News that former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has been granted a conditional royal pardon with permission to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest has sent shockwaves through Malaysia’s political landscape.

The development has triggered opposite reactions across political parties, civil society groups, and the general public.

While Umno and Barisan Nasional (BN) supporters made no attempt to hide their euphoria—celebrating publicly and launching crowd-funding initiatives to help Najib settle his RM50 million fine—the reaction elsewhere was one of profound shock and disappointment. Civil society organisations, members of the public, and non-BN political parties voiced anger toward the Pardons Board and accused Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim of reneging on his anti-corruption pledges.

This mounting public backlash poses a severe test to the Unity Government, exposing deep contradictions between constitutional mechanisms and political morality.

In the wake of political fallout, Democratic Action Party (DAP) Secretary-General Loke Siew Fook was the first to announce his resignation as Minister of Transport, a move seen as reflecting accountability to party supporters.

Following a three-hour Central Executive Committee (CEC) meeting held by DAP the day after the pardon was announced, DAP reached a consensus: Loke would step down as minister, while all other DAP ministers and deputy ministers would remain in cabinet. This calculated decision was rooted in delicate political manoeuvring.

The 1MDB corruption scandal was originally brought to light by DAP’s Tony Pua, setting off years of investigations that ultimately led to Najib’s imprisonment. Now part of the governing coalition, DAP faced a crisis of voter confidence when the man they helped convict received executive clemency. Rocket had to “deliver something” to prove that the party’s core values and integrity remain intact.

As DAP vice-chairman Syahredzan Johan noted, ignoring public outrage over Najib’s home detention would shatter the party’s core principles and invite severe voter backlash, especially given DAP’s historic identity as an anti-corruption champion and the primary representative of the Chinese electorate in cabinet.

By resigning, Loke put his personal political career on the line to uphold the party’s moral integrity and demonstrate leadership responsibility—signaling DAP’s anti-corruption stance without triggering a collapse of the government.

Addressing why the entire team of DAP ministers did not execute a collective resignation, Loke stated that he would not “fall into a trap.”

Following recent state elections in Johor and Negri Sembilan, political factions led by Deputy Prime Minister and Umno president Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi have repeatedly called for early polls. Loke made it clear during his press conference that a mass resignation of all DAP cabinet members would bring down the Unity Government, directly serving the interests of political rivals.

Whether this explanation satisfies voters remains an open question.

Apart from DAP, the pardon has generated strong reactions. Another phenomenon is that the pardon has exposed contrasting interpretations of executive clemency under the Federal Constitution. One school of thought maintains that the pardon is an absolute prerogative of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. (King) that must be respected without question, while others argue that civil society retains the right to express dissent without being accused of challenging royal sovereignty.

Former Selangor executive councillor, speaker, and practicing lawyer Datuk Teng Chang Khim offered a legal analysis on whether the King holds absolute pardoning power.

Teng noted that while Lawyers for Liberty’s assertion holding Prime Minister Anwar fully responsible finds literal support under Article 40 of the Federal Constitution, judicial precedents establish that the power of pardon remains a personal, exclusive prerogative of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

Under these precedents, the Pardons Board acts purely as an advisory body. Because the authority to grant clemency rests solely with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, courts generally refrain from reviewing the substance of such decisions.

 Consequently, Teng argued that attributing full responsibility to Anwar lacks firm backing under existing case law.

He suggested that if the government wishes to mandate that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong accept the Pardons Board’s advice in the future, it should pursue a constitutional amendment for clarity. Until then, current judicial interpretations hold.

Legal technicalities have done little to soothe public outrage.

Prominent civil society group G25 stated that allowing Najib to serve his sentence under house arrest undermines the judicial system. They criticised Prime Minister Anwar’s call for the public to accept the decision unconditionally, calling it insensitive to public sentiment. G25 emphasised that respecting the Yang diPertuan Agong’s constitutional role does not require the public or government to remain silent on core principles of legality, transparency, and judicial fairness.

The Ikatan Demokratik Malaysia (Muda) acting president Amira Aisya Abdul Aziz argued that public criticism of the pardon reflects the universal principle of equality before the law under Article 8 of the Federal Constitution and should not be labelled as seditious or disrespecting the royal institution.

Civil society groups also questioned whether ordinary prisoners would receive similar treatment, demanding full disclosure of written opinions submitted by the Attorney General and the Minister of Federal Territories.

The controversy highlights a sharp rift between procedural legality and public morality.

Najib’s conviction involved the misappropriation of RM42 million in SRC International funds. When upholding the conviction in 2021, Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil described the offence not as an act in the national interest, but as a “national embarrassment.”

To see his sentence and fines drastically reduced—and to see him granted house arrest just a few years later—has sparked broad public dismay.

Parti Amanah Negara deputy president Datuk Seri Dr Mujahid Yusof Rawa openly questioned the issue of ethics, asking where the moral conscience of Malay political leaders lies as Umno and PAS frame the conditional pardon and house arrest as major victories, with Umno publicly soliciting RM50 million from party members to pay Najib’s fines.

While Prime Minister Anwar faces pragmatic political imperatives to maintain his working relationship with BN and Umno, relying strictly on constitutional procedures while ignoring widespread disillusionment risks eroding long-term public trust.

The vocal opposition from civil society serves as a reminder to those in power that political conscience and moral boundaries cannot be set aside.

A mature democracy requires striking a delicate balance: respecting royal constitutional authority while honouring the will of the people.

(Allen Hwn Yaul Len is the Executive Editor-in- chief of Sin Chew Daily.)