IT’S surely no coincidence that the federal government is hosting its Hari Raya open houses in the six states holding the state elections in the coming months.

As much as it wants to deny the political agenda, it’s glaringly obvious. Come on, Malaysians aren’t fools.

But there are many reasons why Perikatan Nasional leaders should be concerned because this is going to entail a charm offensive by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

And we know the Pakatan Harapan president is very good at it. He is walking into the lion’s den, so to speak, and there would be no more effective way than to personally meet and greet voters.

He won’t even need to make any political speeches. His readiness for a selfie, sense of humour, wit and banter, will be the winning combination to get voters to flock by the droves to the gatherings.

If he’s asked to sing a Hari Raya song, he’d likely belt out more than one. Perikatan leaders, especially those from PAS, will look excruciatingly boring.

This is surely the strategy to penetrate the Malay heartland, which PKR has been struggling to gain support from. Meanwhile, Umno has also found its popularity waning in these constituencies.

Anwar is now going directly to these voters who will surely want to meet him, even if they disagree with his politics and have voted PAS.

It doesn’t matter if these up-close-and-personal approaches translate into votes. After all, he has already put Perikatan leaders in Kedah, Terengganu and Kelantan in a bind.

They can’t boycott these federal government open houses and yet, they’d feel uncomfortable being with him and other Cabinet members.

Perikatan has already accused the government of hijacking what they deem a religious celebration for political reasons and failing to adhere to its own austerity drive.

But PAS is not convincing because the open house celebration is a unique cultural practice of Malaysia and not a religious one as claimed by PAS.

The loudest critic has been PAS secretary-general Datuk Seri Takiyuddin Hassan, who has described it as “an act of crossing the boundaries of respect and etiquette between the federal and state governments.”

The MP for Kota Baru, who is a lawyer, said it “challenges the dignity of the states.”

But PAS leaders have already taken contrasting stands on these open houses. Kelantan PAS chief Datuk Ahmad Yakob and Terengganu Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Samsuri Mokhtar have welcomed the organising of the open houses.

Besides Takiyuddin, outspoken Kedah Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor has also said he doesn’t support these open house events.

Last week, Petaling Jaya DAP MP Lee Chean Chung issued a statement claiming there were internal differences within PAS and said the open houses shouldn’t be politicised because it’s celebrated by everyone in the country.

It’s incredible how politicians can issue statements without batting an eyelid. Of course, these open houses are political, and Malaysians aren’t simpletons.

If no state elections were coming up, one wonders whether the federal government would hold these open houses in the six states, which include Penang, Selangor and Negri Sembilan, too.

Since the federal government will be hosting and paying for the food, drinks, and other arrangements, we can expect a hefty bill – which will be borne by taxpayers, of course.

It doesn’t look like it’s a free lunch. Visitors may think that as taxpayers, they have already paid for these open house festivities so they may as well bring their entire families for the food.

It’s also preposterous to hear PAS leaders criticising the federal government for these open houses being political when they have notoriously used religion for political reasons as well.

They have justified their politics by even defending corruption, with religious exculpation.

Barely seven months after last year’s general election, Malaysians in these six states must come out to vote again.

Well, there’s no conventional entertainment in Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu, so political rallies could provide comic relief from certain politicians’ antics, but for voters in Penang, Selangor and Negri Sembilan, it’s looking like a chore.

The challenge for Pakatan, especially, is to convince urbanites to come out and vote because a poor turn-out due to political fatigue will be detrimental for the party in the state elections.

The non-Malay voters, who are loyal Pakatan backers, are known to be disinterested in by-elections and possibly state elections too, because they believe the status quo would remain.

But in predominantly Malay areas, if there’s a close clash between Pakatan and Perikatan or Barisan Nasional and Perikatan, the non-Malay votes would be costly. Here’s the irony, for the first time, we’ll see Pakatan campaigning for Barisan and vice versa.

Everything is political and the last thing we want is to hear our politicians saying their actions are not political or telling their opponents to stop politicking. Hypocrisy is surplus to requirements.

Graft craft: Too many of us seem to think that politicians greasing their hands is a given, and bribery is tolerated if the amount isn’t of global industrial scale. – 123rf.com

EVEN the most cynical among us is beginning to believe that the fight against corruption is finally real.

