Justice Norliza Othman to be blamed if more refugees are sent by Malaysia to Myanmar - because WRONGLY did make an interim Court Order > Minister says will continue sending back until Court says 'STOP"?

Justice Norliza FAILED to grant an INTERIM Injunction to stop Malaysia from further sending back refugee/asylum seekers to Myanmar, and in my opinion, she ERRED. The government, including PM Anwar announced the sending back of 5,000, whereby the 1^st batch of 1,473 was sent on Tuesday (29/9/20260), and more at risk of being sent back at anytime. The recourse to COURT to prevent further INJUSTICE failed as the COURT failed to grant an INTERIM INJUNCTION..  

In 2026, no INTERIM Stay Order to stop any more sending back refugees to Myanmar by Malaysia BUT in 2021, the Court did grant an interim stay order - and then at a later date, after granting leave to commence Judicial Review EXTENDED the Stay Order > In my opinion, Justice Norliza Othman should have followed what the 2021 Court did....But she ERRED - a mistake that may lead to greater injustice of more people being send back to Myanmar...

And after that, the HOME Minister came out saying that the balance will be sent back to Myanmar if there is NO COURT ORDER stopping the government from proceeding...

“Let the legal process determine the outcome. Until there is a decision to the contrary, we will continue with the repatriation. -  Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail (Malay Mail, 29/10/2026)

THUS, since there is NO Court Order, and Malaysia sends back more refugee/asylum seekers to Myanmar > then the BLAME lies with Justice Norliza > for, she who had the POWER to make a COURT ORDER that will prevent further deportation or sending back NOW and INJUSTICE - at least an interim stay or injunction should have been granted. 

In 2021, the High Court granted an interim stay order until the hearing of the leave to commence Judicial Review is heard and determined, and after that leave was granted, the STAY order was extended. 

Justice Norliza should have justly done this...but she failed, and greater injustice can still happen - all the remaining of the 5,000 yet to be send back could now be send back before 8th December, the date she fixed for the hearing. Once sent back, that GROSS INJUSTICE cannot be reversed > Myanmar will not send them back to Malaysia.

Justice Norliza Othman should have granted an interim stay ORDER to prevent Malaysia from sending back to Myanmar refugees/asylum seekers pending the full hearing of the case or pending the hearing of the leave application. 

This case was a matter of URGENCY given that PM Anwar has announced that 5,000 Rohingya Refugees would be sent back to Myanmar, and the first batch had already been send - and the remaining could be sent back at anytime... 

BUT Justice Norliza failed to issue an INTERIM Order as JUSTICE would demand, and then set the hearing date for December 8 - not speedily within a week or 2.

The High Court has dismissed the Malaysian Bar’s application to temporarily halt the repatriation of about 5,000 Myanmar refugees and asylum seekers, ruling that a stay cannot be granted before leave for a judicial review is given. Justice Norliza Othman said the dismissal was ordered without prejudice to the Bar’s right to renew its application after the court decides whether to grant leave for judicial review. The leave application has been fixed for hearing on Dec 8. 

In 2021, in a similar application to prevent further deportation, the Court(Justice Dato’ Sri Mariana Yahya) immediately granted a stay to prevent deportation, and then later granted leave for the judicial review application, and extended the stay...

Amnesty International Malaysia and Asylum Access Malaysia applaud the decision by the Kuala Lumpur High Court today to grant leave to proceed with the two organisations’ application for judicial review of the Malaysian government’s decision to deport 1,200 Myanmar nationals in February. 

In addition to granting permission for the case to continue, Justice Dato’ Sri Mariana Yahya also extended the stay against the Director General of Immigration and the Home Minister from deporting the remaining 114 Myanmar nationals until the disposal of the entire judicial review. The 114 were part of the 1,200 Myanmar nationals who were at risk of being deported; Malaysian authorities deported 1,086 Myanmar nationals on 23 February despite a one-day stay earlier issued by the court. Asylum Access Malaysia, 9/3/2021

Justice Norliza Othman ERRED & if others are send back to Myanmar by Malaysia, ALL BLAME lies on her, in my opinion.

Note, even in Civil Cases, Courts do grant interim injunctions fast - immediately after cases are filed...sometimes even before the Statement of Claim is filed, or even before the Cause papers are served on the other side.

Note also that Judges do have inherent powers of the Court to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice, whereby this is clearly stated amongst others in the Rules of Court 2012, amongst others.

4. Inherent powers of the Court (O. 92 r. 4) - Rules of Court 2012

For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court.

YES, this JUDGE had the needed powers to make an ORDER preventing Malaysia from sending back refugees/asylum seekers to Myanmmar > Note from the 1st batch of 1,473 send back - 300-400 have been arrested and detained despite the assurances given by Malaysia...This matter have also been raised in Parliament.

In terms of JUDGES, there are GOOD and Bad Judges > Rather that ensuring justice be done, sadly some Judges use 'technicalities' and procedural matters to delay or even strike out cases -  rather than hearing on the merits. WE NEED JUDGES THAT WILL ENSURE JUSTICE BE DONE - and cases are heard on the merits - sometimes dealt with URGENTLY > where the primary intention here is to prevent Malaysia's further sending back refugee/asylum seekers to Myanmar. So too in cases, where a failure of an interim injunction will result in the EVICTION of people from homes/land, etc... 

Did the Malaysian Bar appeal this decision? Would it be different if the BAR had commenced a WRIT Action - rather than a Judicial Review? 

Justice Norliza struck out the Bar's application for an URGENT Injunction to prevent further deportation was because she was of the opinion that she can only deal with such an INJUNCTION order after the Bar's application for Judicial Review is heard - and, here too, I believe the JUDGE Erred. She said the Bar was free to make another application for an INTERIM INJUNCTION after leave was granted - I have not seen the Judgment but only media reports. I believe that the JUDGE ERRED.

If any more are send back by Malaysia to Myanmar - then, I would call for Justice Norliza to be removed as JUDGE. 

What Malaysia did was clearly in violation of the principle of non-refoulement and international law. Even, the Malaysian Human Rights Commission said so... 

PM Anwar Ibrahim and Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution > You know that this matter is before the COURT - thus irrespective of whether there is a Court Order or NOT, you must respect the COURTS and not send back any more persons to Myanmar, for if you do it will be a disrespect of the Courts, or even a 'CONTEMPT OF COURT'. The Government is a party in that suit. If the Government wants to proceed with sending them back to Myanmar - then rightly get a 'COURT ORDER' saying OK for Malaysia to send back..

Home Minister Saifuddin was also 'dishonest' in Parliament - he failed to explain that the application was not dismissed on the merits, but only because the Judge believed that any application for stay or injunction could be made after the Bar managed to get LEAVE to commence Judicial Review, which I believe was very wrong... What the Minister said (as reported) was 'He said the repatriation efforts would proceed in line with the court’s decision to dismiss the Malaysian Bar’s application for a stay.' He did not clearly state that the decision was not after hearing the application on the merits - but rather a position of the Judge that such application can only be made after LEAVE was granted...In fact, the Judge suggested the Bar make another similar application after LEAVE was granted - 'Justice Norliza Othman said the dismissal was ordered without prejudice to the Bar’s right to renew its application after the court decides whether to grant leave for judicial review.'... In reporting in Parliament, Ministers must be totally HONEST and reveal everything so there is no misunderstanding...

see also:-  

Shocking - HOME Minister Saifuddin says Malaysia will continue with repatriation to MYANMAR until the COURT stops it?? OR maybe PARLIAMENT do? Which religion allows Malaysia to do this to refugees?

