COMMENT | 'Rendered service to the nation': What does it mean?

Editor's note: Malaysiakini has obtained permission to republish this article, which first appeared here.

COMMENT | In Malaysia, the phrase “rendered service to the nation” appears to take on a different meaning, especially when invoked to justify the pardon of a corrupt politician.

Here is one way the phrase has been applied

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said he had addressed the Pardons Board (while serving as federal territories minister), and, recently, the current king, about the former premier Najib Abdul Razak’s “services unto the nation”.

That troubled me quite a bit and got me thinking.

What does ‘service to the nation’ mean? 

Once appointed to office, politicians enjoy many privileges: a huge salary, free vehicles, personal guards, and police escorts. They lavish themselves with the three “Ps” - princely titles, high positions, and pensions.

Then, as it is increasingly the case, the politician is charged and convicted for corruption. The convicted politician continues to claim privileges that are not available to lesser criminals.

On what grounds?

Because he “rendered services unto the nation”; while the lesser criminal is to be treated as a social leper, deserving little mercy.

Is that not an odd interpretation of the phrase, “rendered service to the nation”?

Consider what “rendered service to the nation” should mean.

Is it not true that the phrase “rendered service to the nation” must have the same meaning as those in the following list (please do not be offended? This list is neither comprehensive nor in any particular order):

(1) School teachers and university lecturers who spend exhausting hours nurturing our children to become good citizens accompanied by academic and professional skills;

(2) Medical professionals who risk their very lives saving the ill;

(3) Judges who go about their business quietly upholding law and order - without being able to speak publicly of their challenges?

(4) Public prosecutors who efficiently prosecute criminals;

(5) Police officers who succumb to their injuries while stopping a crime;

(6) Soldiers killed in defence of our nation;

(7) Firefighters who brave the flames and lose their lives to save victims;

(8) Civil servants who spend years quietly helping the poor and the needy;

(9) Members of NGOs who brave an uncaring society and assist the poor, the oppressed, and the unrepresented?

(10) Members of the local municipal council who clean out the sewages so that you would not be inundated with your own disposals?

How is it that all these people are not recognised to have “served the nation” and or given the same rewards bestowed on politicians?

Why is it, in Malaysia, that a politician assumes a higher status, acquiring royal titles and a huge, lifelong pension after serving only four to five years?

Why do politicians feel entitled to a pardon for clear transgressions of the law?

Contrast those questions with this real-life example of how a court reacted to the mitigation of “service to the nation” when sentencing a politician who had pleaded guilty to a charge of corruption.

This was in the Tan Koon Swan case in Singapore. Tan, a former MCA president and a key political figure, was involved in the Pan-Electric scandal in the 1980s.

Why was Tan charged with CBT?

Tan was implicated in a stock fraud scheme in a Singaporean company called Pan-Electric Industries. His political position became, in law, a mitigating factor.

The “mitigating factors” a court considers during the sentencing differ from the factors a Pardons Board might consider while evaluating a petition for mercy. 

In Tan’s case, ‘services to the nation’ played a crucial role

So, Tan’s counsel argued that he should not go to prison because of his “services’ to his nation” and “his party”.

This argument did not factor in the consequence of what Tan had done to society. One critical principle the court considers before passing a sentence concerns the interest of the society at large.

This principle played a huge role in Tan’s case. The Pan-Electric disaster had ruined 5,500 shareholders. Their debts totalled S$480 million. In 1985, that was equivalent to RM1.2 billion.

What did Singapore’s judge say?

 The Singapore judge, Lai Kew Chai, was unmoved by Tan’s pleas of “national service”. He said Tan’s offence had, “[Struck] at the very heart, integrity, reputation and confidence of Singapore as a commercial city and financial centre”.

He sentenced Tan to two years’ imprisonment and slapped him with a fine of S$232,000.

Two key takeaways from Tan’s case

There are two key takeaways from the decision on Tan: First, the “integrity point”. The judge referred to the principle of “integrity, reputation and confidence”.

A leader has “served his nation” when his leadership duties are performed on an unflinching commitment to integrity.

However, when a corrupt leader betrays the trust of his nation and the confidence it has placed in him, he cannot be said to have “served his country”. He has done nothing but rendered a great disservice to it.

Let’s compare this to Najib’s case

In pleading for the mitigation of his sentence, Najib also spoke of his “service to the nation”.

The defence referred to Najib’s aristocratic background, his presidency of Umno and BN, and the enormous responsibilities he had held as a member of the cabinet, and state leadership, ever since he was 25.

The Court of Appeal cited an opposite view pointed out by the Federal Court in public prosecutor (PP) v. Dato’ Waad Mansor. The court’s asperity while responding to Waad’s claim of “all that he had lost”, is telling:

“The [Court of Appeal] had placed much emphasis on the fact that the respondent’s political career is destroyed, the positions he once held lost and possibly never to be recovered and his good name tarnished. With respect, these are by no means extenuating circumstances which could attract sympathy…”

Again, in PP v Dato Haji Mohamed Muslim bin Haji Othman, the court had ruled that:

“[The] aim of the ordinance is to bring to book renegade politicians and public servants who abuse their positions. The effect of any punishment imposed is to deter politicians and public servants from conducting their public affairs in a corrupt manner.”

The Court of Appeal referred to what Raja Azlan Shah had ruled in the 1977 case involving another prominent politician, Harun Idris, the Selangor menteri besar in PP v Datuk Haji Harun Bin Haji Idris:

The court found him guilty of three counts of corruption. In sentencing him, Raja Azlan Shah said: “You … allowed avarice to corrupt you…. In so doing, you have not only betrayed your party’s cause… but also the oath of office which you have taken and subscribed before your sovereign ruler…”

Relying on this passage, the Court of Appeal said:

“The ‘frightening decay in the integrity of some of our leaders” that Raja Azlan Shah warned us of 45 years ago is still a scourge that plagues this beautiful nation. The courts in upholding the rule of law would have to do what is necessary to ensure that this modern-day plague is eradicated for the good of the nation”.

The Court of Appeal also rejected Najib’s explanation of “national interest”. It said:

“This is definitely not something that can be said to have been done in the national interest. There is no national interest here, just national embarrassment.”

So that put an end to Najib’s arguments on the “service to the nation” point.

For its part, on March 31,  2023, the Federal Court affirmed the decisions of both courts.

Now to the second point

If “service to the nation” has failed as a “mitigation point” at trial, would it not be odd for the Pardons Board to revive the very same argument, and accept that a corrupt leader has “served his nation”?

The lesson here

The cases involving Tan and Najib highlight that neither a court of law nor the Pardons Board must ever be swayed by arguments of “service to the nation” when considering applications from politicians found guilty of corruption.

Should not the Pardons Board formally change its stance?

So, is it not time for the Pardons Board to establish a clear ruling? Should it not establish a guiding principle to the effect that if a politician is convicted of corruption, the basic principle is that he has not served his nation; and no credit should be given for that.

If anything, it should be considered an aggravating factor.

GK GANESAN is a lawyer and an international commercial arbitrator.

The author thanks UK Menon for his patient editing; and KN Geetha, TP Vaani, JN Lheela and Lydia Jaynthi for their assistance.

The content is the intellectual property of the author protected by copyright laws. Contact gk@gkganesan.com for permission.

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

COMMENT | Power without principles: PN has lost the plot

No mercy for Najib, groups say in marking 'grand discount day'

Najib deserves chance to redeem himself, says anti-graft NGO

COMMENT | Madani govt soft on scandal-ridden political figures

I really believed Najib's RM600k cheque was genuine - Ibrahim Ali

PHOTO ESSAY | Youths lead battle against corruption