FAM Apologizes BUT Not the Sports Minister or the Malaysian Government - document forgery relating to the eligibility of the country's 7 'heritage' football players > will the law breakers be charged for their CRIMES regarding FORGED documents??

FAM APOLOGIZES - but the responsible Sports MInister (then Hannah Yeoh, and now Mohammed Taufiq Johari) or the Government of Malaysia under PM Anwar Ibrahim has yet to APOLOGIZE to Malaysians. Criminal Investigation and prosecution of those involved in the FORGERY (making of FAKE Documents and using FAKE DOCUMENTS) yet to happen? Will this Malaysian government continue to protect 'criminals' and maybe even the Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail if the generation of the FAKE documents was by the Home Ministry?

Follow the Charles Hector channel on WhatsApp:

https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb6UokfB4hdNugYmph1B 

 

FIFA does not allow foreign nationals to play for Malaysian FOOTBALL teams in inter-national football competitions representing Malaysia. (No problem if they are playing for CLUBS in competitions between CLUBs - like the English Premier League - but NOT for Malaysia in competitions between National Football Teams - like the ASIAN Games, Olympics or the World Cup - for inter-Club games, there is NO requirement that all must be Malaysian citizens,

EVEN if the foreign football players as made CITIZENS they still cannot represent Malaysia in international games - WHY? to prevent countries from simply making foreign players citizens so that they can play for Malaysia or any other countries (That is FIFA's rule until it is changed)

For foreign players, already citizens, FIFA has another condition >   

To represent a national team via ancestry or heritage, a player must hold the nationality of that country and satisfy at least one of the following conditions:

Birth: The player was born on the territory of the relevant association.
Parental Descent: The player's biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the association.
Grandparental Descent: The player's biological grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the association.

NOW, the forgery was with regards this - does the said foreign player now a Malaysian citizen, have parents or grandparents that were born in Malaysia. This was the FAKE DOCUMENTS that is an issue > and Malaysia/FAM presented FAKE or FORGED documents to prove this - that the father/mother or grandfather/grandmother was BORN in Malaysia.

Who generated these FAKE DOCUMENTS > which is a CRIME in Malaysia > was it the Government, the HOME MINISTRY, FAM or some one else - Whoever generated/created these FAKE documents commited a CRIME. Whoever used these FAKE documents, knowing that it was FAKE, also committed a CRIME punishable under Malaysian Law. Whoever allowed the Football Association of Malaysia(FAM) that comes under Malaysia's Sport MINISTER or Ministry also may have committed a CRIME.. This is NOT a case that the Malaysian Government can 'COVER-UP' or sweep under the Carpet.

Note, that before FIFA, countries from where these foreign football players came from - Disputed these Malaysian FAKE DOCUMENTS - some even submitted documents proving that these 'parents/grandparents' were indeed NOT BORN or lived in Malaysia.

This FIFA SCANDAL embarrassed Malaysia and Malaysians...in the eyes of the world, especially the footballing world. It destroyed Malaysia's CREDIBILITY - we became a Country with a Government or with a National Football Association who LIES...who will use FAKE or FORGED documents. 

THUS, has the investigation into these CRIMES started, with a view that all those who committed the CRIME shall be charged and tried in Court for this very serious crime?

MINISTER Hannah YEOH (then Minister of Youth and Sports of Malaysia), in my opinion,  failed terribly in dealing with this issue. The Football Association of Malaysia(FAM) is directly under the said Minister.

*   On becoming aware of this, what the MINISTER did was most disappointing - did she immediately investigate the matter, or set up some INDEPENDENT committee under the MINISTRY to investigate > no, she, sadly did not. What happened was FAM set up an investigation committee - NOT the Ministry or the government? What the 'alleged' criminal investigating itself??? BEST would have been if the MINISTRY or the government set up an Investigation Committee - or the Minister had called on relevant law enforcement bodies to immediately investigate and prosecute if a CRIME was discovered. 

An independent investigation committee (IIC) established by the Football Association of Malaysia (FAM) has recommended internal disciplinary action against suspended FAM secretary general Datuk Noor Azman Rahman, and a series of structural and governance reforms following its probe into disputed eligibility documents submitted to Fédération Internationale de Football Association (Fifa) involving seven national players. - EDGE, 16/12/2025

*  'The minister became both watchdog and cheerleader, demanding answers while giving hope.Malaysia’s minister of youth and sports, Hannah Yeoh, took a different tack. She noted that her ministry would wait for the outcome of FAM’s appeal before recommending any course of action.“Once Fifa has made its decision,” she said, “then we will look into the necessary improvements.” No mention was made of an investigation, accountability, or even a preliminary review of what went wrong.Her measured, wait-and-see response was institutionally sound but risked sounding distant in a moment that called for public reassurance. The absence of any immediate steps or strong language left many wondering whether the gravity of the situation had been fully grasped...Sport carries a symbolic weight that goes beyond trophies. It touches national identity, youth aspiration, and public trust. When things go wrong, people don’t just want technical answers. They want to know that someone in authority is taking it personally. Silence, or even delay, can feel like abdication. - FMT, 4/10/2025

In my opinion, the MINISTER should have made it most clear that generating and presenting FAKE documents is a SERIOUS offence - and should have taken needed steps like at least immediately asking law enforcement agencies to immediately investigate and take action. After 1st FIFA decision that Malaysia(or FAM) was guilty - action not be delayed until FIFA appeals committee decides

THE Youth and Sports Ministry will determine its next steps after FIFA announces the official result of the Football Association of Malaysia’s appeal regarding seven heritage players’ eligibility tomorrow. Minister Hannah Yeoh stated the ministry will work with the national governing body and Sports Commissioner to identify necessary measures for improving Malaysia’s football governance and structure. The Sun, 29/10/2025

WHY did the Minister assure Malaysians that those involved in generating FAKE documents, and using it will be investigated, charged and tried for the very serious crime of making/using FAKE DOCUMENTS? To date, has anyone been CHARGED in Court?