Malaysia Guaranteed Their ‘Welfare And Human Rights’, So Malaysia Now Obligated To Independently Verify That 10,000 Returned To Myanmar’s Welfare And Rights Are Protected

Malaysian MUST stop sending refugees and asylum seekers back to Myanmar...

 

High Court refuses Bar’s bid to stay repatriation of Myanmar refugees

16 days ago

FMT Reporters

Justice Norliza Othman says a stay application can only be heard after the application for leave for judicial review is decided.

The Malaysian Bar is seeking permission to challenge the government’s plan to repatriate about 5,000 Myanmar nationals.

KUALA LUMPUR:

 

The High Court has dismissed the Malaysian Bar’s application to temporarily halt the repatriation of about 5,000 Myanmar refugees and asylum seekers, ruling that a stay cannot be granted before leave for a judicial review is given.

Justice Norliza Othman said the dismissal was ordered without prejudice to the Bar’s right to renew its application after the court decides whether to grant leave for judicial review.

The leave application has been fixed for hearing on Dec 8.

The Bar is seeking permission to challenge the government’s plan to repatriate about 5,000 Myanmar nationals, including Rohingya and children recognised by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as refugees or asylum seekers.

It argues that their return to Myanmar could expose them to persecution, discrimination and other harm, and that repatriation could render the judicial review meaningless because the consequences might be irreversible.

The Bar also contends that Malaysia is bound by the customary international law principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning people to a country where they face persecution.

It further argues that the return of children would be inconsistent with the principle of acting in their best interests.

Lawyer M Ramachelvam, representing the Bar, submitted that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

Senior federal counsel Nurhafizza Azizan, appearing for the attorney-general, argued that the application was premature, citing a recent Court of Appeal ruling that a stay could only be considered after leave for judicial review had been granted.

Collin Arvind Andrew, Moganasundari Mahalingam, Ameerul Radzi Azlan and Shahlini Sree Kumar also appeared for the Bar.

Marcus Lee and Samantha Koh appeared on behalf of Suhakam as amicus curiae, or a friend of the court. - FMT,22/10/2026

Malaysia to proceed with repatriation of 5,000 Myanmar refugees after court ruling, says home minister 

 

The government will continue efforts to repatriate Myanmar refugees to their country of origin through lawful channels and established diplomatic processes, Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said. — Picture by Sayuti Zainudin

First Published: Thursday, 29 Oct 2026 2:10 PM MYT

PUTRAJAYA, Oct 29 — The government will continue efforts to repatriate Myanmar refugees to their country of origin through lawful channels and established diplomatic processes, Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said.

He said the repatriation efforts would proceed in line with the court’s decision to dismiss the Malaysian Bar’s application for a stay.

Saifuddin Nasution said the Home Ministry and the Foreign Ministry would continue negotiations with the Myanmar government to facilitate the repatriation of the second group, unless the court ruled otherwise.

“Let the legal process determine the outcome. Until there is a decision to the contrary, we will continue with the repatriation.

“For now, the Malaysian Bar’s application for a stay has been dismissed, so we will proceed. The judicial review has been fixed for Dec 8,” he said in his speech at the Home Ministry’s monthly assembly and Innovation Day celebration here today.

Media reports said the High Court had dismissed the Malaysian Bar’s application to temporarily halt the repatriation of about 5,000 Myanmar refugees and asylum seekers, ruling that a stay could not be granted before leave for judicial review was given.

Judge Norliza Othman said the dismissal did not affect the Malaysian Bar’s right to renew its application after the court had decided whether to grant leave for judicial review.

Meanwhile, Saifuddin Nasution urged the public not to take matters into their own hands over the presence of Myanmar refugees, stressing that enforcement should be left entirely to the authorities.

He acknowledged that refugee issues could give rise to various socioeconomic problems, but said the public should not go to extremes or act beyond the law.

“Their arrival has caused economic, political and social problems in certain communities, prompting some members of the public to take matters into their own hands, such as attacking their homes or forcing them out of their villages.

“The police are carrying out their duties and are urging the public not to take the law into their own hands. Leave it to the authorities and immigration enforcement agencies, which are conducting continuous operations,” he said.

Yesterday, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said Malaysia had opted for a diplomatic approach with Myanmar to address the refugee issue, despite facing international condemnation and criticism over the government’s stance.

He said that following discussions with the Myanmar authorities, the country had agreed to repatriate some of its nationals in Malaysia at its own expense, including by air and sea.

To date, about 10,300 Myanmar nationals have been repatriated, while another 3,000 are expected to undergo the repatriation process this month. — Bernama - Malay Mail, 29/10/2026

Wrong to ask MPs to enter into Agreement NOT to remove PM Anwar Ibrahim - it is against BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE and Constitution even if just to allow passing of important laws like Political Financing Act???

There is NO NEED for MPs to enter any agreement to keep Anwar Ibrahim as Prime Minister until the end of this Parliamentary term - so that some of the pending laws get passed - separation of the powers of the attorney-general and the public prosecutor; a Freedom of Information Act; an Ombudsman Act; an Equitable Constituency Development Fund (CDF) Act; and, a Political Financing Act.... 

MPs signing agreement to not remove PM Anwar Ibrahim maybe against what the people wants.... 

When an Opposition MP or even a government backbencher signs any agreement saying they will NOT remove the sitting Prime Minister - is it not against the CONSTITUTION (Art. 43(4) - (4) If the Prime Minister ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House of Representatives, then, unless at his request the Yang di-Pertuan Agong dissolves Parliament, the Prime Minister shall tender the resignation of the Cabinet.) and also the role of Parliament and MPs to be an effective check and balance against the Executive Branch of government??? Is it also not a BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE(BSD). An agreement to support government BILLs even if BILLS tabled contains 'bad' provisions? 

Did Muhyiddin/Syed Saddiq/.. violate the CONSTITUTION, including the BSD and betrayed the people > by agreeing not to remove PM Anwar Ibrahim until the end of the Parliamentary term?

PN secretary-general Datuk Seri Takiyuddin Hassan said the actions of the Bersatu MPs, led by party president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, had sidelined PN as a coalition and an opposition bloc.As such, he said, PN would not negotiate or sign a CSA to secure allocations. - Scoop, 2/11/2026

Perikatan Nasional chief whip Takiyuddin Hassan has backed calls for Putrajaya to disclose the terms of its confidence and supply agreement (CSA) with 13 Bersatu and independent MPs. - Malaysiakini, 5/11/2026

Parliamentarians, without any such agreement to extend the life of Anwar Ibrahim's government, if it is OK can and should reasonably support any good NEW laws. 

Thus, I would call on Opposition MPs to commit to supporting the separation of the powers of the attorney-general and the public prosecutor; a Freedom of Information Act; an Ombudsman Act; an Equitable Constituency Development Fund (CDF) Act; and, a Political Financing Act....

