Thursday, March 26, 2026

Rare Earth - Anwar, what is the Government Position? Is mining/processing Rare Earth allowed despite environmental health risk?

Rare Earth Mining and Processing in Malaysia - What is PM Anwar Ibrahim and the Pakatan Harapan(DAP,PKR and Amanah) led Madani Coalition's position NOW - remember it a MOST DANGEROUS industry - with possibility of affecting the environment and also human health.

Pakatan Rakyat is definitely shutting down Lynas if the opposition coalition takes over the government. It would take a "miracle" for Pakatan to reverse its earlier stance of vowing to stop the operations of the rare earth processing plant if  it comes to power, PKR's strategy director Rafizi Ramli said at a press conference this morning - Edge, 14/3/2013
 

Then DAP/PKR/Amanah(now Pakatan Harapan) is in power with Anwar Ibrahim as Prime Minister > and recently, LYNAS was 'gifted' a 10 year contract.

Malaysia has solidified a strategic partnership with the U.S. to supply critical minerals and rare earth elements (REE), aimed at diversifying supply chains away from China . Through a 2025 Memorandum of Understanding, Malaysia has committed to providing the US with consistent, non-restricted access to rare earths, facilitating investment from US companies in Malaysian mining, processing, and high-value downstream, including magnets.(Bangkok Post, 21/8/2025)

After Trump visited Malaysia, and gave Anwar a car ride - Malaysia signed an agreement with US 

Malaysia has committed to refrain from banning, or imposing quotas on, exports to the United States of critical minerals or rare earth elements.  Malaysia has committed to the expedient development of its critical minerals and rare earths sectors in partnership with U.S. companies, including granting extended operating licenses to create certainty for businesses to increase production capacity.  Malaysia has committed to ensure no restrictions are imposed on the sale of rare earth magnets to U.S. companies. - Joint Statement US-Malaysia Agreement, 26/1o/2025

Then, the 10 year licence for LYNAS.

Then, Lynas agree to supply US Department of Defence

Lynas, the largest rare earth refiner outside of China, has signed a binding letter of intent with the US Department of Defense to finalise an agreement to supply the country’s defence sector with rare earth minerals for four years.“Through this agreement, the US defence industrial base will continue to have access to light and heavy rare earth oxides that are essential for modern manufacturing,” its CEO and managing director, Amanda Lacaze, said in a statement from the company today....Under this arrangement, the Department of Defense will set aside about US$96 million (RM377.62 million) to purchase rare earth oxides from Lynas. - Malaysiakini, 16/3/2026

Now, with this supply agreement with US Department of Defence, can Malaysia NOW cancel Lynas operating license - can it kick out LYNAS from Malaysia....US and TRUMP may not be happy with Anwar and Malaysia????

Guess WHAT, Malaysia may now be 'helping' US - for these weapons may be used to kill Palestinians, Iranians, Lebanese, etc..

What is the status of the 

The Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (ART) between the United States and Malaysia is now null and void, said Investment, Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Johari Abdul Ghani.Johari said this follows a United States Supreme Court ruling that struck down the majority of US President Donald Trump's earlier broad tariff measures, rendering the arrangement inapplicable."It is not on hold. It is no longer there, it's null and void. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that if you want to impose tariffs, you must have reasons," he said.- NST, 15/3/2026

BUT, our Minister said TERMINATED????  - if it has been TERMINATED or is NULL and VOID - Why is that Agreement still on the US White House Website?

Remember Malaysia entered into that agreement when the US Court already ruled that that the Tariff imposed by Trump was ILLEGAL and void...Malaysia still knowingly entered into that agreement - SO, how can a US Supreme Court confirming that the TARIFF action was illegal affect the Malaysia-US Agreement?

Malaysia MUST ACTIVELY terminate that US-Malaysia agreement... 

On February 20, 2026, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that sweeping tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unlawful. > but then, on 5/3/2026, MITI talks as though the Agreement is still valid - 'Both of Malaysia's commitments regarding Licensing Certainty as contained in the Joint Statement on the Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (ART) (Article 5.2) and the memorandum of understanding (MoU) on Critical Minerals (Areas of Cooperation, Section 3) do not affect the government's decision to enforce technical conditions on Lynas Malaysia or other rare earth elements (REE) companies that are about to be approved to operate in Malaysia.'
 
So, ANWAR IBRAHIM - has Malaysia terminated that TRADE AGREEMENT between US-Malaysia? Malaysians are confused...
 
Does this mean that Malaysia also cancels its commitment to INVEST about RM1 Trillion in US - can we cancel the Boeing purchase deals, and the other deals .... that Anwar 'foolishly' entered to convince US to reduce TARIFFs which resulted in that Trade Agreement between US and Malaysia? DON'T LIE - TELL US THE TRUTH??
 
Back to RARE EARTH - why are we opening NEW rare earth mines...
 
Malaysia has suspended operations at a rare earth site and two tin mines in western Perak state following an investigation into complaints that a stretch of a major river had turned bright blue, the natural resources and environment ministry said. Minister Johari Abdul Ghani told parliament on Wednesday that authorities had launched a probe after public reports about discoloured water in a part of the Perak River, the second-longest on the Malaysian peninsula. Initial investigations found discharges at the rare earths mining site, operated by MCRE Resources Sdn Bhd, which matched the colour of the water in the river, Johari said. . he added. - Reuters, 20/11/2025
PM Anwar - how many RARE EARTH mines are there in Malaysia? Where is the mined RARE Earth being processed? LYNAS or some other Rare Earth processing plants > REMEMBER that the danger to Environment and Health arises both during MINING as well as during PROCESSING - WHY ARE MALAYSIANS KEPT IN THE DARK?
 
Minister Chang Lih Kang tried to assure Malaysians - When it comes to RARE EARTH - we are talking about Radioactive material - Thorium-232 has a half-life of 14 billion years, while the most common isotope of Uranium (U-238) has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. It is easy to weed out dangerous chemicals - BUT how exactly is radioactive half-life dealt with to make it safe, Mr Minister?
 
 
Naturally occurring thorium and uranium isotopes have extremely long half-lives, often comparable to or exceeding the age of the Earth. Specifically,Thorium-232 has a half-life of 14 billion years, while the most common isotope of Uranium (U-238) has a half-life of 4.5 billion years.These radioactive elements are a significant production challenge in rare earth element (REE) mining because they often coexist in the same ore deposits, such as monazite and bastnasite.
 
The Minister also assures of  Real-time monitoring and transparency   - BUT how come in November 2025, '..Radiation readings at the site were also found to be as high as 13 becquerels, far above the 1 becquerel limit permitted under the project's initial environmental impact assessment report,' and this was when the river water in Sungai Perak changed colour - and it was suspected to be linked to a RARE EARTH MINE operated by MCRE Resources Sdn Bhd. This happens about 4 MONTHS ago....
 
Malaysians are not interested in HOPES of the MINISTER - but assurance that people are safe all the time. Remember, MANY COUNTRIES shut down rare earth mining and processing...because it was VERY DANGEROUS... 
 
Wonder whether it a GOOD IDEA to extract soil samples beside RARE EARTH Mines, Processing Installations and even PDF - and sent it to the Minister and PM's offices to be placed there TO ASSURE the Malaysian public that ALL IS SAFE. Should we also get vegetables, fishes, farm animals from the area(maybe less than 5 Km away) to be served in the Parliament cafeteria - since the Government says now that is safe...
 
IT is easy for Ministers/MPs to say that RARE EARTH Mining and Processing is SAFE when they LIVE far away from the dangers of MINES and processing plants...SO, CONVINCE us with your action..
 
Of course, it is VERY DIFFICULT to show that illness are DIRECTLY caused by Rare Earth Mining/Processing - just like it is difficult to prove the direct connection between CIGARETTES and health problems > So, should we be monitoring all adjacent health clinics/hospitals and IF the occurrence of any health problems, including miscarriages or deformation of new born, is HIGHER than the national average - the PRESUMPTION is that it is caused by RARE EARTH Mining unless proven otherwise... 
 
It was SAD that the attempt to JUDICIAL REVIEW the planning permission given by the Kuantan Local Government for the Lynas Permanent Depository Facility(PDF) was never dealt with by the Courts on the MERITS - Yes, Minister, many do not TRUST the government - the law may be GOOD but the problem sometimes is the ENFORCEMENT - and now with the 'corporate mafia" issue - one wonders whether a 'little money' may convince public officers to APPROVE projects/plans that fail to meet our Malaysian legal standards.
 
If the RIVER did not change colour - would the high RADIATION levels be detected - THEN, what happened to the RIVER case - did not hear anyone being CHARGED in court - did not hear action being taken against any perpetrator, any action being taken against PUBLIC officers who should have been monitoring 24 hours - how come the authorities did not detect it? Minister, you are from PERAK - explain what actions have been taken? HOW many RARE Earth mines have been issued licences?
 
