Najib again?

 

Why should we give priority and prominence to one convicted felon, Najib Abdul Razak?

Do the authorities, including the Pardons Board, really not understand the depth of public feeling and anger this man still evokes?

Don't we have more important things to deal with? The cost of living. Energy security. A volatile global economy. Migration and the Rohingya issue. Cross-border haze. Climate troubles.

These affect millions of Malaysians. And yet here we are again. Regurgitating Najib ad nauseam. Seriously. How many times must Malaysians revisit the same man?

Najib was convicted and sent to prison. His 12-year sentence was reduced to six years. His RM210 million fine to RM50 million.

Then came the house-arrest battle, and now, another pardon application.

On Sept 11, the Pardons Board deferred it but released 65 other prisoners. Then one week later, reports say the board may meet again on Sept 18 - today.

The official announcement did not explain why the application was deferred, or why the board might reconvene so quickly. So why does this one case appear to require such urgency?

More importantly, what is the principle behind this priority?

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Federal Territories) Hannah Yeoh said that she gave her views honestly and candidly, guided by her conscience and the best interests of the nation. She also considered the attorney-general's written opinion. Yeoh (below) did not disclose her views.

We acknowledge that Pardons Board deliberations are confidential, but what does “the best interests of the nation” mean in this case? What principle was applied?

Malaysians may not be entitled to know what was said behind closed doors, but surely they are entitled to understand the principles governing decisions that affect public confidence.

It's about all Malaysians

At what point does something extraordinary become ordinary simply because we keep seeing it?

Think of a recalcitrant child asking mum for a sweet. Mum says no. The child asks again. And again. The crying then starts. The pestering continues. The tantrum heightens.

Eventually, mum is exhausted. “Fine. Take the sweet.”

This may not have happened in Najib's case, but what happens to a democracy when the public is repeatedly asked to revisit the same question until people become too tired to care?

The rakyat may not agree and may simply shrug: “Enough. Just get on with it.”

And that is the danger.

Muda vice-president Zarul Afiq warned that moving Najib from prison to a bungalow could deepen political apathy, particularly among young people.

His concern is that if people believe justice differs according to who holds power, they may start asking: what is the point of democracy?

Should we risk endangering our fragile democracy because of one man?

I think we should ask an even wider question: What happens when people become too tired even to ask?

Because this isn't just about young Malaysians. It is about all Malaysians.

How many times can the same controversy be brought back before people simply switch off? There is a difference between agreement and exhaustion.

Uncomfortable position

Meanwhile, Umno-Baru continues to support Najib by pursuing constitutional and legal avenues to ensure his case receives fair consideration.

Why is it that years after his conviction, Najib's fate continues to occupy so much of the party's political attention?

Is Umno-Baru afraid of moving beyond the Najib era? Why keep this chapter alive?

Both Anwar Ibrahim and Pakatan Harapan are put in an uncomfortable position. Harapan said that those convicted in high-profile corruption and abuse-of-power cases should serve their full sentences.

Anwar said his position is based on the law, the Constitution and the attorney-general's advice.

Yet Umno-Baru, the party supporting Najib, is part of his governing coalition.

Malaysians are entitled to ask: What principle applies here?

Malaysia does not operate in a vacuum. The 1MDB scandal crossed borders and damaged Malaysia's international reputation.

Other countries imprisoned former leaders convicted of serious corruption offences. South Korea imprisoned former presidents; France's Nicolas Sarkozy received a prison sentence in a corruption-related case.

Different countries have different laws and constitutional arrangements.

If Najib were allowed to serve his sentence at home, what would the rest of the world make of it? What message would that send about accountability?

What would investors think? Would ordinary Malaysians expect to obey the same laws?

Malaysia's reputation

After Najib's sentence reduction in 2024, Malaysian think tank Ideas warned about the possible impact on public trust, institutional credibility and Malaysia's international perception.

So we should ask: If house arrest becomes the next chapter, does Malaysia strengthen its reputation for accountability, or weaken it?

Few believe Najib should receive a pardon, but our bigger concern is how this repeated cycle harms the public.

There's the initial shock. Then we argue. Followed by a debate. Then it comes back. And comes back again. Eventually, we get tired.

The rakyat may not have changed their minds. They may simply have run out of energy.

That is how the extraordinary becomes ordinary. Not because we agreed, but because we became too exhausted to object.

So, we return to my original question: Why give priority and prominence to one convicted felon, Najib?

Perhaps the bigger question should be: What happens to Malaysia if the rakyat becomes too tired to keep asking why? - Mkini

---

MARIAM MOKHTAR is a defender of the truth, the admiral-general of the Green Bean Army, and the president of the Perak Liberation Organisation (PLO). Find her on her website and on X.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.