It’s becoming arduous for politicians to convince savvy Malaysians because we’ve been let down too often.

Haven’t we heard enough of the empty promises and pledges from politicians to fight graft, only to see them arrested for crimes they vowed to combat?

Then, there’s the proverbial compromise in seeking political arrangements and alliances.

Will we see ongoing corruption cases be dropped for political expediency?

How will Malaysia be judged and its campaign against graft be taken seriously?

Most of us no longer expect to see clean politicians. But this viewpoint isn’t endemic to Malaysia – the world’s population feels the same way, too.

Whether we live in a democratic or authoritarian state, the perception is that the rich and powerful elites live by a different set of rules, what with their strong connections.

No comprehensive survey is needed to determine the sentiments of most Malaysians on corruption and politicians because we have lowered our expectations.

Too many of us seem to think that politicians greasing their hands is a given.

But bribery is tolerated if the amount isn’t of global industrial scale like the 1MDB scandal. In fact, it’s even sanctioned if these lawmakers do a decent job.

We have become indifferent. As the South China Morning Post put it aptly, “from warships costing billions of ringgits that have yet to materialise and feared kickbacks in massive contracts for flood and 5G projects, a stinging corruption index rating suggests that Malaysia’s politicians have failed to get a handle on dishonest and fraudulent conduct – with many of the accused on rotation through different governments.

“Transparency International’s 2022 Corruption Perception Index, released at the end of January, gave Malaysia a rating of 47, on a scale of one to 100, where one equals the most corrupt.”

As horrible as it sounds, and I may be wrong, many people have fatalistic attitudes.

What more, there are even politicians who like to project themselves as religious yet are willing to be apologists for corruption.

Their stand against graft in Parliament or from their statements has barely been audible, but their strict restrictions for concerts, dress codes, and last week, their suspicion that Chinese new villagers could possibly have links to the communist party, have rung loud and clear.

PAS lawmakers may have a 100% attendance in the Dewan Rakyat, but we hope their participation is meaningful and intelligent on important subjects.

We hope they can expose government leakages, poor standards of governance and corruption, as is expected of the opposition.

By now, the series of actions against high-profile politicians, both present and former, along with their family members and aides, should have struck fear.

Hardly a day passes without an influential figure being arrested for questioning by the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) or charged in court.

While Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has said that the MACC will focus its efforts on curbing large-scale corruption cases, it’s necessary to send a message to enforcement officers, too, be it the police, immigration, or municipal councils, that they are being watched.

Ordinary Malaysians may not be part of those giving out wads of cash to politicians, but they must still deal with law enforcers, who are perceived to be on the take.

The approach has to be multi-pronged. Yes, the MACC has been criticised previously for not handling enough big cases, with the “sharks” being let off while the “ikan bilis” (anchovies) get caught in the net.

No doubt, the big names will get the page one treatment, but the fear factor must trickle down to the lower end too, just like Hong Kong’s Independent Anti-Corruption Agency (ICAC), when it launched its massive crackdown in the 1970s against institutionalised corruption that penetrated every stratum of society.

Sure, the MACC must be lauded for their almost daily arrests. Their hard work has kept the media busy with none of us wanting to lose out on news breaks.

The clean-up process has begun, but there’s no massive crackdown because there may not be enough people left to run the government or the institutions.

It may be far from the truth but that’s perception. And perception is all-important.

In the spotlight: MACC has come under fire for its purported leaked investigations on the possible code of conduct breach by a judge in Najib’s SRC International case. – IZZRAFIQ ALIAS/The Star

THERE are two issues relating to Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak’s case that have been hotly debated but really, they amount to nothing in the end. Everyone has an opinion and that’s good.

That includes the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), which feels that there are grounds to believe that judge Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali may have breached the code of conduct.

Mohd Nazlan, now a Court of Appeal judge, was the High Court judge who had convicted and sentenced Najib to 12 years’ jail and a RM210mil fine for misappropriating RM42mil of SRC International funds.

Najib’s legal team has claimed a conflict of interest due to Mohd Nazlan’s tenure as general counsel of Maybank Group in 2006, citing that Maybank Investment Bank Bhd was the body responsible for proposing the formation of SRC International.

