cornered.

This is no longer just a legal or moral matter.
It is a political insult.

Will UMNO remain silent yet again?
Will it issue another carefully worded statement about “respecting the courts” while its dignity is publicly eroded?

Every time Najib is mocked by political allies, it is not Najib alone who is diminished. It is UMNO’s bargaining power, its relevance, and its standing within the coalition.

A unity government cannot survive on asymmetry — where one partner absorbs the blows while another pops the champagne.

Also read: BLACK DAY FOR JUSTICE FOR MALAYSIA AS NAJIB BEGINS SENTENCE

The Precedent That Remains

Najib Razak will continue serving his sentence.
The courts have spoken.

But the precedent remains.

A royal instruction invoking mercy can be dismissed without the Rulers’ voice.
Political allies can celebrate a partner’s humiliation without consequence.
And the constitutional meaning of the Royal Pardon can be quietly narrowed.

The King’s addendum may be rejected.
But the erosion of mercy has been recorded.

Now we wait — not for the courts, but for the Rulers to reflect, and for UMNO to decide whether it still understands the power it claims to defend.

Because when mercy is weakened, justice itself becomes smaller. – NMH

The post Royal Addendum: When The Power Of Mercy Is Being Quietly Eroded first appeared on NMH.

Shafee: Liberty Cannot Be Suspended

KUALA LUMPUR – Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah’s statement today, issued in reaction to the press release by the Prime Minister’s Office and the Attorney-General Chambers, is more than a defence of his client, former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak. It is a reminder that Malaysia’s justice system must remain vigilant against executive overreach. His words underscore the principle that liberty, once granted by the constitution, cannot be suspended at the convenience of the government.

Shafee’s insistence that a house arrest order — if granted — must be enforced immediately is not simply a procedural point. It is a constitutional one. To delay such an order would be to dilute the very meaning of liberty, reducing fundamental rights to administrative discretion.

Evidence and Fair Trial

Equally significant are Shafee’s concerns about access to evidence. He has pointed out that crucial documents and testimonies, including those linked to Goldman Sachs and Tim Leissner, remain out of reach for Najib’s defence team. If exculpatory material is withheld, the fairness of the trial itself comes into question.

This is not a matter of sympathy for a single defendant. It is about whether Malaysia’s courts can uphold the principle that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.

Executive Commentary and Public Confidence

The government’s press statement may have been intended to reassure the public, but Shafee’s response highlights a deeper issue: the risk of executive commentary shaping perceptions of ongoing judicial proceedings. When official pronouncements appear to pre-empt or condition court decisions, they erode confidence in the independence of the judiciary.

Why It Matters

Malaysia’s judiciary now faces a defining test. Will it enforce constitutional rights without compromise, or will political calculation seep into the administration of justice? Shafee’s statement ensures that this question cannot be ignored.

This case is not just about Najib Razak. It is about the credibility of Malaysia’s institutions, the separation of powers, and the assurance that constitutional guarantees are more than words on paper.

Crucial Week Ahead for Najib

Next week will mark a decisive moment for Datuk Seri Najib Razak. On 22 December, the High Court is scheduled to deliver its ruling on the Addendum application, which could determine whether Najib is entitled to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest. Just days later, on 26 December, Justice Collin Lawrence Sequerah will pronounce judgment in the long‑running 1MDB–Tanore trial, a case that has been central to Malaysia’s most high‑profile financial scandal. Together, these back‑to‑back decisions will shape not only Najib’s immediate future but also the wider narrative of judicial independence and accountability in Malaysia.

Closing Thoughts

Beyond Malaysia’s borders, the implications of these two cases are closely watched. Judicial independence is not only a domestic concern but also a marker of credibility in the eyes of investors, international partners, and global institutions. When constitutional rights are seen to be compromised or subject to political influence, confidence in Malaysia’s governance and economic stability can be shaken. Shafee’s statement, therefore, is more than a legal defence — it is a reminder that the integrity of the justice system is inseparable from the nation’s reputation on the world stage. – NMH

The post Shafee: Authorities’ Statement Raises Concerns About Judicial Independence first appeared on NMH.

The issue of whether former Prime Minister Najib Razak will be allowed to serve the remainder of his prison sentence at home has reignited a national debate about the role of the monarchy in Malaysia’s justice system.

The Royal Addendum issued by the Pahang Sultan Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri’ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah when he was Malaysia’s 16th King in 2024, granting Najib the privilege to serve his sentence under house arrest, has been mired in legal and political challenges, with certain parties within the government seemingly ignoring or undermining the King’s decree. But does the government have the authority to disregard this decision? And more crucially, is the King’s word now being sidelined?

In a landmark move, the previous Yang di-Pertuan Agong issued an Addendum to the Royal Decree that would have allowed Najib to serve the rest of his sentence under house detention instead of in prison. The letter containing this decree was forwarded to the then Attorney-General (AG), Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh, but it was never acted upon. Instead, the document was sent to the current King for review, despite being an explicit directive from the previous monarch.

The failure of the AG and the government to execute the Royal Order raises fundamental questions: why was it ignored, and whose interests are being served by this inaction?

This even brought Najib to lodge a police report over the former AG’s alleged criminal misconduct of which the case has been brought to court and will be heard on 19 August this year.

