WHILE a single mother of four is jailed without any apparent judicial compassion for the theft of 2 packets of Milo, a convicted felon responsible for the theft of billions of ringgit remains free.

Former prime minister Najib Razak, convicted in the SRC International case by the High Court in July 2020, with the decision upheld in the Court of Appeals in December 2021, is living in luxury while on bail. 

The above situation shows a deep difference in the way people are treated before the law.

While petty criminals are given no leeway on a stay of execution of their sentences, Najib received VIP treatment.

He was granted delays in trials for trivial reasons.

After his conviction, bail was extended, and after the appeal, extended once again.

While on bail, Najib even had his passport returned for a visit to Singapore for the birth of his granddaughter.

These privileges smack of entitlement.

We can only speculate why Justice Nazlan Mohd Ghazali felt a need to respect the social status of Najib after his conviction and grant him a stay of execution, deferring any serving of time in jail.

The failure to jail Najib for abuse of power, money laundering, and criminal breach of trust has a number of consequences for Malaysia.

An alarming precedent

This dangerous precedent has been picked up by trial lawyers. One successfully cited it for farmer Faiz Mohd Ruzeli, who was convicted of causing grievous hurt, but received a stay of execution of his sentence in the Court of Appeal this year.

This potentially opens the floodgates to the convicted to obtain stays of execution of their sentences until the appeals processes are exhausted. The integrity of the justice system as a deterrent thus undermined.

The risk of portraying the court system as sandiwara (drama)

During the 2018 election, the Pakatan Harapan campaign harped on Najib’s guilt and wrongdoing over the 1MDB issue.

When Pakatan unexpectedly won the election, he was dramatically investigated and even humiliated through the media on a daily basis.

This gave him a narrative to espouse, that of being politically persecuted.

His rural followers didn’t understand the complexities of such a case and gave him the benefit of doubt, believing Najib was facing the wrath of Mahathir, just like Anwar before him.

This is exemplified by the phrase created by his expensive media handlers, “Malu apa Bossku.”

The failure to jail Najib assisted him in reinventing his “Bossku” persona to become one of the most potent power brokers in Malaysian politics today.

Since the Court of Appeal decision, Najib has taken on an even higher profile. He rigorously campaigned in Melaka, and the Johor state elections, portrayed himself as a stateman with visits from international leaders, and participated in a televised debate with the opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim.

Depriving Najib of personal liberty would have stemmed his influence greatly.

Great cost to the integrity of the Malaysian legal system

The failure to jail Najib after such a high-profile case has enormously dented the integrity of the Malaysian judicial system, both at home and abroad.

Members of the Malaysian Bar Association held a protest march to parliament, blocked by the police to demand judicial independence. Outside of Malaysia, some commentators view the Malaysian judicial system as something akin to that of Thailand, Indonesia, and even Cambodia.

Subliminally and unintentionally, the judicial system is saying white collar crime is less serious than other crimes. If this hypothesis holds, then corruption will increase over the rest of the decade, as Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) statistics already indicate.

Highlighting a two-tier legal system

To many Malaysians, the privileges granted to Najib during and after the trial, highlight the existence of one set of laws and procedures for the elite, and another set for the rest. Some argue this is a sign of a failed state, while others argue this is a symptom of feudalism. Either one of the above interpretations is not a good image for the nation.

Malaysia’s judges acted according to the law. However, they are strongly influenced by Malaysian culture and political dynamics. This has grave national consequences. - July 13, 2022.

* Murray Hunter reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.