Thursday, September 17, 2026

#HentiBungkamNGO: Non-Government Organisations Strongly Condemn Repression of Civil Society Voices (89 Groups)

Press Release
14 September 2026

#HentiBungkamNGO: Non-Government Organisations Strongly Condemn Repression of Civil Society Voices


We, the undersigned non-government organisations (NGOs), civil society organisations (CSOs), community-based organisations (CBOs), student groups, activists, and members of civil society, strongly condemn the heavy-handed investigative measures taken against MANDIRI and HAYAT this month; freezing the personal bank accounts of MANDIRI Directors Amir Hadi and Dobby Chew, and the organisational bank accounts of MANDIRI and HAYAT, as well as the travel restrictions placed on Amir Hadi and Dobby Chew barring them from leaving the country. These actions are the latest in a pattern of repressive actions taken against civil society this year, and are a frightening vision of a Malaysia in regression to its darkest days.

Background

In May 2026, unsubstantiated attacks against MANDIRI surfaced online alleging that the organisation had received foreign funding to conduct political and disinformation activities with the alleged objective of destabilising the administration and ultimately bringing down Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. These attacks were amplified by then Chief of Angkatan Muda Keadilan and Political Secretary to Anwar Ibrahim, Muhammad Kamil Abdul Munim - who issued a formal media statement linking the issue to allegations of foreign interference, national sovereignty and national security. Kamil also urged the authorities to invoke the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing, Anti-Restricted Activity Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLA) in investigating the allegations.

Following public criticism of Kamil’s statement, Kamil subsequently shifted the emphasis towards alleged misuse or misappropriation of funds, stating that the concern was not foreign funding itself. Lawyers acting for MANDIRI and Amir Hadi issued a letter of demand to Kamil demanding that Kamil retract the allegations, issue a public apology and publish the retraction and apology publicly. Kamil declined to comply with the demands. MANDIRI and Amir subsequently commenced defamation proceedings against Kamil. The case remains pending before the courts.

From the outset, MANDIRI publicly stated that it had committed no wrongdoing and was fully prepared to cooperate with any legitimate investigation. Despite the seriousness of the allegations and public calls for action by enforcement agencies, for months neither MANDIRI nor its directors or staff were summoned or questioned by PDRM, MACC, Bank Negara Malaysia or other relevant authorities concerning these allegations. No criminal charges, regulatory findings or other adverse findings were made against MANDIRI or its personnel during this period.

In September 2026, Amir Hadi and Dobby Chew were informed that both had been barred from travelling outside Malaysia. At the time the travel restrictions were discovered, neither Amir nor Dobby had been called in for questioning concerning any allegations of wrongdoing. To this day, Amir and Dobby have not been provided with a clear explanation as to why the travel restrictions had been imposed or the precise allegations forming the basis of the action.

Subsequently in the same month, it was discovered that the personal bank accounts of Amir Hadi and Dobby Chew, together with the organisational bank accounts of MANDIRI and HAYAT, had been frozen

The freezing of the accounts represented a significant escalation from the allegations that first emerged in May. This development is particularly concerning given that Kamil had specifically urged the authorities to use AMLA in relation to MANDIRI in the statement issued on 17 May 2026.

The freezing of the organisational accounts also has consequences beyond Amir and Dobby. It affects the ability of MANDIRI and HAYAT to carry out ordinary and legitimate organisational obligations, including payment of salaries, programme expenditure and other operational commitments.

Risk of repressing civil society voices

To date, no formal notice or explanation has been given to any of the parties involved regarding the basis for the freezing of accounts or the travel bans. None of the parties have been summoned for questioning regarding any investigations by any regulatory or enforcement agency, which calls into question the legitimacy of these measures. The logic of a travel ban, for instance, is to ensure that persons do not abscond from the country and will be able to assist with an investigation. So why has the government restricted Amir and Dobby from leaving Malaysia without summoning them for questioning? Additionally, none of the parties involved received any formal notice of the account freezing orders made against them. They were only informed of the basis for the freezing of their accounts through a letter from their bank.

We acknowledge that harsh measures such as the freezing of bank accounts and travel bans may be necessary under certain circumstances to facilitate investigations into wrongdoing. But this reality must be considered in tandem with the risk of repressing civil society actors. In situations like this, we hold that the government has a greater burden to use these powers carefully and to uphold transparency to avoid clamping down on legitimate freedom of speech, expression, and association.

Broader pattern of civil society repression

The actions taken against Amir, Dobby, MANDIRI, and HAYAT are only the latest in a broader pattern of state suppression of civil society voices. Just this year, we have also seen the following:

● then CEO of C4 Center Pushpan Murugiah, along with several journalists and academics, being summoned to Bukit Aman Police Headquarters in connection to an investigation under Section 124B of the Penal Code (activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy);

environmental activist Shakila Zen from Persatuan Aktivis Sahabat Alam (KUASA) being summoned by the police over a social media post that allegedly defamed the Pahang royal institution, for an investigation under Section 500 of the Penal Code (criminal defamation) and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (improper use of network facilities); and

Faisal Abdul Aziz (Chairperson of BERSIH), Asraf Sharafi (Executive Director of BERSIH),Anas Nor’azim (Advocacy Officer of BERSIH), and Alyaah Hani (member of BERSIH Steering Committee) being banned from entering Sabah.