Opposition MPs must abandon the practice of simply OPPOSING any law tabled by the government, and likewise Government supporting MPs should adopt the practice of LISTENING and accepting what is good/better even if it comes from Opposition MPs - It must be noted that in the legislative history, many a times Opposition MPs have supported government tabled BILLs...

Now, what BILLS the government proposes may sound GOOD as far as the title is concerned - BUT some of the contents/provisions in the BILL may be BAD > so NO MP ought to support any BILL simply based on the 'TITLE' or the proclaimed intention>>

Take the PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY ACT - sounds good. But then, some of the PROVISIONS are BAD. One was the requirement to give the Police 10-days notice(now reduced to 5) - which means that people in Malaysia cannot PROTEST in Peaceful Assemblies immediately after any event that required a prompt response. A MOST unjust killings in Palestine > Malaysians cannot come out immediately in PROTEST > they have to wait 5 or more days before Malaysians can come out in protest (and that may be 'too late' as media/public may have moved on from the issue) 

The Malaysian Bar strongly opposed the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 (later enacted as the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012), arguing that it imposed unreasonable, disproportionate, and unconstitutional restrictions on public gatherings rather than genuinely upholding the right to peaceful assembly under Article 10(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution - see Malaysian Bar Website

Thus, the agreement to support BILLs proposed by government is DANGEROUS even if it is on separation of the powers of the attorney-general and the public prosecutor; a Freedom of Information Act; an Ombudsman Act; an Equitable Constituency Development Fund (CDF) Act; and, a Political Financing Act

-... so, MPs need to scrutinize all BILLS properly and demand needed amendment consistent with justice and human rights. Many a time, the government may choose not to amend the BILL and put it to VOTE...should MPs still vote for the BILL as proposed by Government? 

This is something that may happen with the government proposed amendments or laws for separation of the powers of the attorney-general and the public prosecutor; a Freedom of Information Act; an Ombudsman Act; an Equitable Constituency Development Fund (CDF) Act; and, a Political Financing Act..

Let's consider the separation of ATTORNEY General and Public Prosecutor, and key elements is an INDEPENDENT mechanism of choosing the Public Prosecutor and/or the Attorney General, and the safeguards to protect their INDEPENDENCE >>> if it is still going to be the PRIME MINISTER choosing the Public Prosecutor, and/or have the power to remove the PP easily whenever the PM pleases - then, it may not what we want. 

For me, the Attorney General is basically the government's LAWYER - so no problem if the sitting PM and/or government chooses the AG.

But, when it comes to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - who has GREAT powers in the administration of criminal justice - power to CHARGE criminally liable in Court, power to even to DISCONTINUE prosecution/trials, the power to APPEAL to higher courts when a lower court ACQUITS or imposes a unsatisfactory sentence,... Now, Zahid Hamidi enjoyed a discontinuation > DNAAed, Zahid also enjoyed the decision of withdrawal of Appeal in another criminal Court that acquitted.. THUS, when it comes to a PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, it is crucial that he/she is INDEPENDENT - and have the power to CHARGE even a sitting PRIME MINISTER...??

PM Anwar Ibrahim and the PH-led Coalition Government should have speedily tabled the needed laws - But they have FAILED to do so speedily...Almost 4 years have passed, and about 1 YEAR remains before Parliament will have to be dissolve ..end 2027? 

After losses in Sabah, Johor and Negeri Sembilan elections ... now Anwar Ibrahim and the government has 'started moving' - 

Note many of this issues like separation of AG and PP have been on the national agenda for some time now ... (Bar passed a resolution in 2016, others have also raised the issue )

Political Financing Act - Specific efforts and calls to introduce a dedicated political funding law in Malaysia first emerged prominently around 2011 to 2015, following key civil society initiatives and major political controversies. Amongst others, Transparency International-Malaysia (TI-Malaysia) unveiled a comprehensive 22-point memorandum on political financing reforms in May 2011, calling for full public disclosure of party finances, limits on donations, and channelling funds through party accounts rather than personal ones...The movement for a formal law gained official traction following the 2015 1MDB scandal and revelations regarding funds deposited into political accounts. This led to the formation of the National Consultative Committee on Political Financing, which put forward 32 recommendations and first mooted a draft Political Donations and Expenditure Act in 2016, though it did not reach Parliament before the 2018 general election

In my OPINION - No Member of Parliament should sign any agreement that they will NOT withdraw their confidence/support for Anwar Ibrahim to continue being Prime Minister until the end of this Parliamentary term(now December 2027) > as this would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL and maybe even against the ' BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE(BSD)';

Did Muhyiddin/Syed Saddiq/.. violate the CONSTITUTION, including the BSD and betrayed the people > by agreeing not to remove PM Anwar Ibrahim until the end of the Parliamentary term?

WORSE, if that agreement is for the receipt of MONIES/BENEFITS including 'constituency development funds' > then would it not be a 'CORRUPT' practice?? Would it NOT violate the role of MPs? 

 

Recently, it was reported that some Civil Society groups asked Opposition MPs to sign an agreement with the government > for the Opposition MPs to support some laws that the Government expects to table soon...I did not have access to the actual statement - merely Media Reports...

 

Civil Society reallly should also decide on ELEMENTS or principles that should be incorporated in any particular law/Bill say about POLITICAL Financing Act, etc...  what should be covered by that LAW? Will it apply to Political Parties or also individual politicians? When will 'donations' be considered 'bribes/corrupt practice'? What about MPs and their particular constituency? Will they all be subject to be AUDITED by the Auditor General? 

Political Funding - Transparency for all corporation contributions, for individual contributions exceeding RM10k?

POLITICAL Funding LAW > Do we want Saudi Arabia or US or.. to give Malaysian political parties money? Do we want Malaysian politician to receive money from some who do not want Malaysia to improve worker rights?

The fundamental problem in Malaysia is that PUBLIC no access to the DRAFT BILLS - only after it is tabled in Parliament but the practice of speedily approving it and passing it also DENIES the possibility of PUBLIC Feedback - even feedback to their peoples' representatives in Parliament....??/ 

 

Resolutions Adopted at the 70th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar Held at Renaissance Kuala Lumpur Hotel (Saturday, 19 Mar 2016)

• Resolution on the Attorney General, Public Prosecutor and Improvement of Public Perspective of Administration of Justice in Malaysia

WHEREAS:

(1) It is important that the Attorney General, who is also the Public Prosecutor, is both independent, and perceived to be independent, especially when it comes to prosecuting persons and entities that have broken Malaysian laws, irrespective of whether they are currently Ministers, holding senior positions in public service and/or legal entities owned by the government.

(2) It is the Attorney General, as Public Prosecutor, who is vested with the power to prosecute persons and/or entities that have acted against the laws of Malaysia, including criminal laws. 

(3) Of late, there have been several allegations of corruption and/or other breaches of the law made against Najib Tun Razak, who is also the current Prime Minister of Malaysia and Minister of Finance, in connection with large amounts of monies, amounting to more than RM2 billion, that were found in the personal bank accounts of Najib Tun Razak.