Then, FAM said 'Azman not guilty of document falsification in FAM scandal'(NST, 8/1/2026) - so who committed the CRIME of document falsification?

NOW, FAM apologizes - but why has the person/s who generated the forgeries, or used the forged document knowing it to be FAKE still not been CHARGED in Court...A guarantee it will never again happen NOT ENOUGH - those who broke Malaysian Law must be charged in Court (not simply subjected to some disciplinary action???)

The FA of Malaysia (FAM) has apologised to national football supporters following the document forgery controversy involving seven heritage players that shocked the national football scene last year.FAM president Datuk Ab Ghani Hassan said the apology was made on behalf of the national football governing body, including the new executive committee (exco) line-up currently leading FAM. He said FAM's new leadership takes the issue seriously and provides a guarantee that a similar incident will not recur throughout the remainder of the 2025–2029 term. - NST, 30/9/2026 

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim congratulated Harimau Malaya on their success in defeating Vietnam and securing third place in the Fifa Asean Cup 2026....Malaysia edged Vietnam 1-0 in the third-place playoff at the Gelora Bung Karno Stadium in Jakarta today, as substitute Fergus Tierney scored the only goal in the 62nd minute - FMT, 5/10/2026 

Fergus Tierney was born in 2003 in Glasgow, Scotland. He holds both Malaysian and Scottish citizenship...Tierney completed his Malaysian citizenship process in 2023. That same year, he began playing for the Malaysian U23 team and gradually moved closer to the senior national team.- Vietnam VN, 5/10/2026

When it comes to BADMINTON and SQUASH, we applaud the success of Malaysia, where there is no question as to their nationality... BUT, when it comes to FOOTBALL, more so since the FIFA scandal, we are unsure that it is TRULY a team of Malaysians...on includes new Malaysian citizens, previously foreign citizens.

Does NATIONAL PRIDE extend to all sports in Malaysia - especially if some players may not be TRULY Malaysians.

That brings us to the 2nd ISSUE > CITIZENSHIP - yes, it can be granted to foreigners but the CONSTITUTION provides the necessary conditions

Art 19  Citizenship by naturalization (Federal Constitution)

(1) Subject to Clause (9), the Federal Government may, upon application made by any person of or over the age of twenty-one years who is not a citizen, grant a certificate of naturalization to that person if satisfied—

(a) that—

(i) he has resided in the Federation for the required periods and intends, if the certificate is granted, to do so permanently;

(ii) (Repealed);

(b) that he is of good character; and

(c) that he has an adequate knowledge of the Malay language.

(2) Subject to Clause (9), the Federal Government may, in such special circumstances as it thinks fit, upon application made by any person of or over the age of twenty-one years who is not a citizen, grant a certificate of naturalization to that person if satisfied—

(a) that he has resided in the Federation for the required periods and intends, if the certificate is granted, to do so permanently;

(b) that he is of good character; and

(c) that he has an adequate knowledge of the Malay language.

(3) The periods of residence in the Federation or the relevant part of it which are required for the grant of a certificate of naturalization are periods which amount in the aggregate to not less than ten years in the twelve years immediately preceding the date of the application for the certificate, and which include the twelve months immediately preceding that date.

(4) For the purposes of Clauses (1) and (2) residence before Malaysia Day in the territories comprised in the States of Sabah and Sarawak shall be treated as residence in the Federation; and for the purposes of Clause (2) residence in Singapore before Malaysia Day or with the approval of the Federal Government residence in Singapore after Malaysia Day shall be treated as residence in the Federation.

(5) A person to whom a certificate of naturalization is granted shall be a citizen by naturalization from the date on which the certificate is granted.

One issue that came up with regard the earlier FIFA scandal about the 7 foreign football players was whether they satisfied the condition having RESIDED in Malaysia for the required period, which is 'periods which amount in the aggregate to not less than ten years in the twelve years immediately preceding the date of the application for the certificate,...' or were they made CITIZENS in violation of Constitution/Law??

 

Did the foreigners given CITIZENSHIP satisfy the current residency during required period? Should we amend the CONSTITUTION to re-define the 'residency period' noting in this modern times, many people do work overseas rather than being 100% of the time in Malaysia > this includes foreign spouses of Malaysians - should they still need to be physically present within Malaysian borders to satisfy the ' RESIDED in Malaysia for the required period' condition - if NOT, the Constitution need be amended.

 

It is said that Malaysia does not allow DUAL Citizenship - meaning one cannot be a citizen of 2 countries at the same time. I wonder whether these once citizen of some other country footballers have abandoned their past citizenship when they were given Malaysian citizenship? OR does Malaysia permit DUAL Citizenship now? Important consideration here..for Parliament ..

FAM says sorry over heritage players document forgery scandal

By Firdaus Hashim

September 30, 2026 @ 5:45pm

Football Association of Malaysia (FAM) president Datuk Ab Ghani Hassan (second from left) at a press conference following the sixth FAM executive committee meeting for the 2025-2029 term at Wisma FAM on Sept 30, 2026. -- BERNAMA PIC

PETALING JAYA: The FA of Malaysia (FAM) has apologised to national football supporters following the document forgery controversy involving seven heritage players that shocked the national football scene last year.

FAM president Datuk Ab Ghani Hassan said the apology was made on behalf of the national football governing body, including the new executive committee (exco) line-up currently leading FAM.

He said FAM's new leadership takes the issue seriously and provides a guarantee that a similar incident will not recur throughout the remainder of the 2025–2029 term.

"On behalf of the entire FAM executive committee today, I apologise to all Malaysian football supporters over the document forgery issue involving seven heritage players that occurred last year," he said when met on Wednesday.

Ab Ghani said this at a press conference after chairing the sixth executive committee meeting for the 2025–2029 term at Wisma FAM.

He noted that moving forward, FAM must streamline every process involving documentation and players called up to represent Harimau Malaya to ensure all matters are handled with greater diligence and adhere to established procedures.