Taken together, these incidents paint a grim picture of freedom of speech and expression in Malaysia today. This presents a frightening vision of a Malaysia in regression, and civil society must take a stand to prevent further decline of the hard-fought freedoms we have won over the past few years. This pattern should be viewed as a canary in the coal mine for freedom of speech, and must not be a precursor of more stringent repression in the future, lest we return to the darkest days of state suppression of civil society.


Our Demands

As such, we call upon the government to provide an explanation of the grounds for
these actions to be taken against Amir, Dobby, MANDIRI, and HAYAT. This explanation must include a clear explanation of a genuine need to use such drastic measures against them, and if there is no legitimate basis, the government must lift the account freezing orders and the travel bans. These harsh measures must not be used so frivolously, as they will cause serious threats to the ability of civil society actors to perform their duty as defenders of human rights, democracy and rule of law.

Further, the government must commit to a review of the laws that enable investigative powers to be used without sufficient oversight, such as those under AMLA and the Immigration Act 1959/63. 

We call upon the government to affirm that the criminal law shall not be used to silence free speech, political dissent, and fair critique of the government.

If we wish to build a mature democratic Malaysia, the Anwar Ibrahim government cannot be allowed to reuse the same draconian tactics employed by previous administrations. We stand together in solidarity with all our impacted comrades, and stand firm against any attempts by the government to silence us.

Joint-released by:

1. Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM)
2. Agora Society Malaysia
3. All Women's Action Society (AWAM)
4. Angkatan Kesatuan Siswa Sosialis (AKSI)
5. Angkatan Kesatuan Siswa Sosialis (AKSI)
6. ARTICLE 19
7. Association of Women Lawyers (AWL)
8. Bersih Sabah
9. Beyond Borders
10. Borneo komrad
11. Buku Jalan Chow Kit
12. Cahaya Society
13. Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
14. Citizens International
15. CSO Platform for Reform
16. Demokrat UM
17. Diversity Inclusivity Equity Malaysia (DIEM)
18. Family Frontiers
19. Federasi Pemuda Kebangsaan
20. Freedom Film Network
21. Gabungan Pilihan Raya Bersih dan Adil (BERSIH)
22. Gabungan Mahasiswa Islam Se-Malaysia (GAMIS)
23. Gempur Rasuah Sabah
24. Gerakan Anak Muda Tuntut Hak Rakyat Sabah (GEGAR)
25. Gerakan Belia Sepunjabi Malaysia
26. Gerakan Perempuan Melawan
27. Greater Equitable Measures (GEM)
28. Greenpeace Malaysia
29. HAYAT
30. Himpunan Advokasi Rakyat Malaysia (HARAM)
31. Himpunan Advokasi Rakyat Malaysia(HARAM)
32. Ikatan Anak Muda Tawau (IKAT)
33. Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF)
34. JEJAKA
35. Justice for Sisters
36. Kemban Kolektif
37. KLSCAH Civil Rights Committee (KLSCAH-CRC)
38. KLSCAH Youth
39. KMUiTM
40. Kolektif Feminis Malaysia
41. Liga Mahasiswa Malaysia
42. Liga Mahasiswa UM
43. Liga Mahasiswa UniSZA
44. Liga Mahasiswa USM
45. Liga Mahasiswa UTM
46. Liga Rakyat Demokratik (LRD)
47. Malaysia East Coast Coalition of Activists (MECCA)
48. Malaysian Cannabis Awareness Association
49. Malaysian United Democratic Alliance (MUDA)
50. Malaysian Youth Generation Organisation (MYGO)
51. MANDIRI
52. MARTABAT UNTUK SEMUA PETALING JAYA
53. Mekar Club
54. MUDA Selangor Bahagian Selayang
55. Neo Siswa UM
56. New Generation Universiti Malaya
57. OHMSI Sdn Bhd
58. PACOS Trust
59. Pangrok Sulap
60. Parti Bersama Malaysia (BERSAMA)
61. Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM)
62. Persatuan Aktivis Sahabat Alam (KUASA)
63. Persatuan Kesaksamaan Demi Kedamaian Rakyat Sejagat (SEDARJAT)
64. Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (EMPOWER)
65. Pertiwi Progresif
66. Pertubuhan Mahasiswa Kongres Gombak (CONGRESS)
67. Pro-Siswa Kolej Komuniti Dan Politeknik
68. Project Stability and Accountability for Malaysia (Projek SAMA)
69. ProSiswaKkP
70. PUSAT KOMAS
71. Reformasi Mahasiswa UTM (formUTM)
72. Reproductive Rights Advocacy Alliance Malaysia (RRAAM)
73. Ruang Lawan Malaysia
74. Sekretariat Lawan Dua Darjat
75. SIS Forum (Malaysia)
76. SPARC UTEM
77. Student Against Corruption and Wrongdoings (SACAW)
78. Studio Persekutuan
79. Suara Mahasiswa UMS (SMUMS)
80. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
81. Suara Siswa UiTM
82. Tenaganita
83. Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democracy
84. TEROKA
85. The Bangsart
86. The Center To Combat Corruption And Cronyism (C4)
87. UMANY
88. UNDI18
89. Women's Aid Organisation 


Monday, September 14, 2026

Hannah Yeoh and the ROYAL PARDON - still no Federal Law that will clarify PARDON process, rights and matters related? How Hannah Yeoh and AG decide on Najib's pardon matters???