So, MACC also has an opinion. That’s fine. But the MACC is merely an investigative authority. Its views and recommendations still need to be referred to the Attorney General.

The AG Chambers will then study any proposal before deciding if it wants to follow up with the case and take it to court. Ultimately, it’s the court of law that decides.

Just read the judgement on the SRC case, where five judges reviewed the judgement and evidence, and unanimously found nothing wrong with Nazlan’s decision.

It’s interesting to note that the MACC itself had pursued cases it felt strongly about winning, but subsequently lost some of them in court. It’s an all too familiar scene, where distinguished businessmen have been put through the ignominy of donning the orange get-up and being taken to court for remand, only to be set free later.

Likewise, it’s unfair to cast aspersions on what the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Azalina Othman Said had revealed in the Dewan Rakyat.

She was queried by Tenggara MP Manndzri Nasib and Tasek Gelugor MP Wan Saiful Wan Jan about the purportedly leaked MACC investigations.

Certainly, she has a duty to respond to their questions. She explained that the MACC, in a letter dated Feb 21, had said that it submitted a report on Nazlan to the chief justice in connection with the breach of the Judges’ Code of Ethics 2009.

Azalina said she informed Dewan Rakyat that the matter was under the purview of the Chief Justice.

That looks like the end of it. But the grudge against her is that she had written a reply dated March 20, 2023, to Najib’s solicitors, Shafee and Co, purportedly confirming that Mohd Nazlan violated the Judges’ Code of Justice and had a conflict of interest.

Now, while Azalina isn’t an AG and merely a politician, the concern is that her views made as a Law Minister has serious repercussions. The reaction on social media has been hostile with some clearly making defamatory remarks about her. Some are quite distinctly unfair because they’ve not read her entire statement and have been quick to draw the gun on her simply because she’s from Umno.

Then, there’s the move by Najib’s lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, to use the Federal Court’s dissenting judgement, in refusing Najib’s bid to review the apex court’s ruling last year, to seek a royal pardon.

Surely, as a defence lawyer, Shafee will exploit every possible loophole and opportunity to get Najib out of jail. After all, that’s what he’s paid to do. Quite clearly, Najib has exhausted all his avenues and the possibility of him remaining in jail for a while is a reality he must be coming to terms with.

The dissenting view will be used by Shafee to justify that Najib has been denied the right to a fair trial, thus a royal pardon should be accorded.

When asked, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said he would be part of the Pardons Board panel to review Najib’s application for a royal pardon.

According to the Constitution, the Pardons Board comprises the Attorney General, the Chief Minister or Menteri Besar, or the Federal Territories Minister, and no more than three members appointed by the King.

As the Federal Territories Ministry has been placed under the Prime Minister’s Department, Anwar is now its de facto minister.

Still, many commentators seem to have jumped the gun and expressed fears that it would lead to a precedent where a dissenting judge’s decision would be a factor for a pardon.

However, let’s remain calm. Everyone knows that dissenting views among judges are common. There are thousands of such instances and that is why only the majority decision matters.

Everything is above board. The views of the judges, including the majority and minority, are displayed online for everyone to peruse.In this case, Chief Justice of Sabah and Sarawak Datuk Abdul Rahman Sebli said Najib ought to be acquitted and discharged of all criminal charges since an injustice has occurred.

The majority of the four other judges rejected Najib’s challenge and effectively endorsed the 2022 decision of the Federal Court panel chaired by Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat.

Shafee has reportedly suggested that the judgements of the majority and minority will be presented to His Majesty, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, for consideration to determine which was the “better judgement.”

Without saying as much, Shafee, as an experienced lawyer, knows he has reached the end of the line. The only option now is a royal pardon, and he must put up a convincing argument.

The current reign of His Majesty ends on Jan 30, 2024, and with Najib having served barely a year in prison, it doesn’t look possible, at least by convention, that the King would want to proceed with that decision to cap his legacy.

A pardon is usually granted to someone who has been in prison for a certain period, has expressed remorse, and has little reason to continue serving the conviction.

