Sunday, September 20, 2026

Romita Hasibuan Case - Malaysian children of foreign parents - PARENTAL VISA? REFORMS needed to ensure JUSTICE

The issue is the RIGHTS of Malaysian Children > should their non-Malaysian mother(or father) have the RIGHT to remain in Malaysia with these Malaysian children? If there is NO such Parental VISA > Malaysian Children will be deprived the right to with their non-Malaysian mother in Malaysia so that these Malaysian children can continue with their education and life in Malaysia - to simply ask MALAYSIAN children to remain without parent/s in Malaysia OR to just follow their non-Malaysian parent is certainly NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD - and here we are talking about MALAYSIAN kids.

Background

Malaysia gave an Indonesian Man a Permanent Residency status > and that means the children of this man will automatically be MALAYSIAN citizens.. this was the law then, where this meant that the children of the PR will be Malaysian citizens

PART II [SECOND SCHEDULE Federal Constitution]

[Article 14(1)(b)]

CITIZENSHIP BY OPERATION OF LAW OF PERSONS BORN ON OR AFTER MALAYSIA DAY

1. Subject to the provisions of Part III of this Constitution, the following persons born on or after Malaysia Day are citizens by operation of law, that is to say:

(a) every person born within the Federation of whose parents one at least is at the time of the birth either a citizen or permanently resident in the Federation; and...

Thus, our Indonesian man who was a 'permanent resident' married an Indonesian woman, and they had 4 children who according to law are Malaysian Citizens. Then, for reasons unknown the Indonesian father LOST his PR Status, and was allegedly deported.

This left the Indonesian mother, and the 4 Malaysian children( her four children aged 12 to six) in a DILLEMA - as the law did NOT allow the mother to remain legally in Malaysia with the 4 Malaysian Children. Now, the Malaysian children have been living their whole life in Malaysia attending school in Malaysia and living as Malaysian citizens > There should be a PARENT VISA that will allow the non-Malaysian mother to remain in Malaysia with the Malaysian citizen children - so the children can continue to live in the country, continue their education in Malaysian schools, and enjoy all benefits as Malaysian citizens...but no such VISA was issued, and that meant that the Indonesian mother will be forced to leave the country - leaving behind the minor children OR alternatively take the Malaysian children with her but there are MAJOR problems affecting CHILD RIGHTS of these Malaysian children.

The education system of INDONESIA is different from that of Malaysia > thus it is difficult for these children, who must be noted are all Malaysian citizens. Is it JUST for Malaysian children to be forced to go back to Indonesia? CERTAINLY, it is not in the best interest of the child.

When the LAW is lacking - merely depending on Courts is foolish - more so, when in this case, POLITICAL WILL and law changes is the only remedy - and so, besides the court action - remedy was also sought speedily and directly to the State, and even Parliament. Romita Hasibuan, the mother, and their children did this:-

a) Besides letters, they also sought public support by getting a PETITION going (not an online petition) but a petition getting people to sign on  which was then send to the PM, Home Minister and also SUHAKAM

Bagaimanapun, permohonannya untuk terus tinggal di negara ini mendapat sokongan daripada 6,517 individu di mana tandatangan mereka akan dihantar kepada Abdullah, Azmi dan Suhakam 

b) MP Teresa Kok(DAP) also raised the issue in Parliament in July 2005 

Earlier in the House, Azmi said Abdul Mutalib, a legal PR since 1978, was held under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for two years in 1995 because of involvement in forging identity cards in Sabah.The home ministry had in 1996 declared him as an 'undesirable immigrant' and revoked his entry permit and identity card. After serving the two-year ISA detention, Abdul Mutalib was deported back to Indonesia in December 1997."Since then, he is no longer a PR here and he could not stay in this country," Azmi explained to the House.

 c) When the Home Minister was leaving Parliament, Romita approached the Minister to plead for JUSTICE for her children and the family. Sadly, the Minister allegedly said ...

When the sitting ended, Romita took the opportunity to meet the minister at the Parliament lobby and attempted to hand over a memorandum to him. Contacted today, she quoted Azmi as telling her, "Your husband is a criminal. Your children could be brought back to Indonesia." Romita then pleaded with the minister several times, saying ' tolong-lah Datuk ', but he ignored this and left without receiving the memorandum.

Shortly afterwards, Romita fainted at the Parliament lobby and was immediately sent to the Parliament's clinic. An hour later, she was transferred to Hospital Kuala Lumpur.

 

 

 

 

What the Minister allegedly said publicly was false because the father was NO CRIMINAL simply because he was detained under the ISA(detention without trial). He, like any other, must still be presumed INNOCENT until proven guilty after a Fair Trial in Court. A person can only be referred to as a CRIMINAL if he has been tried, found guilty and convicted by Court - if not he cannot be called a criminal. 

Najib is a CRIMINAL and Anwar Ibrahim too is a CRIMINAL convicted by Court - but you do not become a criminal simply because you have been detained under the ISA - Lim Kit Siang, Karpal Singh, Mohamad Sabu, Lim Guan Eng, Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, Lim Chin Chin, ... are not CRIMINALS simply because they were detained under the ISA>

Thus, Romita commenced a defamation suit against the said Home Minister  (...also filed a RM10 million suit against Home Minister Azmi Khalid ( photo ), his ministry and the government for allegedly defamatory remarks about Abdul Mutalib...) 

STOP DISCRIMINATING SARAH,AND GIVE THIS MALAYSIAN CHILD HER MYKAD

PR status to foreigners who marry Malaysians upon registration of marriage in Malaysia - Best Solution

LESSONS to be learned

1) There are many victims of injustice, human rights and even violations of the law > but unless VICTIMS muster the courage to FIGHT for justice and rights, the injustice and violations continue.

2) In fighting for RIGHTS, sometimes using the COURTS is not the ONLY solution - because there is a FAULT in the enacted law itself > thus what is needed in a change in law or an amendment in law - and this is something that only Parliament can do. In this case, the current law provided for a SPOUSE VISA (for foreign spouses) - but did not provide clearly for a PARENTS VISA for non-Malaysian parent/s of Malaysian Children. LAW REFORM need was highlighted by this case, that MEDIA also carried, but has there been needed LAW REFORM yet - so that rights of MALAYSIAN children are protected? 

3) One needed reform, is that FOREIGN SPOUSES of Malaysian citizens of marriages registered in Malaysia, should rightly be given Malaysian Citizenship, or at the very least Permanent Residency(PR) status on the registration of the marriage. The law could provide for a REVIEW of the foreign spouses citizenship or PR status if and when the legal marriage ends - and that a Parents VISA be made available to a foreign spouse if there are Malaysian children and for other reasonable reason.

4) Malaysia quickly makes foreign football players Malaysian citizens - so that they can represent Malaysia in international sports, but more important is the issue of citizenship for foreign spouses, and PARENT VISA for foreigners who are parents of Malaysian children...

5) A criminal ought to be punished > but NOT their innocent CHILDREN or spouses.

6) A question that is still left unanswered was WHY was Romita's huband given a PR Status - were other foreigners also given PR status > was it a strategy to increase the number of Malaysian citizens, since all their children will then be Malaysians? Was the giving of PR and not a citizenship a bad motive of 'loyalty to the government of the day'? I would like that answer...