Najib Razak’s Legal Stand

Frustrated by the lack of action, Najib took matters into his own hands. He wrote to the government and various relevant bodies demanding answers regarding the non-execution of the Addendum. Najib has cited Article 42 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees the rights of citizens, including those who have been incarcerated, to be treated fairly and to have their rights upheld. He has argued that by withholding the Addendum, the government is depriving him of his legitimate entitlement as a citizen of Malaysia, a right granted to him by the monarch.

The Government’s Response, Or Lack Of

The current Attorney-General, Tan Sri Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar, in an attempt to defend the government’s stance, recently made an appeal to the Court of Appeal ruling. The AG argued that Najib did not act with due diligence in obtaining the Addendum letter, which was only presented by Najib’s son, Datuk Mohd Nizar, via an affidavit a day before the Appeal court hearing. This argument hinges on the assertion that it was Najib’s responsibility to ensure that the letter was in his possession.

However, the core of the issue is that the duty to deliver such a decree falls squarely on the government. It is not the responsibility of the individual or their family members to chase down royal decrees or exercise their rights in the absence of government action.

Tan Sri Shafee’s Stand

Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, counsel for Najib Razak, has been presenting compelling arguments at the Federal Court, shedding light on critical aspects of the case. One key point raised by Shafee relates to the Addendum, which pertains to the Royal Decree that would allow Najib to serve the remainder of his sentence under house detention. In response to the AG’s contention, Shafee explained that the language used in the two documents — the Pardon that specifies the reduction of sentence and fine, and the house detention order — differs because they were drafted by two different officers. In fact, Shafee pointed out that the language in the Addendum was “more regal” than the document containing the Pardon.

Shafee also highlighted a significant issue regarding communication between Najib’s legal team and the relevant authorities. He cited that all attempts to request clarification about the Addendum were met with silence, despite multiple letters sent to the relevant parties. This lack of response contrasts with the AG’s argument that Datuk Nizar, Najib’s son, should have presented the affidavit containing the letter from the Istana earlier. The AG claimed that, despite being incarcerated, Najib had access to all facilities and could have arranged for the documents to be acquired sooner. Moreover, the AG pointed out that Nizar, being a member of the Pahang Exco, could have approached the Istana directly for consultation on the matter.

This of course brought sighs of consternation from those in the courtroom as most Malaysians are aware, there is an art and certain protocols to observe when dealing with the Palace. Like this writer stated in my FB post: “We are talking about the Istana here. We must wait for them to call us. That is why we use the term ‘mencemar duli’.” This remark alludes to the established protocol when dealing with the royal palace, emphasizing the necessity of waiting for an invitation from the Istana. The term “mencemar duli” refers to the traditional practice of showing proper respect to the royal family by not making any unsolicited approach to the Istana, highlighting the need for formal invitation or engagement.

This key point of the legal argument underscores the delicate and formal nature of dealing with the monarchy, reminding both the court and the public of the protocols that govern such interactions. It is clear from Shafee’s statement and the surrounding context that the AG’s assumption that Najib and his team should have acted outside these formal protocols fails to acknowledge the unique and regulated relationship between the government and the Istana.

The Monarchy and the Rule of Law

The heart of this controversy lies in the very foundation of Malaysia’s Constitution: the role of the King. As the custodian of the nation’s sovereignty, the King holds the exclusive right to issue pardons, reprieves, and other forms of mercy. To challenge or disregard this prerogative undermines the very institution of the monarchy and raises serious concerns about the erosion of the rule of law.

It is essential to remind the Malaysian public that the monarch’s authority is enshrined in Article 42 of the Federal Constitution, which grants the King the power to pardon, to commute sentences, and to take other actions as deemed necessary. The refusal to execute the Royal Addendum directly challenges this constitutional right and places the monarchy in a precarious position.

Call to the Rulers

With the upcoming Conference of Rulers meeting, expected to be held on 16 and 17 July 2025, there is a growing call for the rulers to weigh in on this issue. It is a critical moment for the monarchy to assert its authority and ensure that the rule of law is upheld. If certain government officials continue to flout the Royal Decree, it raises a serious question: Is the King’s word now no longer valid? Should the Rulers, as the highest authority in Malaysia, intervene to protect the integrity of the monarchy?

Ignoring a Royal Decree is not just a matter of legal negligence; it could very well be seen as an affront to the very fabric of Malaysia’s constitutional monarchy. The implications of such actions go beyond Najib’s case—they represent a potential crack in the foundation of the monarchy’s role in the nation.

In conclusion, as the legal battle over Najib Razak’s sentence continues, the wider issue of respecting the monarchy’s authority comes into sharper focus. The Malaysian government must decide whether it will continue to ignore the wishes of the monarchy or whether it will uphold the decrees issued by the King. The upcoming Conference of Rulers presents an opportunity for the monarchy to make its stance clear, ensuring that royal decrees are respected and that the King’s authority remains intact in the eyes of the people. – NMH

The post House Detention For Najib: A Constitutional Dilemma first appeared on NMH.

Terrorism is a crime of the most heinous nature, often equated with war crimes or crimes against humanity due to its devastating impact on society. While a universal definition of terrorism remains elusive, the United Nations provides a widely accepted interpretation, defining it as:

“Any action that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.”