"I give my commitment that throughout my tenure leading FAM, such an issue or incident will not be allowed to happen again," he said.

In September last year, FIFA found elements of alteration or forgery in documents relating to the eligibility of the country's seven 'heritage' players.

Following that, FAM was fined RM1.7 million, while each player was fined RM9,800 alongside a 12-month suspension. - NST, 30/9/2026

1MDB and SRC: Asset Seizures and Asset Returns; Convictions and Pardons (Malaysian Bar Press Release) - 25/9/2025

 

Press Release | 1MDB and SRC: Asset Seizures and Asset Returns; Convictions and Pardons 25 Sep 2026 4:53 pm

A pardon, reprieve or respite may be granted under Article 42 of the Federal Constitution following conviction. Neither a pardon, a reprieve, nor a respite, constitutes an exoneration of guilt or removal of wrongdoing. They do not “wipe the slate clean” of the prior conviction.

Chronology of Salient Events Leading to Najib’s Second Pardon

Following the 14th General Election (“GE 14”) on 9 May 2018, it was reported that police conducted a series of searches and seizures in May 2018 at premises linked to Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib b Hj Abd Razak (“Najib”) and Datin Sri Rosmah bt Mansor (“Rosmah”) in connection with investigations into 1Malaysia Development Berhad (“1MDB”). On 27 June 2018, police announced that the seized cash and valuables were estimated to be worth between RM900 million and RM1.1 billion1 comprising 11,991 items of jewellery, 401 watches, 16 watch accessories, 234 pairs of spectacles, 306 handbags, and RM114,164,393.44 in cash in various denominations2 (collectively referred to as “Seized Assets”), and on 3 July 2018, Najib was arrested in connection with investigations concerning SRC International Sdn Bhd (“SRC”),3 reportedly a former subsidiary of 1MDB;

Following a lengthy trial in which 57 prosecution witnesses and 19 defence witnesses testified, on 28 July 2020, the High Court (“HC”) convicted Najib on all seven charges: one count of abuse of power, three counts of criminal breach of trust and three counts of money laundering involving RM42 million in SRC funds and sentenced him to 12 years’ imprisonment and a fine of RM210 million.4 On 8 December 2021, the Court of Appeal (“COA”) upheld his conviction and sentence.5 Thereafter, on 23 August 2022, the Federal Court (“FC”) unanimously dismissed his final appeal,6 and finally, on 31 March 2023, the FC dismissed his application to review the foregoing decision.7 Nazlan J, in the HC, stated:

“[2910] … What this court seeks to affirm is the sanctity of the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution. No one — not even one who was the most powerful political figure and the leader of the country enjoys a cloak of invincibility from the force of the law. Any notion to such effect is the very antithesis to art 8 of the Constitution that enshrines that rule that all persons are equal before the law. The ascension of the accused to the pinnacle of the leadership of the nation and his grip on political power reposed in him by the citizens of this country the position of trust in our system of constitutional democracy. His conviction of all seven charges concerning abuse of position, criminal breach of trust and money laundering constitutes nothing less than an absolute betrayal of that trust…”.

The Seized Assets, made the subject of 1MDB-related forfeiture proceedings,8 were reportedly returned in the following manner, following the dismissal of such proceedings:9

◦17 June 202110 — RM114,164,393.44 in cash to Najib through his representative. Najib and UMNO had both claimed the cash;11 and

◦By 22 June 2022 — 9,555 jewellery items, 277 handbags and all 234 pairs of spectacles to Rosmah, and 394 watches and 16 watch accessories to Najib;12

14 November 2022 — the HC dismissed the forfeiture application concerning the remaining 2,435 jewellery items, seven watches and 29 handbags. The Attorney General’s Chambers did not appeal, and the items were to be returned to Najib and Rosmah;13

2 February 2024 — It was announced that the Pardons Board for the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya had, on 29 January 2024, reduced Najib’s prison term from 12 years to six years and his fine from RM210 million to RM50 million relating to the SRC case (“First Pardon”);14

26 April 2024 — The Malaysian Bar sought leave to apply for judicial review to challenge the First Pardon, naming the Pardons Board for the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, and Najib as Respondents.15 The Malaysian Bar seeks:

◦to challenge the validity of the Pardons Board’s 2024 decision and advice; and

◦an order prohibiting the Pardons Board from considering any pardon, reprieve or respite for Najib until all criminal proceedings against him have been exhausted, and until he has publicly accepted responsibility for his actions and expressed repentance and remorse;”

3 September 2024 — The Cabinet decided to introduce legislation concerning house arrest.16 The proposal was subsequently announced by the Prime Minister during the tabling of Budget 2025 on 18 October 2024;17

11 November 2024 — The HC refused the Malaysian Bar leave to proceed with its judicial review,18 and on 3 December 2024, the Malaysian Bar appealed to the COA, with the decision of the COA to be delivered on 7 January 2027;

22 December 2025 — Alice Loke J in the HC, dismissed on its merits, Najib’s judicial review application seeking confirmation and implementation of a purported addendum to the First Pardon, which was said to permit him to serve the remainder of his SRC sentence under “house arrest” (“Addendum Order”) (leave had been previously granted by the COA,19 and affirmed by FC on 13 August 2025).20 Alice Loke J held, among others, that the alleged Addendum Order was invalid because it had not been deliberated upon nor decided by the Pardons Board under Article 42 of the Federal Constitution, and that there was no legal mechanism to implement house arrest,21 stating:

“[68] … I am of the view that a house arrest order is not capable of execution, there being no legal provision for such mechanism in Malaysia. The Applicant’s counsel submitted that the means for implementation is in s. 43 of the Prisons Act, 1995…

[72] The release on licence in s 43 is a decision of the Commissioner General. He exercises his discretion, and in so doing is empowered to impose conditions for release. He determines the duration of the period of release and the place the prisoner is to proceed to. Notwithstanding the release, the prisoner can be recalled to prison at any time…

[73] … it can hardly be said that this is the mechanism to implement a house arrest … Clearly the house arrest in the Addendum Order is at variance with the provisions relating to release on licence. It is my view that the release on licence is a statutory power given to the Commissioner General alone…”;

Although Najib appealed against the above, he later withdrew his appeal without liberty to file afresh.²² The HC’s judgment therefore remains undisturbed, ie the issue of “house arrest” (if any) presently falls under the purview of the Commissioner General of Prisons.