7) Now, there are many STATELESS in Malaysia > many of these are Malaysians but sadly maybe the birth was not properly registered. Why is it taking TOO LONG to resolve the stateless issue > for if it affects CHILDREN it is certainly not in the BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD. If there is POLITICAL WILL, I believe that this issue can be speedily resolved > at least a REGISTER of the Stateless > following with the granting of CITIZENSHIP? Now, even foreign children adopted by Malaysians can get citizenship... so why the delay in resolving the issue of STATELESSNESS... ???

8) A growing concern is the LOSS OF FAITH of many to get justice through Malaysian Courts - The other problem is MONEY which denies access to the POOR. The problems with the CRIMINAL Administration of JUSTICE is also a problem. Do we need MORE JUDGES and COURTS so that everyone charged with a crime can have their cases decided within 6 months from the date they were charged? 

Once, sitting in a Magistrate Court, I was amazed at the number of people that pleads guilty - In one case, 4 men were charged for gambling, and the evidence submitted was playing cards, and 4 RM10 notes > SUSPICIOUS because it was coins and small change it makes sense, but here 4 RM10 notes... Well, I had the opportunity of speaking to some of these people, and the response was 'shocking' - some said they choose to plead guilty so that at least they can serve whatever sentence and continue with their normal life fast...they said, that if they said they werer NOT Guilty, then they may have to find money for Bail(which many could not afford) which means they will be remanded in prison until their TRIAL is over..and this can be even longer than the maximum sentence >> YES, at present, Malaysian prison population is about 25% of such cases - people waiting for their TRIAL to be completed.. ??? If they are found NOT GUILTY - would this not be an INJUSTICE. JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED. 

"According to statistics from the Prisons Department as of Sept 26, a total of 27,877 inmates are currently being held on remand while awaiting the conclusion of their court cases. - NST, 6/10/2025 

 # I have highlighted RELEVANT issues that came out in Romita and 4 Malaysian children's case. (Some say the youngest may not be a Malaysian, because born after PR revoked). Should this child be DEPRTED or should be also accorded a Malaysian citizenship? Malaysians decide on the LAW - and laws can always be improved by Parliament. 

Romita can stay for now, says high court

Roshan JasonPublished: Sep 26, 2005 7:07 PM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 6:21 PM

The Kuala Lumpur High Court civil division today granted an interim order that will allow Indonesian Romita Hasibuan to remain in Malaysia until both her law suits against the government are heard.

Her lawyer Charles Hector said Romita's visa would have expired today, but that she can now stay on with her four children until the legal suits are settled.

Romita is married to Abdul Mutalib Taib, who was deported in April on grounds that his permanent residence in Malaysia had been revoked.

She has filed a suit against Immigration Department director-general Mohamed Jamal Kamdi and 13 others, claiming RM28.9 million in damages for allegedly denying the children their rights as enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

While the authorities contend that only three of the children are Malaysians, Romita argues that all of them have a right to live in Malaysia and to have their parents with them.

The inter-parte hearing is fixed for Oct 26.

The couple have also filed a RM10 million suit against Home Minister Azmi Khalid ( photo ), his ministry and the government for allegedly defamatory remarks about Abdul Mutalib.

Azmi allegedly made the remarks on July 12 during a meeting with Romita, who had sought him out at the Parliament lobby to ask for assistance over the deportation.

Abdul Mutalib had been arrested in 1996 under the Internal Security Act for alleged involvement in forging travel documents in Sabah and was first deported in 1997, after being held under the Internal Security Act at the Kamunting detention camp in Perak.

However, Azmi alleged that Abdul Mutalib had returned to Malaysia using a new Indonesian passport and that he had used forged documents to obtain a Mykad in June 2000.- Malaysiakini, 26/9/2005

Deportees wife faints after minister rejects plea

Beh Lih YiPublished: Jul 13, 2005 2:42 PM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 6:21 PM

The wife of deported Indonesian Abdul Mutalib Taib - who is a Malaysian permanent resident - fainted at the Parliament lobby last night after Home Minister Azmi Khalid allegedly told her that her husband was a 'criminal' and rejected her plea to allow him to return.

Romita Hasibuan, together with her four children aged 12 to six, friends and lawyer Charles Hector were in the House yesterday evening to follow the day's proceeding whereby their plight was highlighted by Teresa Kok (DAP-Seputeh) in her adjournment speech.

Responding to Kok's speech, Azmi revealed that the decision to deport Abdul Mutalib stayed due to his involvement in forging travel documents which eventually led to the revocation of his identity card and PR status.

When the sitting ended, Romita took the opportunity to meet the minister at the Parliament lobby and attempted to hand over a memorandum to him.

Contacted today, she quoted Azmi as telling her, "Your husband is a criminal. Your children could be brought back to Indonesia."

Romita then pleaded with the minister several times, saying ' tolong-lah Datuk ', but he ignored this and left without receiving the memorandum.

Shortly afterwards, Romita fainted at the Parliament lobby and was immediately sent to the Parliament's clinic. An hour later, she was transferred to Hospital Kuala Lumpur.

According to Kok, who accompanied them, Romita finally became conscious at about 11.15pm - about two hours later - and was subsequently discharged from the hospital.

'Undesirable immigrant'

Earlier in the House, Azmi said Abdul Mutalib, a legal PR since 1978, was held under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for two years in 1995 because of involvement in forging identity cards in Sabah.

The home ministry had in 1996 declared him as an 'undesirable immigrant' and revoked his entry permit and identity card. After serving the two-year ISA detention, Abdul Mutalib was deported back to Indonesia in December 1997.

"Since then, he is no longer a PR here and he could not stay in this country," Azmi explained to the House.

"(However), in 1998, Abdul Mutalib re-entered the country with a new Indonesian passport. Using the entry permit documents he has obtained before and forged documents, he was given the MyKad (Malaysian identity card) on June 8, 2000," he added.

Abdul Mutalib's identity card was revoked on March 23 by the National Registration Department (NRD) after he was arrested and held for a month at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport immigration depot. He was subsequently deported to Indonesia on April 29.

The family however has maintained that neither Abdul Mutalib, a legal PR in Malaysia since the 1980s, nor his family members or associates have seen the revocation notice of his PR nor the grounds for the revocation.

Elaborating on Abdul Mutalib's family status, Azmi said Romita could return to Indonesia to be with his husband while the four children would have no problem in following their parents back to Indonesia although they were born in Malaysia.

Implication on studies

"The children could claim to be Indonesian because their parents are Indonesian. The problem of their citizenship as Indonesians will be solved after they return to Indonesia," the minister said.

In her adjournment speech, Kok appealed to the government to allow Abdul Mutalib and his family to continue staying in the country and recognised them as PRs in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which, among others, states that a child should be protected of his or her rights and stresses on the significance of a family institution.

"Thus, the government has to be responsible to protect the rights of the four children who needed the love of their parents," she told the House.

"Their studies will also be affected should they have to move back to Indonesia and they would also be seen as foreigners there," she added.