The power to grant pardons rests solely with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as provided for under the Federal Constitution, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Federal Territories) Hannah Yeoh said. 

NOT TRUE - as the King's Pardon Power is subject to the advice of the Pardons Board. Thus, ONLY if the Pardons Board decides (uncertain whether simple majority or two third majority or unanimous decision). Thus, PARDON BOARD decide and advice the KING, and the King acts as advised by the Pardons Board.

Hannah Yeoh is a member of the Pardons Board - thus, she has a say as to whether the King will pardon Najib fully and he be FREE or pardon Najib to just reduce his prison term. So, how will Hannah Yeoh DECIDE is material. Is her decision her OWN or must she follow the decision of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and/or the Cabinet? 

What about the other member of the Pardons Board - the Attorney General > will his decision be the decision of PM Anwar Ibrahim and/or the Cabinet - the government of the day > or will he have an INDEPENDENT decision - if so, based on what principles?? - repentance and good behavior? 

Hannah Yeoh is WRONG - as King has NO absolute discretion > it must be based on the ADVICE of the Pardons Board > Hannah Yeoh, AG and the 3 other members of the Pardon Board - WHAT THEY DECIDE AND ADVICE THE KING IS CRUCIAL HERE.

Many are OPPOSED to the idea of FULL PARDON for Najib > or even the idea of house arrest > so what will MINISTER Hannah Yeoh be?

Follow the Charles Hector channel on WhatsApp:
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb6UokfB4hdNugYmph1B 

 

PARDON POWERS of the KING - is a matter of concern and needed CLARIFICATION, which would be brought in through a Federal Law. 

The Federal Constitution provides for the enactment of a Federal Law that will will govern Pardon in Federal Territories - but we still do not have this Act yet

Art 42 Federal Constitution -  Power of pardon, etc. 

(3) ...For the purpose of this Clause the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, the Federal Territory of Labuan and the Federal Territory of Putrajaya, shall each be regarded as a State.

(4) The powers mentioned in this Article—

(a) are, so far as they are exercisable by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, among functions with respect to which federal law may make provision under Clause (3) of Article 40;

PARDON POWERS - some QUESTIONS remain

- when can Pardon Powers be exerciseable? As soon as the final appeal is exhausted ... or should it be after the convicted has served one third of his sentence at least - prison sentence? 

- It is 'PARDON' - so, is there a need for repentance first before Pardon powers is exerciseable as a general rule? Is Najib repentant for the CRIMES he committed? 

- Should the victim ALSO have a right to be heard by the Pardons Board and King? Let's say a RAPE VICTIM > should the victim have the RIGHT to be heard before the Pardon Board decides on a Pardon Application?

- COMPOSITION OF THE PARDON BOARD - Now, we have the Attorney General, Minister in charge or Federal Territories and THREE(3) other members of the Pardon Board - how are these 3 selected, what are the selection criteria - Does the Prime Minister decide on the 3 members, or does the KING only have the right to decide of the 3 other members of the Pardon Board?

- The Attorney General - well he is NOW picked by the Prime Minister, who also has the power to remove a AG/Public Prosecutor at any time > No Security of Tenure - thus the INDEPENDENCE of the Attorney General is in question - does he do as the PM wishes? OR....??

- The Minister too is a member of the Cabinet, and again it is the Prime Minister that picks his member of Cabinet, and decide who is Minister responsible for the Federal Territories > so does the MINISTER do as what the Prime Minister wants - or do the Minister do as what the Malaysian people does?

- Recently, in the High Court case concerning Najib's House Arrest - it became clear that the KING must act based on the decision/advise of the Pardon's Board...so the King has no power to decide whatever he wants with regard to Pardon powers... 

- We know that PARDON POWERS cannot overturn a CRIMINAL CONVICTION by Court - so, guilt or innocence MAY not be consideration for the exercise of Pardon Powers generally... so, what are consideration - good behaviour, genuine repentance, etc.. this is something that need to be settled by LAW -  

- IS the exercise of pardon dependent on who HOLDS Executive POWER. When PH came into power after GE14 - Anwar Ibrahim got a ROYAL PARDON, and in 2022, after BN decided to join PH, Najib got the benefit of the King's pardon...

- There is little PUBLIC news about KING's Pardon - how many have received the benefit of Royal Pardon, how many failed to get ROYAL Pardon - Good for Malaysians to KNOW - so make PUBLIC the full record of Royal Pardons - the number of application, the number of successful applications, the number of unsuccessful pardons - sadly almost no MEDIA reports ...and has any MP/Senator/ADUN asked about these PARDON POWERS? WHY NOT? 

- Anwar's Pardon application came up fast, and so too Najib's - Was there QUEUE JUMPING? Could the government of the day or Prime Minister expedite certain people's Pardon Application? 

Anwar also admitted submitting Najib's application for a royal pardon to the board for discussion, though he denied doing so under pressure from UMNO. "I said as soon as I receive any appeal, I requested that the pardons board discuss it," he said. (Reuters,

THUS, if you wanted the FT Pardon Board and KING to consider you petition for Pardon, should the application be DIRECTED to the Prime Minister? Minister in charge of FT, Hannah Yeoh, should satisfy people's doubt - how many Pardon applications have been dealt with by the FT Pardons Board and King since you became Minister, or since Anwar Ibrahim became Prime Minister? 