26 December 2025 — In delivering the judgment on the 1MDB prosecution against Najib, Collin Sequerah J convicted Najib on four charges of abuse of power and 21 charges of money laundering involving approximately RM2.28 billion. Najib was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment and substantial financial penalties. The prison terms were ordered to commence after completion of the SRC sentence.23 Collin Sequerah J observed:

“[6] The financial scandal that led to the charges being preferred against the accused was described in the press, locally and worldwide, as the largest episode of kleptocracy in the world. The scale of the plunder that took place (financially speaking, of course) made Atilla the Hun look like a choirboy by comparison …”;

29 December 2025 — Najib filed an appeal against his 1MDB conviction and sentence;24

23 June 2026 — The Prison (Amendment) Bill 2026, which includes provisions concerning electronic monitoring devices (commonly used in “house arrests” in other jurisdictions), was tabled for first reading by the Government and subsequently referred to two Parliamentary Special Select Committees for further scrutiny.25 This amendment Bill has not yet been passed into law. The Bill ends as follows:

“This Bill will involve the Government in extra financial expenditure the amount of which cannot at present be ascertained.”

18 September 2026 — The Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister’s Department (Bahagian Hal Ehwal Undang-Undang, Jabatan Perdana Menteri, “BHEUU”) announced that the Pardons Board for the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya met on 18 September 2026. BHEUU also announced that Najib had been granted a conditional pardon, permitting him to serve the remainder of his SRC sentence under house arrest until 23 August 2028, subject to payment of the reduced fine of RM50 million (“Second Pardon”).26

“House Arrest” and the United Malays National Organization (“UMNO”)’s RM50 Million Fundraiser

Alice Loke J in the Addendum Order case held that there is no legal provision for a house arrest mechanism in Malaysia. The Home Minister confirmed that no house arrest legislation exists²⁷ and the relevant authorities are awaiting written notification of the terms of Najib’s Second Pardon. He also stated that the Cabinet has approved in principle the drafting and tabling of a House Arrest Act.²⁸

The reference to Kenneth Lee Fook Mun’s (“Kenneth”) previous purported house arrest by way of a pardon²⁹ does not constitute legal authority nor justification for saying that Malaysia has a formal legal “house arrest” framework. It is unclear if that case arose by way of a Pardons Board decision or under licence of the Commissioner General of Prisons under section 43 of the Prisons Act 1995. Kenneth’s case also does not appear to have been tested in court nor to have received any judicial endorsement. Kenneth’s case therefore does not constitute a legal precedent for granting house arrest.

Finally, from our research to date, there appear to be no standard operating procedures or guidelines in place for “house arrests”. A whole new ecosystem of rules and procedures would be required to operationalise “house arrests”.

There remain numerous legal uncertainties³⁰ surrounding “house arrest”, UMNO’s proposed RM50 million fundraiser and the Second Pardon in relation to the First Pardon, which require further examination. However, given the reported return of the earlier RM114,164,393.44 to Najib’s representative, it is unclear why UMNO needs to raise funds from the public. Such a public fundraiser may also involve other legal considerations. It is also unclear why it has been reported that Najib says most of his assets are frozen when it appears that more than enough of his assets (that were previously seized) have already been returned to cover the RM50 million fine, without the need for a public fundraiser.³¹ Perhaps there may be other assets (which were not seized circa May 2018) which may have been frozen, but this is not clear nor have any details been made available publicly.

Greater Transparency Needed

The Malaysian Bar adopts the joint statement issued by civil society groups and individuals, including Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan and Maria Chin Abdullah,³² and calls upon the Pardons Board and the Prime Minister’s Department to:

(1) declassify and publish the official minutes of the Pardons Board meeting(s) held regarding Najib’s First Pardon and Najib’s Second Pardon decisions; and

(2) fully disclose all conditions proposed to be attached to Najib’s house arrest, including monitoring protocols, enforcement authorities and the additional costs to taxpayers that a “house arrest” would entail.

This is yet another reason why the Malaysian Bar has consistently called³³ for a meaningful freedom of information (“FOI”) framework to guarantee public access to such information.

“House Arrest” for Other Prisoners

Recent events may prompt other prisoners to petition for similar pardons, reprieves or respites. Accordingly, clear and objective criteria, made known in advance, are crucial to avoid any perceptions of preferential treatment for Najib. On what basis may any other convict or prisoner seek a similar pardon, reprieve or respite? Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution (quoted by Nazlan J in the SRC judgment), which provides the answer (and entrenches the constitutional right to equality before the law), reads as follows:

“All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.”

While the law and “house arrest” ecosystem are still in the process of being formulated, it is axiomatic that the Pardons Board(s) will now receive many more petitions for “house arrest”.

The Malaysian Bar’s Next Steps

The Malaysian Bar will, through its solicitors, challenge the decision and advice of the Pardons Board concerning the Second Pardon, while maintaining its appeal in relation to the Pardons Board’s decision and advice on the First Pardon.³⁴

Anand Raj
President
Malaysian Bar

25 September 2026

---

¹  “Value of items seized from Najib-linked properties totals RM1.1b”, The Edge Malaysia, 27 June 2018.

²  Pendakwa Raya v OBYU Holding Sdn Bhd [2023] 8 MLJ 900.

³  “Malaysia 1MDB: Ex-PM Najib arrested by anti-corruption officials”, BBC, 3 July 2018.

⁴  Public Prosecutor v Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak [2020] 11 MLJ 808.

⁵  Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak v Public Prosecutor [2022] 1 MLJ 137.