TRANSPARENCY PM Anwar - tell us - Is RARE EARTH mining now allowed under your MADANI government? Should there be a PUBLIC REFERENDUM of people living within 20KM of the mining site and/or processing plants be a MANDATORY requirement - OH, it has to be the people directly - because all LOCAL COUNCIL members, Ketua Kampung, Ketua Kampung Baru, etc --- are all POLITICAL APPOINTEES (not directly elected by the people) - and these political appointees  most likely will 'loyally' say OK to mines and rare earth processing... most times the ordinary people XDO NOT KNOW  of the consent letters their 'leaders'(the political appointees signed) - sad, that we still do not have Kampung/Kampung Baru/Taman elections in Malaysia - so people can directly choose their own community leaders DEMOCRATICALLY - and DAP and PKR who now RULES has 'FORGOTTEN' about restoring Local Council Elections ??? 
 
See also:-
 

Miti: Malaysia-US minerals deal will not affect conditions imposed on Lynas
The Investment, Trade and Industry Ministry said Malaysia’s commitments under the ART agreement and Critical Minerals MoU with the US will not affect the government’s enforcement of technical conditions on Lynas Malaysia or other rare earth companies. — Reuters pic
The Investment, Trade and Industry Ministry said Malaysia’s commitments under the ART agreement and Critical Minerals MoU with the US will not affect the government’s enforcement of technical conditions on Lynas Malaysia or other rare earth companies. — Reuters pic

KUALA LUMPUR, March 5 — Both of Malaysia's commitments regarding Licensing Certainty as contained in the Joint Statement on the Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (ART) (Article 5.2) and the memorandum of understanding (MoU) on Critical Minerals (Areas of Cooperation, Section 3) do not affect the government's decision to enforce technical conditions on Lynas Malaysia or other rare earth elements (REE) companies that are about to be approved to operate in Malaysia.

The Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry (Miti) said the Critical Minerals MoU signed by Malaysia and the United States clearly states that areas of cooperation between the two countries include topics related to good regulatory practices, such as facilitating the process of issuing permits related to the REE industry, including mining permits, land purchase and manufacturing licences.

“This agreement includes fair and equitable treatment for investors, as well as the implementation of sustainable projects that comply with environmental, social and governance practices.

“In addition, both countries are committed to working together in strengthening the critical minerals sector and ensuring that the sale of REE products is determined by the respective authorities or governments,” the ministry said in a written reply to the Dewan Negara yesterday to a question from Senator Datuk Wu Him Ven who wanted to know whether the two commitments affected the government’s decision to enforce technical conditions on Lynas Malaysia or the rare earth industry.

The Licensing Certainty commitment is enshrined in the Joint Statement on ART (Article 5.2), while the Critical Minerals MoU has the Areas-of-Cooperation, Section 3.

Regarding the status of negotiations between Khazanah Nasional Bhd and companies from China in the development of the REE industry, Miti said that until now the discussions are still at an early stage and no final agreement has been signed.

“This is because the Chinese government has not yet named the party that will represent the country to implement the cooperation,” he said.

The ministry also explained that the government has mandated Khazanah Nasional as a focal point to comprehensively examine potential strategic collaboration models.

“The research covers aspects of commercial viability, technology safeguarding, strategic governance and control structures, as well as alignment with national interests,” it said.

Regarding the heavy rare-earth element (HREE) separation technology, Miti said that so far no technology transfer has been finalised either in terms of scope, form of implementation or timeline.

“Currently, HREE production at a commercial level in the world is only done by processing plants in China and the Lynas company in Kuantan,” it said. — Bernama, Malay Mail, 5/3/2026

 

Lynas signs US$96m rare earth supply deal with Pentagon
Published:  Mar 16, 2026 3:23 PM
Updated: 5:52 P

Lynas, the largest rare earth refiner outside of China, has signed a binding letter of intent with the US Department of Defense to finalise an agreement to supply the country’s defence sector with rare earth minerals for four years.

“Through this agreement, the US defence industrial base will continue to have access to light and heavy rare earth oxides that are essential for modern manufacturing,” its CEO and managing director, Amanda Lacaze, said in a statement from the company today.

Lynas said the letter of intent establishes a framework to finalise an agreement for the supply of light and heavy rare earth oxides to support US national security and supply chain resilience objectives.

Under this arrangement, the Department of Defense will set aside about US$96 million (RM377.62 million) to purchase rare earth oxides from Lynas.

Lynas said the agreement followed a mutual decision with the Pentagon to modify an earlier agreement, due to “significant uncertainty” on whether plans to build a heavy rare earth processing facility in Seadrif, Texas, would proceed.

The statement also mentions that neodymium-praseodymium (NdPr) oxides will have a floor price of US$110 per kg under the arrangement.

For comparison, its benchmark price generally hovered around US$60 to US$80 per kg last year, though it briefly reached as high as US$128 per kg this year.

Market dominated by China

The mineral is a crucial raw ingredient for making powerful magnets needed for electric motors, actuators, and other applications.

Bloomberg Intelligence reported on March 2 that China dominates 90 percent of the world’s NdPr supply, but upcoming supplies from Australia and the US are likely to slash China’s market share to 69 percent by 2030.

Lynas mines rare earth minerals from Mt Weld, West Australia, processes them, and then ships them for refining and separation into rare earth oxides at the Lynas Advanced Materials Plant in Gebeng, Pahang.

The facility in Gebeng is not only capable of producing light rare earth elements, but is also the only significant producer of heavy rare earth elements outside China, and therefore the only producer not subject to China’s export controls on critical minerals.

10-year licence extension, with strings attached

However, the facility has faced significant opposition from environmental activists, particularly for issues surrounding the disposal of radioactive residue from its water leach purification (WLP) process.

The Malaysian government granted the facility a 10-year extension of its licence beginning March 3, but on the condition that it reduces the radioactivity of the WLP residue below regulatory limits by extracting the radioactive element thorium from the waste.

Moving forward, Lynas will also be required to complete the thorium extraction process in Australia before shipping it for further processing in Malaysia. - Malaysiakini, 16/3/2026

Impose restrictions on Lynas for US defence supply deal: Pro-Palestine advocates
Yiswaree Palansamy
Published:  Mar 19, 2026 10:05 AM
Updated: 9:05 A

Two pro-Palestine advocates have called for Malaysia to impose restrictions on the export of rare earth materials processed by Lynas Rare Earths.

This came after the company signed a binding letter of intent with the US Department of Defense to finalise a four-year agreement to supply the US defence sector with rare earth minerals.

Boycott Divestment & Sanctions Malaysia (BDS) chairperson Nazari Ismail argued that the business deal is also a challenge to Malaysia's spirit of non-aligned foreign policy.

"Yes, the Malaysian government should impose some form of restriction on the export of Lynas' output. It should not supply countries that use them for illegal military operations.

ADS

"Clearly, the US is now engaged in military operations after it carried out an unprovoked attack on Iran," the academic told Malaysiakini.

Nazari concurred that while this could lead to diplomatic repercussions, he said it was "normal when you stand up for justice and hold on to moral principles”.

BDS chairperson Nazari Ismail

He added that Putrajaya should be concerned about the Lynas deal, given the US' role in the deadly bomb strike on two schools in Iran, which resulted in the deaths of over 100 schoolchildren.

Nazari said that since Lynas holds an operating licence issued by Putrajaya, the terms of that licence should be revisited to include restrictions on the end buyers of the processed materials.

"As stated earlier, the output should not be sold to buyers who plan to use it for illegal military campaigns," he emphasised.

Weaponry production

Former PKR vice-president and fellow pro-Palestine activist Tian Chua echoed Nazari's sentiments.

"It is quite clear that the supply of rare earth elements to the US Department of Defense for security purposes would include weaponry production.

“This agreement could potentially drag Malaysia into the US supply and production chain of war machinery.

"Malaysia could impose some additional export conditions to prevent rare earth products from being shipped to US defence industries," Chua said when contacted.

Ex-PKR veep Tian Chua

He acknowledged that while the law may not provide a clear legal mechanism to prevent Lynas - a private, foreign-listed company - from entering into a commercial agreement with the US defence establishment, Malaysia is not absolved of responsibility.

"Malaysia has a lot of leverage as the US is a country committing war crimes. Our refusal to allow Lynas to support the military complex will earn us international and domestic credit.

"Our neutrality means we are open in the rare earth market, and we will continue to prevent China's monopoly on rare earth. However, the bottom line is that our industrial production and resources should not be supplying to a mass murder industry," Chua stressed.

‘Public deserves answers’

In a statement yesterday, Selangor PAS Youth chief Sukri Omar urged Lynas and Putrajaya to provide "clear, responsible explanations" to the public about the agreement.