(4) There have been allegations of wrongdoings with regard to a Malaysian government–owned company, 1MDB, SRC International and/or other related companies, where Najib Tun Razak also sits as the Chairman of the Board of Advisors of the said 1MDB.

(5) Investigations have been commenced by the relevant authorities including the Malaysian Anti–Corruption Commission (“MACC”).

(6) In the midst of investigations about these alleged offences, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail’s services as Attorney General was suddenly terminated as of about 27 July 2015, and Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali was appointed new Attorney General effective 27 July 2015.

(7) Our Federal Constitution states that it is “on the advice of the Prime Minister” that the Yang Di–Pertuan Agong appoints the Attorney General.  In practice, this means that the Prime Minister decides on the appointment and removal of the Attorney General.

(8) Now, given the fact that this happened when there was an ongoing investigation of Najib Tun Razak personally, and also matters that concern the Minister of Finance, who is also Najib Tun Razak, there are concerns about the appointment of the new Attorney General.

(9) In early December 2015, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak was scheduled to provide an explanation to Parliament about all these allegations.  However, he did not do so, apparently on the advice of the Attorney General.

(10) The Malay Mail Online report dated 3 December 2015 stated, amongst others, that (emphases added):

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was only acting on the Attorney General’s (AG) advice in declining explaining personally in Parliament the RM2.6 billion donation he received, Datuk Seri Azalina Othman [Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department] said today . . . . the federal government made a collective decision to issue a ministerial statement in their response to questions after AG Tan Sri Apandi Ali said Najib may be risking “subjudice” if he attempted to answer in person with investigations into the surrounding controversy still ongoing.  “The AG is the government's lawyer. We are guided by his advice”…

(11) The Attorney General, whilst also acting as Public Prosecutor involved in the ongoing investigation which may lead to the prosecution of Najib Tun Razak, Government of Malaysia, Government–Owned Companies and/or GLCs, should not also be providing legal advice to those being investigated?

(12) The results of the investigations of the MACC were submitted to the Public Prosecutor to consider commencement of trial, but as reported on 26 January 2016 in New Straits Times which stated, amongst others (emphasis added):

…Attorney–General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali said their investigation had showed that the prime minister had committed no wrongdoing in the cases. . . . “I am satisfied that there was no evidence to show that the donation was a form of gratification given corruptly.  The evidence showed that the donation was not an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing in relation to his capacity as a prime minister,” he said.  He said that investigation also showed that in Aug 2013, a sum of USD620 million (RM2.03 billion) was returned by Najib to the Saudi royal family, as the sum was not utilised.

No mention was made about what the monies were for, and for what were some of the monies utilised.

(13) The report also stated (emphases added): 

The Attorney–General’s Chambers today cleared Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak of any criminal wrongdoing in the case involving a donation from the Middle East, as well as that involving SRC International.  The AG’s Chambers will also return the three investigation papers on the cases, and has instructed the Malaysian Anti–Corruption Commission (MACC) to close the IPs.

(14) The pronouncement of the Attorney General about the guilt/innocence of parties being investigated, may be contrary to the United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, in particular Article 10, which states that, “The office of prosecutors shall be strictly separated from judicial functions”. The determination of guilt or innocence is a function of the Judiciary, not the Attorney General.

(15) The power to commence investigations and discontinue investigations rests with the relevant investigative authorities, and not with the Attorney General/Public Prosecutor.  The duty of the Public Prosecutor is merely to determine the sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence for the purpose of prosecution, and if it is determined that the evidence is insufficient, then investigation papers are returned to the investigating authorities to do further investigation.  

(16) On 24 February 2016, the MACC issued a statement on the advice of its Operation Review Panel concerning the case involving SRC International and allegations regarding the RM2.6 billion (“berhubung kes membabitkan SRC International dan dakwaan wang derma RM2.6 bilion”).

(17) The Operation Review Panel agreed that the MACC should re–submit the investigation papers concerning SRC International to the Attorney General for his consideration.  With regard to the matter of the investigation concerning the RM2.6 billion, it acknowledges that the investigation is yet to be completed, and urges the MACC to apply to the Attorney General to issue the required permission for Mutual Legal Assistance to enable the MACC to get evidence and documents from financial institutions in other countries in connection with the RM2.6 billion investigation.  The relevant text from the MACC statement (which was in Bahasa Malaysia) is as follows (emphases added):

…PPO bersetuju bahawa SPRM perlu mengemukakan kembali kertas siasatan berhubung SRC International kepada Peguam Negara untuk pertimbangan. Memandangkan siasatan SPRM berhubung dakwaan wang derma RM2.6 bilion masih belum lengkap, Panel telah mengesyorkan agar SPRM meneruskan siasatannya dan memohon Peguam Negara agar mengeluarkan kebenaran Bantuan Undang–undang Bersama (MLA) bagi SPRM memperoleh bukti dan dokumen–dokumen daripada institusi kewangan di luar negara sebagai sebahagian daripada siasatan ke atas isu RM2.6 bilion…

(18) The MACC’s request for the necessary action by the Attorney General for Mutual Legal Assistance is not new.  It was also made before, in December 2015, as reported in Bloomberg Business.  Despite efforts made, the said MACC statement could not be accessed from the MACC website.

…The Malaysian Anti–Corruption Commission said it made several proposals and recommendations for action in the case, according to a statement Thursday. While it has completed investigations involving witnesses in the country, the MACC said it still needs permission from the attorney general to get documents and evidence from overseas financial institutions.  “This evidence can only be taken by the Mutual Legal Assistance process because it is tied to the provision of banking legislation of the country concerned,” the agency said.  “MACC has made an application under the MLA to attorney general to obtain documents and evidence.” — “Malaysian Anti–Graft Agency Submits Probe Results of Najib Funds”, Bloomberg Business, 31 December 2015 (emphasis added).

(19) On the face of it, it looks like the Attorney General has procrastinated in providing the necessary permission for Mutual Legal Assistance, which was essential for the completion of investigations, and this could be perceived as an act “obstructing” criminal investigations. 

(20) It is now revealed that Mohamed Apandi Ali is a Director of the Lembaga Urusan Tabung Haji, whereby the date of appointment is uncertain.

(21) An Attorney General, also the Public Prosecutor, should not be Director of any legal entity, as this would compromise his independence.

(22) The Federal Constitution, in Article 145, stipulates, among others, as follows: 

(1) The Yang di–Pertuan Agong shall, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint a person who is qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court to be the Attorney General for the Federation.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to advise the Yang di–Pertuan Agong or the Cabinet or any Minister upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the Yang di–Pertuan Agong or the Cabinet, and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other written law.

(3) The Attorney General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court or a court–martial.

(23) The Attorney General, as such, has many roles and responsibilities, and some of these are competing obligations and, if exercised at the same time is impossible.  It is absurd when the Attorney General is considering instituting criminal proceedings, and at the same time is also seen to be personally providing legal advice to the suspect(s) or the potential accused.

(24) The Federal Constitution, in Article 8, states that, “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.”  As such, it can be said that no one is above the law, even the Prime Minister or a government–owned legal entity.  When a person and/or legal entity commits an offence, it is the Attorney General, without any other special consideration or treatment, to do the needful to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence.