⁶  Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak v Public Prosecutor and Other Appeals (No 1) [2022] 5 MLJ 85.

⁷  Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abdul Razak v Public Prosecutor [2023] 3 MLJ 40.

⁸  OBYU Holding, supra note 2.

⁹  Ibid.

¹⁰  “Prosecutor: RM114m-worth of seized assets in 1MDB forfeiture case returned to Umno, Najib”, Malay Mail, 5 August 2021.

¹¹  OBYU Holding, supra note 2 [11], [16], [17].

¹²  OBYU Holding, supra note 2 [2], [18] to [20].

¹³  OBYU Holding, supra note 2 [20], [40], [78] to [79].

¹⁴  “Press Release: Has Mercy Robbed Justice from the Nation?”, Malaysian Bar website, 6 February 2024.

¹⁵  “Bar files to quash Pardons Board reduction of Najib’s sentence”, Malaysiakini, 30 April 2024.

¹⁶  “Home Ministry: House arrest Bill set for tabling later this year, stakeholders currently consulted to draft law”, Malay Mail, 18 February 2025.

¹⁷  “Budget 2025 Speech”, Ministry of Finance Malaysia, 18 October 2024.

¹⁸  Badan Peguam Malaysia v Lembaga Pengampunan Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Labuan dan Putrajaya & Anor [2025] 10 MLJ 813.

¹⁹  Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Hj Abd Razak v Menteri Dalam Negeri & Ors [2025] 4 MLJ 440.

²⁰  The Attorney General of Malaysia v Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak and Another Appeal [2025] MLJU 2456.

²¹  Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Hj Abd Razak v Menteri Dalam Negeri & Ors [2025] MLJU 4605.

²²  “Najib withdraws appeal on house arrest, no reasons given”, The Malaysian Reserve, 27 April 2026; “Najib drops appeal over High Court’s dismissal of house arrest bid”, Free Malaysia Today, 27 April 2026.

²³  Public Prosecutor v Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak [2026] MLJU 2414.

²⁴  “Najib faces continued legal battles despite house arrest”, New Straits Times, 20 September 2026.

²⁵  “Prisons amendment bill sent back to select committees for further scrutiny”, New Straits Times, 25 June 2026.

²⁶  “Najib allowed house arrest if he pays RM50mil fine”, Free Malaysia Today, 18 September 2026; Siaran Media: Mesyuarat Lembaga Pengampunan Bagi Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Labuan dan Putrajaya Kali Ke-64 Pada 18 September 2026, Bahagian Hal Ehwal Undang-Undang, JPM Facebook page, 18 September 2026.

²⁷  “No action until official pardons board notification received on Najib, clarifies Saifuddin”, The Star, 19 September 2026.

²⁸  “Saifuddin Nasution: Proposed House Arrest Act focuses on remand detainees and prison overcrowding”, Malay Mail, 20 September 2026.

²⁹  “Home Ministry can’t stall Najib’s house arrest if bid is successful, says his lawyer Shafee”, The Edge, 18 December 2025; “House arrest and royal pardons in Malaysia: are there precedents?”, Scoop, 21 September 2026.

³⁰  “Najib: House Arrest and a Lot of Questions”, BFM 89.9 Morning Brief Podcast, 21 September 2026.

³¹  “Frozen assets may hinder RM50m payment for Najib’s house arrest, his lawyers say”, Malay Mail, 20 September 2026.

³²  “Release minutes: Ex-Bersih leaders Ambiga, Maria join push to lift veil on house arrest”, Malaysiakini, 22 September 2026.

³³  “Press Release: Malaysian Freedom of Information Act is Long Overdue”, Malaysian Bar website, 3 July 2026; “Press Release: The Freedom of Information Bill is Regressive, Misdirected and in Dire Need of Rectification”, Malaysian Bar website, 21 July 2026.

³⁴  “Najib: House Arrest and a Lot of Questions”, BFM 89.9 Morning Brief Podcast, 21 September 2026.

Follow the Charles Hector channel on WhatsApp:

https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb6UokfB4hdNugYmph1B 

 

SHOULD Ministers/Prime Minister be CRIMINALLY LIABLE for crimes/wrongs of their POLITICAL Appointees - 'unqualified' as Directors/CEOs/etc? Criminal/Civil liability or RESPONSIBILITY of Ministers will encourage GOOD Governance?

In Malaysia, it is the MINISTERS/Prime Minister that 'PICKS' and appoints DIRECTORS, and also approves CEOs, COOs, CFOs, ... and even decisions on what the entity does. There is UNCERTAINTY as to whether CABINET APPROVAL is needed - or even just the PRIME MINISTER's OK???

 

Follow the Charles Hector channel on WhatsApp:

https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb6UokfB4hdNugYmph1B 

The problem is that sometimes persons CHOSEN by these Ministers to be DIRECTORS/ CEO and upper management may be UNQUALIFIED. If the correct qualified persons are appointed, the likelihood of LOSSES, and even crimes by these appointees reasonably will END???

Some may have been appointed because of 'political party affiliations' or 'friendship' > thus HIGHER RISK that ULTIMATELY create LOSSES to Malaysia and the Malaysian people. 

We are here talking about appointments in Government Agencies/Bodies, Government OWNED companies or Government CONTROLLED entities (GLCs,GLICs,etc - FELDA, Tabung Haji, -- Now, we see many from these government owned/controlled companies being CHARGED in Court.

Also ODD is how long ago these CRIMES were committed, and the other question is WHY were the crimes not detected earlier, and why was action not taken earlier...???

 

Should we ENACT LAWS making the PM/Ministers that appointed, that FAILED to monitor to ensure no LOSSES, crimes, wrong decisions that led to LOSSES be also made CRIMINALLY liable for their failures? In Malaysia, it is the DECISION of  Malaysians whether such laws are enacted because we are a DEMOCRACY and the people decide on the LAWS...So, SPEAK UP PEOPLE...