He said the agreement raises legitimate concerns because rare earths are strategic materials used in modern military technology, including radar systems, missile systems, satellites, defence electronics, and various components of high-technology arms industries.

Selangor PAS Youth chief Sukri Omar

"The public has the right to know whether the rare earth processed through Lynas' operations in Malaysia will form part of the supply chain for the US defence sector.

"Lynas must also clarify the source of the raw materials involved in the contract, the locations where processing takes place, and whether its processing facility in Malaysia is directly or indirectly involved in supplying the American military industry.

"As a foreign company operating in Malaysia and benefiting from this country's resources and ecosystem, Lynas bears both a moral and corporate responsibility to ensure that its operations do not give rise to sensitive geopolitical implications for its host nation," Sukri added.

He said an explanation from the government was equally necessary, stressing that the rare earth issue was not a routine trade concern but one deeply tied to strategic security, global geopolitics, and the country’s standing on the international stage.

"The government must clarify whether any policy or control mechanism exists to ensure that strategic resources processed in Malaysia are not channelled to the military industries of any major power involved in international conflict," Sukri said.

Malaysiakini has contacted Lynas for comments.

What the deal is about

On March 16, Lynas said the letter of intent establishes a framework to finalise an agreement for the supply of light and heavy rare earth oxides to support US national security and supply chain resilience objectives.

Under this arrangement, the US Department of Defense will set aside about US$96 million (RM377.62 million) to purchase rare earth oxides from Lynas.

Lynas said the agreement followed a mutual decision with the Pentagon to modify an earlier agreement, due to “significant uncertainty” on whether plans to build a heavy rare earth processing facility in Seadrif, Texas, would proceed.

The statement also stated that neodymium-praseodymium (NdPr) oxides will have a floor price of US$110 per kg under the arrangement.

For comparison, its benchmark price generally hovered between US$60 and US$80 per kg last year, though it briefly reached as high as US$128 per kg this year.

The mineral is a crucial raw ingredient for making powerful magnets needed for electric motors, actuators, and other applications.

Bloomberg Intelligence reported on March 2 that China dominates 90 percent of the world’s NdPr supply, but upcoming supplies from Australia and the US are likely to slash China’s market share to 69 percent by 2030.

Lynas mines rare earth minerals from Mt Weld, West Australia, processes them, and then ships them for refining and separation into rare earth oxides at the Lynas Advanced Materials Plant in Gebeng, Pahang.

The facility in Gebeng is not only capable of producing light rare earth elements but is also the only significant producer of heavy rare earth elements outside China, and therefore the only producer not subject to China’s export controls on critical minerals.

However, the facility has faced significant opposition from environmental activists, particularly on issues surrounding the disposal of radioactive residue from its water leach purification (WLP) process.

Putrajaya granted the facility a 10-year extension of its licence beginning March 3, but on the condition that it reduces the radioactivity of the WLP residue below regulatory limits by extracting the radioactive element thorium from the waste.

Lynas will also be required to complete the thorium extraction process in Australia before shipping it for further processing in Malaysia. - Malaysiakini, 19/3/2026

 

MP SPEAKS | Lynas' 10-year licence renewal: Addressing four key areas of concern
Chang Lih Kang
Published:  Mar 24, 2026 3:00 PM
Updated: 2:21 PMP SPEAKS | The Science, Technology, and Innovation Ministry remains committed to a transparent and responsible approach. We have outlined responses to the four key areas of concern on Lynas’ 10-year licence extension below:

1. Safety of the permanent disposal facility

The facility’s design strictly adheres to international standards set by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Under IAEA General Safety Guide No GSG-1 (Classification of Radioactive Waste), Water Leach Purification (WLP) residue is classified as Very Low Level Waste (VLLW). This category of waste can be safely managed through engineered surface landfill facilities.

These facilities are specifically designed to safely contain waste with radioactivity levels above “exempted” limits. WLP residue, which contains natural radionuclides, has a radioactivity level of approximately six Bq/g, well within the safety threshold for VLLW.

In addition, a flood risk assessment was incorporated into the environmental impact assessment (EIA). The findings confirmed that, due to appropriate ground elevation and land treatment during project development, the site is not exposed to significant flood risks.

2. Timeline for thorium extraction

Scaling thorium extraction from laboratory to industrial level is a complex engineering process that typically takes up to seven years. However, the government has mandated that Lynas complete this transition within five years.

The licence will be subject to a comprehensive review after this initial five-year period. During this time, Lynas must meet the following milestones:

  • By June 3, 2026: Submit the upgrade plan for the Lynas Advanced Material Plant (LAMP) in Gebeng, Pahang;

  • From March 3, 2028: Begin physical construction and facility modification;

  • By March 2, 2031: Cease all production of new WLP radioactive residue.

The Atomic Energy Department (Atom Malaysia) will strictly monitor compliance through continuous enforcement, including performance checks and environmental sampling.

The Environment Department will also oversee compliance under the Environmental Quality Act 1974. Failure to meet these conditions may result in licence revocation.

3. Management of radioactive waste

The “cracking and leaching” process has been a longstanding concern, as it generates WLP residue. Previous approaches focused on the long-term storage of this waste through permanent disposal facilities.

Under the current licence conditions, a clear end-point has been established: Lynas must stop producing WLP residue by March 2, 2031. All WLP generated between March 2026 and March 2031 must undergo thorium extraction, reducing its radioactivity from approximately six Bq/g to below one Bq/g, effectively rendering it non-radioactive.

Importantly, Lynas is no longer permitted to construct any new permanent disposal facilities. This ensures that, beyond 2031, no additional radioactive waste will accumulate in Malaysia, providing a long-term resolution to this issue.

The cracking and leaching process is also carried out in Kalgoorlie, Australia, where it produces iron phosphate residue. Mastery of this process is critical for Malaysia’s advancement in the rare earth value chain, enabling a shift from raw extraction to high-value processing and refining.

4. Real-time monitoring and transparency

To enhance transparency, the ministry and the Atomic Energy Department have made the Environmental Radiation Monitoring System (ERMS) accessible to the public. Real-time environmental radiation data can be viewed here and here.

The government remains committed to strict oversight, ensuring that radioactive waste does not continue to accumulate in Malaysia.


CHANG LIH KANG is the MP for Tanjung Malim and science, technology and innovation minister.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini. - Malaysiakini, 24/3/2026


Tuesday, March 24, 2026

Right for Anthony Loke to rebuke Guan Eng and Chow? Will Malaysians lose their freedom of expression/opinion if they join political parties?

Has DAP also fallen prey to NEO-FEUDALISM - is it no more DEMOCRATIC? Is it now a party where what party leaders(incumbent) says is what all members must agree and follow...NO room for alternative views or most importantly views critical of party leadership???   

This QUESTION arises when ANTHONY LOKE asked Guan Eng and Penang Chief Minister to stop discussing in public - was he saying that DAP members should no longer express themselves about issues in public even it is a matter of public interest? 

Can DAP members not be allowed to express themselves in public - only restricted to expressing themselves within the party - and thereafter only BOUND by party position, even if they have a different opinion? 

In Malaysia, sadly many still have a 'neo-feudalistic' mindset - once we elect a President and leaders of societies and even political parties - members are 'blindly loyal' to the incumbent leadership - and many even do not speak up when 'leaders' make mistakes or say things that they feel was wrong - and this is 'undemocratic' behaviour. In a democratic association, it is always the membership that are the 'BOSSES' and any member has the right to speak up when they disagree with actions/statements of the leadership. In a democratic society, leaders must always welcome different views - and listen to the majority views. POLITICAL parties too may have CERTAIN basic principles/values - only when party members break these 'fundamental principles', will the party react - with maybe a 'show cause letter, or other actions.

SO, when ANTHONY LOKE  '...rebuked his party adviser Lim Guan Eng over the latter's continued criticism of his successor, Penang Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow...' - was this because Guan Eng did something against the party's core principles? Or was it because party did not like the fact that Guan Eng was critical of a DAP leader.

WHO increased the QUIT RENT - surely it cannot be the Penang Chief MINISTER who initiated -- because to increase or decrease QUIT RENTS comes within the power of the LOCAL COUNCILS(Local Government) although now the State GOVERNMENT must approve any changes in RATES 

The local authority may, with the approval of the State Authority, from time to time as is deemed necessary, impose either separately or as a consolidated rate, the annual rate or rates within a local authority area for the purposes of this Act or for other purposes which it is the duty of the local authority to perform under any other written law. (Sec. 127 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1976)

So, Penang Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow approved the changes in RATE - Odd that the Local Councils who increased the rates have not been involved in this 'public discussion' that has been happening between Guan Eng and the Chief Minister?

