Written by Mohamed Hanipa Maidin
Innocent in court of law, guilty in eyes of public
It seems that many Malaysians were riled up to learn that Felda recorded RM1 billion in losses in 2022, nearly double the RM545 million in losses recorded the year before.
That was the finding made by the auditor-general in the 2022 report.
The report further revealed that Felda owed RM8.66 billion to external institutions as of 2022. The report also mentioned that Felda had been “highly dependent on financial assistance from the federal government”, receiving RM200 million in grants in 2022 compared to RM342 million in 2021.
In the meantime, it was reported that former Felda chairperson - Mohd Isa Abdul Samad - succeeded in his appeal to reverse his conviction as well as a six-year jail term and RM15.45 million fine for nine counts of corruption linked to the purchase of a hotel in Sarawak.
Isa was slapped with nine counts of dishonestly receiving gratification for himself, totalling RM3.09 million in cash, from Gegasan Abadi Properties Sdn Bhd board member Ikhwan Zaidel, through one Muhammad Zahid Md Arip.
Based on the indictment, the money was purportedly dubbed as gratification for helping to approve Felda Investment Corporation Sdn Bhd’s purchase of the hotel for RM160 million and such offences were allegedly perpetrated at Level 49, Menara Felda, Platinum Park, No 11, Persiaran KLCC, between July 21, 2014, and Dec 11, 2015.
All the criminal charges against Isa were framed under Section 16(a)(A) of the MACC Act 2009, and are punishable under Section 24(1) of the same law.
Although the report’s findings on the huge losses suffered by Felda and the acquittal verdict rendered by the Court of Appeal to Isa are poles apart, the juxtaposition of these two events has stimulated wild speculation against Isa.
Evidence trumps suspicion
Such a juxtaposition is definitely unfair to Isa but do netizens care?
In social media, users have their own version and standard of justice. Isa was once chairperson in Felda thus when the auditor-general found the government agency to have incurred a gigantic loss, in the court of public opinion that per se is sufficient to pass a guilty verdict against Isa.
Being a politician, Isa is definitely aware that in a court of law, his culpability could only be judged by evidence. The admissibility of evidence in any court of law would be subject to very strict rules of evidence and procedures.
Hence, suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute evidence.
However, in the court of public opinion, the public employs a different set of criteria. More often than not the people’s judgment is based on sentiments and perceptions.
Are the verdicts of the court of public opinion always erroneous? Truth be told, they are not.
In former premier Najib Abdul Razak’s case, for instance, it was proven that the guilty ruling by the court of public opinion was subsequently vindicated by a unanimous judgment given by nine judges.
The public could not easily forget that Isa was implicated in money politics (a euphemism for corruption) by his very own party (Umno).
Hence, in the eyes of the public, whenever Isa faced any criminal charges, particularly corruption indictments, he must have been guilty. Period.
As far as the public is concerned there is only one verdict for some politicians like Isa or Najib - guilty.
Yes, it sounds weird. Nonetheless, that is how the court of public opinion operates. Some people call such a brand of justice swift justice.
Although I believe the Madani government has no say at all in Isa’s verdict, in the court of public opinion both Isa and the Madani government are deemed guilty.
Yes, the verdict of the court of public opinion could be extremely harsh and even oppressive sometimes but you ignore it at your own peril.
Written by MOHAMED HANIPA MAIDIN, a former Sepang MP and former deputy minister of law
Politics Now!
Comments