(25) Article 12 of the UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors stipulates: “Prosecutors shall, in accordance with the law, perform their duties fairly, consistently and expeditiously, and respect and protect human dignity and uphold human rights, thus contributing to ensuring due process and the smooth functioning of the criminal justice system.”

(26) Article 13(a) of the said Guidelines states (emphasis added): “In the performance of their duties, prosecutors shall carry out their functions impartially and avoid all political, social, religious, racial, cultural, sexual or any other kinds of discrimination”.

(27) Prosecutors shall perform their duties without fear, favour or prejudice. Public Prosecutors’ powers should be exercised independently and be free from political interference.

(28) If the Attorney General is unable to act as Public Prosecutor, then rightly he should not.  Malaysian law, in 376(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593), states (emphasis added): “The Solicitor General shall have all powers of a Deputy Public Prosecutor and shall act as Public Prosecutor in case of the absence or inability to act of the Attorney General.”

(29) As such, in this case involving Najib Tun Razak, the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of Malaysia, and government–owned companies, Mohamed Apandi Ali clearly is unable to act as Public Prosecutor, and the Solicitor General should act as Public Prosecutor.

(30) With reference to the abovementioned and other matters, the following points of concern, among others, have arisen concerning Attorney General Mohamed Apandi Ali:

(a) The manner and timing of his appointment raises the perception that Mohamed Apandi Ali may have been appointed to speedily replace a Public Prosecutor who may have proceeded to institute criminal proceedings against Najib Tun Razak (the current Prime Minister) and/or against legal entities owned and/or controlled by the Government;

(b) That there may exist a perception that Mohamed Apandi Ali may have acted to derail or delay investigations against Najib Tun Razak (the current Prime Minister) or against legal entities owned and/or controlled by the Government.  The fact that the MACC, which has been asking for the required Attorney General’s permission since December 2015 for usage of the Mutual Legal Assistance that is required to obtain evidence and documents from financial institutions in other countries, has yet to be given the relevant authorisation required to complete investigation, is a matter of concern;

(c) That Mohamed Apandi Ali may have failed to have acted professionally as a Public Prosecutor, when it was alleged that he had advised the Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, the suspect and possible future accused in an ongoing criminal investigation, to not provide an explanation to Parliament;

(d) That Mohamed Apandi Ali allegedly attempted to speedily clear Najib Tun Razak and SRC International of alleged crimes, including corruptions and/or other breaches of law, and to stop investigations;

(e) The failure of Mohamed Apandi Ali to acknowledge that in these circumstances when the Prime Minister and Government were the subject of investigations, he would be unable to perform the duties of the Public Prosecutor as required by law, and thereby should have disqualified himself, enabling the Solicitor General to carry out the duties and obligations of the Public Prosecutor, while he as Attorney General continued to carry on his role as adviser and “government lawyer” to the Prime Minister, Cabinet and Government; and

(f) The fact that he still is a Director of Lembaga Urusan Tabung Haji, and maybe also other companies and/or legal entities, raises the question of his independence, and his ability to carry out the duties of the Attorney General impartially, without fear and favour.

(31) As such, even if Mohamed Apandi Ali may personally not be guilty of any wrongdoing or dereliction of duties, for the good of Malaysia and for the improvement of public perception of the administration of justice, we may have to take drastic actions, including the appointment of a new Attorney General.

(32) The public need to have confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system, whereby prosecutors play a crucial role in the administration of criminal justice, and as such prosecutorial discretion should be exercised independently and be free from political interference.

(33) Events of the recent past, especially concerning the RM2.6 billion, have eroded the confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system, and immediate and even drastic steps need to be taken to restore confidence in the administration of criminal justice, for the good of Malaysia.

THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved:

(A) That the Malaysian Bar calls on Mohamed Apandi Ali to immediately resign as Attorney General, for the good of Malaysia, to restore public confidence and perception of the rule of law, in particular the administration of criminal justice in Malaysia.

(B) That the Malaysian Bar calls for the Solicitor General, pursuant to section 376(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to assume the role and responsibilities of Public Prosecutor in the cases involving Najib Tun Razak, 1MDB, SRC International and the RM2.6 billion, considering the disability of the Attorney General to continue to act as Public Prosecutor for these cases, by reason of past conduct and the existing competing and conflicting roles of the Attorney General.

(C) That the Malaysian Bar also calls on Attorney General Mohamed Apandi Ali to immediately resign as Director in Lembaga Urusan Tabung Haji, and any positions held in companies, statutory body and/or legal entities, save those positions that the law specifically requires.

(D) That the Public Prosecutor and prosecutors should always not only be independent but also be seen to be independent.  They should not be receiving any other income, “donations” or benefits from any other sources.  They should also not be Directors of companies, or holding any other positions in legal entities, save those specifically provided for in law.

(E) That the Malaysian Bar promotes and works towards the adoption and application of the principles contained in the UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, and such international standards, in Malaysia.

(F) That the Malaysian Bar promotes the establishment of an independent commission or committee for the purposes of the selection and recommendation to the Yang di–Pertuan Agong for the appointment of the Attorney General.

(G) That the Malaysian Bar continues doing all that is necessary to promote the rule of law, and a just administration of justice in Malaysia.

The motion was proposed by Charles Hector Fernandez, Francis Pereira and Shanmugam a/l Ramasamy.

 

- Malaysian Bar Website 

PN refuses to sign CSA, Muhyiddin’s decision does not represent coalition: Takiyuddin

Takiyuddin Hassan says those who signed the agreement comprised several groups that were not actively involved with PN, including a faction from Bersatu, former Bersatu members and MUDA

Scoop Reporters

2 November, 2026

10:28 AM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR – Perikatan Nasional (PN) has rejected the idea of signing a Confidence and Supply Agreement (CSA), as done by six Bersatu MPs, saying it was an individual choice and did not reflect the coalition’s official stance or decision.GliaStudios

PN secretary-general Datuk Seri Takiyuddin Hassan said the actions of the Bersatu MPs, led by party president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, had sidelined PN as a coalition and an opposition bloc.

As such, he said, PN would not negotiate or sign a CSA to secure allocations.

He said those who signed the agreement comprised several groups that were not actively involved with PN, including a faction from Bersatu, former Bersatu members and the Malaysian United Democratic Alliance (MUDA).

“The CSA was their own choice as Members of Parliament. Coincidentally, the MPs who joined the CSA were from groups that are not actively involved in PN, namely Bersatu itself, former Bersatu members who had previously defected, as well as MUDA.

“Therefore, PN was not involved in the negotiations or the signing of the agreement. We were not involved,” he said, Utusan Malaysia reported.

On Thursday, six Bersatu MPs signed a Confidence and Supply Agreement (CSA) with the Madani Government, committing to support the passage of the Supply Bill 2027 (Budget 2027).

The agreement was signed by Bersatu president Muhyiddin and two vice-presidents, Datuk Dr Radzi Jidin and Datuk Seri Ahmad Faizal Azumu, as well as two other party MPs, Datuk Mohd Suhaimi Abdullah (Langkawi) and Datuk Ali Biju (Saratok).

Also signing the agreement were Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman (MUDA) and several other MPs, including Datuk Dr Zulkafperi Hanapi (Tanjung Karang), Datuk Syed Abu Hussin Hafiz Syed Abdul Fasal (Bukit Gantang) and Zahari Kechik (Jeli).