Wonder whether a democratically elected by the people LOCAL Council(government/authority) would have CHANGED or increased the RATES. Now, the Local Council is still not democratically elected by the people, but are POLITICAL APPOINTEES of the State > so people chosen and appointed by the Chief Minister and his State Exco???

So, did CM Chow Kon Yeow 'tell' his political appointee Local Council to increase RATES, or did the decision to increase RATES come from the Local Councils themselves INDEPENDENTLY? in short, who is calling the shots - the Chief Minister or the Local Councils...[That is WHY we need LOCAL COUNCIL elections - as political appointee Local Councillors tend to do what the person who appointed wanted, and not what the people within Local Council wants. If the Local Council did wrong to the people, now we cannot VOTE them out - the only people we can VOTE out is the CM and the State Assemblypersons who formed the government...SO SAD]

NEXT QUESTION - HOW is the Local Council money being spent - it SHOULD NEVER be taken by the CM and used for STATE expenditure? When it is ONLY the Chief Minister 'fighting' with Guan Eng(and not the LOCAL COUNCILS), one wonders whether the STATE Government is going to get some of these LOCAL COUNCIL monies?? Check...check...how LOCAL Council monies are being used > Sadly, most Local Councils are NOT VERY TRANSPARENT about their accounts - how much collected annually, and HOW was it spent - was there ABUSE, was there wrongful 'donations' to the State Government?? At the very least, it should be on WEBSITES of Local Councils >>> Minister Nga Kor Ming...LOOK INTO THIS - Transparency and accountability? 

It was an issue about 'QUIT RENT' - and that is a matter of public interest, which anyone have a right to have a different view on. 

It was NOT even something against DAP core principle - so, I do not thing that ANTHONY LOKE should be angry about this public debate and discussion - because it is Guan Eng, at least the CM is responding...would he respond to some normal person from Penang? Guan Eng, in this case did GOOD...he highlighted the issue, which is an issue of concern for all people of Penang...  

So, Anthony LOKE's 'anger' - Does this especially apply ONLY to backbenchers of the party(or to ALL members), i.e. those who are ADUNs/MPs but not in the Cabinet or State Exco? Has Anthony LOKE forgotten about the role of backbenchers in our democracy - the duty to be an effective check and balance to the government - and surely the right to express their different views, including views critical of the government in PUBLIC - not confined to within the party? 

“Any disagreements, especially from backbenchers on State Government decisions, should be addressed through established internal mechanisms rather than aired publicly,” Loke said. 

What do you think about this statement? 

Now, is this how Anthony Loke and party leadership have been in the Pakatan Harapan? In Anwar's MADANI Government Coalition? 

Come to think of it, we have NOT heard much of Anthony Loke and DAP voice - Was this is TOTAL LOYALTY to Anwar - be quite even if you have a different opinion, or oppose Anwar's views? Now, after the loss in Sabah elections - we again hear a 'little' different opinion from DAP (or rather some in DAP?

If you do not SPEAK UP - then, people will say that DAP has LOST ITS VOICE - so DAP agrees that:-

A) The SEDITION ACT is OK and need not be repealed;

B) That is is OK for UITM to remain only accessible to BUMIPUTRA students - and NOT non-Bumiputra Students (Even though the contradiction was HIGHLIGHTED that foreign students are OK - but not Bumiputra students) - I would have asked for at a QUOTA for non-bumiputra students, and maybe a consideration that foreigners not be allowed.

C) That LYNAS get a 10 year license??

D) That there is NO ISSUE in the awarding of Malaysian Citizenship to foreign football players, and that Malaysia do not have to look into that issue of FORGED documents submitted to FIFA;

E)....

DAP is going to have a GENERAL Meeting - can DAP members TABLE other Motions - maybe even a MOTION of Disappointment against Anthony Loke and the leadership for its conduct when in Anwar Ibrahim led MADANI Government? OR DAP members CANNOT do anything without the approval of the current leadership?

The question now is should Malaysians JOIN political parties like DAP if joining means a LOSS of our Freedom of Expression and Opinion?  

Back to changes in RATES - did the Local Council act TRANSPARENTLY - were the people informed. Were those affected sent letters... or was it again 'not effectively' brought to the notice of those affected - WERE there OBJECTIONS? By not bringing effectively to the NOTICE of the people - then what happened in the Lynas case will happen again - where the Planning Permission was gazetted on 28/1/2022 and Tan was informed by letter only 21/4/2022 ... Is the DAP government just the same as past BN government,...? See earlier post on the Lynas Court of Appeal (https://charleshector.blogspot.com/)

See relevant provisions on the LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT - did the persons now 'complaining' know of the changes in TIME, so they could OBJECT and/or APPEAL to Court...??? 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1976 

141  Notice of new valuation list to be published 

(1) Where any Valuation List has been prepared or adopted under the provisions of section 137 the local authority shall give notice of the same and of the place where the Valuation List or a copy thereof may be inspected in the Gazette and by way of advertisement in two local newspapers at least one of which is in the national language.

 142  Objections

(1) Any person aggrieved on any of the following grounds-

(a) that any holding for which he is rateable is valued beyond its rateable value;

(b) that any holding valued is not rateable;

(c) that any person who, or any holding which, ought to be included in the Valuation List is omitted therefrom;

(d) that any holding is valued below its rateable value; or

(e) that any holding or holdings which have been jointly or separately valued ought to be valued otherwise;

may make objection in writing to the local authority at any time not less than fourteen days before the time fixed for the revision of the Valuation List.

(2) All objections shall be enquired into and the persons making them shall at such enquiry be allowed an opportunity of being heard either in person or by an authorised agent.

145  Appeals 

(1) Any person who having made an objection in the manner prescribed by section 142 or 144 is dissatisfied with the decision of the local authority thereon may appeal to the High Court by way of originating motion:

Provided that with the filing of the originating motion there shall be paid into the local authority the amount of the rate appealed against.

(2) The originating motion shall be filed by the person dissatisfied with the decision of the local authority within fourteen days of the receipt thereof.

(3) The local authority shall be the respondent in any appeal under this section.

(4) Every such appeal shall be heard before the High Court whose decision on questions of fact shall be final and conclusive.

(5) From the decision of the High Court either party may appeal on questions of law to the Federal Court whose decision shall be final and conclusive.

(6) In any appeal under subsection (5), the provisions of any written law for the time being in force relating to appeals in civil matters from the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction to the Federal Court shall apply.

 

NOTE - Again, there is problems with MY BLOG - have difficulty accessing it - and even copying links from the BLOG - Minister Fahmi Fadzil, please check and make sure that NO ONE is doing anything to suppress my BLOG. Confirm it is not your Ministry

‘Unhealthy and inappropriate’: Loke tells Guan Eng, Penang CM to end public spat on quit rent

DAP secretary-general Anthony Loke Siew Fook (pictured) called for Lim Guan Eng and Penang Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow to resolve their dispute over revised quit rent rates internally. — Picture by Firdaus Latif
DAP secretary-general Anthony Loke Siew Fook (pictured) called for Lim Guan Eng and Penang Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow to resolve their dispute over revised quit rent rates internally. — Picture by Firdaus Latif

KUALA LUMPUR, March 21 — DAP secretary-general Anthony Loke Siew Fook today called for an end to the public dispute between party veteran Lim Guan Eng and Penang Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow over the state’s revised quit rent rates, saying the matter should be resolved internally.

In a statement, Loke said the party leadership was “deeply concerned and disturbed” by the ongoing exchanges, and said internal differences over public policy should not be aired in a way that undermines the party’s own state government.

“This is an unhealthy and inappropriate way to address internal differences on public policy matters,” he said, adding that he would convene a meeting involving both leaders to resolve the matter amicably.

Loke said Lim, as a former DAP secretary-general and former Penang chief minister, should appreciate the importance of party discipline.

“Any disagreements, especially from backbenchers on State Government decisions, should be addressed through established internal mechanisms rather than aired publicly,” Loke said.

At the same time, he said Chow should take seriously the concerns raised, as they involve public interest and complaints from affected stakeholders.

He said any review of quit rent in commercial areas must be carried out in a “balanced, responsive, and considerate” manner, adding that quit rent involving educational institutions such as public schools should not be increased excessively and should instead be kept at a nominal rate.

Loke said the public spat must end so party leaders can refocus on serving the people rather than prolonging a dispute that has already drawn wide public attention.

The intervention follows a series of public exchanges over Penang’s revised 2026 quit rent structure, which the state government says took effect on January 1 this year and was introduced to correct disparities in rates that had not been reviewed since 1994.

Lim had earlier questioned cases of sharp increases, including one he said rose from RM6 to RM19,400 a year and another from RM745 to RM489,775, while arguing that the state government’s explanation had raised many doubts.

Chow has defended the revision, saying some cases highlighted publicly omitted key details such as land size and actual land use, and that the rates are based on land classification, size and current use.