The date of the announcement for Najib Razak's partial royal pardon and sentence reduction was February 2, 2024The Decision: The Federal Territories Pardons Board officially announced on this date that it had halved his 12-year prison sentence to 6 years and slashed his fine from RM210 million to RM50 million.... Is it right for the Pardons Board to CONSIDER again Najib's pardon so soon... about 2 years later???
# There is a DIFFERENCE between Anwar's pardon and Najib's Pardon. In Anwar's case, he had already served his full sentence ... BUT Najib's had just started serving his 12 year sentence...
# Another difference was the nature of the CRIME - For Anwar, it was CONSENSUAL SODOMY (a private offence between consenting adults that should really be abolished as a CRIME) - but in the case of NAJIB it was a very serious CRIME - and abuse of TRUST of the people when the CRIME was committed by a sitting Prime Minister and Finance Minister > that cost Malaysians and Malaysia about RM50 Billion plus... (if we include the recent IMDB judgment???) 

Sec 377(for which Anwar was convicted) was declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by Indian Supreme Court(see judgment) - Time for Malaysia to REPEAL 377B - but RETAIN 'Non-Consensual' SODOMY(s. 377C), which is akin to RAPE as a crime?

NOW, for me, the worst crimes are CRIMES committed by the Prime Minister, Ministers and members of the Cabinet and their political secretaries, and other political appointees > as this directly is a SERIOUS breach of trust of the people. They are given the TRUST to govern and manage Malaysian people's monies - and then they ABUSE these powers for personal benefit and enrichment... 
NOW, many of the CRIMES of abuse of power, corruption and... focus on whether the 'criminals' benefited personally by getting monies... CRIMES must be expended because many a times it is not just personal enrichment by getting monies > but also 'gifts' of position, power and monies to their 'cronies' and political 'friends'...
Tabung Haji, FELDA and other GLCs suffer losses simply because Ministers appoint 'friends' unqualified and unskilled in business/investments - thus, if the result is LOSSES - should not the Ministers themselves be criminally liable ... at least for NEGLIGENCE CRIMES. 
Should crimes of MINISTERS not be subject to PARDON? We, Malaysians, have the power to decide on this...
NAJIB - he was just found guilty on the 1MDB case >>   Najib was ordered in the 1MDB trial to serve 15 years’ of jail time simultaneously; and was fined RM11.38 billion for power abuse, and fined a separate RM2.08 billion for money laundering.
So, if he is granted full pardon for the SRC case - he may be out a free man and maybe even allowed to contest in the upcoming General Elections. As happened in the SRC case, he was granted a stay of execution of sentence and finally ended up going to prison only after Najib's final appeal to Federal Court failed. 
So, will Najib against be free in this 1MDB case - until the Court of Appeal and finally the Federal Court hear his appeal...
Is this current PARDON application just on the SRC case or does it also include the recent 1MDB case conviction and sentence?
Did PM Anwar, as he did in the SRC case pardon application, also push for the Pardons Board to consider this new pardon application?
THUS, is POLITICS - or the agreement that BN will continue to support Anwar until the next GE the reason for this new Pardon application > if YES, I will be most disappointed with Anwar and PH???  
How Hannah Yeoh and the AG decide on Najib's pardon is of great concern... remember the KING can only pardon if the PARDONS BOARD agrees to pardon Najib... the King is required to act on the advice of the Pardons Board...???
ANOTHER IRONY - Najib may be continuing to receive Pension as former PM/Finance Minister, MP...etc - HOW MUCH Federal Pension are we continuing to pay Najib? How much Pahang State pension is Najib receiving today? 
I believe that that when PM, Ministers and public officers are convicted of CRIMES - the sentence should extend to their government PENSIONS - it should be cancelled or at least reduced to NO MORE than RM3,000 per month??? The RIGHT to multiple PENSION must also be abolished > right to receive just ONE government pension... 

Hannah Yeoh: King has sole power to grant pardons

By Noel Achariam
September 12, 2026 @ 6:05pm
facebook sharing button
twitter sharing button
whatsapp sharing button

KUALA LUMPUR: The power to grant pardons rests solely with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as provided for under the Federal Constitution, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Federal Territories) Hannah Yeoh said.

She said any further clarification on the matter had already been detailed in a media statement released by the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister's Department.

"I have no authority to discuss or issue statements on behalf of the Pardons Board.

"I can only state that I was present (at the meeting) together with the Attorney-General. That is all," she told reporters when met today at the launch of Fiesta Pasar Malam.

When asked when the Pardons Board would convene its next meeting, Yeoh said members of the board would be notified accordingly.

"We will be informed. When the meeting is convened, that is all I can answer.

"The absolute power to grant pardons belongs to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, so we have to wait," she said. - NST., 12/9/2026

  

Judge: Najib’s lack of remorse, role in siphoning 1MDB money were factors when deciding his jail, RM13b sentence

The need to prevent others from doing crime is a more important factor than Datuk Seri Najib Razak's public service record when deciding on his 1MDB sentence, the 1MDB trial judge said. — Bernama pic
The need to prevent others from doing crime is a more important factor than Datuk Seri Najib Razak's public service record when deciding on his 1MDB sentence, the 1MDB trial judge said. — Bernama pic

KUALA LUMPUR, June 16 — How did the High Court decide on how many years to imprison and how much to fine former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak in the RM2.2 billion 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) trial?