The Dewan Rakyat adjourned sine die yesterday.- Malaysiakini, 13/7/2005

Plot to ensnare Abdul Mutalib, says spouse of deported PR

Fauwaz Abdul AzizPublished: May 7, 2005 2:01 PM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 6:21 PM

Government officials plotted to ensnare and detain recently deported Indonesian permanent resident Abdul Mutalib Taib, claimed his wife Romita Hasibuan.

The so-called 'interview' on March 23 for which they were called after applying for their 12-year old son's identity card a week earlier was merely a ploy to lure Abdul Mutalib into their hands, added the Indonesian housewife.

"When we arrived at the National Registration Department (NRD) office in Sepang, Abdul Mutalib was called into the interview room by the officer. Twenty minutes later, my son and I were asked inside. We were both shocked to see my husband handcuffed while sitting on a chair," she said in a recent interview in Kuala Lumpur.

"The two officers present just told us, 'Your husband is not wanted anymore in Malaysia. He will be sent back to Indonesia, and your children will lose their Malaysian citizenship. These are orders from higher authorities," she added.

"They also asked for the birth certificates of my other three children. The interview was planned just to ensnare my husband and to get hold of my son's birth certificate."

Relating the sequence of events on the day of her husband's arrest and the weeks following, Romita expressed frustration at the fate imposed on her family as if by powers beyond her control or influence.

Repeat nightmare

In fact, Romita said her present predicament seems like a re-play of the nightmare she experienced when Abdul Mutalib was detained under the ISA from mid-1995 to early 1998.

She maintained that the reasons for her husband's detention remain unknown to her and her husband.

"I was in total shock when he was arrested and detained then. I did not know how it could happen to my family and myself. I did not know anything as there were no letters or notices informing us of anything," she said.

"When I used to visit Abdul Mutalib in prison, he would look at me with the same look of pain and bewilderment at being so helpless. He did not know why he was detained. If he was guilty of anything, he would have been brought to court. But he wasn't.

"He merely kept telling me to be patient and to take care of the children. When he was released in early 1998, the children were happy that we were together again., that their father was with them. We felt we could embark on a new beginning.

"Now, that nightmare is repeating. It's happening all over again to my family," she said.

The authorities claimed that Abdul Mutalib's PR was revoked in 1996, subsequent to which the citizenship of two of his children as well as Romita's spousal visa have since become uncertain.

The family has maintained that neither Abdul Mutalib, a legal PR in Malaysia since the 1980s, nor his family members or associates have seen the revocation notice of his PR nor the grounds for the revocation.

After a month's detention at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport immigration depot following his arrest at the NRD, Abdul Mutalib was shown several orders, declarations and notices pertaining to being an 'unwanted immigrant' and the revocation of his entry permit.

The documents furnished clearly included the provision, however, that Abdul Mutalib was entitled to appeal within seven days of being shown the notice.

'Country of my children'

Despite having filed three appeals to the Home Minister and immigration department within the stipulated time, however, Romita learnt last Sunday when she called her relatives in Indonesia that her husband had already been deported two days earlier and was staying with them.

Though the family is seeking to exhaust all avenues of appeal before initiating legal action against those concerned, Romita, though thankful for the support given by family and friends, however felt overwhelmed by the tremendous odds stacked against her.

"I will face each day as it comes. It is family, friends and relatives who are maintaining us right now. But it is difficult for me when my children ask where their father is and want to be united with him," said Romita in a faltering voice.

"We're traumatised. My children are traumatised and I am traumatised by this.

"My children were doing well in school, but it is difficult for them now. Their schoolmates are enquiring, 'Why is your father in the newspapers? Where is he?".

Despite the many difficulties, Romita however remains adamant that the family and their future belong in Malaysia.

"This has always been the country of my children. They feel this is their country, they've grown up here. We all want to remain in Malaysia."- Malaysiakini, 7/5/2005

Romita Hasibuan dakwa diugut pegawai Imigresen

Muda Mohd NoorDiterbitkan: Jun 16, 2005 6:40 PM | Dikemas kini: Jan 29, 2008 6:21 PM

Suhakam akan mendapatkan penjelasan Kementerian Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri mengapa pegawai Jabatan Imigresen mengugut untuk menangkap dan menghantar pulang wanita Indonesia yang mahu tahu mengapa suaminya dihantar pulang dan tidak dibenarkan masuk lagi ke negara ini.

Pesuruhjaya Suhakam, Profesor Hamdan Adnan berkata, beliau akan menemui Ketua Setiausaha kementerian berkenaan, Datuk Seri Aseh Che Mat untuk mendapatkan penjelasan mengapa perkara tersebut boleh berlaku.

"Jika kes tersebut tidak boleh diselesaikan, saya akan menemui Menteri Hal-Ehwal Dalam Negeri, Datuk Azmi Khalid untuk mengetahui kedudukan sebenarnya," katanya.

Sebelum itu beliau menerima memorandum dari Romita Hasibuan mengenai tindakan Kementerian Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri dan Jabatan Imigresen tidak melayan surat rayuannya untuk membenarkan suaminya, Abdul Mutalib Taib kembali semula ke Malaysia.

Katanya, Abdul Mutalib ditangkap oleh Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) ketika membuat kad pengenalan anaknya di Putrajaya pada 23 Mac lalu dan seterusnya dihantar pulang ke Indonesia pada 22 April lalu.

Bagaimanapun, sebelum itu beliau telah ditahan di Depot Jabatan Imigresen di Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa Kuala Lumpur (KLIA) selama sebulan dan taraf penduduk tetapnya ditarik balik.

Romita menulis lima surat rayuan kepada Azmi dan Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Imigresen Datuk Mohd Jamal Kamdi untuk mendapatkan penjelasan mengapa Abdul Mutalib ditangkap tetapi tidak dilayan.

Alasan tidak munasabah

Jabatan Imigresen menghantar surat jawapan kepada Romita pada 22 April lalu yang menolak permohonan tersebut dengan alasan `Abdul Mutalib adalah pendatang yang tidak dikehendaki'.

Menurut Hamdan, Suhakam memandang berat perkara tersebut kerana ia merupakan pelanggaran hak seseorang individu dengan alasan yang tidak munasabah serta untuk menakutkan mereka.

"Perbuatan ini sangat serius dan tidak bermoral...ia tidak boleh dibiarkan kerana ia menjatuhkan imej negara di kalangan masyarakat antarabangsa," katanya kepada wartawan selepas menerima memorandum tersebut.

Hamdan berkata, meskipun Romita merupakan seorang warganegara Indonesia tetapi anak-anaknya memegang kerakyatan negara ini.

"Adalah merupakan satu kezaliman apabila cuba memisahkan anak-anak dengan ibu mereka setelah bapa mereka ditangkap dan dihantar pulang," katanya.

Beliau berkata, Romita perlu mendapat layanan yang adil kerana beliau bukan penjenayah dan kerajaan tidak pernah mendakwa beliau sebagai penjenayah.

Perlu baharui visa

Menurutnya, Romita perlu diberi peluang tinggal di Malaysia kerana semua anaknya mendapat kerakyatan negara ini.

Dalam aduannya kepada Hamdan, Romita mendakwa, lima surat rayuan kepada Jabatan Imigresen dan Kementerian Dalam Negeri sejak dua bulan lalu tidak mendapat sebarang jawapan.