This definition underscores the deliberate targeting of civilians and the use of violence as a tool to instil fear, achieve political objectives, or exert coercion, marking terrorism as a profound violation of human rights and international norms.

This definition also does not reference any specific religion, class, or creed. This omission reflects the principle that terrorism and criminality are not tied to any particular faith, ideology, or demographic. However, there is a widespread perception that the fear of terrorism is synonymous with a fear of those practicing Islam or adhering to other religions. The stereotype that “all terrorists are Muslim,” or worse, that “all Muslims are terrorists,” is not only factually incorrect but also inherently racist.

Conflating Terrorism With Islam On A Global Scale

Some commentators perpetuate this misconception by demonising Muslims and claiming that Islam is incompatible with Western democratic values. This conflation of terrorism with Islam fosters intolerance, discrimination, and prejudice against Muslims on a global scale. Alarmingly, such views have taken root not only in the West but also among individuals from non-Western backgrounds, including academics, activists, and religious leaders.

The conflation of terrorism with Islam fosters intolerance, discrimination, and prejudice against Muslims on a global scale

It is crucial to recognize that acts of terrorism have been committed by individuals from diverse faiths and backgrounds, often driven by motives such as revenge, retaliation, or the promotion of specific ideologies. Broadly attributing terrorism to a single religion is not only unjust but also counterproductive in fostering mutual understanding and combating terrorism effectively.

Religion is often defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, typically involving devotional practices, rituals, and a moral code that governs human behaviour. Terrorism, on the other hand, is an action or threat aimed at influencing governments or intimidating the public to advance political, religious, or ideological agendas.

While religion is generally seen as a guiding framework to embrace a particular set of beliefs, in Malaysia, religions are largely practiced in ways that emphasize peace, tolerance, and harmony. Acts of violence, including terrorism, extremism, hate, and discrimination, are considered fundamentally incompatible with the tenets of religious practices in Malaysia and the principles enshrined in the Federal Constitution. As such, terrorism is viewed as a grave offence under Malaysian law.

Serious Crimes

Under Section 130 (Part VIa) of the Penal Code, acts of terrorism are classified as serious crimes that fall under the jurisdiction of the High Courts of Malaya (Malaysia). Specifically, Section 130C(1) of the Penal Code prescribes severe penalties: individuals who commit terrorist acts that result in death may face the death penalty, while other terrorist acts are punishable with imprisonment for a term ranging from seven to thirty years, along with the possibility of a fine.

This legal framework reflects Malaysia’s commitment to maintaining peace and addressing acts of terrorism with utmost seriousness. Within the scope of Section 130 of the Penal Code, certain offences may be construed as crimes of strict liability, although the interpretation of strict liability depends on judicial precedents. For instance, under Section 130JB(1), a person found in possession, custody, or control of any item associated with a terrorist group or the commission of a terrorist act—whether through providing, displaying, distributing, or selling such items—faces penalties including imprisonment for up to seven years, a fine, and the forfeiture of the items in question.

This stringent prohibition underscores the gravity of terrorism-related crimes, such as acting as money carriers (mules), financing terrorism, promoting terrorist groups or their ideologies, or possessing terrorism-related materials. These offences are considered highly detrimental to public safety and security, emphasizing the seriousness with which they are addressed under Malaysian law. Thus, terrorism and related offences are classified as crimes of the highest order, adjudicated by the criminal High Courts rather than the Shariah Courts, as they are not considered to be religious crimes.

Factually & Historically Inaccurate

While deviations from Islamic faith practices may fall within the jurisdiction of Syariah Courts, such deviations do not equate to acts of terrorism. Any conflation of religion, particularly Islam, with terrorism is both factually and historically inaccurate. Terrorism transcends boundaries of colour, race, gender, religion, and creed, manifesting as acts of indiscriminate and incomprehensible violence. Recognizing this distinction is essential to preventing the spread of prejudice and ensuring that terrorism is addressed as a universal threat to peace and humanity.

Given the clear jurisdiction of terrorism offences under the Malaysian criminal courts, it is crucial that rehabilitation and deradicalisation programs address the behaviour and criminal acts of perpetrators rather than focusing solely on their ideologies.

The Federal Constitution guarantees the freedom of belief, and being labelled a radical does not inherently constitute a crime, nor does holding radical beliefs necessarily result in criminal behaviour. Furthermore, there is no precise legal definition of “radicalism,” in the Malaysian law as it remains a subjective and personal label. Assuming that correcting an individual’s ideology is the sole method of rehabilitation perpetuates the misconception that Islam equates to terrorism and vice versa. This notion is as flawed as suggesting that prisoners or criminals inherently lack proper ideology or faith, ignoring the reality that even devout individuals have committed crimes. While theological perspectives can address misconceptions about religion, the inclination to commit crime and violence requires specialized treatment by professionals such as criminologists, sociologists, psychologists, therapists, and counsellors within structured rehabilitation and deradicalisation programs.

