The aftermath of the 1MDB ruling. Part 4. The 1mdb judgement and collateral issues revisited. Sontoloyo series no 70.

1. The conviction of Mr X of all 25 charges filed against him forces us to revisit many of the issues surrounding Mr X.

2. We refer to the felon as Mr X, after Macbeth the Scottish king full of political machinations.

3. To some superstitious stage actors, the name Macbeth must never be mentioned for fear of many misfortunes befalling people who speak of the name.

4. Hence from now on , the real name of the felon must never be spoken aloud lest 'swei' things fall on us.

5. In the 1MDB case, Mr X was found guilty. He got a jail sentence and a fine stipulated by law. The jail sentence is to run after the SRC jail sentence.

6. In the SRC case, Mr X was initially sentenced to 12 years jail and over 200m fine.

7. For stealing 42m, he got jail time of 12 years but stealing 2.6b , he got 15 years? A marginal increase, wouldn't you say?

8. We needn't go into the fun side of the wonderful world of mathematics.

9. For the SRC case , Mr X got a partial pardon.50% for the jail time and some 70% for the fine.

10. The 1MDB judgement established the stature of Mr X like that decided by the USA DOJ.

11. The biggest kleptocratic case, the biggest kahuna of the biggest kleptocratic case, the author of the grandaddy of all heists.

12. That being the case, we asked whether the pardon given Mr X was proper and befitting?

13. Know that we are not questioning the prerogative of the king to pardon - that is provided by the constitution.

13a. As long as the pardon is done as per the protocols of the constitution.

14. Proper or befitting, given that Mr X is the biggest kahuna of the biggest kleptocratic heist .

15. Like the African politician said, when we reward Mr X with some very lenient dispensations, we are teaching the young that corruption is not a crime but a career .

16. UMNO teaches the Malays that .

17. Pardoning Mr X, takes out the merciful aspects of the pardon.

18. It degrades the value of the clemency and injures the majesty that sponsors it .

19. In my mind, pardoning Mr X is not proper and befitting thing to do notwithstanding that it's the kings prerogative to do so .

20. Mr X does not deserve to be pardoned. He was found guilty of almost all the judges at the 3 court level. Not even once has he displayed a contrite and remorseful attitude over the theft at SRC.

21. Instead he has been quietly belligerent assaulting us with repeated appeals. Wasting our time and courts resources .

22. It must have been a strained argument and equally artificial advice the pardons board gave the agong.

23. I think the advice given was also not anticipative and failed to take into account that Mr x could be found guilty in the 1MDB case. Indeed he was found so by the Sequerah judgement.

24. So pardoning Mr X damages the majesty of the King. But UMNO doesn't give a rats ass about that. They are only obsessed in giving Mr X as much advantages he can get .

25. Umno found a useful instrument to achieve their aims in the form of the notorious addendum.

26. UMNO was intense and very loud about it. Demanding all and sundry acquiesce of it and insisting the government and the courts to religiously follow it. The command of the King, insists UMNO is absolute.

27. Not true. Its to be obeyed only if it's done according to the protocols of the constitution.

28. Hello tuan, we are no longer living in an age where the king can cut open a lady's tummy to retrieve jackfruit taken by the lady from the sultans orchard .

29. Since 1957, the basic and overriding doctrine of this country, is that our monarch is a constitutional monarchy. If there are subsequent provisions that seemed to conflict and contradict the basic overriding doctrine, the overriding doctrine prevails.

29b. I am sure there is such a provision in our constitution. Legal writers are fond of writing that to cover their asses.

30. That means the actions of the King and other sultans are circumscribed by the constitution. And in particular matters such as pardoning Mr X, require them to follow the protocols of the constitution, they must do so.

31. So don't give us the BS story that by not following the addendum, we are restricting the latitude of the king in making decisions . That's legal balderdash

32. His majesty still enjoy the wide latitude. Only that in specific matters, he must do so according to the procedures laid down by the constitution. So qualify your BS .

33. Similarly don't give us the cock and bull sorry, that the king cannot decide his own. Don't stop there, qualify your horrified statement

34. The king cannot do so in specific matters as laid down in the constitution. For instance in pardoning Mr X.

35. Who were the king's lawyers? They ought to know the addendum was unconstitutional.

36. And what of the rumours we hear that Mr Xs lead counsel knew the fate of the addendum ?

37. When the AGC received the addendum, they studied it , decided that it was unconstitutional and returned it the King.

38. By then a new king has ascended the throne and the new king was briefed about the addendum

39. The new king commanded Mr Xs lead counsel to make a fresh application for his clients house arrest.

40. The lead counsel didn't, for obvious reasons.

41. Because then it would not be an addendum by a king., it's just an application from an ex 4th college boy of UM.

42. It stands no chance in hell to get approved. Further,a lawyer of his calibre knows, the addendum is unconstitutional.

43 . But the show must go on mustn't upset the idiot crowd

44. But it pays to keep the lie alive. The UMNO people will ' scavenge ' on the lie. Gullible Malays will feed on the lie. And the chief counsel will start believing in his own lie.

45. From there on we will be tortured by the legal filibustering and argle bargle.

46. In a previous article , I have aargued that the addendum was doomed from the start. Of course I didn't know of the existence of article 42, being untrained in the law .

47. I won't burden readers with what wrote. Suffice of me to give a summary of it,ok?

48. I gave a few reasons why the addendum must fail. Firstly, because it wasn't done contemporaneously as the primary pardons board document .

49. Since it wasn't done so, it is an inferior document compared to the pardons board paper..it cannot be treated as a pardons board production.

50. And by the judgement of justice loke, the addendum didn't meet the requirements of article 42. It was there legally invalid .

51. Suppose the addendum was indeed discussed at the ftpb, I am not sure part of its brief was to determine the place of incarceration.

52. If the ftpb cannot, determining the place of incarceration, would be ultra vires.

53. That would take out the right of the courts wouldn't it?

54. We cannot allow the addendum be used to usurp the powers of parliament.

55. Parliament has not even promulgated a law making house arrest available nor making it possible.

56. We can't enforce something not legal or not law, can we?

57. That is my summary, dear readers .

58. Finally I want to say something about the myth about the king and sultans absolute power on pardon or on anything.

58b. In the cultural history of the Malays, there were always check on the unbridled powers of the kings and sultans. They are rarely used because the sultans listened to the people.

59. The expression, raja adil raja disembah, raja zalim raja disanggah, wasn't said for nothing.

60. In the primordial agreement between sang sapurba and demang lebar daun, if the former reneged on his part of the agreement, grave consequences would befall on him and his progeny.

Next. The 1MDB judgement and the tsunamic impacts on UMNO.