YOURSAY | ‘Are Anwar's detractors trying to call the judgement of the Agong into question?’

No difference between a 'free' and 'full' pardon

Fernz: Only a court can say whether a full pardon and free pardon are the same. There's pardon, conviction, and eligibility. What did the prime minister recommend for de facto Pakatan Harapan leader Anwar Ibrahim? Pardon for what? Can a pardon wipe out the conviction and non-eligibility?

Anonymous_1419577444: Thanks for explaining this, Zaid Ibrahim. Now let the courts come to the same conclusion.

Capo: Anwar was given a full pardon by the Agong on the basis of the miscarriage of justice. That means he was unjustly and cruelly imprisoned by the so-called leaders who saw him as a political threat, starting from Dr Mahathir Mohamad to Najib Abdul Razak. If they had their way, they would have Anwar still languishing in prison rather than be active in politics again.

If Anwar had not been forgiving and magnanimous before the 14th general election, Najib would still be prime minister today, and Mahathir would likely have been hit with charges.

We see Anwar as the father of reform and multiculturalism. And that is why he will be the best prime minister for all Malaysians. So those who are bent on impeding Anwar’s rise to the prime minister, eat your heart out.

Newday: The art of muddying the waters of logic has been fine-tuned by religious zealots in this country. This exercise by PAS is a fine example. As Zaid states, can we move onto the Port Dickson by-election without further distraction, please?

Caripasal: The objection to the pardon doesn’t make sense. Having served the jail sentence, what Anwar needed from the Agong is merely a pardon to allow him to contest in the election immediately. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Agong, exerting his constitutional right, granted a pardon to Anwar. Whatever PAS wants to call it, it was a pardon to allow him to contest in the election. If not for the right to contest immediately, what other pardon was the Agong giving to Anwar?

Anonymous_1527925538: If there is no definition of what constitutes a free and a full pardon in the Federal Constitution, then every individual will give his own interpretation. The Federal Court is the final arbiter in the interpretation of the constitution. So Port Dickson voter Noraziah Mohd Shariff is right to make the challenge through the courts.

Capco MY Timbuktu: Is PAS is trying to call the judgement of the Agong into question?

Anonymous 1802761448130592: This is just PAS hoping to gain backdoor access to the Port Dickson parliamentary seat, trying to stir up a confusion.

Sometimes we wonder what the intentions of these self-proclaimed 'holy men' from PAS are. How nice if these ‘holy men’ lived up to the ideal, and refrained from messing around in the affairs of the ordinary mundane people like us, leading noble, quiet lives away from the frantic pursuit of fame, money and power.

Kawak: PAS has always had great lawyers and tok gurus. But when their minds are tainted and clouded with greed for political power and hatred for their political enemies, their views are distorted to achieve their aims.

PAS claim themselves to be a righteous party, but they supported a kleptocrat and a corrupt government previously, while party president Abdul Hadi Awang engaged in name-calling against his opponents, especially Amanah.

New Horizon: Not being a legally trained person, it is confusing to a layperson like myself on the difference between a ‘full pardon’ and a ‘free pardon’. Normally, the word ‘full’ would seem to cover everything.

When it was reported that the Agong has granted Anwar full pardon, the public believed that he is again a free person like any other ordinary citizen without a criminal record.

Redmann: We are not interested in the English common law definition of a royal pardon. In the Malaysian context, with the rulers being the defenders of the faith, why are we eviscerating a simple act of the Agong in the exercise of his constitutional duty and not just accepting it as a royal prerogative?

Our constitutional knife was dull and blunt when the British failed to mention that Umno president, whether qualified or not, would be prime minister before May 9, 2018. A series of serious flaws seem to be apparent in our supreme law of the land despite the over 700 amendments.

Ex-CJ weighs in on whether ex-convicts can contest in elections

Hmmmmmmmm: Didn’t former chief justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad read the pardon? Anwar’s application for the full pardon was made and granted on the grounds that there he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice. So why all this hoo-ha about seeking the removal of the disqualification when a crime was never committed in the first place?

Redmann: Full pardon, free pardon, unequivocal pardon, pardon without equivocations, remission of sentence, commutation of sentence, etc. – mere linguistics and tautology to confuse the layman and confound the learned.

When the executive authority of the government reposes with the Agong (Article 39) who exercises the right of pardon, the die is cast when read in conjunction with Article 48 (3), which says that the disqualification of a person from being a member of parliament "may be removed by the Yang di-Pertain Agong...."

Hamid does not elaborate on Article 48 (3), what it means or imparts. It debunks the "full pardon" or "free pardon" excuse and explanation. So, what is this former chief justice trying to say, or prove in the ultimate analysis? Hamid is engaged in the act of flogging a dead horse.

If the Federal Constitution is flawed, it is what it is despite the 700 amendments made since 1957. When he was chief justice, I doubt if he ever made any mention of any lacunae in the supreme law of the land when presiding over cases that required a constitutional interpretation. Now, his partisan politics surfaces.

Gerard Lourdesamy: Nonsense. Disqualification under Article 48 (1)(e) of the Federal Constitution arises if no free pardon is granted under Article 42. If a free pardon is granted, then the person is no longer disqualified from standing for elections as a result of his conviction and sentence.

If no free pardon is granted, only then can the Agong remove the five-year disqualification from standing for election under Article 48 (3). The full pardon effectively erases the conviction and sentence unless the Agong says otherwise.

It is not for the courts to confirm, review or vary and/or attempt to define the purport and extent of the granting of the pardon, because it is done in the exercise of a high prerogative power of the Agong.

The local and commonwealth jurisprudence on this point is very clear. Hamid should not pretend to be the defender of the constitution when he was nothing but a bigot both on and off the bench.

Harry L Ishmael: A full pardon is akin to the crime not having being committed at all, and if that is the case, why are we asking for the other provisions of the law?

It is a full pardon and has to be read in that context, to lay any other conditions would mean it was a pardon with conditions. Now were there any conditions in the pardon? Certainly not, so what is this man talking about?

Anonymous 2462: Anwar has already been granted a full pardon by the Agong and he has no more criminal record. He has no need for a free pardon as he has no criminal record. If a full pardon expunged the conviction from the records, why is a free pardon needed?

Fernz: The court will not interfere in the prerogative and discretionary powers of Agong. However, the court can say whether Anwar's conviction still stands. In that case, he's not eligible to contest, unless he goes back to Agong and removes the disqualification.

The prime minister recommended the pardon. We don't know the nature of his recommendation. He may have just advised full pardon without specifying the disqualification be removed.

Vgeorgemy: Has Hamid completely lost his marbles? One day he says no one should go against royalty, another day he is calling the quality of the Agong’s royal pardon into question.

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.