To move forward, it is essential to end the conflation of terrorism or violence with religion. Programs aimed at rehabilitating individuals involved in terrorism should be tailored to address their criminal behaviour and psychological tendencies, ensuring they no longer pose a threat to society. Ultimately, terrorism must be viewed and treated as an act of crime and not dependent on religion or ideology per se because it is, and will always remain, a criminal act. – NMH

Also read:

What I think of Zakir Naik

 2024: End Of A Crappy Trilogy

The post Terrorism Should Not Be Conflated With Religion first appeared on NMH.

This will be a follow-up to my reviews of the years 2022 and 2023 both years which got progressively worse especially for us Malaysians. This year, 2024, ends the (hopefully) the shitty trilogy – the next era will be made for TV short-lived miniseries – if you get my cynicism here. Unless Malaysians get to their senses and do something about it – like not believing that one man can reduce the fuel price the next day after he wins election. Simple, right?

And that would be an understatement, especially when you take note of the great pile of dung that has speedily been gathering up lately, especially with inept leadership all over the world, most notably in our own country, and that nature really, really hates us.

Allow me to weave in and out of the country, to the international events, and pick some of the most interesting events, which usually means lots of face-palming and groaning. Hold on to your horses, or, anything else, err…handy.

X-citing Leadership

In the global arena, mid-January was greeted by the appointment of a new King in Denmark (yes, descendants of Hamlet, in a way), Crown Prince Frederick who would be King Frederick X. Malaysians would probably be taken aback a trifle to note that, yes, we have our own very X, PMX (not to be confused with the motocross bicycle…you know, the one you ride on). The algebraic nature of X being filled with anything and everything will be the theme of our prime minister – that has since baffled his most hardcore supporters, especially members of the Bersih coalition that used to surrender themselves on the road, rolling their bodies on tar and gravel like Hindu devotees during Thaipusam. The leader and agent provocateur of the coalition, Margaret Hamilton, pardon me, Ambiga Sreenivasan, later expressed her disappointment over the slow-reform that the current leadership has been doling out. Gee Ambi, what were you expecting? Another Abraham Lincoln? Here we have a former jailbird who got behind bare not because he fought for our country’s freedom, but his sexual freedom.

The good news, though, for Malaysians, like Denmark, we got ourselves a new King too. This time, it’s the no-nonsense Sultan of Johore. Those who know the Johore royalty (I come from that state) knows that the members there do not treat words like meat in Bolognese sauce. They love the subjects (Johoreans, not you other buggers and gals) and are equally very firm. And yes, we use pasta for our laksa.

The first thing the king did was to give warnings to the MPs in parliament to not “overstep the boundaries”. This is very much in the view that the parliament has indeed become circus-like with cracks in the alliances, hocus pocus of quitting nd some MPs going rogue like batik-wearing Rambo or something.

The Swift US of A

Speaking of which, the US continued with its usual way of life, including another school shooting incident killing a sixth grader and wounding 7 other folks. Ah, American way of life, the NFL, Budweiser and shooting of kids in school – a great tradition like Thanksgiving turkey that goes all the way to 1764.

February though – bereft of any schoolkid shooting – still belonged to the Americans and one in particular – Joe Biden…. Haha, who am I kidding? 2024, as far as US is concerned belonged to Taylor Swift. Yes, the world was invaded by Swiftmania rather…err, swiftly. Why, according to this entry, “…she made history when she won the Grammy Award for album of the year for Midnights (2022), becoming the first artist to win in that category four times. Later that year she broke the record for the highest-grossing concert tour when her global Eras Tour wrapped up in December, having earned a whopping $2 billion”. That could feed the members of the entire Forbes billionaire list.

Malaysians were so charmed, so much so, they watched in awe as Swift performed live in …. Singapore. It’s no secret that international artists tend to jump over our country like clogged drain to the island next door to do mega concerts. Hell, even over-the-hill Indian artistes are postponing their concerts…and typical of discipline-averse Indian artistes –  with their “great management skills”  – the concert  “A Lovely Night with Udit Narayan”, was called off days before it was due to be held at the Setia Spice Arena on Nov 28. This is actually a sequel to another Bollywood concert pulled out last minute at end of last year as well. A concerted coitus interruptus.

There is nothing wrong with that. It is just that we already have the reputation for banning artists from coming and performing here; there is a whole bunch of history of us banning musicians coming here to play. To the point that most international artists look at us the way vegetarian monks look at medium rare steaks.

KK ‘k?

Come March, we had the Kalimah Allah issue (yeah, you are permitted to shake your head slowly, sadly, and sigh your tobacco or vape smoke out), which I have written about in-depth here. There were cries of boycott and braying for blood. It has so much of effect that the affected party, the KK convenience store, has opened up more outlets. Whole point of being a” convenience” store which we call out for blood conveniently and then shop for convenience, parking our vehicles next to the outlet… illegally. It’s a must or you are not a Malaysian. It’s business as usual now for KK Mart and its customers. Others may call it hypocrisy; we call it, “quick to forgive”. Hey it’s in all holy books.

Bombing Aids

As the conflict in Middle-East continued in the tradition of 1001 Nights, March also saw – surprise, surprise – the US dropping humanitarian aid in the war-torn Northern Gaza. What do you call a duck hunter that kills the mother duck, and spreads seeds for the ducklings. Fattening them up?

Naturally, wry comments sprung up, whereby Dave Harden, a former USAID director, noted, “The airdrops are symbolic and designed in ways to appease the domestic base.”.