Bagaimanapun, katanya, pada 5 Mei lalu, Pejabat Perdana Menteri telah menghantar satu surat kepadanya dengan mengatakan `kes ini telah dibawa untuk pengetahuan Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri'.

"Visa saya akan tamat September ini dan tanpa suami, ia tidak boleh diperbaharui kerana pembaharuan visa terpaksa dibuat oleh suami warga negara atau penduduk tetap," katanya.

Romita mendakwa, beliau cuba membuat permohonan untuk mendapatkan permit masuk dan taraf penduduk tetap, tetapi Jabatan Imigresen enggan menerima permohonan beliau.

Bagaimanapun, permohonannya untuk terus tinggal di negara ini mendapat sokongan daripada 6,517 individu di mana tandatangan mereka akan dihantar kepada Abdullah, Azmi dan Suhakam.- Malaysiakini, 16/6/2005

 

 

Friday, September 18, 2026

Najib - About 4 years in PRISON, and rest at HOME (original sentence by Court was 12 years) > Is this JUSTICE? How did Pardons Board VOTE - unanimous or simple majority?

Najib's Pardon - spend remaining prison sentence at HOME? The question is how did Minister Hannah Yeoh VOTE as a member of the Pardons Board - noting that the King acts on the advise of the Pardons Board?

Earlier today, the legal affairs division of the Prime Minister’s Department said Najib had been granted a conditional pardon allowing him to serve the remainder of his prison sentence under house arrest until Aug 23, 2028, subject to payment of his RM50 million fine.

The division said the conditional pardon was granted by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Sultan Ibrahim, following the 64th meeting of the Federal Territories Pardons Board today.

Najib, 73, has been serving a six-year sentence at Kajang prison after the board halved his original 12-year sentence in the SRC International case in February 2024. The original RM210 million fine was also reduced to RM50 million.

Did Hannah Yeoh, one of the 5 members of the Pardons Board of 5, including Hannah Yeoh and the Attorney General Dusuki vote to give Najib house arrest? Was it a UNANIMOUS decision of the Pardons Board? Was it a SIMPLE Majority? I believe that Malaysians have a RIGHT TO KNOW...

Minister Hannah Yeoh clearly represents PM Anwar Ibrahim and the Cabinet as its representative. So did Anwar tell Hannah how to vote? Did the Cabinet decide on 'house arrest' for Najib? 

Minister Hannah Yeoh also is a DAP MP - and a Pakatan Harapan MP > thus her VOTE matters...

Personally, after all that Najib did, and NOTING the recent High Court decision that convicted him on the 1MDB case ... I do not think that Najib deserves to be PARDONED...

We all know that relationship between BN and PH is at risk > which means that BN MPs may withdraw their support from Anwar Ibrahim to continue being Prime Minister...although, based on past representations even if all 30 BN MPs withdraw support - Anwar theoratically has more than enough MPs (or does he?) to remain Prime Minister?

SO, the worry whether Najib's SECOND PARDON is politically motivated > to ensure PM Anwar Ibrahim remains Prime Minister? If so, it is of CONCERN because Pardon Powers should be based on certain principles > and not a POWER to be abused by the Prime Minister and sitting government..?? We must strengthen laws to prevent future PM(or governments) abusing it for 'friends'????

The CRIME of Anwar was personal and did not affect MONIES of Malaysians or Malaysia? And Anwar had served almost all of prison sentence before he was granted a Pardon - that released him, and allowed him to contest in Elections.

Anwar Ibrahim - Will this be the 1st 'abuse of power' by new government?

Of Najib's Pardon, Pardon REFORMS? Anwar pardoned weeks before his sentence ended, when should one be pardoned? 

The Crime of Najib on the other hand was a SERIOUS abuse of power as Prime Minister and Finance Minister > that affected Malaysian reputation and credibility > and resulted in great losses...was it about RM50 billion or more. 

Ex-PM Najib sentence of 72 years imprisonment, beats ex-DPM Anwar's 1999 corruption conviction and sentence of 24 years?

SADLY, during the premiership of Anwar Ibrahim, there has been a lot of questionable actions in the administration of criminal justice... failures to charge, discontinuation of criminal prosecutions, withdrawal of criminal appeals to the Court of Appeal.. and what is worst, is that ALL this is happening within a Pakatan Harapan (DAP, Amanah and PKR) led government ... who were VOTED in because of their promised REFORMS > which sadly never materialized generally...

The 1st VIOLATION > when Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim decided to also make himself the Finance Minister... and.... 

Anwar also admitted submitting Najib's application for a royal pardon to the board for discussion, though he denied doing so under pressure from UMNO. "I said as soon as I receive any appeal, I requested that the pardons board discuss it," he said. (Reuters, 

Was it also the case this time around?

Najib sentenced to 12 years in Prison by our COURTS - spend just about 4 years in prison, and now will spend the remaining prison sentence at HOME > is this JUSTICE 

Najib, 73, has been serving a six-year sentence at Kajang prison after the board halved his original 12-year sentence in the SRC International case in February 2024. The original RM210 million fine was also reduced to RM50 million.

He was imprisoned in August 2022 after the Federal Court dismissed his final appeal in the case.

...serve the remainder of his prison sentence under house arrest until Aug 23, 2028 

Earlier post:- 

Hannah Yeoh and the ROYAL PARDON - still no Federal Law that will clarify PARDON process, rights and matters related? How Hannah Yeoh and AG decide on Najib's pardon matters???

Follow the Charles Hector channel on WhatsApp:
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb6UokfB4hdNugYmph1B 

 

 

Najib’s conditional pardon doesn’t weaken our stand on graft, says Anwar

The prime minister says all ongoing corruption cases must proceed according to the law.

Anwar Ibrahim
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim called on everyone to accept positively the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s decision to grant a conditional pardon to former prime minister Najib Razak. (Bernama pic)
PETALING JAYA:
The conditional pardon granted to Najib Razak does not undermine the government’s commitment to taking firm action against all forms of corruption and abuse of power, says Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.

Anwar said the government’s commitment to the rule of law remained intact, and that all corruption cases, including ongoing cases involving the former prime minister, must proceed according to the law.

“Ultimately, the constitution provides for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s absolute powers, and I hope we will accept the decision positively.

“Beyond that, I want to stress that the rule of law remains intact and our decision to take action against all corruption remains unchanged.

“(The decision) does not mean the country should bow to embezzlement and corruption,” Berita Harian reported him as saying after Friday prayers in Putrajaya.

Earlier today, the legal affairs division of the Prime Minister’s Department said Najib had been granted a conditional pardon allowing him to serve the remainder of his prison sentence under house arrest until Aug 23, 2028, subject to payment of his RM50 million fine.

The division said the conditional pardon was granted by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Sultan Ibrahim, following the 64th meeting of the Federal Territories Pardons Board today.

Najib, 73, has been serving a six-year sentence at Kajang prison after the board halved his original 12-year sentence in the SRC International case in February 2024. The original RM210 million fine was also reduced to RM50 million.

