Editor’s Note: UMNO secretary-general Datuk Dr Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki has revealed that the party’s Najib Razak Solidarity Fund to help the disgraced former premier settle his RM50 mil court fine has raised a whopping RM634,562.02 within the first three hours of its roll-out.

The necessity of the fund-raising exercise is mind-boggling to a number of critics who described the RM50 mil pre-condition for the 10-term Pekan MP to have the balance of his six-year jail term for the SRC International Sdn Bhd conviction converted to house arrest as “peanuts” given his family’s wealth.

Meanwhile, some maths genius netizens reckoned that if the RM50 mil fine is split equally among all 3 million UMNO members, it works out to approximately RM16.67 per member.

This is too simple a way to walk away from the crime of impoverishing the nation, so screamed human rights activist and lawyer Siti Kasim who dished out yet a dozen reasons why she views as “a big mis-step” the decision of the Federal Territories Pardons Board yesterday (Sept 18).

— 0 —

I AM truly appalled if at the news. It is not because our Federal Constitution does not provide for the power of pardon. That power certainly exists under Article 42 of the Federal Constitution.

But the rakyat have the right to ask: Why does a former premier who was convicted through the entire judicial process receive treatment that an ordinary prisoner could never enjoy?

Are we witnessing an act of mercy – or the creation of a special justice system for the political elite?

Reason #1

This is not the release of someone found innocent. Do not twist the fundamental facts.

Najib was not acquitted by the courts. His conviction in the SRC International case was upheld all the way to the Federal Court.

The court found him guilty of (i) abuse of power; (ii) criminal breach of trust (CBT); and (iii) money laundering involving RM42 mil in SRC International funds.

A pardon does not erase the court’s ruling that the offense was committed. It is an act of mercy following a conviction – not a certificate of innocence.

UMNO must not go around peddling the narrative that “Bossku has been cleared”. No. The conviction does not vanish simply because the location where the sentence is served has changed.

View on Threads

Reason #2

Najib has already received an extraordinary reduction in his sentence. His original sentence was (i) 12 years in prison; and (ii) a fine of RM210 mil.

Then, his sentence was reduced to (i) six years in prison; and (ii) a fine of RM50 mil.

Now, the remainder of the sentence is to be served at home. How many more layers of privilege are to be granted?

From 12 years down to six years. From RM210 mil down to RM50 mil. Moving from prison to a luxury home. What ultimately is the punishment that he is truly experiencing?

Reason #3

House arrest for the wealthy is not the same kind of “punishment” meted out on common prisoners.

Najib’s home is not a cramped cell. His home is not Kajang Prison. At home, he likely has his own room; food of his choice; family members; staff; spacious surroundings; privacy; and comforts never experienced by ordinary prisoners.

Do not try to convince the public that living in a luxury home and sitting in prison are equivalent punishments.

For the poor, prison is prison. For the political elite, prison can transform into one’s own residence. That is the message reaching the public.

Reason #4

What is the legal basis and mechanism for house arrest? If this decision is true, the government must explain in detail:

What laws govern house arrest?
Who will supervise Najib?
Will he wear an electronic monitoring device?
Who may visit him?
Can he hold political meetings?
Can he use the telephone and social media?
Can the house serve as an UMNO political headquarters?
What action will be taken if conditions are violated?
Which agency holds enforcement authority?

The High Court previously ruled that the house arrest mechanism lacked sufficient legal basis in the context of the disputed addendum order.

If a form of house arrest is now being approved through a conditional pardon, the Madani government must explain how it will be implemented legally rather than through political improvisation.

It is insufficient to simply write a few lines stating that he must “comply with the stipulated conditions”. The public has the right to know what those conditions are.

Reason #5

Why did the FT Pardons Board reconvene just a week later? This is the most suspicious question of all.

On Sept 11, the decision regarding Najib’s application was deferred. Then, just seven days later, the Board convened once again.

Why was it so swift? What new developments occurred within those seven days? What new documents were submitted?

Who requested that the new meeting be held? Why was Najib’s case accorded such extraordinary priority? How many ordinary prisoners have their applications considered twice within a single week?

Pardons Board meetings do not follow a fixed schedule mandating specific time intervals. Precisely for this reason, however, the government is obliged to explain why the case of a political figure was handled with such speed.

In the absence of an explanation, the public is entitled to suspect that the scheduling of state institutions is being manipulated to suit UMNO’s political pressure.

𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗚𝗔𝗠𝗣𝗨𝗡𝗔𝗡 𝗕𝗘𝗥𝗦𝗬𝗔𝗥𝗔𝗧 𝗗𝗔𝗡 𝗧𝗔𝗛𝗔𝗡𝗔𝗡 𝗗𝗜 𝗥𝗨𝗠𝗔𝗛 𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗢’ 𝗦𝗘𝗥𝗜 𝗡𝗔𝗝𝗜𝗕 𝗧𝗨𝗡 𝗥𝗔𝗭𝗔𝗞
Berita mengenai pengampunan bersyarat dan pelepasan tahanan di rumah yang diberikan kepada Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak semestinya diterima berbeza-beza… pic.twitter.com/3DNLY1rKhq
— Rafizi Ramli (@rafiziramli) September 18, 2026

Reason #6

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and his Madani government cannot simply hide behind the Palace.