Skin Theatre

Actually the whole bloody operation was completely criticised for being screwed up, whereby Oxfam (Oxford Committee for Famine Relief) stated that it did not support the “ineffective” aid drops and called them a way “to relieve the guilty consciences of senior US officials”. Al Jazeera English described the airdrops as an “absurd spectacle aimed more at the news cameras than the people who need it.”. Over here we just call it wayang.

In May, the country was faced with a shocking news which was not quiet wayang as it added to the ever-growing frustration against the football fraternity here – poorly paid players.

Haha, who am I kidding again? No, our football fraternity, already thick-skinned with getting trashed in the international arena, is now getting skin thinned by – acid attack.

Among others, that is. Yes, check the link and figure out the news yourself. Our sports minister, Hannah Yeoh, urged for a speedy investigation and blah, blah, blah. And nothing has been heard from here on this issue since. I tried searching for Hannah Yeoh’s latest news to see if she has gotten on top of the situation and become a guardian angel to these vulnerable footballers…and voila, I got this headline: Police confirm 7 reports filed against Yeoh. Oh well, business as usual.

Speaking of wayang, we now have a tourism ambassador – from a film industry, nevertheless – heading the news announcements in the month of June – for the state of Melaka. Yes, it is Hang Tuah. Haha. Again, who’s leg am I pulling? It’s more of Hang Li Poh, actually, as Chinese movie star Fan Bingbing was appointed as Melaka Tourism ambassador. It’s a beautiful premise, almost as if Shah Rukh Khan was appointed as ambassador Marshall of Texas.

Tragic Mid 2024

Tragically, two headlines shocked the country in the months of July and August, involving both Malaysian Indian and an Indian from India. In July, social media influencer A. Rajeswary Appahu, known as Esha, was found dead in an apparent suicide. So, the communications minister announced amendments to the communication and multimedia act. The sad usual mentality of getting things done only when tragedy strikes that has been prevailing our country for so long. Likewise, an Indian national literally sank without trace in Masjid India. Till today nothing is known of what has happened, as she will join MH370 to be featured in future “unsolved mystery” shows and content entries.

Vanitick-tock

As far as social media is concerned, 2024 is definitely the year of TikTok. What was once dismissed as a bunch of kids’ online playgrounds is now joined by professionals and politicians plugging their stuff and attempting to look as cool and hip as we wish they are ardent students of hara-kiri. But nobody is paying any mind to them. Despite being celebrated more for the embarrassing moments, the damned thing reached a billion users two years ago and is expected to generate US$4 billion in influencer marketing spending. Yes, influencer is now even more powerful than a sales/marketing evangelist or actual religion evangelists (whichever is more profitable and has access to minors). At least influencers sound less threatening – though it rhymes with influenza.

Budge It

Hark! October has arrived, and y’all know the best part of the month – October Fest. Yes, but that’s elsewhere, despite the fact that here and there pubs in the country do very, very, tame cleavage-less events. No, it’s an equally fantastic day of great promises and high, drunken lies that precede bad hangover and only sensual reward you get is watching related Ministers smacking their lips when the related allocations are mentioned.

Yes. In Malaysia, October is the month of Budget. This year, it is boasted, has the biggest budget ever in the history of the country. Which is a nice backhanded compliment to another record – debt that reached RM1.173 trillion, an increase of RM92.918 billion (8.6%) from the previous year. It may look frightening, but the article where I took the figure from assured me, hopefully you the readers, and the horse named Boo, that is not something to worry about. Let’s look at the article’s grandfatherly reassurance:

“…. not all debt is inherently bad. If managed correctly and used to fund productive investments, the debt could generate returns that more than offset the costs. The key is ensuring that borrowed funds are allocated to projects that stimulate economic growth and improve the country’s fiscal health in the long term……”

Keywords “managed correctly”. In Malaysia? Where politicians get their respective asses hauled regularly in court for treating public money like personal whores? Right.

Trust issue

As if “budget” sparked a curse or something, the month of November immediately hauled Khazanah Nasional – yes, our very own treasury – into the limelight (or headline, whichever you prefer) with the issue involving Fashionvalet Sdn Bhd prompting the anti-corruption crusaders, MACC to confiscate documents from the…. wait for it… finance ministry and Khazanah itself. How about that? The private company has been charged with criminal breach of trust. But what about public’s trust with our national treasury that has gone down the toilet bowl?

And so, we end the year with the news of a PKR member insulting the Agong. Ever since Najib has left the stage, the royalties has been subject to not too flattering statements and off-the-cuff remarks by some prominent politicians. Since the cat has been away, the rodent leaders have been cartwheeling their cheese with glee. 

So, there you go. There may have not been absolutely shocking events that rocked the country to the core like the drop in fuel price as promised. It’s going to be status quo, until the next election, less the folks are swayed again by empty promises. Till the next year in review, happy New Year. – NMH

The post  2024: End Of A Crappy Trilogy first appeared on NMH.

The recent acquittal of Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor (Rosmah) marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing discourse surrounding justice and legal representation in Malaysia. As one of her defence lawyers, I witnessed firsthand the complexities of her case and the implications of the court’s decision on public perception and legal standards. This ruling not only restores her dignity but also emphasises the importance of a fair trial in protecting the rights of individuals against the weight of public opinion.