Trial judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah, who is now a Federal Court judge, today released his 809-page judgment that listed in detail why he had found Najib guilty of all 25 charges in the case.

Ultimately, Najib was ordered in the 1MDB trial to serve 15 years’ of jail time simultaneously; and was fined RM11.38 billion for power abuse, and fined a separate RM2.08 billion for money laundering.

Among other things, the judge said preventing crime would be an more important factor than Najib’s public service, and also said Najib had not shown remorse for his crimes.

Here’s Malay Mail’s quick summary of what the 1MDB trial judge considered when deciding on Najib’s sentence on December 26, 2025, based on the 809-page written decision:

The judge said “public interest” is the most important factor in deciding on the sentence, which includes deterring or discouraging others from committing crime, and also discouraging convicted offenders from doing crime again.

One key theme is the need for deterrence: “This is basically, the sending of a message out from the court that if you are prepared to do the crime, then be also prepared to pay the price for it by spending the time in prison.”

1MDB trial judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah said Najib was not a ‘humble employee’, but a person in exalted position who abused and betrayed the trust placed in him. — Picture by Yusof Isa

What factors did the judge consider?  

1. The crime’s serious implications to society  

Judge said 1MDB, which was founded in 2009 to promote Malaysia’s economic growth, instead became the “centre of one of the largest financial corruption and money laundering scandals in modern history”.

“The repercussions and consequences arising from the fallout of the scandal is still ongoing and there are current financial obligations that still need to be fulfilled. This will impact future generations of Malaysians as well,” the judge said, referring to the prime minister’s December 2, 2025 parliamentary remarks that around RM13 billion of 1MDB debt remains outstanding.

2. 1MDB financial scandal’s damage to Malaysia’s reputation 

The judge said the complex web of financial transactions in the 1MDB case resulted in “colossal” financial losses, and “severe and enduring financial consequences” for Malaysia.

“It was described internationally as being ‘kleptocracy at its worst’, an unwanted blemish on the record of our beloved country’s otherwise sterling reputation on the world stage,” the judge said. 

3. Najib’s abuse and betrayal of the trust given to him in his ‘exalted positions’  

“At the heart of this scandal, stood not a humble employee of an organisation who saw an opportunity to exploit a flaw in the system, but a man exalted and who held the highest reins of power,” the judge said, referring to Najib.

The judge said Najib had simultaneously held three positions (prime minister, finance minister, 1MDB board of advisers’ chairman), used and exploited those positions to act and influence the 1MDB board “to carry out certain abnormal transactions with unholy haste”.

4. Najib’s previous conviction in the RM42 million SRC case, which involves a similar offence to that in the 1MDB trial

5. Najib’s nearly 47 years of public service and previous service as prime minister 

But does Najib’s record of public service and contribution to the nation outweigh his breach of the trust given to him?

The judge said no, and stressed the more important need to discourage people from doing crime:

”After taking into account all these factors including the magnitude of the crime both in terms of the colossal sums involved and magnitude and scale of the repercussions from the scandal, including the ongoing financial obligations of the nation for the present and future generations, this court is of the view that a deterrent sentence is called for and this therefore outweighs the public service record and contribution to the service of the nation by the accused.”

6. Najib’s blaming of others for 1MDB scandal, lack of remorse  

“This court has also to rightfully consider that the accused has not exhibited or displayed any remorse for the offences committed, having chosen instead to attach the blame for this scandal to others including the management of 1MDB.”

The judge instead said evidence in court clearly showed that Najib had orchestrated the siphoning of money from 1MDB through his proxy Low Taek Jho’s deception, and had worked “hand in hand” with and through Low to make a complex web of transactions which resulted in 1MDB funds eventually reaching Najib’s private bank account.

Before the judge decided on Najib’s sentence, his legal team had tried to argue that Najib did show remorse through his son’s public reading of his apology letter on October 24, 2024. 

In that letter, Najib had reportedly apologised for the 1MDB debacle happening under his watch as prime minister, and said it is unfair for him to be held legally responsible and had hoped to be proved innocent.

7. Najib’s actions to cover up crimes when the 1MDB financial scandal first became public   

The judge said Najib’s actions included disbanding a task force looking into the 1MDB scandal, and attempt to persuade Bank Negara Malaysia’s governor at the time to issue a statement to clear him of all wrongdoing.

After listing all these factors, the judge then decided on Najib’s jail sentence and fine in the 1MDB case.

What we know about Najib’s status now (SRC and 1MDB) 

Najib is currently serving his reduced six-year jail term from the SRC case, with his imprisonment due to be completed in August 2028 or August 2029 (depending on whether he pays the RM50 million fine there).

Najib’s SRC jail term can end earlier if he shows good behaviour as a prisoner and his jail time is reduced by one-third.

The 1MDB trial judge has ordered that Najib immediately start serving his 15-year jail term, after his SRC jail time ends.

Najib has filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence in the 1MDB case, but has not applied for a stay or pause on his 1MDB sentence.