He was imprisoned in August 2022 after the Federal Court dismissed his final appeal in the case. - FMT, 18/9/2026

 

Thursday, September 17, 2026

#HentiBungkamNGO: Non-Government Organisations Strongly Condemn Repression of Civil Society Voices (89 Groups)

Press Release
14 September 2026

#HentiBungkamNGO: Non-Government Organisations Strongly Condemn Repression of Civil Society Voices


We, the undersigned non-government organisations (NGOs), civil society organisations (CSOs), community-based organisations (CBOs), student groups, activists, and members of civil society, strongly condemn the heavy-handed investigative measures taken against MANDIRI and HAYAT this month; freezing the personal bank accounts of MANDIRI Directors Amir Hadi and Dobby Chew, and the organisational bank accounts of MANDIRI and HAYAT, as well as the travel restrictions placed on Amir Hadi and Dobby Chew barring them from leaving the country. These actions are the latest in a pattern of repressive actions taken against civil society this year, and are a frightening vision of a Malaysia in regression to its darkest days.

Background

In May 2026, unsubstantiated attacks against MANDIRI surfaced online alleging that the organisation had received foreign funding to conduct political and disinformation activities with the alleged objective of destabilising the administration and ultimately bringing down Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. These attacks were amplified by then Chief of Angkatan Muda Keadilan and Political Secretary to Anwar Ibrahim, Muhammad Kamil Abdul Munim - who issued a formal media statement linking the issue to allegations of foreign interference, national sovereignty and national security. Kamil also urged the authorities to invoke the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing, Anti-Restricted Activity Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLA) in investigating the allegations.

Following public criticism of Kamil’s statement, Kamil subsequently shifted the emphasis towards alleged misuse or misappropriation of funds, stating that the concern was not foreign funding itself. Lawyers acting for MANDIRI and Amir Hadi issued a letter of demand to Kamil demanding that Kamil retract the allegations, issue a public apology and publish the retraction and apology publicly. Kamil declined to comply with the demands. MANDIRI and Amir subsequently commenced defamation proceedings against Kamil. The case remains pending before the courts.

From the outset, MANDIRI publicly stated that it had committed no wrongdoing and was fully prepared to cooperate with any legitimate investigation. Despite the seriousness of the allegations and public calls for action by enforcement agencies, for months neither MANDIRI nor its directors or staff were summoned or questioned by PDRM, MACC, Bank Negara Malaysia or other relevant authorities concerning these allegations. No criminal charges, regulatory findings or other adverse findings were made against MANDIRI or its personnel during this period.

In September 2026, Amir Hadi and Dobby Chew were informed that both had been barred from travelling outside Malaysia. At the time the travel restrictions were discovered, neither Amir nor Dobby had been called in for questioning concerning any allegations of wrongdoing. To this day, Amir and Dobby have not been provided with a clear explanation as to why the travel restrictions had been imposed or the precise allegations forming the basis of the action.

Subsequently in the same month, it was discovered that the personal bank accounts of Amir Hadi and Dobby Chew, together with the organisational bank accounts of MANDIRI and HAYAT, had been frozen

The freezing of the accounts represented a significant escalation from the allegations that first emerged in May. This development is particularly concerning given that Kamil had specifically urged the authorities to use AMLA in relation to MANDIRI in the statement issued on 17 May 2026.

The freezing of the organisational accounts also has consequences beyond Amir and Dobby. It affects the ability of MANDIRI and HAYAT to carry out ordinary and legitimate organisational obligations, including payment of salaries, programme expenditure and other operational commitments.

Risk of repressing civil society voices

To date, no formal notice or explanation has been given to any of the parties involved regarding the basis for the freezing of accounts or the travel bans. None of the parties have been summoned for questioning regarding any investigations by any regulatory or enforcement agency, which calls into question the legitimacy of these measures. The logic of a travel ban, for instance, is to ensure that persons do not abscond from the country and will be able to assist with an investigation. So why has the government restricted Amir and Dobby from leaving Malaysia without summoning them for questioning? Additionally, none of the parties involved received any formal notice of the account freezing orders made against them. They were only informed of the basis for the freezing of their accounts through a letter from their bank.

We acknowledge that harsh measures such as the freezing of bank accounts and travel bans may be necessary under certain circumstances to facilitate investigations into wrongdoing. But this reality must be considered in tandem with the risk of repressing civil society actors. In situations like this, we hold that the government has a greater burden to use these powers carefully and to uphold transparency to avoid clamping down on legitimate freedom of speech, expression, and association.

Broader pattern of civil society repression

The actions taken against Amir, Dobby, MANDIRI, and HAYAT are only the latest in a broader pattern of state suppression of civil society voices. Just this year, we have also seen the following:

● then CEO of C4 Center Pushpan Murugiah, along with several journalists and academics, being summoned to Bukit Aman Police Headquarters in connection to an investigation under Section 124B of the Penal Code (activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy);

environmental activist Shakila Zen from Persatuan Aktivis Sahabat Alam (KUASA) being summoned by the police over a social media post that allegedly defamed the Pahang royal institution, for an investigation under Section 500 of the Penal Code (criminal defamation) and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (improper use of network facilities); and

Faisal Abdul Aziz (Chairperson of BERSIH), Asraf Sharafi (Executive Director of BERSIH),Anas Nor’azim (Advocacy Officer of BERSIH), and Alyaah Hani (member of BERSIH Steering Committee) being banned from entering Sabah.

Taken together, these incidents paint a grim picture of freedom of speech and expression in Malaysia today. This presents a frightening vision of a Malaysia in regression, and civil society must take a stand to prevent further decline of the hard-fought freedoms we have won over the past few years. This pattern should be viewed as a canary in the coal mine for freedom of speech, and must not be a precursor of more stringent repression in the future, lest we return to the darkest days of state suppression of civil society.


Our Demands

As such, we call upon the government to provide an explanation of the grounds for
these actions to be taken against Amir, Dobby, MANDIRI, and HAYAT. This explanation must include a clear explanation of a genuine need to use such drastic measures against them, and if there is no legitimate basis, the government must lift the account freezing orders and the travel bans. These harsh measures must not be used so frivolously, as they will cause serious threats to the ability of civil society actors to perform their duty as defenders of human rights, democracy and rule of law.

Further, the government must commit to a review of the laws that enable investigative powers to be used without sufficient oversight, such as those under AMLA and the Immigration Act 1959/63. 

We call upon the government to affirm that the criminal law shall not be used to silence free speech, political dissent, and fair critique of the government.

If we wish to build a mature democratic Malaysia, the Anwar Ibrahim government cannot be allowed to reuse the same draconian tactics employed by previous administrations. We stand together in solidarity with all our impacted comrades, and stand firm against any attempts by the government to silence us.