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was reported to have said that the agreement was intended to ensure continuity of government administration, while providing the necessary space to implement the national development agenda effectively, including the 2027 Budget, for the benefit of the people.

Yesterday, Barisan Nasional (BN) chairman Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi described the CSA as a positive development in addressing and resolving issues affecting the people. – Nov 2, 2026, Scoop

PN whip demands CSA details, cites 'no confidentiality' clause in 2021 MOU

Qistina Nadia Dzulqarnain

 Published: Nov 5, 2026 4:08 PM

Perikatan Nasional chief whip Takiyuddin Hassan has backed calls for Putrajaya to disclose the terms of its confidence and supply agreement (CSA) with 13 Bersatu and independent MPs.

Takiyuddin argued that without complete disclosure of the Oct 29 deal, questions will remain about its stipulations, including regarding the allocation received by MPs who inked the agreement.

In making the demand, the PN secretary-general pointed to the previous memorandum of understanding during former prime minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob's administration, where the details were readily available to the public.

“In the MOU between the federal government and Pakatan Harapan signed on Sept 13, 2021, there is a ‘no confidentiality’ clause stating that the parties agree to fully disclose the MOU to the public as a commitment towards full openness and accountability.

As such, we want to know whether the (particulars of the) CSA recently signed has been announced to the public,” the Kota Bharu MP told a press conference in Parliament today.

Also present were opposition leader Hamzah Zainudin and several other opposition lawmakers.

PN sec-gen Takiyuddin Hassan and Wawasan Negara leader Hamzah Zainudin (front, left) speaking at a press conference in Parliament today

Under the existing CSA, the government is required to table two constitutional amendments - one on the prime minister’s term limits and another to separate the roles of the attorney-general and the public prosecutor.

In return, the opposition and independent MPs involved will support Budget 2027 and Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s administration until the end of the parliamentary term, with the promise of receiving their constituency development allocations.

The lawmakers taking part in the CSA are six Bersatu MPs, six other former Bersatu lawmakers who previously declared their support for Anwar, and Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman.

PAS MPs and suspended Bersatu MPs perceived to be aligned with Hamzah, the party’s former deputy president, are said to have been neither invited nor informed of the signing.

CSA signing between 13 opposition and independent MPs with the Madani government on Oct 29

Yesterday, Bersatu MP Radzi Jidin, who was among the 13 MPs who signed the CSA, similarly called for the agreement to be made public.

The Putrajaya MP emphasised that the CSA was signed for the sake of the nation’s welfare and the rakyat’s best interests, following PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang criticising it by likening the agreement to the Dajjal.

---

Draft MOU on opposition allocation

Takiyuddin today also referred to the government's Aug 1, 2024 draft MOU on allocations for opposition MPs.

“In this draft, it (details) openness, transparency and confidentiality, (stating) that if this memorandum is signed, it will be displayed to the public.

“Since we, the opposition, rejected (that draft), what we want to know and ask to be disclosed is what was signed on Oct 29 recently,” the PAS secretary-general said.

He further sought clarification on the total allocation set to be received by opposition and independent MPs under the CSA, the mechanism that will be used to disburse the funds, and when its implementation will take place.

PN had previously rejected the draft MOU, with Hamzah claiming then that the proposed agreement could potentially affect several legal provisions under the Federal Constitution. - Malaysiakini, 5/11/2026

Civil society groups demand cross-party deal on eight key reforms

By New Straits Times

November 3, 2026 @ 11:27am

A coalition of civil society organisations (CSOs) wants the government and opposition to sign a cross-party agreement involving all 218 members of parliament. - NSTP file pic

KUALA LUMPUR: A coalition of civil society organisations (CSOs) wants the government and opposition to sign a cross-party agreement involving all 218 members of parliament.

This, they said, was to execute eight key institutional reforms before the end of the 15th Parliament's term.

They said that without such an agreement, key reforms may be held back by political uncertainties and may be susceptible to unelected forces that do not want these reforms to empower Malaysian voters.

"This agreement should aim to pave the way for the consolidation of parliamentary democracy before and after the 16th General Election and to restore public and international confidence in political stability and accountability in Malaysia.

"It must therefore cover concerns of both the Madani government and Perikatan Nasional," they said in a statement.

They also want Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to reach out directly to PN's top leadership to deepen democracy and enhance stability.

"As (Anwar) enters the last year of his term, this is his moment as a statesman to unite all parties to introduce far-reaching changes.

"It is equally a golden opportunity for PN to propose a comprehensive deal to the government, to show its visionary leadership and democratic commitment for Malaysia after GE16."

Among the eight reforms are limiting a prime minister's term to 10 years; separation of the powers of the attorney-general and the public prosecutor; a Freedom of Information Act; an Ombudsman Act; an Equitable Constituency Development Fund (CDF) Act; and, a Political Financing Act with public funding for political parties.

The others are that the Election Commission be made answerable to Parliament and not the prime minister and that a three-month notice for parliamentary dissolution if there is no agreement for the 15th Parliament to serve its full term till Dec 18, 2027.

The CSOs said Anwar should keep to the promise he made at the beginning of his term, as the first two reforms require a two-thirds majority (148 votes) to amend the Federal Constitution.

"The PM's 10-year tenure limit would enable leadership renewal and rejuvenation and prevent power abuse and dynastic politics. The AG-PP separation is necessary to prevent selective prosecution, selective impunity and a two-tiered society."

The Freedom of Information and Ombudsman acts, said the CSOs, would empower ordinary Malaysians, enhance transparency, and motivate civil servants to deliver better public services.

The group noted these reforms might face resistance, but urged any party seeking to form the next government to deliver them within the current term.

They added that the four other reforms are vital to ensure a level playing field for both the government and the opposition.

"Equitable CDF should be accessible to all MPs and assemblymen without being monopolised or made conditional on government support," the group said.

As for the Political Finance Act, they said this would prevent money politics and foreign interference.

Among the 33 CSOs are Aliran, G25 Malaysia, the Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) and the National Human Rights Society. - NST, 3/11/2026

 

Did Muhyiddin/Syed Saddiq/.. violate the CONSTITUTION, including the BSD and betrayed the people > by agreeing not to remove PM Anwar Ibrahim until the end of the Parliamentary term?

Can Anwar Ibrahim despite having a two third majority amend the FEDEREAL Constitution as he pleases > The answer is NO - that is because Malaysia has acknowledged the BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE(BSD) and this cannot be changed - see below to understand this concept..

Within the BSD - is the also the INDEPENDENCE of Parliament, especially from the EXECUTIVE, so MPs and Senators can independently carry out their check and balance functions...and that includes power to remove Prime Minister when needed... 

One of the POWERS of Members of Parliament(as representative of the people) is the power to chose a PRIME MINISTER (only an MP with the support of more than 50% of MPs can become Prime Minister), and also the POWER TO REMOVE Prime Ministers (yes, the moment more than 50% of the Members of Parliament no longer support the sitting Prime Minister - he has to RESIGN or be removed.