The Penang government had offered a 50 per cent rebate on 2026 quit rent for all landowners, subject to minimum rates and conditions.

The state also fixed quit rent for school land at a nominal RM50 per title this year, excluding international schools.

On March 12, Chow said the state government had received 1,025 appeals over the revised rates. - Malaysiakini, 21/3/2026

Stop bickering in public, Loke orders Guan Eng, Chow

DAP chief says Lim Guan Eng's approach is 'highly inappropriate' but Penang CM Chow Kon Yeow should take serious note of his predecessor's concerns.

DAP secretary-general Loke Siew Fook said he will organise a meeting between his predecessor, Lim Guan Eng, and Penang chief minister Chow Kon Yeow to seek an amicable solution.
PETALING JAYA:
DAP secretary-general Loke Siew Fook has ordered former Penang chief minister Lim Guan Eng and his successor, Chow Kon Yeow, to put an end to their public spat over the state’s quit rent issue.

Loke said the DAP central leadership was deeply concerned by the pair’s public spat, describing it as an “unhealthy and inappropriate” manner to tackle internal differences on public policies.

He said Lim, as a former DAP secretary-general and former Penang chief minister, should understand the importance of maintaining party discipline.

Loke, the transport minister, said disagreements from state backbenchers should be conveyed through internal mechanisms rather than being aired publicly.

“Differences of opinion should not be expressed in a manner that undermines our own chief minister and the state government.

“At the same time, while Lim’s approach is highly inappropriate, Chow, as chief minister, should take serious note of the concerns raised, as they involve public interest and reflect grievances from various stakeholders,” he said in a statement.

Loke acknowledged the Penang government’s need to review quit rent rates in commercial zones, but said this must be done in a balanced and considerate manner.

“This public spat must come to an end, and party discipline must be upheld at all times. As DAP secretary-general, I will convene a meeting involving both leaders to resolve this matter amicably,” he said.

He said the focus of all DAP leaders must be on serving the people, urging them to avoid bickering in public and to seek constructive cooperation instead.

Over the past week, Lim and Chow have been engaged in a back and forth over the quit rent issue.

Chow said several landowners who publicly criticised the revised quit rent rates at a press conference held by Lim had left out key details such as lot size and the actual business or industrial use of their land.

He said some of the cases raised involved land used to store timber, place containers or park lorries, or utilised as used-car sales lots, or even to carry out factory-related activities.

Lim then urged Chow to personally inspect the compaints instead of relying only on feedback from land and mines officers, to which the chief minister replied that he trusted in the work of those officers. - FMT, 21/3/2026

 

Chow stands by state officers in quit rent row with Guan Eng

Story by Predeep Nambiar
5d
2 min read
Penang chief minister Chow Kon Yeow rejected Lim Guan Eng’s accusation of not being on the ground often enough, saying he regularly makes visits across the state.

GEORGE TOWN: Penang chief minister Chow Kon Yeow has defended the data and advice from state officers on the controversial quit rent issue, saying he trusts their work.

He was responding to criticism from Bagan MP Lim Guan Eng, who urged him to look into the matter personally and questioned the reliability of information provided by officers from the land and mines office.

Speaking to reporters in Komtar, Chow dismissed the criticism, saying: “That is his interpretation (of the situation), which is totally wrong.”

He said mistakes, if any, would be rectified, and that more than 2,000 appeals on quit rent matters had been received, with over 500 already decided and the remainder to be reviewed after verification.

Chow also rejected Lim’s argument that the state could not carry out measures not listed in Pakatan Harapan’s (PH) 2023 election manifesto for Penang.

“A manifesto does not prevent a government from pursuing measures not listed in it,” he said, adding that new steps could be introduced according to the circumstances.

Yesterday, Lim said Chow had openly admitted that the new quit rent calculation system had caused rate increases ranging from hundreds- to thousands-fold.

He also asked how such steep hikes could be justified when they were not mentioned in PH’s election manifesto for Penang in 2023.

Chow rejected Lim’s claim that he was not on the ground often enough, saying he regularly made visits across the state and had not received many direct complaints about quit rent during his recent visits.

“Don’t worry, I’m always on the ground. Perhaps they didn’t want to highlight it to me. I did not see any issues about quit rent raised during my visits throughout Ramadan across all of Penang’s districts.

“Not that the people don’t have issues, but perhaps they did not highlight them to me. Don’t worry, we will continue reviewing appeals from the public,” he said.

Task force to prepare PIFC white paper, blueprint

Chow also said that a special task force had been set up to prepare a white paper and blueprint on the state government’s proposal to establish the Penang International Financial Centre, as part of efforts to turn Penang into a technology and finance hub.

The task force will be chaired by Chow, with the state secretary as deputy chairman, and include state officials, agencies and private sector representatives.

An international consulting firm will be appointed to assist in preparing the documents, which are targeted for submission to the finance ministry by the third quarter of this year.

Chow said recent capital outflows from Dubai and other parts of the Middle East had opened up opportunities for safer investment destinations in Asia.

He said three Penang-based companies had already responded to an earlier expression of interest exercise, although the initiative would not be limited to them and other parties could still be involved later. - MSN/FMT

Monday, March 23, 2026

Did Malaysian Courts use 'SLAPP like' methods to DETER people from applying for Judicial Review of Government Decisions? RM100,000 cost is UNJUST - in a JR application on Lynas PDF ?


On 9/3/2026, when the Court of Appeal ORDERED Tan to pay RM100,000 COST for challenging a government planning approval of the Permanent Depository Facility, did our Malaysian Courts just use them much opposed SLAPP-like (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) ...

A three-member panel led by Federal Court Judge Datuk Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali, sitting with Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Jaffril and Datuk Ong Chee Kwan, ordered Tan Bun Teet to pay RM25,000 in legal costs to each of the respondents — the Pahang State Planning Committee, the Kuantan City Council (MBK), Gading Senggara Sdn Bhd and Lynas Malaysia. 

Note, in this case the COURT refused to JUDICIAL REVIEW on a 'technicality' because the Judicial Review application was filed late - after the 3 MONTHS the government decision was made. We rely on Media Reports only at this stage - because I have yet to see the Written Judgment of the Court of Appeal. I have looked at the High Court Judgment (which is below, if you are interested)

WAIT, this was an application of a concerned person challenging the planning permission granted by  MAJLIS BANDARAYA KUANTAN to GADING SENGGARA SDN BHD to construct a permanent disposal facility (PDF) in Gebeng, Pahang for Lynas Malaysia Sdn Bhd to store its waste. YES, it was about RARE EARTH - and a lot of Malaysians and others are concerned about this issue. 

In 2012, at least 13 leaders from Pakatan Rakyat had signed a pledge to shut down Lynas' rare earth refinery when they were part of the opposition. They include Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, Transport Minister Anthony Loke, and Digital Minister Gobind Singh Deo. 

We have the Bukit Merah experience and The aftereffects of the ARE facility are still felt today, despite over RM300 million spent cleaning up its waste. It is estimated that Bukit Merah community will have one case of leukemia every three years as a result of radioactivity. Bukit Merah’s rare earth metal processing site cleanup had been the largest radiation cleanup so far in the world’s rare earth industry, and it took about 20 years...Besides cleaning up their mess, ARE have also made monthly payments to affected citizens though their Development Fund. Shareholder Mitsubishi Chemical had settled with the villagers outside of court by donating 164,000 US Dollars to their community school, at the same time denying any responsibility for the diseases striking the villagers. Some academic research showed that the Bukit Merah community will only have one case of leukemia every three years as a result of radioactivity. - CILISOS 30 years ago, a huge radioactive incident happened in Perak. And they’re still cleaning it up…

The long-term, large-scale mining and utilization of rare earths has caused serious environmental pollution and constitutes a global health issue, which has raised concerns regarding the safety of human health. However, the toxicity profile of suspended particulate matter in REEs(Rare earth elements) in the environment, which interacts with the human body, remains largely unknown. Studies have shown that REEs can enter the human body through a variety of pathways, leading to a variety of organ and system dysfunctions through changes in genetics, epigenetics, and signaling pathways.  - NLM National Centre for Biotechnology Information

Whilst many countries have been shutting down MINING, and/or processing of RARE EARTH in their countries - because it is seen as very dangerous (great risk to ENVIRONMENT and also public health)  

In the 1990s, major US rare earth mines such as Mountain Pass scaled down or shut their most polluting processing activities.As the US and other rich countries retreated, the most hazardous processing shifted to countries under economic pressure or more willing to bear the environmental burden.  

So, back to the recent Court of Appeal - this was clearly a matter of public interest, so when the Court ordered the concerned citizen who wanted the COURTS to make sure that the approval was given RIGHTLY, the Court should NOT have ordered him to pay RM100,000 in cost - What will people perceive from this decision > IS IT A MESSAGE OF THE COURT TELLING PEOPLE NOT TO CHALLENGE OR GO FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT DECISIONS?  

