Anthony Loke’s Resignation — Barking up the Wrong Tree?

 

Anthony Loke has announced that he intends to resign as Malaysia's Transport Minister following the conditional pardon granted to former Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. At the time of writing, however, he has not formally submitted his resignation letter, and Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has said that he wants to meet Loke before deciding what to do. Loke is meanwhile proceeding with an official visit to China.

Will Anwar eventually accept his resignation?

To me, that is not really the important question.

The more interesting question is what exactly Loke believes he is taking responsibility for.

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong has granted Najib a conditional pardon allowing him to serve the remainder of his SRC International prison sentence under house arrest until 23 August 2028, subject principally to the payment of the RM50 million fine and compliance with other conditions.

Loke says his offer to resign represents DAP's response to the decision. The other DAP ministers and deputy ministers are remaining in government, ostensibly in the interest of political stability.

So what does one resignation achieve?

There is no suggestion that Anthony Loke himself was responsible for Najib's pardon. Nor was this a Cabinet decision for which collective ministerial responsibility applies in the normal way.

The pardon was considered through the constitutional process under Article 42 of the Federal Constitution, involving the Pardons Board and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. The Prime Minister and Attorney-General have roles in providing views and legal advice, but the government itself has publicly stated that the ultimate decision rested with the King.

This is where the issue becomes more complicated than some of the political rhetoric suggests.

Malaysia inherited much of the Westminster constitutional tradition, under which a constitutional monarch normally acts on advice. But the royal pardoning power cannot simply be equated with an ordinary Cabinet decision. Article 42 establishes its own machinery. Malaysian constitutional lawyers have debated the precise extent to which the Ruler is bound by advice in exercising this power, while previous court decisions have treated the substance of the pardoning decision as largely beyond judicial review.

That does not mean Malaysians cannot discuss or criticise the decision. Of course they can. Respect for the constitutional power of the King is quite compatible with public debate over its consequences.

Anwar himself has now disclosed that he raised concerns during the process. He says he reminded those involved of Najib's continuing court cases, the size of the fine, and the possible effect of any pardon on public confidence in the justice system and Malaysia's international reputation. He has also denied that he "paved the way" for Najib's pardon.

If that account is correct, then what exactly is Loke protesting against?

If he is protesting against the constitutional decision itself, resigning as Transport Minister does not alter that decision.

If, on the other hand, his real dissatisfaction is with the government's inability to maintain the uncompromising anti-corruption position traditionally associated with DAP, then the argument should be made openly on that ground.

There is also a larger problem confronting DAP which, in my view, is more important than whether Anthony Loke remains Minister of Transport.

The party has suffered a series of serious electoral setbacks.

In the November 2025 Sabah state election, DAP lost all eight seats it contested, including six seats it had previously held. Loke himself accepted responsibility for that result.

In Johor in July 2026, DAP won six seats while Pakatan Harapan as a whole secured only eight of the state's 56 seats; BN won 48.

Then, in the August 2026 Negeri Sembilan state election, Loke personally lost the Chennah seat that he had held since 2013 and subsequently resigned as state DAP chairman.

These results do not necessarily prove that DAP is in irreversible decline. State elections have their own local dynamics and should not automatically be extrapolated nationwide. But they surely provide enough evidence for DAP to ask some uncomfortable questions about itself.

One is whether its traditional support base still regards the party with the same loyalty that it once did. Analysts examining the recent elections have pointed not merely to difficulties attracting Malay voters but also to growing dissatisfaction among sections of DAP's traditional Chinese and urban electorate.

Another question is whether dramatic gestures such as a ministerial resignation address that deeper problem.

Corruption is certainly one of the issues.

The principle should be straightforward: political status ought not to determine whether wrongdoing is investigated, prosecuted and punished. But societies also differ considerably in their approaches to punishment and clemency.

China provides an extreme contrast. Under Chinese criminal law, exceptionally serious corruption can attract life imprisonment or even the death penalty, and confiscation of the offender's property is available. Chinese law nevertheless specifically protects property that legitimately belongs to family members.

Malaysia has chosen a very different constitutional tradition, one that includes executive clemency.

The politically important question therefore may not be whether Najib should have been treated as China would have treated a senior official convicted of comparable offences. It is how Malaysians themselves view punishment, rehabilitation, proportionality and the special constitutional power of mercy.

Najib plainly retains considerable political sympathy among sections of the Malay electorate and within UMNO. That political reality exists whether DAP likes it or not. A party aspiring to national relevance therefore has to understand why different groups of Malaysians can look at the same case and reach very different emotional and political conclusions.

That, to me, is DAP's much bigger problem.

It has always described itself as a Malaysian rather than a communal party. Yet it continues to face the difficulty of broadening its appeal beyond its traditional urban and predominantly Chinese electoral base. Political analysts have repeatedly identified expanding Malay participation and acceptance as one of the party's longer-term challenges.

Malaysia may have progressed considerably since the communal politics of the 1950s and 1960s, but ethnicity and religion remain powerful forces in electoral politics. Pretending otherwise will not make them disappear.

This is where the Sarawak experience is worth studying — although Sarawak's political circumstances are certainly different from those of Peninsular Malaysia.

Under Abang Johari, Gabungan Parti Sarawak has tried to construct its politics principally around Sarawak identity, development and state interests while accommodating Malay, Dayak and Chinese communities within the same political framework. Abang Johari himself has repeatedly argued that politics should move away from race and religion towards competence, development and fairness across communities.

One need not pretend that the "Sarawak model" can simply be transplanted to Kuala Lumpur. It cannot.

But there may nevertheless be something for DAP to reflect upon.

Anthony Loke's resignation may make a statement. It may satisfy some members and supporters who believe DAP had to demonstrate its unhappiness over Najib's conditional pardon.

But after the statement has been made, the larger questions remain.

Why has DAP lost ground in several recent elections? Why are some of its traditional supporters disillusioned? Why has it found it so difficult to broaden its Malay base despite decades in Malaysian politics? And how does it transform itself from a party that is constitutionally multiracial into one that is also perceived as genuinely multiracial by a much broader cross-section of Malaysians?

Those questions will not disappear whether Anthony Loke remains Minister of Transport or resigns.

Perhaps they deserve rather more attention than the resignation itself.

End.