No hearing date has been fixed for Najib’s 1MDB appeal, as it is still in the preliminary stages. The appeal is scheduled for case management on June 19 at the Court of Appeal. - Malay Mail, 17/6/2026

Key events in Datuk Seri Najib Razak's RM2.2b 1MDB trial

Sep 20 2018

Najib, aged 65, charged with 25 counts (4 power abuse, 21 money laundering)

Aug 28 2019

1MDB trial begins

Dec 26 2025

High Court finds Najib guilty of all 25 charges (Sentencing includes: 15 years' jail + RM11.38b fine for power abuse; RM2.081b penalty for money laundering)

Dec 29 2025

Najib files appeal against 1MDB conviction, sentence

Made with Flourish • Create a timeline

Bersih: Najib must remain behind bars

By Noel Achariam
September 10, 2026 @ 4:26pm
facebook sharing button
twitter sharing button
whatsapp sharing button

KUALA LUMPUR: Former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak must serve the rest of his sentence in prison, Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih) executive director Asraf Sharafi said.

Representing 47 civil society and youth groups, Asraf said Najib "must serve the rest of his sentence in prison."

"Why is his case being prioritised when many ordinary prisoners are still waiting for a chance to seek pardons?

"Najib has already received a sentence reduction in February 2024 from 12 years to six years, and his fine was cut from RM210 million to RM50 million," he told reporters at the Bersih office in Petaling Jaya today.

Asraf remarks come after Umno president Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said he hoped for the best outcome for Najib ahead of tomorrow's Pardons Board meeting.

Zahid said the matter fell under the absolute prerogative of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, whose discretion and wisdom would determine the final decision.

"We hope for the best because this power is the absolute prerogative of His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

"I am confident that Tuanku's discretion and wisdom will determine the final decision, which is His Majesty's absolute prerogative to announce," he told reporters here today.

It was reported that the Federal Territories Pardons Board is expected to discuss Najib's application when it meets, although it remains unclear whether the meeting will result in a decision.

Asraf said Malaysians who demanded accountability over the 1MDB scandal deserved not to be betrayed.

"Our message to the justice system is that if the most powerful person, who holds immense power, is convicted of an offence and has robbed billions of ringgit, then is suddenly pardoned, to us that is unfair."

Najib, 73, has been serving a six-year jail sentence at Kajang Prison since August 2022 after being convicted on seven charges in the SRC International case involving RM42 million transferred from the former 1MDB unit to his personal bank accounts.

In December 2025, he was convicted in a separate 1MDB-Tanore case on four counts of abuse of power and 21 counts of money laundering. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison and fined RM11.38 billion.

Najib's original 12-year sentence in the SRC case was reduced to six years and his RM210 million fine cut to RM50 million following a partial royal pardon in January 2024. - NST, 10/9/2026

 

Thursday, September 10, 2026

Biological children of Malaysian FATHERS born out of wedlock denied Malaysian citizenship is UNJUST - LEGAL REFORMS needed fast > BEST INTEREST OF CHILD?

Children of Malaysian Fathers - born out of marriage, premarital or extramarital relationships > What RIGHTS should these children have?

5 children (born to unmarried Malaysian father and non-Malaysian mother) seek to officially be Malaysians

Should these CHILD RIGHTS be dependent ONLY on whether the child was conceived within a REGISTERED MARRIAGE? I think NOT - this CHILD's RIGHT should never be confined to born/conceived within a legal marriage >> what should matter is WHO is biological father and/or mother - and the CHILD's RIGHT should only consider that?

In the past, the problem was the PROOF of fatherhood - but with the emergence of DNA Evidence, the proof of biological fatherhood is a non-issue today? 

Follow the Charles Hector channel on WhatsApp:
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb6UokfB4hdNugYmph1B 

 

THUS, biological fathers can no longer escape RESPONSIBILITY for their children - and that must include responsibility for the healthcare, education, livelihood and well-being of the child...and, it also should include CITIZENSHIP rights of the child - that flows from the Malaysian biological father and/or the Malaysian biological mother...

There are SO MANY children born out of a registered marriage in Malaysia > and, Malaysia does not criminalize pre-marital and/or extra-marital sex that can result in the conception and birth of a CHILD. Should the CHILD be prejudiced by this fact that she was conceived and born outside a LEGALLY registered marriage? The BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD must mean that this INNOCENT child should never be prejudiced - and should be entitled to ALL rights that flow from their parents, irrespective of whether the CHILD is born within a legally registered marriage or NOT?

The problem may not be the JUDICIARY (the Judges and Courts) but BAD LAWS be it the Federal Constitution and other laws > after all, Courts generally follow the laws as it is > so, IMMEDIATE action need to taken by PARLIAMENT to amend/repeal or enact laws that allow for this GROSS injustice - to ensure justice be done more so when it concerns CHILD RIGHTS>

In the past, another BAD law that also discriminated based on GENDER was brought to light > which finally the Government decided to amend the Constitution -

THE ISSUE - was children born overseas to Malaysian fathers (but NOT Malaysian mothers) get citizenship... 

The office of the children’s commissioner (OCC) of Malaysia’ human rights commission, Suhakam, welcomes the announcement by Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail that children born overseas to Malaysian mothers will automatically obtain Malaysian citizenship by June or July 2026.

