January 5, 2026
KUALA LUMPUR – As 2025 draws to a close, the question of whether Datuk Seri Najib Razak is a “statesman” or a “kleptocrat” continues to linger in the air.
Ever since the 1MDB scandal broke, this question has been the focus of a tug-of-war between his supporters and detractors.
Najib’s supporters, and those who find it impossible to believe he would “steal” national assets, remain convinced that the 1MDB case is a masterfully orchestrated political conspiracy.
On the other hand, those who believe in evidence and investigative findings maintain that Najib’s fate is well-deserved, although they do not entirely erase the achievements he made during his tenure as prime minister.
This is a question that will likely never have a universally accepted answer.
As long as Najib’s legal battles remain without a final conclusion, they will continue to serve as ammunition for public opinion and political maneuvering.
In the courtroom, the arguments surrounding this question inevitably pull at the strings of emotions.
The prosecution strives to convince the judge of Najib’s guilt through witnesses and evidences, while the defense, acting in their client’s best interest, works to portray Najib as a man who remains deeply concerned for the nation despite the charges.
Last Friday, the High Court in Putrajaya found Najib guilty on all 25 counts of money laundering and power abuse charges related to 1MDB.
During mitigation to appeal for a lighter sentence, Najib’s lead defiance counsel, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, informed the court that Najib is currently pursuing a PhD at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) while serving his sentence in prison.
Shafee highlighted Najib’s dedication to his thesis tentatively titled “Economic Transformation of Malaysia,” in a program he started in 2023 and is expected to complete next year.
Through this, the defiance argued that in Najib’s heart, he is still contemplating development in Malaysia, using his thesis to convey the best path for the country’s economic future.
These words were meant not only to seek leniency from the judge but to project a noble image to the public, ensuring supporters and those beginning to feel sympathetic realize that Najib has always strived for a better Malaysia.
Predictably, the prosecution stood firm, labeling Najib’s crimes as “one of the most serious financial crimes in Malaysia’s history”—kleptocracy in its most extreme form.
Ultimately, the High Court sentenced Najib to a total of 165 years in prison (to run concurrently as 15 years) and a fine of nearly RM1.14 billion.
The judge’s considerations were outlined in the judgment highlights: Najib was found to be deeply involved in 1MDB affairs and authorized key decisions; his claim that the funds were “political donations” lacked official records and evidence; and Jho Low was deemed Najib’s agent.
The lesson is clear: “political contribution” should not be the yardstick to evade law. What we need is a social consensus that upholds principle and demands clean governance.
The judge opined that Najib, as the prime minister at the time, was no ordinary person and had no reason to be easily deceived when making major decisions.
It is undeniable that Najib served the public for 47 years, holding various offices before becoming the sixth prime minister and leading the nation through significant economic reforms and infrastructure development.
These contributions are facts that no one can deny. However, court rulings are based on facts and evidences.
While public sympathy or recognition of his service may carry weight in the court of public opinion, the judiciary must uphold the rule of law and deliver justice impartially, unaffected by sentiment or external pressure.
It must be noted that the legal process remains open to Najib, and he has already decided to appeal.
Shafee described the verdict as a “zero-score” situation—the first in his nearly 50-year career—and argued that the judge made several errors.
In the upcoming appeal, Shafee has every right to seek justice for his client and himself.
Outside the courtroom, the High Court’s verdict sparked mixed reactions.
Some hailed it as a victory for justice and a reward for years of effort; some were relieved that the judiciary remains independent and free from political interference.
Others felt disappointment or even anger, believing the current government has mistreated a former prime minister who contributed much to the nation’s development, for political gain.
The case appears to have divided the society, intertwining emotions, perspectives, and stances. But if we set aside political leanings and return to the fundamentals of law, this trial holds profound significance for the nation’s healing and progress.
The prerequisite, as former PKR Deputy President Rafizi Ramli once said, is that regardless of which side you are on, you must respect the court decision.
No one should be forced to accept another’s viewpoint, but all discussions should remain within the framework of the law characterized by rationality and restraint.
Malaysia suffered immense damage from the 1MDB scandal. The lesson is clear: “political contribution” should not be the yardstick to evade law. What we need is a social consensus that upholds principle and demands clean governance.
Should power abuse or corruption occur again in the future, we must face it with the same spirit and standards.
Only then can the nation truly move toward transparency and justice.
Anthony Chong Lip Teck is Leader Writer of Sin Chew Daily.