Now, in exchange of receipt of 'constituency development funds' - did these MPs just agree that they will not remove the sitting Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim?  Did they just agree to not use their CONSTITUTIONALLY provided power to remove the Prime Minister...just for MONIES? 

The government signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) today with six Bersatu MPs and Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman, who underlined two key reforms Putrajaya must undertake in exchange for their support..They also want to be allocated the same amount of constituency development funds that government backbenchers currently receive. In return, the seven opposition MPs will support Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s administration until the end of the parliamentary term, as well as the 2027 budget....

So when these MPs signed this agreement - it is happening after knowing what PM Anwar Ibrahim and his government has done since November 2022... and by agreeing not to remove Anwar, reasonably they are also saying OK to all Anwar did and failed to do in the past ....

Mind you some people are 'VERY disappointed' with the betrayal or U-turns on the REFORMASI promises, and recently the sending back of refugees back to Myanmar?? 

IT is sad that Malaysian Members of Parliament are so easily willing to abandon their Constitutional duties, obligation and their duties to the Malaysian people JUST for 'MONIES'??? - the ability to use and CONTROL of these Constituency Development Funds >> 

The other TOOLS used by PM Anwar and the EXECUTIVE that should end is the political appointments to government agencies, GLCs, etc - which means also more 'benefits and powers' - Will such MPs still be able to carry out their duties(including the removal of PM) - NO or at least they may not go against the government because they do not want to lose the additional power and benefits they get by these appointments. 

As it is in Malaysia today, we still do not have FULL-TIME MPs, some still are involved in their own employment/professions earning monies. Thus the TIME to do work of Parliamentarians is less > and Parliamentarians' duties of check and balance is 'compromised'. Parliament could STOP wrong actions - why did Parliament not remove Najib earlier and allowed him to continue as PM (and Finance Minister) thus causing even greater LOSS in the IMDB and other scandals that led Malaysia to greater debt? 

This 'constituency development fund', which correctly should ONLY come for Parliament, now it comes from the Federal Government (PM and Cabinet -the Executive Branch) and that too is VERY WRONG, and possibly UNCONSTITUTIONAL - as it allows the EXECUTIVE Branch to 'control' the LEGISLATIVE branch of Government. RIGHTLY, the Legislative Branch should be INDEPENDENT of the Executive Branch > as it is the Legislative Branch(Parliament) that has the DUTY to be a 'check and balance' to the Executive Branch...

We recall how even PKR MPs were deprived access to this 'constituency development funds' - and it was done arbitrarily without even according any right to be heard > that may clearly show that this funds(provided by the Executive not PARLIAMENT' can be used to compromise the INDEPENDENCE of Parliamentarians - support PM Anwar and his government OR risk losing this 'benefit' - the constituency development fund. NOW, if there is any Federal Government constituency fund, it must be for ALL MPs - not just those from government parties or those who support Anwar no matter what???

MPs in Parliament, who are NOT in the Cabinet especially, has a VERY IMPORTANT DUTY to ensure that PM Anwar and the Executive Branch of government does not act/omit to do anything that is wrong or an abuse of power. If not, MPs have the power to remove the Prime Minister > a power that could have removed Najib Razak as PM when the 1MDB scandal came to light - a move that would have MITIGATED losses. 

It is thus a VERY IMPORTANT power of MPs > THUS did Muhyiddin/Syed Saddiq and PM Anwar Ibrahim violate the Federal Constitution by this 'agreement' - for the INDEPENDENCE of MPs and their ability to remove a PRIME Minister whenever required is, in my opinion, also a  Basic Structure Doctrine (BSD), now recognized in Malaysia. 

What is  Basic Structure Doctrine (BSD)?

The concept that the fundamentals of the Malaysian Constitution cannot be altered is known as the Basic Structure Doctrine (BSD). 

Under this doctrine, the Federal Court of Malaysia has ruled that while Parliament has the power to amend the constitution under Article 159, it cannot use that power to destroy or dismantle the essential fabric and core principles that form its foundation.

What are some of these CORE PRINCIPLES of our FEDERAL CONSTITUTION? 

Separation of Powers: The distinct division of responsibilities between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government, and more importantly the ROLE played by these different branches to be an effective check and balance - to prevent ABUSE and other wrongs...

Independence of the Judiciary: The inherent power of the superior civil courts to review laws and executive actions, which cannot be stripped away or bypassed by Parliament.

We have looked a lot on securing the INDEPENDENCE of the Judiciary - and maybe NOW, we should strengthen the INDEPENDENCE of the Legislative(Parliament) 

The INDEPENDENCE of the Legislative is KEY and in my opinion, a BASIC STRUCTURE doctrine - that must always protect MPs so that they can freely REMOVE Prime Minister, and also FREELY OPPOSE Bills/Provisions and actions/omissions of the Executive Branch of Government. [Here, we are focusing on role of Parliament, MPs ... in being an effective check on balance on the EXECUTIVE, noting also that they also do have a duty to be an effective check and balance on the Judiciary]

There are MANY actions/omissions of PM Anwar Ibrahim since he became Prime Minister, which would justify the removal of the PM..

a) The U-turns of REFORMASI promises - the failure to REPEAL draconian laws like the SEDITION ACT, etc, the FIFA Scandal (to date no one has been held responsible for the CRIME of generation of FAKE documents and the usage during FIFA hearings, the commitment to act against CORRUPTION(the DNAAs, Pardons, and the 'selective' investigation/prosecution, etc

b) The changing stance of PALESTINE - After Anwar became PM > it maybe the 1st time that a Malaysian PM has acknowledged the Zionist State of Israel, and the right of Israel to defend himself - when this Zionist Regime was killing, injuring, destroying, 'occupying' more of Palestine now > more than 70,000 Palestinians have been killed, when PM Anwar decided to proceed to allow BlackRock(an entity that UN persons specifically listed as entities to be 'boycotted' and not to be entered into agreements...) to enter an agreement that allows BlackRock to own a percentage of the Malaysian Airports...???, who also choose to buy Boeing planes... The stance on Palestine is FUNDAMENTAL to Malaysia and Malaysians..

c)  For killing the IPCMC - because, the other act was not yet in force, meaning that PM Anwar could have re-tabled the IPCMC Bill, and repealed the other Act ...

d) For the 'killing' of the Asset Declaration practice for MPs/Ministers/... earlier the reason was an improvement of format of the form for Declaration > but today, it is still not yet back. PUBLIC Asset Declaration is an important mechanism to DETER wrongful enrichment - it should be 1st when they come into power, and then periodically so that the PUBLIC too will able to monitor _ even highlighting matters not declared.

e) The back-tracking of Local Government Elections - important to restore/increase democracy > and end 'political appointment' - even at the level of kampung, kampung barus and local communities - political appointment of leaders continue > thus sometimes 'ROBBING' peoples' right of participation...

f)...

BUT, now even if another 1MDB-like scandal emerges, noting that Anwar is PM and also Finance Minister > another commitment by PH breached - i.e. that PM shall never be Finance Minister,...CAN all those MPs (from the Opposition) including Muhyiddin(BERSATU) and Syed Saddiq(MUDA) who signed this agreement with the GOVERNMENT to receive 'constituency allocations' be ABLE to remove the Prime Minister or even oppose BAD laws and provisions > the answer may be NO {we have still not had sight of this  'confidence and supply agreement (CSA)' - show the people the contents of this agreement?