Joint-released by:

1. Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM)
2. Agora Society Malaysia
3. All Women's Action Society (AWAM)
4. Angkatan Kesatuan Siswa Sosialis (AKSI)
5. Angkatan Kesatuan Siswa Sosialis (AKSI)
6. ARTICLE 19
7. Association of Women Lawyers (AWL)
8. Bersih Sabah
9. Beyond Borders
10. Borneo komrad
11. Buku Jalan Chow Kit
12. Cahaya Society
13. Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
14. Citizens International
15. CSO Platform for Reform
16. Demokrat UM
17. Diversity Inclusivity Equity Malaysia (DIEM)
18. Family Frontiers
19. Federasi Pemuda Kebangsaan
20. Freedom Film Network
21. Gabungan Pilihan Raya Bersih dan Adil (BERSIH)
22. Gabungan Mahasiswa Islam Se-Malaysia (GAMIS)
23. Gempur Rasuah Sabah
24. Gerakan Anak Muda Tuntut Hak Rakyat Sabah (GEGAR)
25. Gerakan Belia Sepunjabi Malaysia
26. Gerakan Perempuan Melawan
27. Greater Equitable Measures (GEM)
28. Greenpeace Malaysia
29. HAYAT
30. Himpunan Advokasi Rakyat Malaysia (HARAM)
31. Himpunan Advokasi Rakyat Malaysia(HARAM)
32. Ikatan Anak Muda Tawau (IKAT)
33. Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF)
34. JEJAKA
35. Justice for Sisters
36. Kemban Kolektif
37. KLSCAH Civil Rights Committee (KLSCAH-CRC)
38. KLSCAH Youth
39. KMUiTM
40. Kolektif Feminis Malaysia
41. Liga Mahasiswa Malaysia
42. Liga Mahasiswa UM
43. Liga Mahasiswa UniSZA
44. Liga Mahasiswa USM
45. Liga Mahasiswa UTM
46. Liga Rakyat Demokratik (LRD)
47. Malaysia East Coast Coalition of Activists (MECCA)
48. Malaysian Cannabis Awareness Association
49. Malaysian United Democratic Alliance (MUDA)
50. Malaysian Youth Generation Organisation (MYGO)
51. MANDIRI
52. MARTABAT UNTUK SEMUA PETALING JAYA
53. Mekar Club
54. MUDA Selangor Bahagian Selayang
55. Neo Siswa UM
56. New Generation Universiti Malaya
57. OHMSI Sdn Bhd
58. PACOS Trust
59. Pangrok Sulap
60. Parti Bersama Malaysia (BERSAMA)
61. Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM)
62. Persatuan Aktivis Sahabat Alam (KUASA)
63. Persatuan Kesaksamaan Demi Kedamaian Rakyat Sejagat (SEDARJAT)
64. Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER)
65. Pertiwi Progresif
66. Pertubuhan Mahasiswa Kongres Gombak (CONGRESS)
67. Pro-Siswa Kolej Komuniti Dan Politeknik
68. Project Stability and Accountability for Malaysia (Projek SAMA)
69. ProSiswaKkP
70. PUSAT KOMAS
71. Reformasi Mahasiswa UTM (formUTM)
72. Reproductive Rights Advocacy Alliance Malaysia (RRAAM)
73. Ruang Lawan Malaysia
74. Sekretariat Lawan Dua Darjat
75. SIS Forum (Malaysia)
76. SPARC UTEM
77. Student Against Corruption and Wrongdoings (SACAW)
78. Studio Persekutuan
79. Suara Mahasiswa UMS (SMUMS)
80. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
81. Suara Siswa UiTM
82. Tenaganita
83. Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democracy
84. TEROKA
85. The Bangsart
86. The Center To Combat Corruption And Cronyism (C4)
87. UMANY
88. UNDI18
89. Women's Aid Organisation 


Monday, September 14, 2026

Hannah Yeoh and the ROYAL PARDON - still no Federal Law that will clarify PARDON process, rights and matters related? How Hannah Yeoh and AG decide on Najib's pardon matters???

The power to grant pardons rests solely with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as provided for under the Federal Constitution, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Federal Territories) Hannah Yeoh said. 

NOT TRUE - as the King's Pardon Power is subject to the advice of the Pardons Board. Thus, ONLY if the Pardons Board decides (uncertain whether simple majority or two third majority or unanimous decision). Thus, PARDON BOARD decide and advice the KING, and the King acts as advised by the Pardons Board.

Hannah Yeoh is a member of the Pardons Board - thus, she has a say as to whether the King will pardon Najib fully and he be FREE or pardon Najib to just reduce his prison term. So, how will Hannah Yeoh DECIDE is material. Is her decision her OWN or must she follow the decision of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and/or the Cabinet? 

What about the other member of the Pardons Board - the Attorney General > will his decision be the decision of PM Anwar Ibrahim and/or the Cabinet - the government of the day > or will he have an INDEPENDENT decision - if so, based on what principles?? - repentance and good behavior? 

Hannah Yeoh is WRONG - as King has NO absolute discretion > it must be based on the ADVICE of the Pardons Board > Hannah Yeoh, AG and the 3 other members of the Pardon Board - WHAT THEY DECIDE AND ADVICE THE KING IS CRUCIAL HERE.

Many are OPPOSED to the idea of FULL PARDON for Najib > or even the idea of house arrest > so what will MINISTER Hannah Yeoh be?

Follow the Charles Hector channel on WhatsApp:
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb6UokfB4hdNugYmph1B 

 

PARDON POWERS of the KING - is a matter of concern and needed CLARIFICATION, which would be brought in through a Federal Law. 

The Federal Constitution provides for the enactment of a Federal Law that will will govern Pardon in Federal Territories - but we still do not have this Act yet

Art 42 Federal Constitution -  Power of pardon, etc. 

(3) ...For the purpose of this Clause the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, the Federal Territory of Labuan and the Federal Territory of Putrajaya, shall each be regarded as a State.

(4) The powers mentioned in this Article—

(a) are, so far as they are exercisable by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, among functions with respect to which federal law may make provision under Clause (3) of Article 40;

PARDON POWERS - some QUESTIONS remain

- when can Pardon Powers be exerciseable? As soon as the final appeal is exhausted ... or should it be after the convicted has served one third of his sentence at least - prison sentence? 

- It is 'PARDON' - so, is there a need for repentance first before Pardon powers is exerciseable as a general rule? Is Najib repentant for the CRIMES he committed? 

- Should the victim ALSO have a right to be heard by the Pardons Board and King? Let's say a RAPE VICTIM > should the victim have the RIGHT to be heard before the Pardon Board decides on a Pardon Application?

- COMPOSITION OF THE PARDON BOARD - Now, we have the Attorney General, Minister in charge or Federal Territories and THREE(3) other members of the Pardon Board - how are these 3 selected, what are the selection criteria - Does the Prime Minister decide on the 3 members, or does the KING only have the right to decide of the 3 other members of the Pardon Board?

- The Attorney General - well he is NOW picked by the Prime Minister, who also has the power to remove a AG/Public Prosecutor at any time > No Security of Tenure - thus the INDEPENDENCE of the Attorney General is in question - does he do as the PM wishes? OR....??

- The Minister too is a member of the Cabinet, and again it is the Prime Minister that picks his member of Cabinet, and decide who is Minister responsible for the Federal Territories > so does the MINISTER do as what the Prime Minister wants - or do the Minister do as what the Malaysian people does?

- Recently, in the High Court case concerning Najib's House Arrest - it became clear that the KING must act based on the decision/advise of the Pardon's Board...so the King has no power to decide whatever he wants with regard to Pardon powers... 

- We know that PARDON POWERS cannot overturn a CRIMINAL CONVICTION by Court - so, guilt or innocence MAY not be consideration for the exercise of Pardon Powers generally... so, what are consideration - good behaviour, genuine repentance, etc.. this is something that need to be settled by LAW -  

- IS the exercise of pardon dependent on who HOLDS Executive POWER. When PH came into power after GE14 - Anwar Ibrahim got a ROYAL PARDON, and in 2022, after BN decided to join PH, Najib got the benefit of the King's pardon...

