Part 4: When Leadership Must Answer

                                                          

 

Disclaimer: This article contains personal views and analysis on matters of public interest. It is not legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified lawyer for advice on their specific circumstances.

In Part 1, I wrote about silence. In Part 2, I wrote about technicalities. In Part 3, I asked whether every injustice must be dragged through the courts before it is acknowledged. Each of these reflects a failure of institutions. But behind every institution stands leadership. And when leadership fails, the consequences are magnified.

 

I write here not about my own case, but as an agent for a friend who has faced this situation. My purpose is to highlight how institutions respond, so that the public can see the broader patterns at work.

 

Sabah Development Bank Berhad (SDB) is not a private company. It is a state-linked entity, funded by public money, and entrusted with a mission to promote development and serve the people of Sabah. Its board is chaired by the Minister of Finance. That role is not symbolic. It carries responsibility, oversight, and the power to act when policies become unjust.

 

When a loan has been fully repaid — as was done in 2004 — and yet the Bank continues to hold a charge over the property more than two decades later, the issue is no longer technical. It is moral. It is institutional. And it is ministerial.

 

The Bank’s reply, citing a sixty-year foreclosure right under the Limitation Ordinance, may be legally permissible. But is it just? Is it fair? Is it consistent with the purpose for which SDB was created? These are not questions for lawyers alone. They are questions for leadership.

 

A new government has taken office. It has promised reform, transparency, and fairness. But promises must be tested. If the new government cannot resolve matters as simple as releasing a charge after full repayment, how can it claim to tackle the deeper reforms Sabahans are waiting for?

 

Leadership is not about citing clauses. It is about exercising discretion. It is about recognising when the law allows for fairness, and choosing to act on it. It is about ensuring that state-linked entities do not become bureaucratic fortresses, but remain accessible, responsive, and humane.

 

I write this not as a partisan, but as a citizen. A citizen who has tried dialogue. Who has waited. Who has documented. Who has asked for nothing more than what is fair.

 

The silence of institutions is bad. The deflection of technicalities is worse. But the absence of leadership — when it is most needed — is what truly erodes public trust.

 

If the new government wishes to be different, let it begin here. Let it show that justice does not require a lawsuit. That fairness does not need a court order. That leadership listens, acts, and answers.

 

Yet behind this ministerial silence lies an even deeper inequity: the law itself is not applied equally across Malaysia. In the Peninsula, borrowers face one horizon; in Sabah, another. That disparity magnifies the absence of leadership, and it is where I turn next.

 I document this case on behalf of a friend, to show the wider systemic issues at play.