MCA today questioned what it described as apparent double standards by Pakatan Harapan (PH), which recently said that individuals convicted of corruption or abuse of power, particularly in high-profile cases, should serve their sentences in full.
MCA president Wee Ka Siong said PH had not raised similar objections when former Sabah state minister Peter Anthony was released on parole in March, about a year into his three-year sentence.
“The same principle must be applied consistently,” he said in a statement.
Peter was convicted in 2022 of forging a letter from the office of the Universiti Malaysia Sabah deputy vice-chancellor 11 years earlier in connection with a maintenance and service contract.
He was ordered to begin serving his prison sentence last year after his final appeal to overturn the conviction was dismissed.
Najib pardon bid raises issue
PH’s call for those convicted of corruption or abuse of power to serve their sentences in full came amid reports that the Federal Territories Pardons Board (FTPB) is expected to meet on Sept 11 to consider, among other matters, imprisoned former prime minister Najib Razak’s bid for a pardon over his convictions linked to the 1MDB scandal.
Najib, 72, was convicted six years ago of misappropriating RM42 million in SRC International funds. He was fined RM210 million and sentenced to 12 years in prison, which he has been serving at Kajang prison since August 2022.
The FTPB later halved his prison term to six years and reduced the fine to RM50 million.
In December 2025, Najib was convicted of abuse of power and money laundering involving more than RM2 billion linked to 1MDB. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison and fined RM11.38 billion. He is appealing the conviction.
Wee cites constitutional provisions
Wee said PH’s position did not fully reflect Malaysia’s legal framework and the provisions of the Federal Constitution.
He said the country’s justice system provided for parole and remission, while the power to grant pardons was the prerogative of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong under Article 42(1) of the Federal Constitution.
Wee said it was wrong for PH to insist that individuals convicted of wrongdoing must serve their full sentences without taking into account the mechanisms available for reducing sentences.
“It shouldn’t be a case where we proclaim ‘rule of law’ when a decision favours us, but question the mechanisms enshrined under the Federal Constitution when it is applied to those we don’t like.
“Principles should not change for different individuals,” he said.