- There is little PUBLIC news about KING's Pardon - how many have received the benefit of Royal Pardon, how many failed to get ROYAL Pardon - Good for Malaysians to KNOW - so make PUBLIC the full record of Royal Pardons - the number of application, the number of successful applications, the number of unsuccessful pardons - sadly almost no MEDIA reports ...and has any MP/Senator/ADUN asked about these PARDON POWERS? WHY NOT? 

- Anwar's Pardon application came up fast, and so too Najib's - Was there QUEUE JUMPING? Could the government of the day or Prime Minister expedite certain people's Pardon Application? 

Anwar also admitted submitting Najib's application for a royal pardon to the board for discussion, though he denied doing so under pressure from UMNO. "I said as soon as I receive any appeal, I requested that the pardons board discuss it," he said. (Reuters,

THUS, if you wanted the FT Pardon Board and KING to consider you petition for Pardon, should the application be DIRECTED to the Prime Minister? Minister in charge of FT, Hannah Yeoh, should satisfy people's doubt - how many Pardon applications have been dealt with by the FT Pardons Board and King since you became Minister, or since Anwar Ibrahim became Prime Minister? 

The date of the announcement for Najib Razak's partial royal pardon and sentence reduction was February 2, 2024The Decision: The Federal Territories Pardons Board officially announced on this date that it had halved his 12-year prison sentence to 6 years and slashed his fine from RM210 million to RM50 million.... Is it right for the Pardons Board to CONSIDER again Najib's pardon so soon... about 2 years later???
# There is a DIFFERENCE between Anwar's pardon and Najib's Pardon. In Anwar's case, he had already served his full sentence ... BUT Najib's had just started serving his 12 year sentence...
# Another difference was the nature of the CRIME - For Anwar, it was CONSENSUAL SODOMY (a private offence between consenting adults that should really be abolished as a CRIME) - but in the case of NAJIB it was a very serious CRIME - and abuse of TRUST of the people when the CRIME was committed by a sitting Prime Minister and Finance Minister > that cost Malaysians and Malaysia about RM50 Billion plus... (if we include the recent IMDB judgment???) 

Sec 377(for which Anwar was convicted) was declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by Indian Supreme Court(see judgment) - Time for Malaysia to REPEAL 377B - but RETAIN 'Non-Consensual' SODOMY(s. 377C), which is akin to RAPE as a crime?

NOW, for me, the worst crimes are CRIMES committed by the Prime Minister, Ministers and members of the Cabinet and their political secretaries, and other political appointees > as this directly is a SERIOUS breach of trust of the people. They are given the TRUST to govern and manage Malaysian people's monies - and then they ABUSE these powers for personal benefit and enrichment... 
NOW, many of the CRIMES of abuse of power, corruption and... focus on whether the 'criminals' benefited personally by getting monies... CRIMES must be expended because many a times it is not just personal enrichment by getting monies > but also 'gifts' of position, power and monies to their 'cronies' and political 'friends'...
Tabung Haji, FELDA and other GLCs suffer losses simply because Ministers appoint 'friends' unqualified and unskilled in business/investments - thus, if the result is LOSSES - should not the Ministers themselves be criminally liable ... at least for NEGLIGENCE CRIMES. 
Should crimes of MINISTERS not be subject to PARDON? We, Malaysians, have the power to decide on this...
NAJIB - he was just found guilty on the 1MDB case >>   Najib was ordered in the 1MDB trial to serve 15 years’ of jail time simultaneously; and was fined RM11.38 billion for power abuse, and fined a separate RM2.08 billion for money laundering.
So, if he is granted full pardon for the SRC case - he may be out a free man and maybe even allowed to contest in the upcoming General Elections. As happened in the SRC case, he was granted a stay of execution of sentence and finally ended up going to prison only after Najib's final appeal to Federal Court failed. 
So, will Najib against be free in this 1MDB case - until the Court of Appeal and finally the Federal Court hear his appeal...
Is this current PARDON application just on the SRC case or does it also include the recent 1MDB case conviction and sentence?
Did PM Anwar, as he did in the SRC case pardon application, also push for the Pardons Board to consider this new pardon application?
THUS, is POLITICS - or the agreement that BN will continue to support Anwar until the next GE the reason for this new Pardon application > if YES, I will be most disappointed with Anwar and PH???  
How Hannah Yeoh and the AG decide on Najib's pardon is of great concern... remember the KING can only pardon if the PARDONS BOARD agrees to pardon Najib... the King is required to act on the advice of the Pardons Board...???
ANOTHER IRONY - Najib may be continuing to receive Pension as former PM/Finance Minister, MP...etc - HOW MUCH Federal Pension are we continuing to pay Najib? How much Pahang State pension is Najib receiving today? 
I believe that that when PM, Ministers and public officers are convicted of CRIMES - the sentence should extend to their government PENSIONS - it should be cancelled or at least reduced to NO MORE than RM3,000 per month??? The RIGHT to multiple PENSION must also be abolished > right to receive just ONE government pension... 

Hannah Yeoh: King has sole power to grant pardons

By Noel Achariam
September 12, 2026 @ 6:05pm
facebook sharing button
twitter sharing button
whatsapp sharing button

KUALA LUMPUR: The power to grant pardons rests solely with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as provided for under the Federal Constitution, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Federal Territories) Hannah Yeoh said.

She said any further clarification on the matter had already been detailed in a media statement released by the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister's Department.

"I have no authority to discuss or issue statements on behalf of the Pardons Board.

"I can only state that I was present (at the meeting) together with the Attorney-General. That is all," she told reporters when met today at the launch of Fiesta Pasar Malam.

When asked when the Pardons Board would convene its next meeting, Yeoh said members of the board would be notified accordingly.

"We will be informed. When the meeting is convened, that is all I can answer.

"The absolute power to grant pardons belongs to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, so we have to wait," she said. - NST., 12/9/2026

  

Judge: Najib’s lack of remorse, role in siphoning 1MDB money were factors when deciding his jail, RM13b sentence

The need to prevent others from doing crime is a more important factor than Datuk Seri Najib Razak's public service record when deciding on his 1MDB sentence, the 1MDB trial judge said. — Bernama pic
The need to prevent others from doing crime is a more important factor than Datuk Seri Najib Razak's public service record when deciding on his 1MDB sentence, the 1MDB trial judge said. — Bernama pic

KUALA LUMPUR, June 16 — How did the High Court decide on how many years to imprison and how much to fine former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak in the RM2.2 billion 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) trial?

Trial judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah, who is now a Federal Court judge, today released his 809-page judgment that listed in detail why he had found Najib guilty of all 25 charges in the case.

Ultimately, Najib was ordered in the 1MDB trial to serve 15 years’ of jail time simultaneously; and was fined RM11.38 billion for power abuse, and fined a separate RM2.08 billion for money laundering.

Among other things, the judge said preventing crime would be an more important factor than Najib’s public service, and also said Najib had not shown remorse for his crimes.