SHOCKING when it is the former FELDA DG, Tabung Haji Chairman, former Minister, ...Remember, the Minister/Prime Minister is entrusted with the RESPONSIBILITY for these entities(including all its subsidiary companies) - NO LIABILITY or LIABILITY on Ministers RESPONSIBLE - Criminal liability or just CIVIL Liability, or BOTH.

As it is many MINISTERS may not even be qualified to be MINISTER of a particular MINISTRY - and probably unqualified to chose and appoint DIRECTORS, CEOs and Upper Management > 

Should we CHANGE this - and require appointments by an INDEPENDENT qualified body. Now, in Malaysia, JUDGES are no longer chosen by the PM as he/she pleases, we have the JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS Commission who will decide on who is QUALIFIED - and the PM can only chose JUDGES based on persons recommended by the Judicial Appointments Commission(JAC) - this was a REFORM since 2009. So should we have a similar appointments commission to identify QUALIFIED persons to be appointed DIRECTORS, CEO and upper management of government entities like FELDA, TABUNG HAJI, UITM Holdings,...and all government entities/companies and their subsidiaries?

 

Faizoull Ahmad, A former director-general (DG) of the Federal Land Development Authority (Felda) was charged at the Sessions Court here today with deceiving the authority’s board of directors in connection with a power of attorney used to transfer the ownership of 16 parcels of its land at Jalan Semarak in 2014. - Malay Mail, 30/9/2026

The former chief executive officer of Felda Investment Corporation Sdn Bhd (FIC), Zaid Abdul Jalil, faced two charges at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court today for deceiving the FIC board of directors. - Malaysiakini, 29/9/2026

Former Tabung Haji (TH) chairman Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim has pleaded not guilty to charges of using his position to secure the chairmanship of a company with a RM690,000 (S$216,000) annual salary 12 years ago. - Straits Times, 9/9/2026 

Former Lembaga Tabung Haji (TH) chief operating officer Datuk Adi Azuan Abdul Ghani pleaded not guilty at the Sessions Court here today to three counts of graft involving over RM302,000 in home renovation works. - Malay Mail, 24/9/2026 

A total of five people have been charged since the disclosure of the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) report into the management and operations of Lembaga Tabung Haji (TH) in late July.former Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Religious Affairs) Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom was the fifth person to be charged today at the Sessions Court here, where he pleading not guilty to three charges involving RM860,308,770.51 in TH funds. Apart from Jamil Khir, those charged were former TH chairman Datuk Seri Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim, former THP Bina Sdn Bhd Security and Safety Manager Nasahruddin Ahmad, and former TH Properties Sdn Bhd deputy general manager Tengku Kamarolhisham Tengku Kamaruddin, who was also a former deputy general manager of THP Bina Sdn Bhd. Also charged was Alam Maritim Resources Bhd group managing director and group chief executive officer Datuk Azmi Ahmad. - Scoop, 14/9/2026

A former senior executive is set to be charged in court in connection with an investigation by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) into alleged abuses of power that resulted in approximately RM42 million in losses for UiTM Holdings Sdn Bhd - Malay Mail, 29/9/2026 

Thus, should NOT the Minister/Prime Minister be CRIMINALLY LIABLE for these crimes/LOSSES that happens in entities under the government/MINISTRY?

Should not the MINISTER be HELD RESPONSIBLE not ensuring that these GOVERNMENT Bodies under the DIRECT responsibility of the Minister/PM fails? 

The CRIME or LIABILITY is based on not whether the Minister/PM took money - but because he/she FAILED in the duty to ensure the success of companies/entities under the said MINISTER's jurisdiction.

Making Ministers CRIMINALLY Liable or liable - certainly would act as a DETERRENT - that will ensure that Ministers act responsibly and WILL always monitor all entities/companies under their jurisdiction to ENSURE they do WELL(not suffer losses), and no crimes/wrongdoings happens that will cause MALAYSIANS to lose monies?

Why have the all the DIRECTORS in these entities yet to be charged in COURT > did they not fail in their duties? NO PENALTY? NO PUNISHMENT for failure in their responsibility?  

Company directors are personally liable for corporate losses if those losses result directly from a breach of their legal, fiduciary, or statutory duties.

Do the politically appointed DIRECTORS even know their duties/responsibilities?

SO, if the MINISTER/PM appoints the UNQUALIFIED - should he/she not be personally LIABLE for the losses the company suffers by reason of his/her NEGLIGENCE? YES, they should be. REMEMBER that in Government entities > the MINISTER acts on behalf of all the people of Malaysia...

In Malaysia, some Ministers/PM appoint people from their own political party or 'friends' - who sometimes do not even understand their responsibilities as company DIRECTORS - many of these appointed DIRECTORS end up being mere 'seat warmers' who happily take home their MONTHLY and other allowances.. and DO NOT ensure that the running of the Company is WELL... Do they even have experience in the said BUSINESS - or worse, even understand their RESPONSIBILITIES as Directors of Companies?

NO ONE appoints a LAWYER who is NOT legally qualified, or a DOCTOR who is unqualified > so NEGLIGENT appointment of DIRECTORS, CEOs, etc  - who are not the BEST qualified, or sometimes have NO KNOWLEDGE of EXPERTISE in the particular business may result LOSSES and the company failing. 

1MDB could not have happened if the DIRECTORS did their JOB > how did they allow NAJIB to do all this wrongs and worse take 'monies' himself? Should they also not be CRIMINALLY liable? 

After 1MDB, Malaysia should have LEARNED - and needed changes and reforms of how we do things should have happened > What changes/reforms have PM Anwar Ibrahim's government done >> or is the POSITION of this government not to do anything, and allow the way we did things remain the SAME? WHY?  

Why did the Company Directors of FELDA, Tabung Haji and other GLCs not come forward first and report these CRIMES or these wrongs - or did they inform the SHAREHOLDERS, the people of Malaysia here represented by the PM/MINISTER ONLY - who knew BUT did not take action at all or just 'covered it up'? OR was also reaping personal benefits from the wrongdoing...

