Malaysiakini : Questions over pardon process

As of Sept 21, the attorney-general said the RM50 million had not yet been paid. Here’s one very simple question: Where is the deadline for payment?

If Najib cannot raise the money by that date, shouldn’t the house arrest arrangement be revoked? If a condition has no clear deadline, how do we know when it has been breached?

Even ordinary taxpayers dealing with unpaid tax bills or traffic penalties would normally have rules governing payment and consequences for non-payment. Najib’s case concerns a criminal sentence, a conditional pardon, and RM50 million. Where is the clearly defined procedure?

On Sept 19, the home minister said the Prison Department had not yet received the official written notification of the Pardons Board's decision.

Yet prison personnel visited Najib’s Langgak Duta residence in Kuala Lumpur (below) around the same time, apparently assessing the property for house arrest. What exactly were they inspecting? Were they already aware of conditions that had not been made public? Why the lack of transparency?

Civil society organisation G25 called for the attorney-general’s written opinion and Federal Territories Minister Hannah Yeoh’s representation to the Pardons Board to be made public, together with an explanation of the legal basis for house arrest.

Yeoh, who sat on the Pardons Board, said she considered the AG’s written opinion and gave her views honestly and candidly, in the country’s interest.

Loke said Yeoh’s views were consistent with DAP’s principles. So what did she actually tell the Board? Did she support house arrest? Oppose it? Have reservations?

Why is Loke taking the hit?

That raises another question. If someone from DAP had to resign over this, why Loke? Why not the DAP minister who actually sat on the Pardons Board and participated in its deliberations?

No one is saying Yeoh did anything wrong, so why is Loke taking the political hit?

Perhaps, as DAP secretary-general, Loke’s resignation carries greater political weight. Perhaps this way, DAP could make its objection unmistakable while keeping its other ministers inside government. Perhaps it helps keep the party’s detractors at bay.

Again, we don't know.

Yeoh (below) herself said DAP's central executive committee (CEC) considered various proposals before deciding that only Loke would resign. What were those other proposals?

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim also cannot escape scrutiny. Both he and the attorney-general provided advice on the legal implications, national stability, and the rule of law, and he had raised his concerns about the pardon. So, what exactly was the government’s position when the decision was made?

Did both men advise against it, or raise serious reservations? How did the final decision arrive at house arrest?

We know the Yang di-Pertuan Agong has the constitutional power to grant pardons, but Malaysians are still entitled to understand the process that led to this particular outcome.

Price of pulling out

After DAP’s emergency CEC meeting, Loke offered to resign as transport minister, while the other DAP ministers remain in government to maintain political stability.

Will one minister’s resignation achieve much? Is it a principled protest, a political message, or a warning?

Here is another uncomfortable question: Was Loke the sacrificial lamb?

Only last month, DAP delegates voted 1,857 to 242 to remain in the federal government. Loke said the party would respect that mandate and continue working from within. With one minister resigning, will anything really change?

Loke (below) said that if all DAP ministers resigned, their opponents could bring down the government, potentially leading to Parliament being dissolved. We understand that.

However, will he and his peers acknowledge that Malaysians are also fed up with unfulfilled election promises and slow-moving reforms?

Perhaps there is another consideration. DAP’s departure would not only threaten the stability of the government. It would also put Anwar’s own position under much greater pressure.

Perhaps that is why one resignation is the compromise: enough to send a message and focus minds. More importantly, to focus Anwar’s mind too.

Are those who previously demanded a stronger stand from DAP harbouring second thoughts? Are they reconsidering because an election could follow? Are they worried about the re-emergence of a stronger Umno Baru presence? Are they concerned about losing the influence they currently have inside government?

Or do they see it as the electorate’s opportunity to decide what comes next?

Perhaps they appreciate that pulling apart a coalition has consequences that are easier to demand from the sidelines than to live with.

Politicians have to consider the consequences of triggering an election, and that is why the choice facing DAP is not simply: “Stand on principle, or don’t.” It is also: “How far are you prepared to go when going further could change the government itself?”

Perhaps that is the question the rakyat should be asking too.