Any criminal charge must meet the essential requirements set by law. A charge serves as a formal notification to the accused, outlining the allegation and forming the basis for the trial. If a charge is found to have significant flaws at the outset, the accused has the right to challenge it in court. This was precisely the action taken by Rosmah through her legal team, who filed an application questioning the legality and propriety of the 17 money laundering charges brought against her.

Duplicative Charges

Charges must not be duplicative and must ex facie expressly set out the essential particulars of the offence as recognised in law.

In Rosmah’s case, her legal team argued several key points:

• Duplication of Charges: The tax evasion allegations spanned multiple financial years, leading to multiple charges for essentially the same conduct.
• Lack of Unlawful Activity for Money Laundering: Money laundering requires a predicate offence—typically an unlawful activity from which proceeds are generated. Without these proceeds, money laundering cannot occur.
  • Charges 1–12: These charges claimed that Rosmah engaged in money laundering by depositing sums of money into her bank account. However, the charges failed to explain how this act of depositing money could constitute money laundering.
  • Charges 13–17: These charges were based on Rosmah’s alleged failure to file her tax returns. However, failing to file tax returns does not automatically generate unlawful proceeds. Money laundering requires identifiable proceeds of unlawful activity, but no such proceeds were shown in this case.
• Failure to File Tax Returns Is Not Automatically Criminal: The failure to file a tax return is an offence only after the due process under the Income Tax Act has been exhausted. Until that process is completed, it is premature to assert that an unlawful activity has occurred, as no unlawful proceeds have been identified.

In essence, the mere failure to file tax returns did not in itself create an unlawful activity or proceeds that could be traced back to money laundering. Without a predicate offence, there are no proceeds to launder.

The Acquittal

The High Court carefully examined the arguments presented by Rosmah’s legal team and concluded that the charges lacked sufficient legal grounding. As a result, the court determined that the charges against her were not substantiated by the necessary legal criteria.

This case underscores the importance of ensuring that criminal charges are clear, well-founded, and supported by concrete evidence. – NMH

Editor’s Note: The full judgement by High Court Judge Tuan Muniandy A/L Kannyapan can be viewed here

The post Rosmah’s Acquittal: Examining The Legal Basis Of The Charges first appeared on NMH.

Commentary And Analysis . . . Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Seri Hajiji Noor was being faulted in the ongoing political crisis in Sabah, in the battle for seat-sharing in the state elections expected any time between now and October next year, because of the Sabah Mining Ordinance.

This colonial decree, in fact was no longer state law, but declared in Parliament as Federal Act. Colonial decree can only remain law if it becomes Federal statute.

The political crisis in Sabah, allegedly manufactured by certain parties, will fizzle out if Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim does not get involved. The political crisis may yet prove itself as the Storm In The Tea Cup.

Sabah

Sabah, true to form since Malaysia Day on 16 September 1963, remains the proverbial tail that wags the dog in more ways than one. Much of this relationship revolves around the love of money, the root of all evil in Umno Sabah in particular, and other parties.

Retired Judge Datuk Hamid Abu Backer in fact discovered, before he was allegedly suspended for dissenting ruling, that the government was paying contractors before work was done. In any case, no work was done, even after payment was received. It was the tip of the iceberg as the ongoing Sabah political crisis and Water Department case in court shows.

Normally, the architect certifies the progress payments after work was done. The architect attaches pix of work done with the certification.

The contractor turns up at the bank, under the supervised credit formula, for payment.

It’s system that works if not tweaked for nefarious purposes.

Political Crisis

The local media has been delving into the ongoing political crisis in Sabah surrounding the release of whistleblower videos implicating politicians in purported corrupt activities in the form of entrapment which will be rejected by the court as unlawful. The whistleblower, at the same time, risks facing charges, being party for illegalities viz. being the self-confessed giver in the video evidence.

The strategic timing of the video releases suggests a calculated attempt to undermine the current government, particularly targeting the Hajiji Noor administration in Sabah.

The analogy drawn, in local media reports, between the billiards game and the intricate political maneuvers reflects the complexity and unpredictability of the situation.

The local media highlights the potential power struggle and the risks involved for various political players, emphasizing the high stakes involved in the game of politics being played out in Sabah.

The call by various quarters, including the opposition parties and factions within Umno that Hajiji step down, indicates the growing pressure on the government.

Umno Sabah

The local media brings attention to the internal dynamics within Umno Sabah and the potential implications of the ongoing political crisis on party alliances and electoral strategies.

The local media discusses the underlying motives behind the video releases, suggesting a deliberate attempt to tarnish the reputation of certain political figures and destabilize the ruling coalition in Sabah.

By analyzing the selective targeting of specific YBs in the videos, the local media raises questions about the motivations and intentions driving the orchestrated releases.

Jeffrey Kitingan

The proposal for Deputy Chief Minister I Datuk Seri Dr. Jeffrey Kitingan to lead an interim government underscores the possible intricate power play and even shifting alliances within Sabah’s political landscape. Jeffrey has since denied that he may be the next Sabah Chief Minister although that has long been his dream in the quest for the mythical tataba (the magical wand of power) snatched in 1994 from Tun Joseph Pairin Kitingan, the elder brother.

