‘Rendered service to the nation’: what does it mean?
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. Odd, isn’t it?
Here is one way the phrase has been applied
Some days ago, the Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, said that he had addressed the Board (while serving as FT Minister), and then quite, recently, the current King himself, about the former premier Najib’s “services unto the nation”. 1On December 10, 2024, Prime Minister Anwar had deflected questions at the Dewan Rakyat over the House arrest addendum. See https://international.astroawani.com/malaysia-news/malaysia-pm-anwar-deflects-questions-house-arrest-najib-500095 . He mentioned that he had also discussed Najib’s pardon with the current King, Sultan Ibrahim, during his visit to Johor on December 9, 2024: See https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2024/12/10/pm-anwar-says-he-discussed-najibs-pardon-with-king-during-johor-visit/159406. On January 11, 2025 Anwar Ibrahim publicly conceded that he had spoken to the King about Najib Razak’s “services to the nation”. This discussion had, reportedly occurred when Anwar had been serving as the Federal Territories Minister. See https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2024/12/10/pm-anwar-says-he-discussed-najibs-pardon-with-king-during-johor-visit/159406 . Refuting allegations that the government had concealed the Addendum issue, Anwar insisted that the Addendum had not been discussed during the Pardons Board meeting at the time he had served as FT Minister. He then recalled that he had addressed the King about Najib’s “contributions to the country as Prime Minister and Chief Minister”. “During the meeting, this matter (addendum) was not raised while I was present, nor was it brought up when Dr Zaliha Mustafa (Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department [Federal Territories] was there. [Nothing] was hidden,” he said. See https://www.bernama.com/en/news.php?id=2381620
That troubled me quite a bit — and got me thinking.
Take the case of a politician: what does ‘service to the nation’ mean to him?
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. Then he applied for a Royal Pardon. The convicted politician continues to claim privileges that are not available to lesser criminals.
On what grounds?
Is such a politican (who has, allegedly, ‘rendered services to the nation’) to treated with deference; while the lesser criminal is to be regarded 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 hallowed phrase ‘rendered service to the nation’ must have the same meaning as those in the following list? (Please do not take offence: this list is neither comprehensive nor is it in any particular order):- 2 This list does not contain practising lawyers. For those who question a lawyer’s motives, please watch the real-life story in the movie called ‘Jai Bhim’. Then you will know what a huge part of the Malaysian Bar does.
(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 charitable or welfare organisations who brave an uncaring society to assist the poor, the oppressed, and the unrepresented?
(10). Members of the local municipal council who clean out the sewage, 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, requiring royal titles and a huge, lifelong pension — that too after serving a mere 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 a politician who had pleaded guilty to a charge of corruption. He raised the phantom of ‘service to the nation’ in mitigation of sentence
This happened in the Tan Koon Swan case in Singapore. In the 1980s, Tan, a former MCA president and a key political figure, had been involved in a criminal breach of trust scandal in Singapore.
Why was Tan Koon Swan charged with CBT?
Tan was the majority shareholder of a dying Singaporean company, Pan-Electric Industries. Tan was charged for abetting a stock fraud scheme involving Pan-El.3 The charge read that Tan had ‘abetted’ a scheme that led to the December collapse of Pan-Electric Industries. Pan-El was a marine salvage, hotel, and property group. To fund its operations, it had entered into a huge number of ‘forward contracts’, which it had failed to settle. Once Pan-El defaulted on its forward contracts, others, including brokers and finance managers, and shareholders who had entered into similar contracts could not pay for their own forward contracts. This had a domino effect. It led to an industry-wide crisis. Pan-El collapsed, taking down everyone associate with it. In 1985, to save the company, he illegally transferred into Singapore, more than S$29 million from various accounts. The prosecutors alleged Tan had acted in criminal breach of trust (CBT). Kyle Iman (of Cilisos.com) explains it in this way https://cilisos.my/in-the-80s-an-mca-president-was-jailed-in-two-countries-but-may-not-have-been-guilty/. To contain the damages, KLSE and SES markets had to be closed for three days https://cilisos.my/in-the-80s-an-mca-president-was-jailed-in-two-countries-but-may-not-have-been-guilty[/mfn]
Mitigating factors during sentencing differ from factors that a Pardons Board would consider – except in two situations
Tan pleaded guilty. He thought (as he had been assured by the prosecution) that he would not go to prison.3 Because the accused would have saved the resources of the state better employed elsewhere, he is given a ‘discount’. Depending on the offence, and the accused’s conduct, the purpose of sentencing is to achieve a combination of four aims: retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation: Reg v J H Sargeant (1975) 60 Cr App R 74 at pp 77–78, (CA) by Lawton LJ; and applied in Malaysia, e.g. in Muhammad Isa bin Aris & Ors v Public Prosecutor [2011] 5 MLJ 342 His plea of guilt, (and he thought) political position became, in law, a mitigating factor.4 The discount would be applied on the actual sentence the court wishes to impose from a spectrum of punishments (not on the ‘maximum’ sentence).See Public Prosecutor v Ravindran & Ors [1993] 1 MLJ 45; [1992] 1 LNS 47; Mohd Abdullah Ang Swee Kang v. PP [1987] 2 CLJ 405; ; [1987] CLJ (Rep) 209; [1988] 1 MLJ 167, and Pendakwa Raya lwn Roniran bin Adnan (3) [2019] MLJU 1927 Note that the ‘mitigating factors’ a court considers during the sentencing procedure, differ from the factors a Pardons Board might consider while evaluating a petition for mercy.