WHY did these BERSATU and MUDA sign such a agreement > for it certainly has affected the image of thse MPs and their political parties > To betray your constitutional duties and the people is something so wrong ---

WILL these MPs now be able to exercise their RIGHT to remove Anwar Ibrahim as PM? 

ARE these MPs OK with all things done(or NOT done) by Anwar Ibrahim and his Pakatan Harapan led Coalition Government during the RULE of the Federal Government? 

DO we still have an INDEPENDENT strong Parliament with the capacity to prevent ABUSE/wrongs of PM Anwar and his government(the EXECUTIVE)?

Anwar uses the fact that former PM Ismail Sabri(of the then PN government) did the SAME - 

confidence and supply agreement (CSA) with an agreement that MPs will not cause to remove the Prime Minister, etc... BUT that was very different...that was because of the fact then that Malaysia faced the COVID pandemic - and it was very difficult to even dissolve Parliament and have any elections as we were SCARED of getting COVID and were asked not to not interact freely with people. Then, it was REASONABLE and wise to have such AGREEMENTS with Opposition

 - to secure the operation of Government until things were safe...

NOW, things are back to NORMAL - and thus it was very wrong for PM Anwar to push for such an MOU or 

confidence and supply agreement (CSA) >>> NOW, it seems that this was done simply to help Anwar remain as PM until the next GE? The support of the people for the PH especially has been declining - the Sabah Elections, the Johor elections, the Negeri Sembilan Elections ... reasonably MPs(the elected peoples' representatives) should be responding to the SIGNS of the times - and should be even considering withdrawal of support from Anwar Ibrahim to remain as Prime Minister > wonder why the MPs are still not moving to remove Anwar Ibrahim as PM.

NOTE Pakatan Harapan and the current MADANI government may still RULE - and Anwar could have been replaced to replaced a BETTER MP > so the Government will NOT FALL. This change of PM between general elections have happened before

- 3 PMs after GE14 > was there any BIG PROBLEMS ...not really??? Ismail Sabri replaced Muhyiddin as PM and the same government continued...

THE LOSS OF SUPPORT FOR PAKATAN HARAPAN IS EVIDENT - even PH Parties like PKR and DAP maybe even losing support within their own parties...

About 30,000 plus DELEGATES could vote in PKR's last elections - but why did Nurul Izzah get so little votes > why did so many DELEGATES not come out and VOTE?

Nurul Izzah gets 9,803 voters from 22,081 Delegates entitled to vote? ODD? Why over 8,300 did not turn up to vote? If they did, Rafizi could have become Deputy President of PKR?

Likewise, DAP too may have lost their own member's support > a recent GENERAL Meeting of 'great importance' saw so many DELEGATES absent... 

DAP voted to stay in PM Anwar's Cabinet - 1857 voted in favour, 242 against, and 7 spoiled votes.

About 47.8% of the DAP delegates DID NOT ATTEND - only 52.1 attended and voted. WHY did about 2,040 delegates not turn up?  If the 2,040 showed up. and voted against the MOTION would not have passed because those who voted in favour was just 1857. 

It may be TIME for MPs in Malaysia to demonstrate again that they still have confidence in Anwar Ibrahim continuing to be the PRIME MINISTER... MPs(as peoples' representative) must personally and independently VOTE (not based on instruction of their political party/leaders...not because they do not want to LOSE the Federal Government's gift in the form of constituency development fund, monies/power that came with political appointment to government agencies, companies, etc...and not because they signed 'unconstitutional' agreements with their parties to abandon their free will and OBEY party directives - if not be subject to pay millions of ringgit) - HOW MANY MPs support Anwar Ibrahim to remain Prime Minister??? We still do not know the ACTUAL number of MPs that support Anwar - because even the last vote of confidence, the VOTE was never counted - it was merely a 'VOICE' vote...

URGE Members of Parliament(not in Cabinet) to reject all 'GIFTS' from the Executive branch of Government, be it constituency development funds, political appointment to POSTS in government or government agencies, GLCs, etc - so that Malaysian MPs will not just be INDEPENDENT but also be seen to be INDEPENDENT to fulfill their role to be an effective CHECK and BALANCE to prevent PM/Cabinet(the EXECUTIVE) from abusing power and/or doing or omitting to do what is best and right for Malaysians and Malaysia... 

This MOU or 

confidence and supply agreement (CSA), in my opinion, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and it also goes against the 

Basic Structure Doctrine (BSD) that Malaysian Courts have accepted.. what do you think?

 

Govt signs MoU with 6 Bersatu MPs, Syed Saddiq

Yesterday

Lynelle Tham

In exchange for their support, the government pledges to limit the prime minister’s tenure and separate the roles of the AG and public prosecutor before the end of its term.

Bersatu president Muhyiddin Yassin, the Pagoh MP, signed the MoU with deputy prime minister Fadillah Yusof and the prime minister’s senior political adviser, Tengku Zafrul Aziz.

KUALA LUMPUR:

 

The government signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) today with six Bersatu MPs and Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman, who underlined two key reforms Putrajaya must undertake in exchange for their support.

The MPs want the government to limit the prime minister’s tenure and separate the roles of the attorney-general and public prosecutor before the end of its term.

They also want to be allocated the same amount of constituency development funds that government backbenchers currently receive.

In return, the seven opposition MPs will support Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s administration until the end of the parliamentary term, as well as the 2027 budget.

The confidence and supply agreement (CSA) was inked by deputy prime minister Fadillah Yusof, Anwar’s senior political adviser Tengku Zafrul Aziz, Bersatu president Muhyiddin Yassin and Syed Saddiq.

The six Bersatu MPs who are part of the MoU are Muhyiddin (Pagoh), Radzi Jidin (Putrajaya), Ali Biju (Saratok), Suhaimi Abdullah (Langkawi), Nazri Abu Hassan (Merbok) and Azman Nasrudin (Padang Serai).

The deal was also signed by six former Bersatu MPs who were sacked by the party in 2024 for declaring support for the government.

Two days ago, Anwar said allocations for opposition MPs could be provided under a CSA similar to the one signed with the Ismail Sabri Yaakob administration when Anwar was the opposition leader.

The government bloc in the Dewan Rakyat currently comprises 149 MPs. Pakatan Harapan (PH) has 75 seats, followed by Barisan Nasional (30), Gabungan Parti Sarawak (23) and Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (seven).

Warisan’s three MPs also sit in the government bloc along with one each from Parti Kesejahteraan Demokratik Masyarakat (KDM), Parti Solidariti Tanah Airku (STAR) and Parti Bangsa Malaysia.

Eight independent assemblymen are also pro-government, including six formerly from Bersatu. 

The opposition bloc meanwhile comprises PAS with 43 MPs, Bersatu with 19, Wawasan with six and Muda with one.

Four seats are currently vacant following the resignations of Rafizi Ramli (Pandan), Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad (Setiawangsa), Wong Chen (Subang) and Lee Chean Chung (Petaling Jaya).

With 218 active MPs, a simple majority is reached at the 110-mark, while a two-thirds majority is attained at 146. - FMT, 29/10/2026