Honestly, in such cases, which, I believe, are a matter of Public Interest and JUSTICE - No order of cost should have been made. 

In other cases too, especially when litigants are poor or middle class, if COST is to be ordered, it must be minimal or token >> you do not want to SCARE people from using the Courts, do we now? 

The Court did not commence this action, but HIGH Cost orders may be seen as the Courts, being in the side of those who use SLAPP suits, and in this case when a person challenges a government decision.

The "Chilling Effect" and Judicial Misuse: SLAPP suits often succeed because the court process itself is used as a punishment, with the goal not necessarily being to win, but to deter public participation through "fear, intimidation, [or] mounting legal costs". 

Now, let us consider what COURTS in Malaysia should do according to COURT RULES to ensure justice be done... 

In administering any of the Rules herein, the Court or a Judge shall have regard to the justice of the particular case and not only to the technical non-compliance of any of the rules herein.(Rule 1A Rules of the Court of Appeal, 1994)

A Court or Judge shall not allow any preliminary objection by any party only on the ground of non-compliance of any of these Rules unless the Court or Judge is of the opinion that such noncompliance has occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice.(Rule 3A Rules of the Court of Appeal, 1994)  

'Courts generally adhere to the principle that cases should be decided on their merits—the substantive rights and evidence of the parties—rather than on technical miscompliance or procedural imperfections. While procedural rules are necessary for orderly administration, they are considered handmaidens of justice, not rigid masters.' 

In some jurisdictions, Courts is not bothered whether the form of application used is not the right one, or that it was even filed out of time > Once a matter is bought to the attention of the court - the Courts will proceed to hear it on the merits...in the interest of justice...

But the problem in many jurisdictions, it all depends on the JUDGES - some will 'knock it out' based on technical non-compliance(like wrong mode, out of time, etc), some will focus on JUSTICE and will proceed to hear the case on the merits...

Applicant has filed in an application for Judicial Review pursuant to Order 53 Rules of Court 2012 to challenge the validity of a planning permission dated 28 January 2023 ("the planning permission") granted by the 2nd and 3rd Respondent for the construction and development of a Permanent Disposal Facility (PDF) for Water Leach Purification (WLP) waste on the land known as Mukim Sungai Karang. ...it is an inescapable conclusion that Applicant does not have a locus standi in this suit and this application is filed way out of time. Besides that, the Planning Permission granted was in accordance to law and this court has decided to dismiss the Applicant's application with cost.

Although the Applicant contended that he was only notified of the Planning Permission on 21 April 2022 and this application was filed on 18 July 2022 (3 months shy of the last day prescribe under the Order) it does not necessarily amount to prompt action in filing. The Applicant did not provide any sort of explanation as to why there was a delay in the filing of this application. [19] Furthermore, the Planning permission was granted on 28 January 2022 and this application was made approximately 6 months after the permission was granted.

COMMENT :- Odd, because, in my opinion, did he not file within 3 months from the date he was notified of the Planning Permission?

'The Applicant in this suit is a private person who has filed this application not under the capacity of public interest but under the individual capacity being the chairperson of SMSL and a resident of Kuantan Pahang. The Applicant is also not a person who is living or has any beneficial interest of the lands close to the Development. The Applicant lives approximately 28 kilometers away from the Development site.' (From the High Court Judgment)  Was it right for the court for the Court to conclude that Tan was not 'person must be adversely affected by that a particular decision of a public authority to be able to apply for any sort of Judicial Review.'

COMMENT: I think this was WRONG - for here we are talking about a RARE EARTH PDF - and the risk is environmental pollution and health risks. If there is a LEAKAGE, would it NOT IMPACT people living hundreds of miles away - if they consume food, plants, livestock and river/sea food - that may be affected if the PDF leaks and the land/sea/river is affected in the future - they would all be adversely affected, in my opinion.

IN Malaysia, most building plans are approved by the Local Government/Council, who also is duty bound to ensure that all homes/buildings are build in accordance to law and the standards - but then after a few years, many people have seen cracks and 'problems' in their homes/buildings appear... This reality itself makes it all the more necessary that COURTS ensure that planning permission and total compliance of such permission is proper and up to standard...more so for PDF for rare earth waste.

Of greater concern, was when the Court said there was no need for compliance with Section 20A and 20B of TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1976  

When both the sections are read together it is crystal clear that the Planning permission granted by the 2nd Respondent does not fall within this provision thus there is no mandatory obligation to seek the advice from NPCC.

[39] This is solely for the reason that, Sections 20A and 20(B) of TCPA only applies to developments proposed by the Federal and State Departments or agencies and not developments proposed by third parties i.e. the 3rd Respondent.... The development in this case is a private development on a private land which is solely dedicated for the use of a private company which is the Intervener in this suit.

This is NOT good - the higher standards in Federal Law should be complied with especially when it concerns RARE EARTH... 

It is STRANGE when the High decided not to do a JUDICIAL REVIEW on the grounds of LOCUS STANDI, and that the application was (late?) then goes on to look and seemingly approve what MAJLIS BANDARAYA KUANTAN  did... If the Court was going into the merits, it should have proceeded with a FULL Judicial Review > not refuse the Judicial Review applications and then make comments that suggests NO WRONG done by the Local Government. 

Was the High Court and now the Court of Appeal INDEPENDENT, or did it demonstrate a BIAS in favour of government?  

If the people finds court BIASED in favour of government - this is BAD, for Courts must always strive to be independent - more so in cases of persons against GOVERNMENT..

Now, a big problem in Malaysia is JUDGES and COURTS - there is NOT enough...

 

As of early 2026, Malaysia has a ratio of approximately
one superior court judge for every 239,852 people, according to Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat (via Wan Ahmad Farid). With a population of around 36 million, this low ratio has been highlighted as insufficient to handle the surging caseload, which saw a 59.54% increase in civil cases and 63.37% in criminal cases between 2021 and November 2025. 

  • Australia: ~1 superior court judge for every 124,000 people.
  • Canada: ~1 superior court judge for every 47,000 people.
  • Need for Increase: The Chief Justice noted the need for more judges to avoid exceeding the natural limit of workload capacity, which impacts the well-being of judges and the quality of decisions
  • Judges should hear case on the MERITS - and avoid disposing cases on technicalities. QUOTA pressures in judges should be removed.

    JUDGES must not DETER people using the COURTS by high COST and Damage awards - Courts must be an 'equitable battle field' for everyone - MONEY should never be a deterrent - do not forget Minimum Wage is RM1,700 - so high COST or Damages is unjust for the poorer persons/entities.

    Courts must oppose SLAPP actions - and not be seen as using any 'SLAPP' elements to DETER people using the Courts to get JUSTICE 

    Now, the Judicial Review application concerning the planning permission granted by the Kuantan Local Government/Council has NOT YET proceeded - because it was 'late' in filing and Tan did not have 'Locus Standi' - we will never know whether the PLANNING PERMISSION had errors or not... or may be invalid... CERTAINLY not comforting for many... ??? 

    Court of Appeal dismisses activist’s challenge to Lynas permanent disposal facility planning approval

    The Court of Appeal today dismissed an activist’s appeal challenging the planning permission granted to Lynas Malaysia Sdn Bhd to construct a permanent disposal facility in Gebeng, Pahang. — Reuters pic
    The Court of Appeal today dismissed an activist’s appeal challenging the planning permission granted to Lynas Malaysia Sdn Bhd to construct a permanent disposal facility in Gebeng, Pahang. — Reuters pic

    PUTRAJAYA, March 9 — The Court of Appeal today dismissed an activist’s appeal challenging the planning permission granted to Lynas Malaysia Sdn Bhd to construct a permanent disposal facility (PDF) in Gebeng, Pahang.

    A three-member panel led by Federal Court Judge Datuk Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali, sitting with Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Jaffril and Datuk Ong Chee Kwan, ordered Tan Bun Teet to pay RM25,000 in legal costs to each of the respondents — the Pahang State Planning Committee, the Kuantan City Council (MBK), Gading Senggara Sdn Bhd and Lynas Malaysia.

    Delivering the court’s unanimous decision, Justice Ong said Tan failed to file the judicial review promptly as required under Order 53 Rule 3 (6) of the Rules of the Court 2012.

    He said the provision requires a judicial review application to be filed within three months from the date when the grounds of the application first arose or when the decision is first communicated.

    However, he said, Tan filed his judicial review beyond the three-month time limit.

    Justice Ong said that the court also agreed with Gading Senggara’s counsel’s argument that the planning permission complied with the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (TCPA) and was in accordance with the Kuantan District Local Plan 2035.