This announcement follows the passage of the Federal Constitution (Amendment) Bill on citizenship provisions in October 2024 and marks a significant step forward in addressing longstanding inequalities affecting children’s right to nationality.

While welcoming this development, it is disheartening that the amendment is non-retrospective. In view of this, children born before the implementation date must continue to be accorded Malaysian citizenship through registration under Article 15(2) of the Federal Constitution. No child should be disadvantaged due to delays in the law’s implementation.

The NEW Issue - is CITIZENSHIP rights of child of Malaysian BIOLOGICAL Fathers (born outside a registered marriage)??   

no child should be disadvantaged or denied access to nationality because of the marital status of their parents or circumstances beyond their control. Citizenship should not be determined by moral judgments relating to the circumstances of a child’s birth. Every child is entitled to equal protection and non-discrimination under the law, regardless of the marital status of their parents 

In Malaysia, foreign football players have been given MALAYSIAN CITIZENSHIP - so, it is a GREAT INJUSTICE that biological children of Malaysian fathers are being denied speedy Malaysian citizenship... 

Citizenship is not merely a legal status; it is the gateway to the enjoyment of many fundamental rights, including access to education, healthcare, social protection, employment and full participation in society.

SUHAKAM therefore reiterates its longstanding call for Malaysia’s citizenship laws and policies to be progressively reformed in line with the principles of equality, non-discrimination and the best interests of the child.

AMEND the Constitution and Federal Laws now to immediately accord a child of a Malaysian father (or mother) are speedily acknowledged Malaysian citizenship.... 

What is the position of DAP, Pakatan Harapan, BN, PN...political parties > Are they OK with denying children of Malaysian fathers born out of valid registered marriage be denied Malaysian CITIZENSHIP - which may impact education/healthcare/etc... What are the POLITICAL PARTIES' position?

There may be SO MANY CHILDREN born out of wedlock in Malaysia...

One other consideration should be the provision of Malaysian CITIZENSHIP to foreign spouses of Malaysian citizens > or at least Permanent Residency status(possibly with right to work) to foreign spouses whose marriage is LEGALLY REGISTERED in Malaysia. 

Court of Appeal rules children born out of wedlock cannot inherit Malaysian father’s citizenship

 

The Court of Appeal today decided that children born in Malaysia cannot follow their Malaysian fathers' citizenship, if their Malaysian fathers were not married to the non-Malaysian mothers at the time of the children's birth. — File picture by Razak Ghazali
The Court of Appeal today decided that children born in Malaysia cannot follow their Malaysian fathers' citizenship, if their Malaysian fathers were not married to the non-Malaysian mothers at the time of the children's birth. — File picture by Razak Ghazali

KUALA LUMPUR, July 22 — The Court of Appeal today unanimously decided that two persons who were born in Malaysia are not entitled to be Malaysian citizens under the Federal Constitution, as their biological Malaysian fathers were not married to their non-Malaysian mothers when they were born.

Court of Appeal judge Datuk Azhahari Kamal Ramli, who chaired a three-judge panel, said the High Court was correct in deciding to reject their bid to be recognised and declared as Malaysians.

Azhahari ultimately concluded that the Kuala Lumpur-born woman (identified only as J for privacy purposes) has to follow her Indonesian biological mother’s citizenship, and that the man born in Teluk Intan, Perak (identified only as D) has to follow his Filipino mother’s citizenship.

Both J’s and D’s biological non-Malaysian mothers have disappeared from their lives since they were young, and both had studied and lived in Malaysia their whole lives while being raised by their Malaysian fathers.

Here’s a quick recap of the facts in their cases based on court documents, and what the Court of Appeal decided today:

The Court of Appeal said Malaysia-born children have to follow their mother's citizenship status, if the child is illegitimate or born when the parents were not married. — File picture by Devan Manuel

The case of J: Birth certificate once recorded her as Malaysian, had a Malaysian passport  

 J, who will be turning 30 this year, has a DNA test to show her biological ties to her Malaysian father.

Her Malaysian father has been caring for her since young, as her Indonesian mother had ran off and been uncontactable since she was three.

J’s initial birth certificate in 1996 was issued without stating her citizenship status, as this was not part of birth certificates’ format then.

J’s second birth certificate issued in 2004 in an updated format states that she is a Malaysian, and she was issued a Malaysian passport in 2006.

But when her father applied for her Malaysian identity card when she turned 12, J’s birth certificate was amended to show her status as “non-citizen” as her parents were unmarried at the time of her birth. 

The Home Ministry rejected her citizenship applications four times in 2010, 2012, 2015 and 2021 without giving any reasons, while J said the National Registration Department (NRD) in 2023 did not allow her to apply for citizenship via naturalisation under the Federal Constitution’s Article 19.

The four citizenship applications that the Home Ministry had rejected were made under the Federal Constitution’s Article 15A (which J could only use before she hit the age limit of 21), while the Article 19 route was the only citizenship route available to her once she turned 21.

The NRD had in court documents denied not allowing J to even try to apply for citizenship under Article 19, as it said there were no documents that could prove that she applied or that the NRD had made any decision.

J says she has no ties to Indonesia and is now stateless, and a letter from the Indonesian Embassy here certified that she is not registered as an Indonesian citizen.

