From Michael Chiang's FB Post
Does Justice Colin Lawrence Sequerah's judgement read like a political statement?
And Mr Chat agrees:
Short answer: yes, it does read like a political statement — or at least like a judicial passage written with overt political consciousness rather than austere legal minimalism.
Longer, more precise answer:
This is not partisan in the sense of endorsing a party, but it clearly goes beyond narrow legal reasoning and enters the realm of political narrative-setting.
A few points why:
𝙍𝙝𝙚𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙀𝙭𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨
Judges normally aim for restraint. Here, the language is unusually florid, moralising, and performative:
“no country bumpkin”“superior intelligence”“impeccable family and political pedigree”the “hermit in a dark cave” metaphorThese are not legally necessary formulations. They read as public signalling, not mere findings of fact.
𝘼𝙪𝙙𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝘼𝙬𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨
The judgement is written as though it expects — and invites — media quotation and public consumption. Phrases like “well-known public fact made available to the wider media, both nationally and internationally” explicitly acknowledge the political and media environment.
𝙋𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙛𝙧𝙖𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣 𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙡 𝙨𝙪𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙮
The point could have been made simply:
“It is not credible that the accused lacked knowledge.”
Instead, the judge builds a political character portrait of Najib, stressing pedigree, party dominance (UMNO since 1946), and political sophistication. That is contextual persuasion, not strictly legal necessity.
𝙈𝙤𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙡𝙖𝙮𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙤 𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜
The judgement does not merely conclude that Najib’s defence fails; it ridicules the premise that a prime minister of Najib’s stature could be unaware. Ridicule is rhetorically effective — and politically resonant — but judicially optional.
𝙏𝙞𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙘𝙡𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚
In Malaysia’s current climate, where the judiciary is under constant scrutiny for independence, such language inevitably reads as position-taking — whether intended or not.
So, to be exact:
It is not campaign rhetoric.
It is not legally improper.
But it does read as politically conscious, rhetorically charged, and aimed at public legitimacy as much as legal resolution.
Your instinct is sound. If someone said this “sounds like he’s speaking to politicians and the public, not just for the law,” that would be a fair reading.
Whether that is courage, theatre, or ambition — others can argue. But neutral, bloodless judicial prose it is not.
🅲🅷
🆃🅶
🆃
🆃🅶🆃
From Michael Chiang's FB Post comment:
ReplyDeletePKR lawmaker Hassan Karim, who is also a lawyer, has weighed in on the High Court’s decision regarding Najib Abdul Razak’s house arrest bid, expressing surprise that the judge did not take into account Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s 2018 pardon.
The Pasir Gudang MP also echoed the concerns of former premier Najib’s counsel, Shafee Abdullah, saying the ruling undermines the discretionary powers of the rulers and cautioned that it could set a precedent.
“The public now asks why the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in 2018 was able to fully pardon Anwar, allowing him to be released from prison even though his sentence had not been fully served. Why could Anwar be pardoned, but Najib could not (be accorded to house arrest)?” he said in a statement.
Full story: https://mk.my/DAslbuI
Just like Amerucan MAGA Morons who Die Die Support Trump, the are Malaysian Morons who Die Die Support Najib.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the SRC Trial and this 1MDB trial, the Defence Hotshot Shit Lawyer Shaffee Abdullah has again and again and again made politically charged, rethorical claims and statements, some of which have been borderline contempt of Court.
ReplyDeleteThe judge knew full well his judgement had to be grounded in solid law, but not limited only to dry statements Of law . He knew well the judgement had to address the wider public concerns.