PAS’s decision to walk out of the special parliamentary sitting on the Tabung Haji Royal Commission of Inquiry report was an attempt to avoid confronting its own record.
On 28 January 2016, PAS secretary-general Takiyuddin Hassan said PAS was “very confident in the sound governance system” practised by Tabung Haji.
After meeting the responsible minister, Jamil Khir Baharom, and Tabung Haji’s senior management, Takiyuddin declared that PAS was satisfied with their explanation and that Tabung Haji’s financial performance was good.
He even said the more important matter was the assurance that the 2015 hibah would soon be announced and paid.
The RCI has now shown how badly PAS misjudged the situation. According to paragraph 3.9.2 of the RCI report, Tabung Haji had assets of RM60.196 billion and liabilities of RM60.062 billion in 2015. Its surplus before hibah was only RM134 million.
Despite this, Tabung Haji distributed RM3.220 billion in hibah. This left a deficit of RM3.086 billion.
The position became even worse in 2016. Tabung Haji had assets of RM64.321 billion and liabilities of RM65.581 billion. Its liabilities already exceeded its assets by RM1.260 billion before any hibah was paid.
Tabung Haji nevertheless distributed another RM2.871 billion in hibah, increasing the deficit to RM4.131 billion.
These are not complicated figures. When liabilities exceed assets, an institution is financially impaired. Under section 22 of the Tabung Haji Act 1995, hibah could only be distributed if its assets were not less than its liabilities.
Paragraph 3.9.16 found that the method used to distribute hibah from 2014 to 2017 did not comply with the statutory controls intended to ensure that payments came from genuine profits and not depositors’ money.
Paragraph 3.9.27 found that management resorted to creative accounting to enable high hibah payments. Management used estimated realisable asset values instead of the values in its audited financial statements and delayed recognising investment losses.
Therefore, when PAS praised Tabung Haji’s sound governance and financial performance in 2016, the actual financial position was already deteriorating.
Takiyuddin also said at the time that advice or warnings from Bank Negara should not damage depositors’ confidence. This shows that PAS placed greater emphasis on maintaining public confidence and paying high hibah than on investigating whether the financial figures were genuine.
There are only two credible explanations. The first is that PAS did not understand the basic financial information placed before it. If PAS could not distinguish between genuine profit and a distribution that exceeded actual financial capacity, then its leadership was financially illiterate and incompetent.
A party that cannot understand that liabilities exceeding assets is a serious warning is not fit to manage the country’s finances.
The second possibility is more serious. PAS understood the financial danger but still chose to reassure depositors that Tabung Haji was financially sound. If that happened, PAS was not being honest with the people and helped maintain a misleading public narrative.
Either PAS did not understand the accounts, or it understood but failed to tell the truth. One represents incompetence. The other represents dishonesty. PAS must explain which one it was.
Takiyuddin had the opportunity to answer this question during the special parliamentary sitting. Instead, he led PAS MPs out of the Dewan Rakyat after the Speaker rejected their request to postpone the sitting.
The excuse that the prime minister was absent was weak. The Finance Minister II, religious affairs minister and other Cabinet members were present to answer questions. 39 MPs remained and debated the report until 9pm.
PAS could have questioned the ministers about the RCI findings, the RM13 billion in losses, the seven investments that suffered total losses, the five investigation papers and the people responsible. Instead, PAS walked out.
The same PAS leader who accepted the minister’s explanation in 2016 refused to remain in Parliament in 2026 to confront evidence showing that the explanation was wrong.
PAS must now answer four questions. First, does PAS retract its 2016 declaration that Tabung Haji practised sound governance and had good financial performance?
Second, will Takiyuddin apologise to Tabung Haji depositors for giving them assurances that were contradicted by the institution’s actual financial position?
Third, what financial documents did PAS examine before declaring itself satisfied, and did PAS ask whether Tabung Haji’s assets exceeded its liabilities before the hibah was paid?
Fourth, why did PAS walk out instead of using Parliament to demand answers about the losses and possible wrongdoing?
PAS cannot use religious rhetoric as a substitute for financial competence and accountability. Protecting an Islamic institution does not mean defending its management or suppressing bad news. It means exposing wrongdoing, protecting depositors and ensuring that those responsible are investigated and prosecuted.
PAS wants Malaysians to entrust it with the federal government, yet it failed to recognise Tabung Haji’s deteriorating finances in 2016 and walked out when the truth was debated in 2026.
That record shows either serious financial incompetence or deliberate political dishonesty. Neither is acceptable from a party that claims it is fit to govern Malaysia.