According to media reports, Federal Minister YB Nga KorMing stated that if Datuk Seri Najib were released “without serving a punishment commensurate with the offence”, it would mean that the integrity of the judiciary had been compromised and that the rule of law, as embodied in the Rukun Negara, was no longer being respected. He further declared that he would resign from the Cabinet should such a situation occur.

As an Advocate and Solicitor, YB Nga ought to know that Datuk Seri Najib has exhausted the judicial process. The courts have heard the case, convicted him, imposed sentence, and all appeals have been exhausted. The judiciary has fully discharged its constitutional responsibility. Its integrity is neither questioned nor diminished merely because a separate constitutional mechanism may subsequently be invoked.

YB Nga Kor Ming's statement appears to prejudge a possible future exercise of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's constitutional power to grant a pardon under Article 42 of the Federal Constitution. The Constitution entrusts that judgment to His Majesty—not to members of the Cabinet. It is therefore wholly inappropriate for a Cabinet Minister to suggest, in advance, that the lawful exercise of that constitutional power would somehow compromise the integrity of the judiciary or undermine the rule of law. Such a statement not only pre-empts a constitutional process that may never arise, but also risks creating the perception that His Majesty's future exercise of a constitutionally vested power would itself be inconsistent with judicial integrity.

Even more troubling, this statement comes from a serving Cabinet Minister who frequently invokes the Rukun Negara. The second principle of the Rukun Negara is “Kesetiaankepada Raja dan Negara.” Loyalty to the King is not merely ceremonial—it requires respect for every constitutional power vested in His Majesty, including His Majesty's constitutional power of pardon. One cannot profess fidelity to the rule of law while simultaneously casting doubt upon another constitutional institution exercising powers expressly conferred by the very same Constitution.

YB Nga’s statement therefore raises a fundamental constitutional question. Is he simply mistaken about the constitutional position, or is he deliberately attempting, through the threat of his resignation, to discourage or influence the future exercise of His Majesty’s constitutional powers under the guise of defending judicial integrity?

Such a proposition is not only legally flawed but constitutionally dangerous. It places unnecessary political pressure on the future exercise of one of His Majesty’s express constitutional powers and risks undermining public confidence in the constitutional role of the Yang di-PertuanAgong.

YB Nga should therefore withdraw his remarks and offer an unequivocal apology to the Yang Dipertuan Agong.

In a constitutional monarchy governed by the rule of law, respect for the Constitution necessarily includes respect for the constitutional wisdom and prerogatives of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy

President

Malaysian Advancement Party