The local media highlights the potential pitfalls and uncertainties associated with such proposals, indicating the complexities involved in navigating the current crisis situation.

The looming question of whether the Hajiji government will whether the storm of “Langkah Billiards” remains unanswered.

The local media points towards the historical precedence of external influences impacting Sabah’s political dynamics, hinting at the possibility of outside interference that could further complicate the state’s political future.

The local media provides a detailed account of the unfolding political drama in Sabah, shedding light on the motivations, strategies, and power dynamics at play within the state’s political sphere.

Through analysis, the local media offers insights into the complex web of interests and maneuvers shaping the current crisis and its potential implications for Sabah’s governance and political landscape.

Mustapha

Former Sabah Governor and Chief Minister Tun Mustapha Harun, it can be recalled, said in the media that the politics of Sabah would never be stable unless the government can make everyone rich. “Which government in the world can make everyone rich?” he asked.

It isn’t about about making everyone rich but removing the politics and corruption from poverty eradication schemes.

The focus should be on enlarging the consumer economy while managing the supply side of the economy by increasing local production and allowing imports from cheaper sources, on bilateral trade basis that keeps the US$ out of the picture.

All this needs people in government who can count in ways that include buying at a loss and selling at a profit or vice versa for strategic reasons. In speculative activities for example, based on caculated risk taking, what goes up will come down and what heads south will reverse course and go north. Again, within the ups and down, there are ups and downs

Loan Shark

The Sabah government, the history shows, can only borrow from big ah long (loan shark) Putrajaya. That remains relationship which has never changed since Malaysia Day on 16 September 1963.

Federal allocations for Sabah, in a case of creative accounting made possible under the Malaysia Boleh (Malaysia Can) Mantra, are handled directly by Putrajaya. The companies in Malaya get the bulk of the contracts and the cream. All this remains nothing but form of internal colonisation under big business as euphemism The long-suffering local companies get the crumbs if they have some local politicians with them.

He — read Putrajaya — who controls the purse strings rules Malaysia.

Then, there’s corruption, which remains separate issue in the form of plundering the public tressury viz. inflated government projects and work not done but money taken. Judge Hamid’s minority ruling refers.

Also, there are any number of “conmen” virtually sitting somewhere in between, also making money left and right probably through blackmail, for want of better term.

Bung Mokhtar

Having said that, it’s difficult for Umno Sabah’s Bung Mokhtar of “Pak Yu” fame in Parliament and wife who face corruption charges, while being allegedly involved in the political crisis in Sabah. He may have been rendered unsafe when the cake was not shared with people in the know. The case was also probably about getting him out of the way by using the court. There’s no abuse of the process of court although the case appears politically motivated.

In a way, it’s the same as former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak’s RM42m SRC International case on political donation, deemed by the court as “deriving personal benefit”, despite CSR (corporate social responsibility activities.).

Former Sabah Chief Minister Tan Sri Musa Aman’s RM380m case, proven by Prosecution as bribery and corruption, was at the same time deemed by the court as political donation. Ironically, he didn’t produce income tax receipts.

Many people, upset with Najib seeking freedom, hypocritically look the other way on the Musa Aman case on 46 bribery and corruption charges. It will be the height of insanity, even in “anything can happen in Sabah” if he becomes the next Governor.

Even Pairin, tipped as Governor, received RM1m political donation and/or bribery and corruption every year from the Water Dept contractor who took money from the government and did very little work or no work at all.

The Sabah watergate case continues in court. — NMH

Internal Related Links . . .

The post Sabah Political Crisis ‘Storm In The Tea Cup’ first appeared on NMH.

Commentary And Analysis . . . Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), in advocating that “heads must fall” if mistakes were made by subordinates, did not mention the principle on leadership. It’s the principle in management, on leadership, that “leaders can delegate authority but must accept responsibility for the mistakes of subordinates and resign”.

This doesn’t happen in Malaysia where errant parties in leadership positions, except for former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, run away when caught with the pants down and/or point the fingers of blame elsewhere.

Mahathir, Meanwhile …

Dictatorial former Prime Minister Tun Mahathir Mohamad for example, stays in glass house, and throws stones and/or points the finger of blame elsewhere. Four fingers are pointed back at him.

He lamented in the media, in shedding “crocodile tears”, that former Finance Minister Tun Daim Zainuddin wasn’t allowed peace in the last days.

He came out in support of his late compatriot by saying Daim is self-made.

No one can escape responsibility for their own actions. Still, no matter how, it isn’t wrong that Daim became super duper rich, it would be wrong if it was proven that he hoarded wealth at the expense of the nation. In Islam, for example, wealth was form of trust on behalf of the people. Therein, the matter lies in court.

Daim said from the grave, based on the wife’s words, that the case against him should continue. Daim could not take the 50b in assets, RM or US$, with him.

Mahathir if allowed peace in the last days, already numbered, will probably be under house arrest as political prisoner. The Home Minister has prerogative and discretionary powers on the matter.

House arrest will get Mahathir out of the way, permanently, since he’s already 99 years. Mahathir, like people in the old country Kerala, may only go at 105+-. The longevity genes come in.

