Guest Editorial: Declassify Pardons Board minutes: Transparency must prevail over confidentiality
Dr. P Ramasamy
Is Dr Zaliha’s time at the PMO’s Department quickly running out?
Federal Territories Minister Dr. Zaliha Mustafa, a member of the Pardons Board, recently emphasized that the minutes of the board’s deliberations are confidential.
While confidentiality is generally upheld in such matters, extraordinary circumstances—such as accusations of governmental opacity regarding the alleged royal addendum favoring house arrest for former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak—warrant a different approach.
In the face of these allegations, the government has the authority to declassify the minutes in the larger public interest.
The Cabinet, with the consent of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, could initiate this process, ensuring transparency and accountability.
The argument that confidentiality must be maintained unconditionally raises concerns, particularly when public trust in the government’s credibility is at stake.
Even if discussions on the royal addendum took place, there is a possibility that such deliberations might not have been formally minuted or were recorded off the record.
However, this does not absolve the government of its responsibility to address public concerns. If the government is confident in its actions, what is there to hide by invoking confidentiality?
The question then arises: does the credibility and legitimacy of the government outweigh the confidentiality of the Pardons Board minutes?
Dr. Zaliha’s insistence on shielding these deliberations under the guise of confidentiality could be perceived as an attempt to evade scrutiny.
Transparency, in this context, is not just a matter of choice but a necessity to maintain public trust.
Moreover, the revelation of the royal addendum by Najib’s family before the Court of Appeal’s decision raises serious questions.
The letter’s existence, coupled with the court’s decision to grant Najib a full hearing at the High Court, points to potential procedural irregularities. This suggests that key figures in the government might have been aware of the addendum.
If the government does not challenge the existence of the royal addendum, it risks further undermining public confidence.
Dismissing it as a figment of Najib’s imagination is not a defensible position, especially given the evidence of its existence.
In such circumstances, making the Pardons Board’s minutes public might ultimately be a symbolic gesture.
However, the refusal to do so fuels suspicions and questions the government’s commitment to transparency and accountability.
Dr. Zaliha’s firm defense of confidentiality raises the question of whether she is acting under instructions from her Madani government superiors.
The public deserves clarity on this issue. By adhering to constitutional and legal procedures, the government has the opportunity to dispel doubts and demonstrate its integrity.
Failure to do so risks further erosion of public trust and confidence in the administration.
In the spirit of transparency and good governance, declassifying the Pardons Board minutes would be a critical step in addressing public concerns and restoring confidence in the justice system.
Prof. Dr. P Ramasamy
Malaysian, 75 years of age. Former professor of political economy UKM. Former Senior Research Fellow, ISEAS. Former Visiting Professor, University Kassel, Germany. Deputy Chief Minister Penang, 2008-2023. Former member of parliament, 2008-2013. Three terms Perai state assemblyman. Former Chairman of Penang Hindu Endowments Board. Involved in peace talks in Aceh and Sri Lanka. International peace consultant. Chairman of political party Urimai.
Subscribe Below:
Henry Kissinger was not a proud Jew. “If it were not for the accident of my birth, I would be antisemitic,” Kissinger said in 1973, according to the authoritative 1992 biography by Walter Isaacson, citing Oval Office recordings. “Any people […] persecuted for two thousand years must be doing something wrong" he said.
The tamils like may other self perceived persecuted groups tend to borrow from the Zionistic traditions of claiming persecution instead f engagig in introspection to find the root of their problems.
The United for the Rights of Malaysians Party (abbrev: URIMAI; Malay: Parti Bersepakat Hak Rakyat Malaysia) is a Malaysian political party. It was founded by former Deputy Chief Minister of Penang Ramasamy Palanisamy after he left the Democratic Action Party (DAP). ( a Sino centric political party in Malaysia that caters almost exclusively to the needs and objectives of the Malaysian Chinese population to the exclusion of non Chinese- They say otherwise)
The party has yet to be registered by the country's Registrar of Societies.Pending legalisation, interim party chairman Ramsamy has referred to the party as "movement to defend the rights of the people, especially the non-Malays." (meaning Malaysia's Tamils)
Despite being Indian-focused (read Tamil focused), Ramasamy has asserted that it (Urimai) would be open to all ethnic groups,but has said he would not refer to it as "multi-racial like other political parties." (meaning it is going to be a Tamil version of the DAP of which he was a member before being unceremoniously dumped in true Chinese Xenophobic traditions).
The above and Ramasamy's writings clearly fly in the face of his anti Malay writings and slurs which proclaims the Malays are anti Indian and racist. In these writings he accuses the Malay dominated goverment of Malaysia (a country in which the indigenous people are ethnic Malays who constitute 71% of its population) as being racist practising a form of apartheid. Clearly ispite of his impressive academic orientation Ramasamy does not know the first thig about Apartheid or its policies.
The irony of it all is that Ramasamy and the Kit Siangs of this world fail to see how chauvanistic and race centric they themselves are (a by product of British imperialism). If they could only see the beam in their eyes instead of trying to pick the specs oout of the eyes of the Malays, they could, perhaps just, be able to relieve themselves of the burden of self infliced wounds on themselves and find a different more productive path to being inclusive and harmoniously conected to the main stream. There are benefits to such a approach.
A pardon is the exercise of the Royal Prerogative and is not subject to an opportunity to water down the rights, powers and privileges of the monarchy.
The pardons board is not obliged and nor is it permitted to reveal the King's privileges and his prerogatives nor how it is exercised by him or his delegates (the board) in the exercise of those prvileges and prerogative.
As such no legal reasoning is required for supporting the exercise of a pardon. It is a very basic precept of law. Underlying that prerogative is the constitutional theory expressed in the legal maxim "the King can do no wrong".