    “At this stage, the PDF facility is completed and fully operational, and its safety, environmental and radiological compliance has been affirmed with no further statutory challenge”, he said

    On May 30 2023, the Kuantan High Court dismissed Tan’s judicial review application to challenge the permission granted to Lynas Malaysia to build the PDF.

    Tan had filed the judicial review application to challenge MBK’s authorisation for the construction of the PDF for radioactive waste. He named the Pahang State Planning Committee, MBK, Gading Senggara Sdn Bhd and Lynas Malaysia as respondents in the judicial review.

    In his application, Tan sought the court’s declaration that the planning permission granted by MBK to contractor Gading Senggara was allegedly done without complying with the mandatory provisions of the TCPA, rendering the planning permission void.

    Tan, who is chairman of the environmentalist group Save Malaysia, Stop Lynas, also sought a court order to quash the planning permission for the construction of the PDF.

    At the Court of Appeal proceedings today, which were held online, a team of lawyers led by M.Thayalan represented Tan, while assistant state legal adviser Munirah Shamsudin @ Baharum appeared for the Pahang State Planning Committee. Lawyer Rosnah Faisal acted for MBK, Lawyer B. Thangaraj represented Gading Senggara and Lawyer Tan Sri Cecil Abraham represented Lynas Malaysia. — Bernama, Malay Mail, 9/3/2026

     



    THE HIGH JUDGMENT


    [2023] CLJU 1860
    [2023] 1 LNS 1860




    TAN BUN TEET v. JAWATANKUASA PERANCANG NEGERI PAHANG & ORS
    HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUANTAN
    ZAINAL AZMAN AB AZIZ J
    [APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW NO: CA-25-5-07/2022]
    14 SEPTEMBER 2023






    Case(s) referred to:

    Duli Yang Amat Mulia Tunku Ibrahim Ismail Ibni Sultan Iskandar Al-Haj v. Datuk Captain Hamzah Mohd Noor & Another Appeal [2009]
           4 CLJ 329

    Kijal Resort Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Kemaman & Anor [2015] 3 CLJ 861; [2016] 1 MLJ 544

    Ahmad Jefri bin Mohd Jahri @ Md Johari v. Pengarah Kebudayaan & Kesenian Johor & Ors [2010] 3 MLJ 145; [2010]
           1 MLRA 524; [2010] 5 CLJ 865

    Finn-Kelcev v. Milton Keynes Council [2008] EWCA Civ 1067

    Malaysian Trade Union Congress & Ors v. Menteri Tenaga, Air dan Komunikasi & Anor [2014] 2 CLJ 525; [2014] 3 MLJ 145


    Legislation referred to:

    Town and Country Planning Act 1976, ss. 20A, 20B(1), 21(6), (7), (8), 22(2A), (4)

    Federal Constitution, art. 5

    Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 rr. 2 (4), 3(6)




    Counsel:

    For the applicant - Gurdial Singh Nijar, Meenakshi Raman, Jessica Ram Binwani, Theivanai Amarthalingam, Abraham Au & Lalith Kumar (Pupils in Chamber); M/s Theiva Lingam

    For the 1st respondent - Munirah Shamsudin @ Baharum, Assistant Legal Adviser; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Pahang

    For the 2nd respondent - Natasha Aida Zulkifli; M/s Rosnah Faisal & Associates

    For the 3rd respondent - Thangaraj Balasundram & Nadeem Rafiq; M/s Thangaraj & Associates

    For the intervener - Tan Sri Cecil Abraham; M/s Cecil Abraham & Partners





    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUANTAN

    IN THE STATE OF PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR

    [APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW NO: CA-25-5-07/2022]


    In the matter of an application for planning permission for the development of a Permanent Disposal Facility (PDF) on Lot 31375, Mukim Sungai Karang, Daerah Kecil Gebeng, Kuantan, Pahang submitted on 08.12.2021

    And

    In the matter of the grant of planning permission for the development of a Permanent Disposal Facility (PDF) on Lot 31375, Mukim Sungai Karang, Daerah Kecil Gebeng, Kuantan, Pahang by the Majlis Bandaraya Kuantan on 28.01.2022

    And

    In the matter of communication of the grant of planning permission by way of letter from the Majlis Bandaraya Kuantan to the Applicant dated 21.04.2022

    And

    In the matter of Sections 20B, 22(2A) (b) and 22(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976

    And

    In the matter of Order 53, Rules of Court 2012

    And

    In the matter of Order 92 Rule 4 Rules of Court 2012

    BETWEEN

    TAN BUN TEET

    [IC NO: 480425-06-5121]

    ... APPLICANT

    AND

    1. JAWATANKUASA PERANCANG NEGERI PAHANG


    2. MAJLIS BANDARAYA KUANTAN


    3. GADING SENGGARA SDN BHD

    [COMPANY NO.: 201201026064

    (1010554-M)]

    ... RESPONDENTS

    AND

    LYNAS MALAYSIA SDN BHD

    [COMPANY NO: 200601032530(752289-D)]

    ... INTERVENER

    GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

    INTRODUCTION

    [1] Applicant has filed in an application for Judicial Review pursuant to Order 53 Rules of Court 2012 to challenge the validity of a planning permission dated 28 January 2023 ("the planning permission") granted by the 2nd and 3rd Respondent for the construction and development of a Permanent Disposal Facility (PDF) for Water Leach Purification (WLP) waste on the land known as Mukim Sungai Karang. Having perused the Judicial Review application, all the affidavits and written submissions filed by all parties, this Court has dismissed the Judicial Review application with cost.

    [2] The Applicant at all material times is an individual who resides approximately 28km away from the said Land in dispute. The Applicant is a chair person of an informal and unregistered action committee known as Save Malaysia Stop Lynas ("SMSL").

    [3] The 1st Respondent is the Planning authority of the State of Pahang which carries the duty to give directions to the local planning authority and the local planning authority shall give effect to those directions.

    [4] The 2nd Respondent is the local planning authority for Kuantan who regulates, control and plans the development and use of lands and buildings within the municipality of Kuantan. The 2nd Respondent will prepare a draft local plan for an area after considering any directions given by 1st Respondent for the approval of the 1st Respondent.

    [5] The 3rd Respondent is the beneficial owner of the Land who has been engaged by the Intervener to carry out a Development known as "PEMBANGUNAN PERINDUSTRIAN (KEMUDAHAN PELUPUSAN KEKAL), DI ATAS SEBAHAGIAN LOT 31375 (PN19314), DAERAH KECIL GEBENG, DAERAH KUANTAN, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR ("the Development").

    [6] Dissatisfied with the Planning Permission that was granted, the Applicant has filed this Judicial Review application. The main contention brought by the Applicant in this application is that the planning permission that was granted by the 2nd and 3rd Respondent does not comply with the mandatory provisions of Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (TCPA 1976), including but not limited to Section 20B and/or Section 22(2A) and/or Section 22(4).

    [7] Before indulging into the issues that was raised by the Applicant in this application, this court would like to delve into the preliminary issues that were raised by the Respondents ie; the time frame of filing the Judicial Review and also the issue on Locus Standi of the Applicant in this suit.

    TIME FRAME OF FILING A JUDICIAL REVIEW

    [8] It is a trite law that every Judicial Review application shall be filed within three (3) months' time. The provision of Order 53 Rule 3(6) of the Rules of Court ("ROC") is as follows:

    "An application for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when the grounds of application first arose or when the decision is first communicated to the applicant."

    [9] The word "shall" in the abovementioned provision requires a mandatory compliance. This honorable courts refers to the Federal Court case of Duli Yang Amat Mulia Tunku Ibrahim Ismail Ibni Sultan Iskandar Al-Haj v. Datuk Captain Hamzah Mohd Noor & Another Appeal [2009] 4 CLJ 329 where it was decided that:

    "[35] Even if the word must is to be construed as having the same effect as shall nevertheless it still make compliance with the prerequisites mandatory."

    [10] Thus, the failure of the applicant to comply with the mandatory time frame provided by Order 53 Rule 3 (6) is considered fatal for this application.

    [11] This court is further guided by the string of cases that were referred by the Respondents in their submissions whereby in the Federal court case of Kijal Resort Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Kemaman & Anor [2015] 3 CLJ 861; [2016] 1 MLJ 544 that has decided that:

    "A prompt action to apply for a judicial review is therefore necessary, for non-compliance with the requirement, as to the time frame to file the application would result in the court not having jurisdiction to hear the application right from beginning."

    [12] This case perfectly explains the situation where if the time frame is not complied with, it goes directly to the jurisdiction of the judge in hearing the application itself. Thus, this court strictly upholds the decision made by the Federal Court.

