Wee gives Harapan lesson in consistency, recalls silence over ex-Sabah minister's parole

 

MCA president Wee Ka Siong has waded into the war of words between Pakatan Harapan and Umno over imprisoned former premier Najib Abdul Razak’s fresh bid for a royal pardon.

In a social media post, Wee (above) lectured Harapan on the importance of consistently standing by its principles, even when it involves a political foe.

He also recalled the coalition's lack of uproar when former Sabah state minister Peter Anthony was released on parole in March, just a year into his three-year sentence.

“If we genuinely want to defend the country’s institutions, we must respect all of them - the judiciary, laws implemented by the executive, as well as the power of pardon vested in the rulers.

“We should not call it the ‘rule of law’ when a decision favours those we support, but suddenly question it when a constitutional mechanism is used in relation to those we do not support.

“Principles cannot change simply because the individual’s name is different,” he added.

Peter (below) was found guilty in 2022 of falsifying a letter purportedly issued by the office of Universiti Malaysia Sabah’s deputy vice-chancellor, in a case dating back 11 years and linked to a maintenance and services contract.

His prison term only began last year, after the Federal Court rejected his final bid to overturn the conviction.

Wee was responding to the Pakatan Harapan presidential council’s position that individuals convicted of corruption or abuse of power, particularly in high-profile cases, should serve the full sentences imposed by the courts.

The development followed reports that the Federal Territories Pardons Board, chaired by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, is set to consider Najib’s pardon application tomorrow.

Harapan’s stance prompted a broadside from Umno, with its secretary-general, Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki, accusing Harapan of disrespecting the constitutional powers of the Malay rulers.

His remarks, in turn, drew a tongue-lashing from Harapan Youth treasurer Lim Chun Weng, who argued that championing the rule of law should not be "twisted" into questioning the rulers’ power to grant pardons.

Lawful mechanisms meant to be used

Meanwhile, Wee contended that Harapan’s stand does not reflect the full framework of the country’s laws and constitution.

“In Malaysia’s justice system, there are several distinct functions. The courts determine whether a person is guilty and impose the sentence.

“The executive branch administers the implementation of sentences in accordance with the law, including through mechanisms such as remission and parole.

“At the same time, Article 42 of the Federal Constitution provides for the power to grant pardons, reprieves, and remissions of sentences to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the ruler/Yang di-Pertua Negeri, according to their respective jurisdictions,” he added.

Therefore, Wee argued that it would be inaccurate to insist that an offender must serve the full sentence imposed by the court without taking into account other lawful mechanisms available under the Constitution.

“If all court sentences must be served 100 percent without any possibility of reduction, release, or pardon, then why have remission, parole, the Pardons Board and Article 42 of the Federal Constitution?

“The power of pardon is a separate and legitimate constitutional power. The same applies to parole,” he added, citing Peter’s case.

“At that time, there were no major objections from Harapan… Therefore, the same principle must be applied consistently.

“The rule of law does not mean that we respect only court decisions while setting aside other mechanisms that are also provided for under the law and Constitution,” he added, - Mkini