In the Tan Koon Swan case, ‘services to the nation’ played a crucial role
So Tan’s counsel argued that Tan should not go to prison5 The Singaporean prosecutors themselves had agreed not to press for Tan’s imprisonment. They offered Tan a deal. They promised ‘not press for imprisonment on two conditions. First, that Tan pleaded guilty. Second, he had to comply with a ‘payback arrangement’. He agreed and pleaded guiltyBy the time he came to be charged, that already have cost him Sing $15.8 million. and https://www.upi.com/Archives/1986/08/26/Maylaysian-politician-sentenced-to-jail/8497525412800/ because of Tan’s ‘services’ to his nation’, and ‘his party’. 6 A second ground was that Tan had agreed to pay back Pan-Electric debtors. See p.21. First Tan’scounsel said: “The accused is the President of the Malaysian Chinese Association, the 2nd largest component party in the ruling Barisan Nasional, (and) his services as the President of MCA are urgently required by the 400,000 members, particularly at this time.” Again, the judge reports: “In mitigation, learned counsel for the accused traced the latter’s personal and political background. He is very much a self-made man. It was submitted that in late 1984 the accused had to meet a wide range of commercial and political responsibilities and that the offence was committed under extenuating circumstances in which he was the largest single loser in the “bizarre affair.” A word about Koon Swan’s alleged ‘extenuating circumstances’ and why his ‘services were required by 400,000 MCA members’. In 1984, Tan was the Vice President of MCA. The MCA leader was Neo Yee Pan. Tan had built a name as a corporate player with the Midas touch https://theedgemalaysia.com/article/rise-and-fall-tan-koon-swan There was an MCA party election that year. Tan accused Neo Yee Pan of manipulating election results by creating ‘phantom voters’. In response, Neo kicked him, and 13 others, out of MCA. The ensuing ‘do or die’ battle between both caused a huge rift in within MCA, so much so that the prime minister, Dato Seri Mahathir, had to intervene. Mahathir suggested a second free and fair election. MCA held it on November 11, 1985. Neo lost. Tan emerged victorious. He secured the support of 76.9% of the party’s electors. That victory brought him no joy. He was not out of the woods yet. MCA is not unknown for the political elimination by means fair or foul. Do you remember the widely circulated sex DVD of another MCA deputy president in 2008? He, being the gentleman he was, admitted it, and resigned from all political posts on January 2, 2008, including his positions as Minister of Health, MP for Labis, and as Vice-President of the MCA [see https://www.channelnewsasia.com/commentary/sex-video-scandal-azmin-ali-man-allegations-corruption-malaysia-1323226. See also Kyle Iman’s explanation in a 2020 posting at https://cilisos.my/in-the-80s-an-mca-president-was-jailed-in-two-countries-but-may-not-have-been-guilty/
This argument did not factor-in the consequence of what Tan had done to society. One critical principle the court considers before passing sentence concerns the interest of the society at large.7 First, even if a plea of guilt was immediately offered, it would again be disregarded. Lord Lane CJ’s dicta In the case of Costen (1989) 11 Cr App R (S) CA 182 has been accepted in Malaysia in Pendakwa Raya lwn Roniran bin Adnan (3) [2019] MLJU 1927. Lord Lane CJ said as follows: “But there are certain exceptions, …, to that general rule that discount will be allowed for a plea of guilty. The first and most important exception is the protection of the public. Where it is necessary that a long sentence, if necessary the maximum sentence should be passed in order to protect the public, in those circumstances a plea of guilty may not result in any discount. The court will consider whether any sentence meted out was necessary to ‘protect the public’. In those circumstances, no discount would be given Mohamed Azmi J (later SCJ) said: “For the purpose of doing substantial justice, the court must bear in mind that justice must be done not only to the convicted person but also to society at large on whose behalf the Public Prosecutor acts.”Jumari bin Mohamed v Public Prosecutor [1982] 1 MLJ 282, at p 284 This principle played a huge role in Koon Swan’s case. The Pan-Electric disaster had ruined 5,500 shareholders. Their debts totalled S$480mil. In 1985, that was equivalent to RM1.2 billion. 8If calculated in 2025, the losses would have exceeded RM1.56 billion.
