Not all of Umno can be guilty: Pakatan Harapan should not use an overly generic approach – Phar Kim Beng

Pakatan Harapan (PH) must exercise caution in its language when discussing controversies involving Umno, according to Phar Kim Beng. The writer argues that not all of Umno can be held guilty simply because some of its leaders or appointees have been implicated in wrongdoing. He stresses that each case must be investigated individually, identifying specific decisions, offices, individuals, and periods.

Evidence should determine culpability, and political affiliation should not replace proof. PH, which currently governs Malaysia through a coalition with Barisan Nasional (Umno), should avoid portraying Umno as collectively responsible for all historical controversies associated with BN governments. Doing so would create a contradiction that could become politically unsustainable.

Instead, there should be legal compartmentalisation, with those who committed offences answering for them, those who facilitated wrongdoing being investigated, and those who failed in their fiduciary responsibilities being held accountable. Those who were not involved in the wrongdoing should not be politically convicted through association.

This approach can strengthen the fight against corruption by making it harder for the genuinely culpable to hide within a collective. The writer emphasizes the importance of a forensic approach, distinguishing between allegation and evidence, negligence and criminality, political responsibility and legal liability. This distinction is crucial as Malaysia approaches another electoral cycle.