LKY

It’s unlikely that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, keeping the nature of rural politics in mind, would file civil action against the Mahathir Family and freeze, seize, and forfeit the alleged billions accumulated as money laundering assets and “secret profits”. In law, they are state revenue. The jury may no longer be out on whether Mahathir, given litany of wasteful government expenditure for decades, was about greater efficiency ala Lee Kuan Yew.

Mahathir, it has been alleged, benefited from the affirmative action programmes in distortion. In any case, the bumiputeraism was rendered redundant in 1972 when the 15 year sunset clause expired. Article 4 and the Conference of Rulers keep the redundant clause Article 153 and facilitating clauses, also rendered equally redundant.

Greater Efficiency

Mahathir, unlike Lee Kuan Yew’s obsession with greater efficiency, transferred and promoted those whose heads should have otherwise fallen. Mahathir publicly blamed faceless subordinates if mistakes were made. The blame game syndrome marked the Mahathir years in government. In law, transfer can be proven as victimisation. However, promotion negates such allegations.

Mahathir was also notorious for doing away with checks and balances in government, the Cabinet, and the Barisan Nasional (BN).

The government, under Mahathir, did away with due diligence, forensic accounting on the money trail from the public treasury, government contracts were inflated by as much as double, triple and even 10 times what it should cost the tax payer.

MACC investigation files were kept by Mahathir. No action can be taken against those linked with government unless these files were returned.

The cases against Eric Chia of Perwaja Steel and Kasitah Gaddam in Sabah, as examples, were heard in corruption court only after Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Badawi succeeded Mahathir in 2003.

Prime Ministerial Dictatorship

It’s open secret that the Mahathir years in government degenerated into prime ministerial dictatorship.

The Cabinet System, Parliament, the BN Supreme Council and Umno Supreme Council were all compromised, and were reduced as rubber stamps.

The BN Supreme Council, under Mahathir, seldom met. The Umno Supreme Council, also under Mahathir, allegedly usurped the power of the BN Supreme Council.

The BN concept, as Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak explained, was all about power sharing in the form of seats and government positions and, in taking the cue from the Cabinet System, decision making by consensus — viz. no voice against — and the principle of collective responsibility.

The Indian Diaspora and Chinese Diaspora, by GE14 on 9 May 2018, abandoned MIC and MCA. Umno was left all alone with smaller parties in Malaya and proxy parties in Sabah and Sarawak.

Political Prisoner

Attorney General Tan Sri Tommy Thomas, in taking the cue from dictatorial premiership, charged only Najib for the RM42m SRC International case on political donation. The court, citing the MACC Act 2009, deemed the claimed political donation was proven as “deriving personal benefit” and therefore tantamount to bribery and corruption, based on abuse of power, conflict of interest and criminal breach of trust.

He was jailed, unrepresented, on 23 August 2022 for 12 years and fined RM210m. In law, sentences cannot be disproportionate. The MACC Act 2009, it can be argued, was unconstitutional. It was null and void by the extent of inconsistency with the rule of law, the basis of the Constitution.

UMNO Constitution

Interestingly, the Umno Constitution states that the President can keep political donation in personal account.

Former Sabah Chief Minister Tan Sri Musa Aman claimed in the High Court of Malaya on 8 June 2020 that RM380m found in personal account was political donation. The Prosecution had earlier proven that it was bribery and corruption which came from timber contracts awarded from Sabah Foundation concession areas. The court accepted, with straight face, that the RM380m was a political donation. It granted him DNA (discharge and acquittal) on 46 corruption charges.

In law, Article 8 in Malaysia, there can be no discrimination. There was discrimination, in taking the cue from Musa, against Najib. Agong found miscarriage of justice during the Pardon’s Board meeting on 29 January 2024.

There’s no law on political donation in Malaysia.

However, under the Income Tax Act 1967, taxes must be paid for political donation over RM1K and the donors named. Musa did not produce income tax receipt in court.

Prerogative and discretionary powers do not exist if abuse of power can be proven.

Mahathir And BFD

It’s not known if Mahathir invoked the BFD (Basic Features Doctrine) which, written or otherwise, permeates the Constitution.

The Prime Minister, government and Parliament stand indemnified, have immunity, and implicit Pardon for acts in public office.

The Indian Constitution and US Constitution, as two examples, mention no BFD.

The Supreme Court of India however, through series of case laws, ruled that the BFD permeates the Indian Constitution.

In Malaysia, there’s lacuna (gap) in local law on BFD. The Federal Court can cite case law on BFD from Commonwealth jurisdiction, as Advisory Opinion, for declaring local case law.

The US Supreme Court ruled recently that the President has immunity for acts in office. However, the immunity does not cover private criminal acts in office. The fine print in the ruling cautions that the threshold cannot be crossed from acts in office to private criminal acts.

All the issues in the link above should have been recorded in the form of statement on agreed facts and signed by both sides.

Matters in the statement need not be cross examined.

Then, the court can focus on finding the law and declaring it, after the lawyers look for the law and point it out.

The court isn’t about truth or justice.

It’s only about law. – NMH

Internal Related Links . . .

The post LKY Style Ruthless ‘Heads Must Fall’ For Greater Efficiency first appeared on NMH.