WHAT REFORMS NEEDED? 

The problem starts with the MINISTERS themselves - the fault lies with the PRIME MINISTER who chooses who will be Minister and for what Ministry > BUT now some MINISTERS may not even be QUALIFIED to be a Minister of a particular Ministry - THUS, seriously we should CONSIDER the need for PARLIAMENT APPROVAL before candidates chosen by the PM are appointed MINISTERS.

If there is Parliamentary Approval, Parliament will thoroughly determine a particular nominee of the PM has the requisite qualification to be appointed MINISTER - if yes, KING appoints.

In many nations , the president(and for Malaysia, the PM) must nominate ministers, but they cannot officially assume office until they undergo vetting and receive approval from Parliament or a legislative committee. Similarly, in the United States, presidential cabinet nominees require confirmation by the Senate before appointment.

If we get the RIGHT 'qualified' MINISTERS, then less chances of agencies/companies under that Minister suffering LOSSES - or the occurrence of crimes by Directors/Upper Management happening.

PRIOR Parliamentary approval of MINISTERS, if done, may deal with the 'ROOT CAUSE' of losses and crimes in entities and GLCs.

NEXT, for the appointment of DIRECTORS, CEOs and upper management - there must again be an INDEPENDENT Vetting procedure > this will REDUCE bad Directors/Officers - reducing the possibility of LOSSES and even CRIMES. Maybe PARLIAMENT or some select committee could do this. 

ANOTHER problem in Malaysia is the FAILURE OF PARLIAMENT - Parliament is suppose to be a check and balance - to prevent ABUSES, LOSSES, etc ... So, there should maybe be a PARLIAMENTARY Committee that is dedicated to MONITORING FELDA, Tabung Haji,..including the many subsidiary companies > Maybe best for SEVERAL Parliamentary Committees monitoring selected entities and their subsidiaries. This commitee should have the power to get all relevant documents/facts and can conduct PUBLIC inquiries in carrying out their duty...

PARLIAMENT Failed To find out about 1MDB - and allowed all wrong doings to go on so long - resulting in BILLIONS of losses.  

It is most sad, that even after 1MDB, the government including PM Anwar's current government FAILED to do the needful to PREVENT a REPEAT of the similar..

One identified problem was the fact that Najib was both Prime Minister and Finance Minister, whereby 1MDB fell under the Finance Minister ... so, it was a GOOD proposal that the Prime Minister should never also be the Finance Minister - but sadly Anwar is now both Prime Minister and Finance Minister (also like Najib, he may be in charge of 1MDB, Khazanah, ...) >> So after Anwar is no more Prime Minister, we may again see similar criminal charges against Anwar, as the crimes Najib has been convicted of/

Should we enact a LAW that Directors of Tabung Haji, FELDA, and all its subsidiaries is answerable to Malaysians, and then Parliamentarians can ask questions and get answers to be able to carry out their 'check and balance' of the Executive who now 'can keep secrets' - for these companies/entities currently only answer to MINISTERS, as the representative of Government/the Malaysian people. 

Every year, the AUDITOR GENERAL reveals wrongdoings/failures > but has the Government and the Malaysian Enforcement Agency followed up where those responsible have been charged ..and REFORMS that will prevent similar crimes or actions/ommissions that led to these LOSSES? 

Former Felda DG charged with cheating board over Jalan Semarak land transfer

Former Federal Land Development Authority (Felda) director-general Datuk Faizoull Ahmad is brought to the Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur on September 30, 2026. — Bernama pic

Stay updated on the latest news and insights. Subscribe to our newsletter here

Summary

• A former director-general of the Federal Land Development Authority (Felda), Datuk Faizoull Ahmad, has been charged with deceiving Felda's board of directors regarding a power of attorney related to the transfer of 16 parcels of land at Jalan Semarak in 2014.
• By allegedly concealing the details of the power of attorney, Faizoull is accused of inducing the board to approve the transfer of ownership to Synergy Promenade companies, when they otherwise might not have done so.
• He pleaded not guilty to the charges under Section 420 of the Penal Code, which could result in a prison sentence and a fine if convicted.

First Published: Wednesday, 30 Sep 2026 9:54 AM MYT

Last Modified: Wednesday, 30 Sep 2026 11:44 AM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 30 — A former director-general (DG) of the Federal Land Development Authority (Felda) was charged at the Sessions Court here today with deceiving the authority’s board of directors in connection with a power of attorney used to transfer the ownership of 16 parcels of its land at Jalan Semarak in 2014.

Datuk Faizoull Ahmad, 66, however, pleaded not guilty after the charge was read out before Judge Suzana Hussin.

Faizoull, in his capacity as Felda DG, is accused of deceiving the board by concealing a power of attorney dated June 3, 2014, granted Synergy Promenade Sdn Bhd authority to transfer ownership of the 16 parcels of land involved in the proposed Felda Lot Development Project at Jalan Semarak.

The act induced the board of directors to agree to the power of attorney, resulting in the transfer of ownership of the said Felda land to Synergy Promenade KLVC Sdn Bhd and Synergy Promenade Sdn Bhd, when the Board would not have done so had it not been deceived.

The offence is alleged to have been committed at the Board Meeting Room, Level 50, Menara Felda, Platinum Park, Persiaran KLCC here on Sept 2, 2014.

He was charged under Section 420 of the Penal Code, which carries a prison sentence of between one and 10 years and caning, as well as a fine, upon conviction. 

Deputy public prosecutor N. Joy Jothi offered bail of RM100,000 with one surety, considering the seriousness of the offence.

“We also request additional conditions that the accused’s passport be surrendered to the court and that he report to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) office once a month until the case is concluded,” she said.

Faizoull’s lawyer Datuk Sukri Mohamed sought a lower bail of around RM30,000 on the grounds that his client is the main breadwinner and has four children still in school.