Here’s Malay Mail’s quick summary of what the 1MDB trial judge considered when deciding on Najib’s sentence on December 26, 2025, based on the 809-page written decision:

The judge said “public interest” is the most important factor in deciding on the sentence, which includes deterring or discouraging others from committing crime, and also discouraging convicted offenders from doing crime again.

One key theme is the need for deterrence: “This is basically, the sending of a message out from the court that if you are prepared to do the crime, then be also prepared to pay the price for it by spending the time in prison.”

1MDB trial judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah said Najib was not a ‘humble employee’, but a person in exalted position who abused and betrayed the trust placed in him. — Picture by Yusof Isa

What factors did the judge consider?  

1. The crime’s serious implications to society  

Judge said 1MDB, which was founded in 2009 to promote Malaysia’s economic growth, instead became the “centre of one of the largest financial corruption and money laundering scandals in modern history”.

“The repercussions and consequences arising from the fallout of the scandal is still ongoing and there are current financial obligations that still need to be fulfilled. This will impact future generations of Malaysians as well,” the judge said, referring to the prime minister’s December 2, 2025 parliamentary remarks that around RM13 billion of 1MDB debt remains outstanding.

2. 1MDB financial scandal’s damage to Malaysia’s reputation 

The judge said the complex web of financial transactions in the 1MDB case resulted in “colossal” financial losses, and “severe and enduring financial consequences” for Malaysia.

“It was described internationally as being ‘kleptocracy at its worst’, an unwanted blemish on the record of our beloved country’s otherwise sterling reputation on the world stage,” the judge said. 

3. Najib’s abuse and betrayal of the trust given to him in his ‘exalted positions’  

“At the heart of this scandal, stood not a humble employee of an organisation who saw an opportunity to exploit a flaw in the system, but a man exalted and who held the highest reins of power,” the judge said, referring to Najib.

The judge said Najib had simultaneously held three positions (prime minister, finance minister, 1MDB board of advisers’ chairman), used and exploited those positions to act and influence the 1MDB board “to carry out certain abnormal transactions with unholy haste”.

4. Najib’s previous conviction in the RM42 million SRC case, which involves a similar offence to that in the 1MDB trial

5. Najib’s nearly 47 years of public service and previous service as prime minister 

But does Najib’s record of public service and contribution to the nation outweigh his breach of the trust given to him?

The judge said no, and stressed the more important need to discourage people from doing crime:

”After taking into account all these factors including the magnitude of the crime both in terms of the colossal sums involved and magnitude and scale of the repercussions from the scandal, including the ongoing financial obligations of the nation for the present and future generations, this court is of the view that a deterrent sentence is called for and this therefore outweighs the public service record and contribution to the service of the nation by the accused.”

6. Najib’s blaming of others for 1MDB scandal, lack of remorse  

“This court has also to rightfully consider that the accused has not exhibited or displayed any remorse for the offences committed, having chosen instead to attach the blame for this scandal to others including the management of 1MDB.”

The judge instead said evidence in court clearly showed that Najib had orchestrated the siphoning of money from 1MDB through his proxy Low Taek Jho’s deception, and had worked “hand in hand” with and through Low to make a complex web of transactions which resulted in 1MDB funds eventually reaching Najib’s private bank account.

Before the judge decided on Najib’s sentence, his legal team had tried to argue that Najib did show remorse through his son’s public reading of his apology letter on October 24, 2024. 

In that letter, Najib had reportedly apologised for the 1MDB debacle happening under his watch as prime minister, and said it is unfair for him to be held legally responsible and had hoped to be proved innocent.

7. Najib’s actions to cover up crimes when the 1MDB financial scandal first became public   

The judge said Najib’s actions included disbanding a task force looking into the 1MDB scandal, and attempt to persuade Bank Negara Malaysia’s governor at the time to issue a statement to clear him of all wrongdoing.

After listing all these factors, the judge then decided on Najib’s jail sentence and fine in the 1MDB case.

What we know about Najib’s status now (SRC and 1MDB) 

Najib is currently serving his reduced six-year jail term from the SRC case, with his imprisonment due to be completed in August 2028 or August 2029 (depending on whether he pays the RM50 million fine there).

Najib’s SRC jail term can end earlier if he shows good behaviour as a prisoner and his jail time is reduced by one-third.

The 1MDB trial judge has ordered that Najib immediately start serving his 15-year jail term, after his SRC jail time ends.

Najib has filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence in the 1MDB case, but has not applied for a stay or pause on his 1MDB sentence.

No hearing date has been fixed for Najib’s 1MDB appeal, as it is still in the preliminary stages. The appeal is scheduled for case management on June 19 at the Court of Appeal. - Malay Mail, 17/6/2026

Key events in Datuk Seri Najib Razak's RM2.2b 1MDB trial

Sep 20 2018

Najib, aged 65, charged with 25 counts (4 power abuse, 21 money laundering)

Aug 28 2019

1MDB trial begins

Dec 26 2025

High Court finds Najib guilty of all 25 charges (Sentencing includes: 15 years' jail + RM11.38b fine for power abuse; RM2.081b penalty for money laundering)

Dec 29 2025

Najib files appeal against 1MDB conviction, sentence

Made with Flourish • Create a timeline

Bersih: Najib must remain behind bars

By Noel Achariam
September 10, 2026 @ 4:26pm
facebook sharing button
twitter sharing button
whatsapp sharing button

KUALA LUMPUR: Former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak must serve the rest of his sentence in prison, Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih) executive director Asraf Sharafi said.

Representing 47 civil society and youth groups, Asraf said Najib "must serve the rest of his sentence in prison."

"Why is his case being prioritised when many ordinary prisoners are still waiting for a chance to seek pardons?

"Najib has already received a sentence reduction in February 2024 from 12 years to six years, and his fine was cut from RM210 million to RM50 million," he told reporters at the Bersih office in Petaling Jaya today.

Asraf remarks come after Umno president Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said he hoped for the best outcome for Najib ahead of tomorrow's Pardons Board meeting.

Zahid said the matter fell under the absolute prerogative of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, whose discretion and wisdom would determine the final decision.

"We hope for the best because this power is the absolute prerogative of His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

"I am confident that Tuanku's discretion and wisdom will determine the final decision, which is His Majesty's absolute prerogative to announce," he told reporters here today.

It was reported that the Federal Territories Pardons Board is expected to discuss Najib's application when it meets, although it remains unclear whether the meeting will result in a decision.

Asraf said Malaysians who demanded accountability over the 1MDB scandal deserved not to be betrayed.

"Our message to the justice system is that if the most powerful person, who holds immense power, is convicted of an offence and has robbed billions of ringgit, then is suddenly pardoned, to us that is unfair."

Najib, 73, has been serving a six-year jail sentence at Kajang Prison since August 2022 after being convicted on seven charges in the SRC International case involving RM42 million transferred from the former 1MDB unit to his personal bank accounts.

In December 2025, he was convicted in a separate 1MDB-Tanore case on four counts of abuse of power and 21 counts of money laundering. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison and fined RM11.38 billion.

Najib's original 12-year sentence in the SRC case was reduced to six years and his RM210 million fine cut to RM50 million following a partial royal pardon in January 2024. - NST, 10/9/2026