D had unsuccessfully tried to apply for Malaysian citizenship several times before coming to court. — Picture by Sayuti Zainudin

What the Court of Appeal decided

In online court proceedings via Zoom, Court of Appeal judge Azhahari said J could not be a Malaysian even though the identity of her Malaysian biological father is known.

This is because her parents were not legally married when she was born and she is considered as an illegitimate child, which means that Section 17 of the Federal Constitution’s Second Schedule’s Part III applies to J’s case.

Under Section 17, an illegitimate child’s parent can only refer to the child’s mother, the court said.

J had wanted to be declared a Malaysian citizen under the Federal Constitution, specifically Article 14(1)(b) and Second Schedule’s Part II’s Section 1(a).

The judge said J must fulfill all requirements under Section 1(a) to be a Malaysian, namely “jus soli” (by being born in Malaysia) and “jus sanguinis” (through lineage).

Section 1(a) required J to be born in Malaysia and have at least one parent who is a Malaysian citizen or permanent resident when she was born, but Section 17 would mean that her “parent” can only refer to her non-Malaysian mother.

“Since the plaintiff’s parents were not legally married, ‘whose parents’ in Section 1(a) must be construed as reference to ‘mother’. Since plaintiff’s mother is not a Malaysian citizen but an Indonesian citizen, the plaintiff has failed to satisfy jus sanguinis and is therefore not entitled to citizenship under Section 1(a),” the judge said, referring to J as the plaintiff.

J had also wanted to be declared a Malaysian citizen under Section 1(e) of the Federal Constitution’s Second Schedule’s Part II, which enables automatic Malaysian citizenship for Malaysia-born children who are “not born a citizen of any country”.

J had argued that Section 1(e) is meant to prevent children born in Malaysia from becoming stateless, or persons who are not citizens of any country in the world.

But Azhahari said J cannot be considered as stateless as she could take on her mother’s Indonesian citizenship: “We have already concluded in cases of illegitimate children born out of wedlock, and where Section 17 applies, the citizenship of the plaintiff would follow the citizenship of the mother.”

For Section 1(e), the judge said J also had to satisfy “jus sanguinis”, but said she failed to do so, as she could not trace her lineage to her Malaysian father who was not married at the time of her birth.

As for the initial birth certificate which recorded J as a citizen and the Malaysian passport issued to her, the judge said this was due to initial incorrect information given to the authorities.

What about D’s case?

D, who will turn 28 this year, said his biological Filipino mother left him when he was just a few months old, and said he does not know where she is and had never been to the Philippines.

D said he only had his Malaysian biological father his whole life, but is now alone as his father had died in 2022.

D also has a DNA test confirming that he is the biological son of his Malaysian father.

D also has a letter from the Philippine Embassy in Kuala Lumpur which certified that his birth had never been reported there and that he had never applied or been issued a Philippine passport.

D said his future is uncertain and he cannot live a normal life as a stateless person in Malaysia, and said ignoring his father’s Malaysian citizenship status because his parents were not married is gender discrimination. 

An SPM graduate, D said he faces difficulties as a stateless person, such as to continue his studies, to get a driving licence, to open bank accounts or apply for bank loans, to do online transactions, or to find work.

But applying all the same reasons in J’s case, Azhahari also read out the Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision to reject D’s citizenship bid under Section 1(a) and Section 1(e), and also said D is not stateless as he could trace his citizenship to his Filipino mother.

The Court of Appeal’s decision today was largely based on a Federal Court’s 2021 decision in CTEB’s citizenship case, as well as past Court of Appeal decisions in other citizenship cases.

Lawyer Larissa Ann Louis represented both J and D, while federal counsel Ng Wee Li appeared today for the National Registration Department’s director-general, the Home Ministry’s secretary-general and the Malaysian government.

The other two judges on the panel today are Datuk Faizah Jamaludin and Datuk Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz.

Last month, the same Court of Appeal panel had also rejected the citizenship appeals of three Malaysia-born children in similar situations of being born when their Malaysian fathers were not married to their non-Malaysian mothers.

They can still appeal to the Federal Court against the Court of Appeal’s decision, and one of them — Haritharan Mugunthan — had already confirmed via his lawyer that he would be appealing.

 

5 children (born to unmarried Malaysian father and non-Malaysian mother) seek to officially be Malaysians

Court of Appeal heard the 4 cases together on Jan 21, 2026

These 5 children had all lost previously their citizenship bid at the High Court.

Use the column header buttons to sort columns by ascending or descending orderCurrently not sorted

Haritharan Mugunthan, 25 (born in Ipoh, Perak)

Thailand (Left when he was 1yr 2mths old)

Applied 3 times: Unsuccessful

Lost (June 30, 2026)

Sisters SL (will be 26), SF (23), both born in KL

Philippines

SL: Applied in 2008, 2011, 2013, 2016: All rejected. // SF: Applied 2008, 2011, 2016: All rejected

Lost (June 30, 2026)

J (will be 30, born in KL)

Indonesia (Uncontactable since J aged 3)

Applied 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015: Unsuccessful. 2023: Tried, but not allowed to apply under Art 19

Lost (July 22, 2026)

D (will be 28, born in Teluk Intan, Perak)

Philippines (Disappeared since D was few months old)

Applied 2010 (unsuccessful), 2013 (still processing), 2018 (rejected)

Lost (July 22, 2026)