Letters | In Najib case, Malaysians must trust that king acted with conscience and care

Readers discuss the decision to halve the prison sentence of Malaysia’s former prime minister, and the enactment of a common civil code by the state of Uttarakhand in India

Malaysian politics

Letters

Published: 11:30am, 17 Feb 2024

Why you can trust SCMP

Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at [email protected] or filling in this Google form. Submissions should not exceed 400 words, and must include your full name and address, plus a phone number for verification.

Malaysian internet users have been polarised long before the announcement of former prime minister Najib Razak’s 12-year prison sentence being halved by the country’s pardons board.

Yet the law on the pardon in Malaysia has been long established. It goes as far back as 1979 when Lord President Suffian, delivering the judgment of the Federal Court in Public Prosecutor v Lim Hiang Seoh, said that “when considering whether to confirm, commute, remit or pardon”, His Majesty’s decisions “are a matter solely for the executive” and that “we cannot confirm or vary them; we have no jurisdiction to do so. The royal prerogative of mercy, as is recognised by its inclusion in Chapter 3 of Part IV of the Constitution, is an executive power”.

Many years later in 2023, and after another four apex court decisions in 1985, 1986, 2002 and 2020, the Court of Appeal in the case of Datuk Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v Mohd Khairul Azam bin Abdul Aziz and another appeal, said: “The long and consistent established position of the law in Malaysia is that the prerogative power of the [king] … is non-justiciable.”

The so-called decision of the pardons board in respect of Najib’s sentence is a decision under Article 42 of the federal constitution. It is a decision of the Malaysian king himself, exercising a power of high prerogative of mercy. The then Supreme Court in the case of Sim Kie Chon v Superintendent of Pudu Prison and Ors (1985) described this power as follows: “The power of mercy is a high prerogative exercisable by the [king] … who acts with the greatest conscience and care and without fear of influence from any quarter.”

The Federal Court in another case involving Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in 2021 explained that there are “certain exceptions” under the federal constitution which provide that the king “may act in his personal discretion” and that these include “the prerogative of mercy”.

Malaysians must have trust in the process where the king “acts with the greatest conscience and care and without fear of influence from any quarter”.

Mohamad Hafiz Bin Hassan, lecturer, Multimedia University

Good law doesn’t become bad because of timing

I refer to the article, “Law on common civil code stirs fear of religious tension” (February 9). Many of those opposing the code, besides some Muslims, have been communist and left-leaning intellectuals.

China’s communist government has been spreading Chinese culture and values, be it the Mandarin language, the teachings of Confucius or traditional Chinese medicine. This is looked upon with respect by Indians who support Prime Minister Narendra Modi as he has promoted yoga, music and the arts, and spirituality. But the Indian left has even been critical of the government’s boosting of Indian culture abroad, for example, attacking the government’s championing of International Day of Yoga on June 21, which was adopted by the United Nations in 2015.

It is against that background that the left has taken a stand against the Uniform Civil Code in Uttarakhand. The courts have been asking the country’s government to formulate such a code.

Way back in the 1950s, bills on Hindu family law with an egalitarian spirit were introduced. There was opposition from some quarters, but they were eventually passed. However, the then Congress government did not touch laws pertaining to the Muslim community to avoid a backlash and garner their votes.

The outcome for Muslim women is they have been subject to laws which permit polygamy and marriage of girls under the age of 18. Then there was the antiquated “triple talaq” custom according to which a Muslim man could instantly annul his marriage by saying talaq (divorce) three times to his wife, which was outlawed under the Modi government in 2019.

Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code has supporters among Muslim women too. Your report quotes reputed psephologist Yashwant Deshmukh as saying that one could argue about the political motive behind the introduction of the code, but its merit can’t be denied. A good thing doesn’t become bad because of its timing.

Nirmal Laungani, Fo Tan

Post