By Dr Rahim Said
There are many ways to arrive at court when facing a criminal charge: worried, defiant, or as if your favourite restaurant has just run out of nasi lemak. Or, apparently, wearing a Salvatore Ferragamo Double Gancini belt. And suddenly, the belt becomes the story.
A former director-general of a government agency appeared at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court on Sept 30 to claim trial under Section 420 of the Penal Code, concerning the alleged concealment of a power of attorney involving 16 land parcels in Jalan Semarak, Kuala Lumpur.
Importantly, he has claimed trial, which means the allegation remains an allegation and the court has yet to determine guilt. But social media, being social media, quickly conducted its own fashion audit.
One netizen calculated that the Ferragamo belt costs RM2,000 to RM3,000 and wondered whether such an accessory was appropriate for a man appearing in court.
And so Malaysian justice acquired a new accessory. Forget fingerprints, documents, bank statements, or witnesses—follow the belt. If the belt is expensive, the wearer must be suspicious. If the shoes are expensive, perhaps another charge is coming. If the watch is expensive, MACC may want to know the time. And if the suit is expensive, perhaps the receipt should simply be submitted as Exhibit A.
Behind the humour lies a serious issue. The agro-based government agency is not a fashion house; it was created for settlers, land development, and the aspirations of ordinary Malaysians. Allegations involving its land or finances deserve scrutiny.
But whether a man wears a RM300 belt or a RM3,000 belt tells us little about whether he committed an offence. Otherwise, the MACC might as well establish a Designer Accessories Investigation Unit—Ferragamo Division, Gucci Division, Rolex Division, and for complicated cases, Louis Vuitton.
The problem with judging corruption through fashion is obvious: expensive things are not evidence of corruption. A person can legitimately own an expensive belt. A corrupt person can wear a cheap one. An innocent civil servant can wear Ferragamo; a guilty man can wear Bata.
The real danger is confusing the appearance of wealth with proof of wrongdoing. That would be unfortunate in a country where courts are supposed to deal with evidence, not Instagram.
There is irony here. The Ferragamo Double Gancini buckle consists of two interlocking shapes. To the fashion industry, it is luxury design. To the Malaysian internet, it resembles miniature handcuffs. Ferragamo may have intended a fashion statement; the internet has given it a criminal-procedure makeover. Perhaps it should now be called the Double Gancini — Court Appearance Collection.
But let us leave the belt alone. The real question is whether the prosecution can establish the allegation before the court. That is where the true luxury item should be found: due process. It costs nothing, looks good on everyone, and unlike a Ferragamo belt, never goes out of fashion.
Until the court decides otherwise, the former DG is an accused person, not a convicted man. His previous CBT conviction involving the agency’s funds was set aside by the High Court in 2022, with the acquittal upheld by the Court of Appeal.
So perhaps we should stop measuring alleged corruption by waistline, watch, shoes, or belt. Let the prosecution measure it in evidence, the defence in arguments, and the judge in law. Let the fashion police return to the shopping mall.
Because if owning a RM3,000 belt is going to become evidence of corruption, half of Kuala Lumpur’s wedding guests may want to reconsider their accessories before entering a courtroom.
In Malaysia, justice may be blind — but social media has excellent eyesight.
WE