A pointed and loaded question has been raised about a minister’s decision to resign. Apparently, he has been doing his job well — “What is wrong with him? What is wrong with his work?”
The problem is corruption, theft (sakau) and misappropriation. Yet, the focus is on the future of a beleaguered secretary-general of a political party.
The party’s defeats in recent state elections speak for themselves, reflecting both the state of affairs within the party and the calibre of its leaders, whether ministers or otherwise.
It is perceived, rightly or wrongly, that the party has not been able to make much headway on issues central to its support base, notwithstanding some peripheral achievements.
Viewed in the light of the number of parliamentary seats it holds, this is most disconcerting.
Perhaps the resignation should be viewed through these lenses to gain a more holistic perspective, rather than through the narrow lens of self-serving political interests.
Doing one’s job well is not the sole criterion for maturity. One must appreciate the three branches of government — the executive, the judiciary and the legislature (Parliament). Above these is the monarchy, given that Malaysia is not a republic.
The judiciary examines the facts and determines whether a person has broken the law. It has the power to impose custodial sentences.
The Pardons Board, chaired by the monarch, exists to grant pardons to those found guilty. It operates according to its own rules and criteria governing pardons. Whether a pardon is conditional or unconditional is not the point. That is the crux of the matter.
Some have gone out on a limb to question whether the monarch is “obliged” to follow the views of the other members of the board, or whether the ruler has absolute discretion to decide on the type of pardon to be granted.
Section 40A of the Federal Constitution has been bandied about. However, one must also take into account how the courts have ruled on matters relating to this provision when decisions have been challenged.
One must appreciate that the Pardons Board is part of the broader institutional ecosystem. One cannot clap one’s hands in glee when one part of the ecosystem functions according to one’s wishes — especially when certain individuals are found guilty — only to turn against the system and declare, “I will resign”, when another part of the same system makes an “unwelcomed” decision.
One cannot have one’s cake and eat it too. Either one accepts the system in its entirety or exits it completely and seeks another domain where all one’s desires might come true!
It appears that the role of the Pardons Board has been politicised. This should not be the case. It is a matter of public record which political party the federal territories minister, who is a member of the Pardons Board, belongs to. Is there an ulterior motive or an unspoken desire to “have it my own way”?
This is highly disturbing. A pressure group comprising retired civil servants, along with several other social groups, is seeking the minutes of the Pardons Board’s meetings.
What purpose would this serve?
Perhaps these groups should redirect their attention to the internal investigation into former Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief Azam Baki over the issue of shareholdings. To date, the public remains in the dark about the scope and extent of the investigation, as well as whether any breaches have been identified.
We can debate the use of the word “shall” and whether it imposes a binding obligation on the monarch to follow the advice of the other members of the Pardons Board.
To some, the debate reflects disrespect for the monarchy, whose head chairs the board. It should be noted that the Constitution contains no subclause requiring the minutes of the board’s meetings to be made public or providing for the general public to debate their contents and propose an alternative course of action.
If it did, the monarch’s role would be rendered superfluous. The institution’s role within the broader ecosystem must be respected and appreciated. Decisions should not be challenged merely on the basis of political preferences.
If any minister wishes to resign, he should do so now. A conditional pardon has already been granted.
If there is chagrin and dismay, and one is unable to appreciate the institutional framework that allows for both convictions and subsequent pardons, regardless of the reasons, then resignation should be immediate.
The country is better off without leaders whose interests are so parochial.
As for other pressure groups, they should find something more worthwhile to do, especially if they comprise retired civil servants who receive handsome pensions funded by taxpayers.
Let us not engage in political gymnastics by postponing a resignation until the day a house-arrest arrangement or other conditions come to pass. Move on and prepare for GE16.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.