What did the Singapore judge say about this claim ‘service to the nation argument’?
The Singapore Judge, Lai Kew Chai J was unmoved by Tan’s pleas of ‘national service’.9He rejected the plea bargain. He said, “in the administration of justice in Singapore there is no room whatsoever for any plea bargaining”. Public Prosecutor v Tan Koon Swan [1987] 1 MLJ 18. The The judge said, further: “In my judgment public interest plainly requires that the accused should receive a punishment which will not only fit his crime but which will also act as a deterrent to other persons who may be similarly disposed. Our commercial market place must be protected from and purged of the likes of the accused.”
He said Tan’s offence had, “[Struck] at the very heart, integrity, reputation and confidence of Singapore as a commercial city and financial center”.10Ibid. He also spoke of “the effect the marine salvage and property conglomerate’s collapse had” on Singapore’s “reputation as a sound financial center.”
He sentenced Koon Swan to two years imprisonment and to a fine of S$232,000.11 It was said that Tan, “turned ashen as the sentence was read”. His entire career was gone. Things were about to get even worse. In 1988, after they released him from Changi Prison, he was charged in Malaysia for criminal breach of trust. Koon Swan had transferred RM23.2 million from Multi-Purpose Holdings Berhad (MPHB) to the dying Singapore company, Pan-Electric Industries. He was found guilty and imprisoned for a further 18 months. With a debt of over RM400 million, he was declared a bankrupt. He is now a missionary See .https://cilisos.my/in-the-80s-an-mca-president-was-jailed-in-two-countries-but-may-not-have-been-guilty/
There are two key takeaways from the Tan Koon Swan decision: 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.
Compare all this to what Dato Seri Najib argued in mitigation at the Court of Appeal:
In pleading for the mitigation of his own sentence, Najib also spoke of his ‘service to the nation’.12See paragraphs 2889 to 2891 of the High Court Grounds of Judgment and paragraph [384] in the Court of Appeal judgement.
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. He lamented that his fall from grace and the ensuing loss of reputation was its own punishment; and that that was quite enough.13Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak v Public Prosecutor [2021] MLJU 2485
The Court of Appeal cited an opposite view. This had been pointed out by the Federal Court in PP v. Dato’ Waad Mansor. The apex court’s asperity while responding to Waad Mansor’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…”14 2005] 1 CLJ 421; [2005] 2 MLJ 101
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.”15[1982] 1 LNS 71; [1983] 1 MLJ 245
The Court of Appeal referred to what Raja Azlan Shah FJ (as HRH then was) had ruled in the 1977 another case involving a prominent politician, Dato Harun Idris, the Chief Minister of Selangor. in of PP v Datuk Haji Harun Bin Haji Idris: 16(No 2) [1977] 1 MLJ 15, Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak v Public Prosecutor [2021] MLJU 2485 the court had found Harun guilty on three counts of corruption. In sentencing him, Raja Azlan Shah FJ (HRH) 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 FJ (as HRH then was) 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”.17 Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak v Public Prosecutor [2021] MLJU 2485
The Court of Appeal 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.” 18 Ibid paragraph [141]
So that put an end to Najib’s arguments on the ‘service to the nation’ point.
For its part, on 31 March 2023, in dismissing Najib’s final appeal, the Federal Court affirmed the decisions of both courts below.
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 had ‘served his nation’?
The lesson, is this:
The cases of Tan Koon Swan and Dato Seri Najib Razak 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?
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”?
∞§∞
[The author thanks Mr. UK Menon for his patience and his painstaking editing. Credit goes to Ms KN Geetha, Miss Lydia Jaynthi, Miss TP Vaani, and Miss JN Lheela for their research work]
Image is credited to Andrew Petrischev of Unsplash
@Copyright reserved.
All content on this site are the intellectual property of GK Ganesan Kasinathan and is protected by local and international copyright laws. Any use shall be invalid unless written permission is obtained by writing to gk@gkganesan.com