The Ruler would always seek the recommendations and views of the AG or the state legal adviser. It will be most unusual for the dissenting view of a panel of judges of the Federal Court to be a reason.

This is not just about Najib. It’s about not creating a precedent where a dissenting judgement, if accepted, could overturn the ruling of the majority. Or worse, set the motion for an immediate pardon. I wonder if the politicians supporting this move have given serious thought about what they are pursuing, the implications of it all.

It’s best that restraint is practised when commenting on SRC International issues, although there’s tremendous interest.

But the bottom line is that the MACC is not above the Federal Court.

I wish most of us didn’t have to depend on CNN and BBC for our world news, but our choices are really limited.

The regional media, including those in Malaysia, also depend on Western news agencies for international news.

Only these news agencies have the resources and ability to deliver breaking news swiftly to the world.

As much as Al-Jazeera and CGTN (China Global Television Network) try to compete, they can’t because their presentations seem to lack global flavour.

Al-Jazeera is owned by the monarchy government of Qatar.

It focuses more on the Arab world while CGTN is bereft of appeal because its reporting appears government-centric and serious.

So whether we like it or not, we’re left with CNN and BBC for world news on TV, but unfortunately, both have become arguably biased and unreliable, and have even gone overboard at times.

If we are to believe what CNN has been reporting, the Russians lost the war with Ukraine a year ago. Almost every daily news bite is about the Russians suffering yet another blow, but the Ukrainians have yet to regain their lost territories.

The attacks on China have also become ridiculous and to many Asians, especially those in the Chinese diaspora, it has degenerated into comedy, when it used to merely be annoying previously.

The Chinese have been accused of wanting to supply arms to Russia. That has somehow stopped now because even Ukraine has quashed that claim.

So we have countries which are sending or selling arms to Ukraine who are hypocritically warning China against doing the same. They have given up on Iran being the beneficiary now, of course.

But the icing on the cake must be the US Congress hearing, where TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew, a Singaporean, was grilled by Republican and Democrat politicians.The lawmakers supposedly assumed bipartisan roles in this instance, meaning for once, they were on the same side, but they were clearly partisan.

The poor CEO had the unenviable task of fielding questions, interrogated by this bunch of rude and abusive people with accusations that they can’t substantiate.

In the hot seat: Chew had the unenviable task of fielding questions, interrogated by this bunch of rude and abusive people with accusations that they can’t substantiate during the Congressional hearing. – AP/Bloomberg

They had already made up their minds even before listening to Chew, and they were given glowing reports by CNN until last week when it became obvious the world was making fun of these members of Congress.

To be more precise, they were even targeted in talk shows where they were mocked and ridiculed.

This was a classic case of a group of digitally illiterate political oldies sounding like leftovers from the McCarthy era of the 1960s which witch-hunted imagined communists. These fogies even believe TikTok users are being used to spy for the Chinese government and imagine the app is a national security risk.

The Americans, British, Russians, Israelis and many other countries have all been involved in spying activities since time immemorial, yet suddenly, they’re worried about TikTok being used to spy on Americans?

So these politicians have unwittingly exposed their ignorance of how modern technology works. The more they queried Chew, the more foolish they revealed themselves to be.

One Congressman asked, “if I have a TikTok app on my phone and my phone is on my phone’s Wi Fi network, does TikTok access that network?” What a stupid question.

To this Chew replied: “‘It will have access to the network to get a connection to the Internet, if that’s the question.”

It’s perplexing that a CEO of a tech company is asked about espionage and the plight of Uighurs in China, when Muslims in Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq have been bombed flat for decades.

And on the day CNN reported widely on the Congressional hearing, there wasn’t a peep about how Apple CEO Tim Cook was given a rousing welcome in China.

The treatment from the Chinese of Cook couldn’t have been more contrasting following the hours of Chew’s pummelling in the US.

Perhaps US politicians would want to haul Cook up to explain whether iPhones – of which 95% is made in China – could be used to spy on Americans.

These paranoid lawmakers should be worried about toting these Chinese-made US-owned mobiles.

But with more than 150 million TikTok users in the US, that translates into a massive number of votes. After all, the politicians can reach the voters more effectively via TikTok.

So why ban the app if it serves their selfish interests?