Letters | Malaysia’s Muhyiddin Yassin will have, and should wait for, his day in court

Readers discuss the charges against Malaysia’s former prime minister, the US jury system, democratic development in Hong Kong, the theme of the financial secretary’s budget speech, and why companies struggle with hiring

Reading Time:4 minutes

Former prime minister of Malaysia and Perikatan Nasional chairman Muhyiddin Yassin (right) waves as he leaves the Kuala Lumpur High Court after being charged with corruption in Kuala Lumpur on March 10. Photo: AFP

Published: 11:30am, 19 Mar 2023

Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at [email protected] or filling in this Google form. Submissions should not exceed 400 words, and must include your full name and address, plus a phone number for verification.

Former Malaysian prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin said he was the victim of a politically motivated legal attack after he was charged on March 10 with four separate counts of using his office or position for gratification involving 232.5 million ringgit (US$51.4 million) and two counts of money laundering involving 195 million ringgit. (“Malaysia’s former PM Muhyiddin Yassin pleads not guilty to abuse of power, money laundering”, March 10).

The four charges are under Section 23 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act (MACCA), which makes it an offence for an officer of a public body to use his office or position for any gratification, whether for himself, his relative or associate.

The two main elements that must be proved are that the accused was an officer of a public body, and that the accused had used either his office or position for gratification for himself or his relative or his associate.

Under Section 3 of the act, “officer of a public body” includes a member of the administration, a member of parliament, and any person receiving any remuneration from public funds. Meanwhile, “gratification” includes donation and “associate” includes any organisation of which the person in charge or in control of.

For the purpose of proving that the accused had used his position for gratification whether for himself, his relative or associate, the prosecution can rely on the rebuttable statutory presumption under Section 23(2).