We must be cautious and constitutionally precise. This is not an attack on the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (YDPA).

Under Article 42, the pardon process involves a Pardons Board. For the Federal Territories, its membership includes the Attorney-General, the minister responsible for the Federal Territories and other appointed members.

Therefore, the government cannot simply say, “This is a royal prerogative. Don’t ask any question.”

The public has a right to know (i) what stance the government representatives took at the meeting; (ii) what advice was tendered; (iii) what public interest factors were considered.

Reason #7

This is the real test of the Madani government’s “fight against corruption” slogan. Anwar speaks about governance, reform and eradicating corruption.

Yet, the public witnesses developments unfolding one after another – Deputy PM and UMNO president Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi receives a DNAA (discharge not amounting to acquittal) while other politically charged cases raise questions.

How many times must the people be asked to believe that all of this is merely coincidence? Reform is not measured by speeches on international stages.

Reform is measured when a government is willing to uphold principles even if doing so might jeopardise its own position.

If the government yields out of fear that UMNO might withdraw its support, then simply be honest about it: “The government’s survival is more important than anti-corruption principles.”

Do not cloak political compromise in the language of “Madani”.

Reason #8

Why isn’t this treatment extended to ordinary prisoners? If house arrest is deemed appropriate and humane, that is good. But make it a fair policy.

Consider extending it to (i) elderly prisoners; (ii) the chronically ill; (iii) single mothers or fathers; (iv) minor offenders; (v) prisoners with dependents; (vii) the poor imprisoned for petty offenses; and (viii) prisoners demonstrating genuine rehabilitation.

Why does Malaysia’s house arrest reform seem to begin with a wealthy and influential former premier? If a facility exists only when the powerful need it, that is not reform. That is privilege.

Reason #9

Consider the surmountable effort involved: (i) the MACC conducts investigations; (ii) prosecutors prepare the case; (iii) witnesses appear to testify; (iv) judges scrutinise thousands of pages of documents; (v) the High Court delivers a conviction; (vii) the Court of Appeal upholds it; and (viii) the Federal Court affirms the conviction.

Then, the sentence is reduced and the remainder of the prison term could potentially be served at home.

What message does this send to judges, investigators and prosecutors? Worse still, what message does this send to potential corruptors?

If you are powerful enough, belong to a party the government needs and can exert political pressure – your court sentences might just be softened bit by bit.

That severely undermines the law’s deterrent effect.

Reason #10

Don’t forget: there is a separate 1MDB conviction. The public must also understand that the SRC International case is not the entirety of the 1MDB scandal.

Najib was also sentenced to 15 years in prison in a separate 1MDB case although that verdict is currently under appeal.

Any government announcement must clearly explain (i) which sentence this pardon applies to; (ii) how it interacts with other sentences; and (iii) whether the house arrest relates only to the remainder of the SRC International sentence.

Do not issue brief statements that deliberately confuse the public into thinking all of Najib’s legal troubles are over.

Reason #11

The missing money is not an abstract figure. The SRC International and 1MDB scandals are not merely drama between politicians.

Public funds have real-world consequences. That money could have been used for (i) hospitals; (ii) dilapidated schools; (iii) public transport; (iv) aid for the poor; (v) facilities for the Orang Asli; (vi) patient treatment; and (vii) youth education.

The rakyat are asked to be frugal, subsidies are targeted and the cost of living is borne individually. Yet, when it involves a political elite, the entire system seems to work to provide comfort.

The rakyat are told to sacrifice. The elite are granted pardons.

Reason #12

Anwar must not remain silent nor get his spokesman to read out vague statements.

Answer directly the rakyat:

Why did the Pardons Board reconvene after only seven days?
What new facts or circumstances prompted the second meeting?
What was the stance of the government representatives on the Board?
What are the full terms of the house arrest? What are the laws and enforcement mechanisms involved?
Will ordinary prisoners be afforded the same opportunity?
Is this part of political negotiations with UMNO?
Does the government still uphold the principle that high-profile corruption offenders must serve their sentences?

Hard-hitting conclusion

I respect the Federal Constitution and the power of pardon. However, respecting the institution does not mean the rakyat must remain silent.

The house arrest decision will create the perception that there are two justice systems in Malaysia: one system for ordinary citizens – involving prison, handcuffs and full sentences – and another for the political elite – involving sentence reductions, fine reductions and ultimately, serving time in the comfort of one’s own home.

Do not blame the rakyat if they lose faith. Do not blame the people if they view “Malaysia Madani” as an empty slogan.

And do not take the stage to speak about the war on corruption if a figure convicted through a full judicial process ends up serving their sentence in the comfort of their own home.

At the end of the day, it is not Najib who is serving the sentence; it is the confidence of the rakyat in Malaysia’s justice system that is being punished. – Sept 19, 2026

Editor’s Note: The views expressed are solely of Siti Kasim’s and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.

The post Bossku’s house arrest: Siti Kasim has a dozen reasons why she’s appalled at justice à la Madani first appeared on Focus Malaysia.