By DayakDaily Team
KUCHING, Nov 7: Criminal fines are meant to hold convicted offenders accountable for their wrongdoing and should not become a burden shifted to political supporters through fundraising campaigns, says Miri MP Chiew Choon Man.
He said UMNO’s announcement that it had raised and paid RM50 million through public donations to settle the criminal fine imposed on former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak raised serious concerns over the purpose and effectiveness of criminal punishment.
Chiew stressed that while public donations to political parties might not be expressly prohibited under existing laws, there was a fundamental difference between what was legally permissible and what was right in principle.
He said criminal fines were not ordinary civil debts or defamation judgments, but formed part of the punishment imposed by the courts to deter wrongdoing, ensure accountability and maintain public confidence in the justice system.
“If a convicted offender can simply turn to political supporters to pay his criminal fine, what purpose does that punishment serve?” he said in a statement today.
Chiew acknowledged the constitutional authority of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in granting pardons and emphasised the importance of respecting the country’s legal system.
However, he cautioned that clemency should not be confused with innocence, while political solidarity should not be mistaken for accountability.
He pointed out that Najib had been convicted of abuse of power, criminal breach of trust and money laundering involving RM42 million belonging to SRC International, with the conviction upheld by the Federal Court after due process of law.
“A criminal fine is not imposed merely to fill the government’s coffers. It is meant to make the offender bear the consequences of his wrongdoing,” he said.
Chiew said the practice of raising funds to settle criminal fines risked undermining the very purpose of the punishment by transferring the financial consequences of an individual’s wrongdoing to others.
“We have seen politicians raising funds through solidarity campaigns, Milo tins or even supporters buying up fish to help settle civil judgments, as in the recent case involving Akmal Salleh,” he said.
However, he stressed that civil judgments and criminal sentences were fundamentally different in nature and should not be treated interchangeably.
“What message are we sending to future offenders? That if they have enough political influence, they can simply raise money to settle their fines? That the consequences of corruption can be passed on to others?
“This is particularly disturbing when the offences involve the abuse of public office and betrayal of public trust,” he said.
Chiew added that political loyalty should never become a means of shielding individuals from the consequences of criminal convictions, regardless of their former positions or political standing.
Referring to the SRC International case, he noted that the High Court had emphasised that no one was immune from the force of the law, regardless of how powerful that person might have been.
He warned that allowing convicted individuals to transfer their financial punishment to supporters, wealthy associates or political cronies could undermine the principle of equality before the law.
“Ordinary Malaysians are expected to face the consequences when they break the law. The politically powerful should be no different,” he said.
Chiew also said the controversy highlighted the urgent need for stronger political financing laws, particularly measures to improve transparency over the sources of large political donations and fundraising activities.
He urged Malaysians, regardless of political affiliation, to respect the courts and uphold the rule of law, adding that recognising a person’s past contributions should not mean excusing criminal wrongdoing.
“We can show compassion without compromising justice.
“A criminal conviction should be a lesson in accountability, not an opportunity for political fundraising or celebration,” he said.
He maintained that the payment of a criminal fine alone did not necessarily mean justice had been served, arguing that genuine accountability required the convicted individual to bear the consequences of his wrongdoing. — DayakDaily