“Previously, his passport was impounded for four years, from December 2018 to September 2022, in relation to two other charges. Throughout this period there was no evidence to show that he attempted to flee or failed to cooperate,” he said, adding that his client had been remanded for five days beginning Sept 6.

Judge Suzana allowed the accused to be released on bail of RM70,000 with one surety, subject to the additional conditions requested by the prosecution.

The court then fixed Nov 6 for the next mention of the case.

The MACC has opened six new investigation papers into allegations of embezzlement, abuse of power and corruption involving Felda and its subsidiary, Felda Investment Corporation Sdn Bhd (FIC).

The probe into the Kuala Lumpur Vertical City (KLVC) project forms part of seven investigation papers, including one older probe.

The investigations focus on the acquisition and investment of assets by Felda and FIC between 2010 and 2020, which are suspected to contain elements of corruption, embezzlement and abuse of power.

Yesterday, former FIC chief executive officer Mohd Zaid Abdul Jalil pleaded not guilty at the Sessions Court here to two charges of deceiving the FIC board of directors in connection with the appointment of a company for a proposed commercial development project and the market value of 24 parcels of Felda land, 12 years ago. — Bernama, Malay Mail, 30/9/2026

Ex-chair of Malaysian pilgrimage fund charged with abuse of position, influencing RM193.5m investment

Published Sep 09, 2026, 02:30 PM

KUALA LUMPUR - Former Tabung Haji (TH) chairman Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim has pleaded not guilty to charges of using his position to secure the chairmanship of a company with a RM690,000 (S$216,000) annual salary 12 years ago.

Clad in purple police lock-up garb, Azeez, 60, claimed trial after the charge was read out before Sessions judge Azura Alwi on Sept 9.

“I understand (the charge), it is not true at all... I request a trial,” he said.

Azeez is alleged to have used his position as chairman of TH, which is the country’s Muslim pilgrimage fund, at that time for bribery, namely to obtain the position of chairman of Putrajaya Perdana Berhad with a remuneration of RM690,000 per year as well as a luxury car and permanent driver.

Azeez allegedly instructed Ismee Ismail, the chief executive officer of the TH Board at the time, to propose the accused as the TH representative in Putrajaya Perdana; and to convince TH board members during a meeting to approve a proposal to invest up to RM193.5 million (up to 30 per cent of the existing issued share capital) in the company, in which he had an interest.

The offence was allegedly committed at the Tabung Haji Building board meeting room on Jalan Tun Razak on Aug 25, 2014 under Section 23(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009, punishable under Section 24(1).

It provides for a maximum of 20 years’ jail and a fine of not less than five times the amount or value of the bribe or RM10,000, whichever is higher, upon conviction.

Deputy public prosecutor Datuk Ahmad Akram Gharib previously applied for bail of RM1 million with two local sureties and several additional conditions.

However, judge Azura allowed Azeez, the former Baling member of parliament, bail of RM450,000 with two Malaysian sureties.

The court also ordered him to report to the Kuala Lumpur MACC office every three months until the case is resolved.

Earlier, Azeez was also remanded for two days to assist in investigations into the hibah fraud case. - Straits Times, 9/9/2026

US charges three Malaysian state telecoms officials for multimillion-dollar fraud

By Reuters

May 20, 202610:20 AM GMT+7Updated May 21, 2026

A U.S. Justice Department logo or seal showing Justice Department headquarters, known as "Main Justice," is seen behind the podium in the Department's headquarters briefing room before a news conference with the Attorney General in Washington, January 24, 2023. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

• Companies

• Telekom Malaysia Bhd

KUALA LUMPUR, May 20 (Reuters) - The United States has charged three senior employees of Telekom Malaysia (TM)   , opens new tab(TLMM.KL) for allegedly misappropriating over $20 million from the Malaysian state telecommunications firm, the ​U.S. Department of Justice said on Tuesday.

 

Mohd Hafiz Lockman, Mohd Yuzaimi Yusof, and Khanh ‌Thuong Nguyen, who were senior executives at the U.S. subsidiary of TM, were accused of using false statements and forged records to siphon funds from the company and deceive counterparties, suppliers, auditors and supervisors in the United ​States on various occasions between July 2020 and February 2026, authorities said.

Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. 

Report Ad

"These three individuals ​are alleged to have conducted a deliberate and calculated embezzlement scheme, falsifying corporate ⁠records for their own financial benefit," FBI Assistant Director in Charge James C. Barnacle, Jr. said ​in a statement.

 

Mohd Hafiz was arrested at San Francisco airport, while the other two accused turned ​themselves in to authorities last month. The trio were charged with wire fraud conspiracy, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft, the DOJ said.

 

Mohd Hafiz, Mohd Yuzaimi and Nguyen could not be immediately reached for comment.

TM said in a ​statement that the trio were dismissed from the firm after an internal investigation into suspected misconduct, ​with the probe findings later shared with relevant authorities.

Report Ad

The company would continue to fully cooperate with the DOJ, ‌it said.

 

The ⁠DOJ said it declined to file charges against TM itself, after the company self-reported the criminal conduct.

 

Reuters reported in March that the department was rolling out a policy to encourage firms to report criminal misconduct in exchange for reduced penalties and other benefits.

 

The defendants were accused of diverting millions of ​dollars from TM into ​bank accounts they controlled, ⁠according to the U.S. indictment.

 

On one occasion, TM was asked to approve a sale of eight terabytes of capacity to a U.S. multinational for $54 ​million, when in fact only six terabytes were purchased.

 

The defendants then allegedly ​sold the ⁠excess capacity to other companies, diverting funds from the illicit sales through a sham entity, the DOJ saidf cable purchases, redirecting nearly $2.9 million in payments to a ⁠bank ​account they controlled, and allegedly claimed reimbursements for fabricated work ​expenses, it said.

 

The three also allegedly impersonated employees and interns to capture their salaries, and on one occasion used an ​AI-assisted imposter to deceive human resources staff, the DOJ said.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Report Ad

Reporting by Rozanna Latiff; Editing by David Stanway - Reuters, 20/5/2026