Siapa penderhaka?

In a first for Malaysian citizens, they witnessed the court's ruling that allowed former Prime Minister Najib Razak to serve the remainder of his sentence under home confinement. Two incidents stood out in this episode: the Public Prosecutor Dusuki Mokhtar's request to delay the implementation of home confinement, which stemmed from questions raised by the High Court Kuala Lumpur order, and the transfer of Loke Siew Fook's position as Transport Minister, following the High Court's ruling that permitted Najib to serve his remaining sentence at his residence in Jalan Langgak Duta, Taman Duta, Kuala Lumpur.

These events provoked outrage among Barisan Nasional leaders, leading them to label the two individuals as 'traitors.' Both rulings were made based on legal obligations and principles. The public prosecutor's request for a postponement was motivated by legal considerations concerning the accuracy and implications of the court order, while Loke's transfer was made based on his commitment to uphold his campaign promises.

Is not fulfilling one's trust and commitment to the voters a responsibility of a leader? If promises are broken or fail to be fulfilled, it is justified for a leader to resign due to their failure to meet the initial commitment that forms the foundation of voter trust. However, both incidents in the ongoing Najib home confinement saga were perceived and interpreted through a political lens by politicians who sought to maintain their power.

When the 'traitor' sentiment was played, the first question raised was whether similar events could occur in Negeri Sembilan. The Barisan Nasional leadership played a crucial role in this crisis, which led to efforts to oust Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir as the Yang Di Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan. Initially, the Chief Minister Ismail Lasim claimed he was forced to sign a proclamation endorsing Tuanku Muhriz's removal, leading him to report the matter to the police.

However, he later changed his stance, endorsing the proclamation and recognizing Tunku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar as his replacement. The question remains unanswered: was he forced to sign it, and by whom? Or was it merely a miscommunication between Umno leadership? Can 'traitor' behavior be justified if it is carried out by Umno?

The answer is clear: 'traitor' behavior is justified when carried out by Umno, as they themselves are directly involved in the Negeri Sembilan crisis. The fact remains that Umno is not entitled to accuse others of being traitors when its leadership is directly involved in the crisis. The second question is whether it is ironic for Umno to label those who do not agree with the home confinement of Najib as traitors, while Umno previously praised a prisoner who was found guilty by the court.

Umno decided to contribute RM50 million to pay Najib's fine, while his rival from Melaka sought RM700,000 to renovate Masjid Jamek Laksamana Hang Tuah in Kampung Duyong. The people are forced to bear the consequences of the 1MDB scandal, which has caused billions of ringgit in losses to the nation, while RM50 million is now being collected to pay Najib's fine as part of a conditional pardon.

From this, we can see that Umno prioritizes the release of its former president over using the same resources to benefit the people. Therefore, the real traitor is those who prioritize maintaining power by shielding a guilty former president over adhering to legal principles and fulfilling their promise to the voters. Treason is not merely about opposing an individual; it can also mean betraying one's trust.

The greatest trust a leader owes is to the voters who elected them, not to a former party president who was found guilty by the court. As Umno becomes more preoccupied with labeling others as traitors, the people will continue to evaluate their actions. Ultimately, the people's judgment will be made at the polls.