He Deserves to be Whipped???

The fact that the Kuala Lumpur High Court has found Syed Saddiq guilty of four charges of criminal breach of trust, misappropriation of property, and money laundering linked to RM1.12 million of Bersatu Youth funds did not quite shake me – until I read the sentence: Seven years of imprisonment, a RM10 million fine and two strokes of the cane.

What disturbs me is the sentence, especially on the whipping part.

Mariam Mokhtar wrote a long article to argue that the prosecutor had been too overzealous in his efforts to commit Saddiq. She cites Saddiq’s unwavering stances on issues of principles and thinks Saddiq represents our hope for the country. I cannot find fault with her sentiment.

The verdict and sentence created much traffic in the chat group amongst our Class of 1973 UM Engineering mates. Some contend that a crime is a crime, and Saddiq must face the music. Others thought it was because of his own making politically.

Of course, Saddiq still has higher courts to appeal, and a royal pardon to seek at the end of the legal route.

Sentences are meant to serve society’s expectations. Few would disagree if a harsh sentence is meted up to someone who has committed a heinous crime. Let’s take the case of the war in Gaza. Hamas’s action on October 7 was certainly an act of terrorism, even though it was done not without a cause. Yes, every effort can be made by the Israeli government to hunt down the terrorists, which they are certainly very good at, but for Netanyahu to order a blanket wipe-out of the Palestinians in Gaza is itself a terrible crime. 

China also sentences corrupt officials to face firing squads, but only if they have embezzled billions and caused irreparable damage to the economy.

In Saddiq’s case, I believe that it is more of a judgmental lapse than an intention to cheat. As Tunku Abdul Rahman used to say, if you have to throw stones at every one who is seen to be in the ‘wrong’, then you probably cannot find any stone left in the country. (I am just exaggerating!)

Wisdom is expected from a judge, not by-the-book decisions. It is not possible for sentences to be “standardized”, but double standards must not be the conclusion that we draw from our judiciary system.

I wrote about a certain Bāo Zhěng (包拯, 999-1062) in my recent book Knowing Your Roots. Let me bore readers with the lessons that can be learned from this legend.

Bāo Zheng, more commonly known as Bāo-Gōng (包公), was a justice in the Song Dynasty. Bao Zheng today is honoured as the cultural symbol of justice in Chinese society. Dramas on him have enjoyed sustained popularity. In mainstream Chinese mythology, opera, or drama, he is often portrayed with a black face and a white crescent shaped birthmark on his forehead. Legend has it that as he was born dark-skinned, Bao Zheng was discarded by his father right after birth. However, his virtuous elder sister-in-law, who just had an infant named Bao Mian (包勉), raised Bāo Zhěng like her own son. As a result, Bao Zheng would refer to Bao Mian's mother as "sister-in-law mother".

Bao Zheng was known for his honesty and uprightness, with actions such as sentencing his own uncle, impeaching an uncle of Emperor Ren-Zong's favourite concubine, and punishing powerful families. He defended peasants and commoners against corruption or injustice.

The Case of Executing Chen Shi-Mei (鍘美案)

Chen Shi-Mei had two children with wife Qin Xiang-Lian, and left them to sit for the imperial examination in the capital. After finishing first, he lied about his marriage and became the emperor's new brother-in-law, leaving Qin and the children to fend for themselves. Years later, a famine forced Qin and her children to move to the capital. She finally found a way to meet Chen, and begged him to at least help his own children. Not only did Chen refuse, but he also sent a servant by the name of Han Qi to kill them in order to hide his secret. Instead, Han helped the family escape and killed himself. Desperate, Qin brought her case to Bao Zheng, who tricked Chen into coming to court to have him arrested. The imperial family tried to intervene, but Bao executed him, nonetheless.

 

This case might not even appear metaphorical to Saddiq’s. Indeed, this is not my intention. I was trying to use Justice Bao Zheng to symbolise ‘wisdom’. Yes, the case would not have stood up in modern day justice systems. He used it to convict and serve society’s expectations.

What would Justice Bao mete out if he was the judge in the present case?