    [13] The rationale for the rigid approach taken by the courts with regards to the time frame of filing Judicial Review is laid down in the case of Ahmad Jefri bin Mohd Jahri @ Md Johari v. Pengarah Kebudayaan & Kesenian Johor & Ors [2010] 3 MLJ 145; [2010] 1 MLRA 524; [2010] 5 CLJ 865 where it was held by the Federal Court as follow:

    "[16] One may ask what is the purpose of these conditions? The basic objective is to protect those entrusted with the enforcement of public duties 'against groundless, unmeritorious or tardy harassment that were accorded to statutory tribunals or decision making public authoritie s by O. 53, and which might have resulted in the summary, and would in any event have resulted in the speedy disposition of the application, is among the matters fit to be taken into consideration by the judge in deciding whether to exercise his discretion by refusing to grant a declaration."

    [14] The Applicant in this suit has filed this application for Judicial Review together with the prayer to be granted the extension of time to file the Judicial Review. This court is reluctant in granting any further extension of time is because no cogent reason was tendered before this Court as to the delay on filing the said application

    [15] This court find no evidence on which to satisfy the court that the Applicant had a good reason for failing to file the application for leave for judicial review within time. There is nothing advanced by the Applicant to show that he had a good reason, or any reason at all, for that matter, for failing to the file the application promptly apart from the vague fact that the Planning Permission was only communicated to the Applicant by way of letter dated 21 April 2022.

    [16] It is well established that public law remedies must be pursued with dispatch and so, time is of the essence. For the exercise of the Judge's discretion in granting the extension of time, at least one good reason would be good enough.

    [17] This court is of the view that the Applicant at all material times did not apply for the judicial revision promptly and this court is guided by the authority referred by the 3rd Respondent in their submission. Whereby, the words "promptly" and "within three months" under Order 53 rule 3(6) of ROC 2012 are separate and independent of one another and it should not be assumed that filing a judicial review application within three months' time necessarily amounts to filing the judicial review promptly. In this regards reference is made to the case of Finn-Kelcev v. Milton Keynes Council [2008] EWCA Civ 1067.

    [18] Although the Applicant contended that he was only notified of the Planning Permission on 21 April 2022 and this application was filed on 18 July 2022 (3 months shy of the last day prescribe under the Order) it does not necessarily amount to prompt action in filing. The Applicant did not provide any sort of explanation as to why there was a delay in the filing of this application.

    [19] Furthermore, the Planning permission was granted on 28 January 2022 and this application was made approximately 6 months after the permission was granted.

    [20] The Applicant himself has admitted that he has knowledge with regards to the construction of the Development since October 2021 where the Applicant has participated in the public participation process and submitted the applicant's comments on the EIA Report (paragraph 9.9 (k) of the Affidavit in Support).

    [21] The Applicant has also filed a Notice of Appeal on 27 January 2022 to appeal against the decision of the Director General Environmental Quality of the Department of Environment who approved the EIA Report ("the EIA Appeal").

    [22] By having the knowledge of the development since October 2021 and by having taken certain legal actions to dismiss the approval on EIA report, it is impossible to say that the Applicant does not have knowledge of the Planning Permission.

    [23] Since the approval of the EIA Report is a prerequisite to the granting of the Planning Permission, the Applicant at all material times would be able to anticipate the granting of the Planning Permission.

    [24] Thus, it could be concluded that, though having full knowledge or could have, with little to no diligence have full knowledge of the Planning permission, the Applicant has failed to file this Judicial Review promptly and within the reasonable time frame.

    THE APPLICANT HAS NO LOCUS STANDI TO FILE THE JUDICIAL REVIEW

    [25] The locus standi of a person filing for Judicial Review has been provided under Order 53 rule 2 (4) ROC as follows;

    "(4) Any person who is adversely affected by the decision, action or omission in relation to the exercise of the public duty or function shall be entitled to make the application."

    [26] Emphasis should be added to the part where a person must be adversely affected by that a particular decision of a public authority to be able to apply for any sort of Judicial Review.

    [27] The Applicant in this suit is a private person who has filed this application not under the capacity of public interest but under the individual capacity being the chairperson of SMSL and a resident of Kuantan Pahang. The Applicant is also not a person who is living or has any beneficial interest of the lands close to the Development. The Applicant lives approximately 28 kilometers away from the Development site.

    [28] For the applicant to have Locus Standi in this matter, he must be able to proof to this court that he is adversely affected by the decision made by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents' in granting the Planning Permission.

    [29] This honorable court is guided by the Federal Court case of Malaysian Trade Union Congress & Ors v. Menteri Tenaga, Air dan Komunikasi & Anor [2014] 2 CLJ 525; [2014] 3 MLJ 145 where it has clearly explained the adversely affected test:

    "(2) In order for an applicant to pass the 'adversely affected test', the applicant had to show he had a real and genuine interest in the subject matter, which was different from the 'sufficient interest ' test applied to English cases under the English Supreme Court Rules 1977. As the second to fourteenth appellants had not made a request for access to the two documents, they were clearly strangers to the application by MTUC for disclosure of and access to the two documents. Hence, the majority of the Court of Appeal had correctly decided that the decision of the Minister in rejecting MTUC's application did not make the second to fourteenth appellants persons who were 'adversely affected' by the Minister's decision. The second to 14thappellants had not satisfied the test of threshold locus standi under O. 53 r. 2(4) of the ROC and as such they were not entitled to the reliefs sought in their application."

    [30] In this case, the Applicant has failed to proof to this court that he is adversely affected by the decision made by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents' in granting the Planning Permission. The Applicant has failed to satisfy the test to show he had a real and genuine interest in the subject matter.

    [31] The applicant is not someone who is living within the close proximity of the Development nor does he have any beneficial interest over the land or any other neighbouring land within the meaning of Section 21(6), (7) and/or (8) of the TCPA 1976. The mere contention brought by the Applicant that the Development will allegedly cause harm or impact the lives, livelihood and/or the environment was also not supported with any sort of evidence. Therefore, the argument with regards of breach of Article 5 of the Federal Constitution will not be entertained by this Court by failure to prove such contention for this court further consideration.

    [32] This court strongly believes that the Applicant is not someone who is adversely affected by the decision that is made by the 2nd and 3rd Respondent which in turn ultimately proofs that the Applicant is not someone who has a Locus Standi in this matter. The Applicant has failed to proof that he has any recognized legal right which has been infringed.

    [33] When the Applicant does not have a Locus Standi pursuant to Order 53 rule 2 (4) ROC, this results in the Judicial Review application being a non-starter itself.

    [34] A strict approach in defining Locus Standi in this matter is necessary to avoid any sort of application with an individual's interest to be heard in this court in disguise of a public interest.

    [35] Based on the abovementioned grounds alone, this Judicial Review application that is filed by the Applicant is ought to be set aside by this court.

    THE PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 20B AND SECTION 22(2A) OF TCPA 1976

    [36] This Court is of the view that there is no mandatory obligation for the Respondent's to seek advice from the NPPC and it is definitely misconstrued by the Applicant.

    [37] This is because it could be clearly under stood that Section 20A of the TCPA should be read together with Section 20B to understand the whole intention behind the provision.

    [38] When both the sections are read together it is crystal clear that the Planning permission granted by the 2nd Respondent does not fall within this provision thus there is no mandatory obligation to seek the advice from NPCC.

    [39] This is solely for the reason that, Sections 20A and 20(B) of TCPA only applies to developments proposed by the Federal and State Departments or agencies and not developments proposed by third parties i.e. the 3rd Respondent.

    [40] Besides that, only proposal listed under Section 20B (1) of TCP requires the Federal and State Departments or agencies to seek advice from the NPPC.

    [41] It is clear that those sections do not apply to this case as this case does not involves major national infrastructure as per mentioned under Section 20(B)(1) of TCPA. The development in this case is a private development on a private land which is solely dedicated for the use of a private company which is the Intervener in this suit.

    [42] This court is of the view that the applicant has misconstrued the intention and meaning of the sections mentioned above. Thus, this application should be set aside by this court.

    [43] Besides that, the applicant also referred to Section 22(2A) of TCPA whereby this provision also has emphasized on circumstances in which the advice of the NPPC is needed. This court has concluded that both the sections referred by the applicants does not apply to the development and the planning permission granted by the 2nd Respondent. The applicant has wholly misplaced, erroneous and without any basis made these contentions.

    [44] There is no statutory duty imposed on the 2nd Respondent to give reasons for granting the 3rd Respondent the Planning Permission under the TCPA.

    CONCLUSION

    [45] In the light of the authorities and reasoning, it is an inescapable conclusion that Applicant does not have a locus standi in this suit and this application is filed way out of time. Besides that, the Planning Permission granted was in accordance to law and this court has decided to dismiss the Applicant's application with cost.

    (ZAINAL AZMAN AB AZIZ)

    Judge

    High Court Malaya of Kuantan

    Pahang Darul Makmur

    Dated: 14 SEPTEMBER 2023

    [2023] 1 LNS 1860