PM Anwar > will the NEW Malay(those who came to Malaysia after MERDEKA or foreign spouses of Malays) also be entitled to Art.153 benefits/preferences? Provide DATA on who exactly benefited?

Foreign nationals who marry Muslim Malay citizens in Malaysia will not automatically see their ethnicity altered or qualify for special Bumiputera privileges, Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said in a written parliamentary reply. 

He stressed that the National Registration Department (JPN) does not reclassify a foreign national’s ancestral lineage based solely on marriage, amid persistent questions around the legal and administrative status of cross-border marriages.

“Determining whether an individual holds Bumiputera status, as well as their eligibility to enjoy rights or privileges allocated to Bumiputera, falls outside JPN’s jurisdiction,” Saifuddin said in the written reply dated October 12.

“This is because such matters remain governed by specific laws, policies, and criteria set by the respective agencies or relevant authorities,” he added.

That answer by the HOME MINISTER raises QUESTIONS/CONCERNS:-

1 - The response seem to talk about just 'MUSLIM Malay citizens' - what about the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, who together with Malays, enjoy Art. 153 special preference. What about foreign spouses of the natives of Sabah and Sarawak - can they also one day become natives and enjoy the Art. 153 special preference. HOW? WHY?

 

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

2  - The use of the term Bumiputera  - he should just talk about Malay and natives of Sabah/Sarawak privileges. The term BUMIPUTERA is not YET clearly LEGALLY defined - nobody knows clearly whether there are OTHER Malaysian ethnic groups, other than Malay and natives of Sabah/Sarawak also considered BUMIPUTERA. If the government wanted to add other ethnic groups as beneficiaries of Art 153, then do so. If they wanted to use the term Bumiputra, then include it in the Constitution and clearly define?  

3 -  Who decides one is a MALAY, or a native of Sabah and Sarawak, that qualifies to enjoy the benefits of Art 153? That must be MADE CRYSTAL CLEAR as now we run the risk of NEW MALAY also taking benefits/preferences allocated for just qualified MALAY (not some foreigner who because he is Muslim, speaks Malay, follow Malay Custom is Malay today, a status he may have just obtained after coming to Malaysia after MERDEKA) - the Minister said it was not the National Registration Department(JPN), but 'such matters remain governed by specific laws, policies, and criteria set by the respective agencies or relevant authorities' - No mention of which agency and which law. BEST if the qualified Malay or native of Sabah and Sarawak that qualifies Art. 153 preference are stringently defined by the HOME MINISTRY - and this qualification maybe be clearly stated in National Registration Cards(MyKad) > why the risk of unqualified 'stealing' benefits/preferences from the unqualified > this affects the qualified Malays and natives of Sabah/Sarawak as provided for in our Constitution - and also all other Malaysians who ultimately pay for this.

Today, many later arrivals from Malaysia and neighboring countries, including also some from other countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Arab Nations ...maybe qualified as MALAYs - but they certainly are not entitled to enjoy Art. 153 benefits/preferences. If an unqualified Malay wrongly gets a SCHOLARSHIP or a University place because of Art.153 - it denies another qualified Malay that scholarship, place in University...  

The issue of the 'NEW Malay' and whether they too benefit from the preferences provided for under Art 153 Federal Constitution Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc., for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak.

Under the Constitution those entitled to special preferences are 'Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak' 

Under this PART XII (which includes Art 152 to 160B) - Art. 160 defines 'MALAY'

"Malay" means a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom and—

(a) was before Merdeka Day born in the Federation or in Singapore or born of parents one of whom was born in the Federation or in Singapore, or is on that day domiciled in the Federation or in Singapore; or

(b) is the issue of such a person;

THUS, it reasonably means that ONLY Malay that falls within this Constitutional Interpretation can benefit from the special preferences provided in Art 153 - Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc....

This means that the 'NEW Malay' - those came later to Malaysia, although they are subsequently seen as MALAY will NOT QUALIFY to get the benefits of Art. 153 ...

Malay - to become a Malay, there is no requirement that your parents/grandparents/great grandparents, etc were ethnically MALAY (which could be determined today be DNA analysis, etc) - because all the Federal Constitution says is that he/she  is 'a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom' - and that means any MUSLIM from any part of the world who is today a Malaysian citizen 'who habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom...'

The Malaysian Government to date have FAILED to properly record who are MALAY and enjoy the benefit of Art. 153, and who are Malay (or new Malay) who do not enjoy the benefits of Art. 153.

In Malaysia, the benefit to Malays and/or Natives of Sabah and Sarawak comes NOT just from Art. 153 > but can also come in through other laws/policies/practice of the Federal/State and even Local Government. HOWEVER, if comes from some other law/policy and NOT Art. 153 - it may be UNCONSTITUTIONAL and VOID.

For instance that policy/practice of 10% DISCOUNT for certain citizens for House purchases from Developer > it, in my opinion, does not arise from Art. 153 > it, I believe, arises from a CONDITION for approval of Housing Development projects that is imposed by the relevant Local Government/Council > is it then UNCONSTITUTIONAL - In my opinion, it is as it violates Art.8(1) that guarantees equality of persons, and also Art 8(2) that prohibits discrimination - there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender in any law. Until this matter is raised in COURT - sadly some Developers or governments may continue to impose such BAD Practices.

On the ART. 153 preferences/benefits - which should also be just a REASONABLE PROPORTION not all - '...proportion as he may deem reasonable...' - and it is only for '....positions in the public service (other than the public service of a State) and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and, when any permit or licence for the operation of any trade or business is required by federal law,...'

So, maybe good if Prime MINISTER Anwar Ibrahim of this Pakatan Harapan led Coalition Government openly clarify what exactly is this REASONABLE PROPORTION currently :- 

* Positions in Public Service

* Scholarships

* Places in PUBLIC Universities and other government educational institutions

* License or permits for trade/business...

Another issue - is the Statistics since independence on who got these Art.153 benefits - according to the qualified ethnic groups(to ensure there was equitable distribution, also DATA on whether the benifits reached ALL within qualified ethnic groups > and not just the T20(the very rich) whilst the B40 did not benefit.

ALSO when non-qualified Malay had been benefiting? This is a 'LEAKAGE' in the objects of this preferential treatment. 

##### 

PROBLEM Caused during British Colonial Government RULE 

During colonial rule (1786–1957), the British practiced a "divide-and-rule" approach that segregated groups economically. Chinese immigrants dominated mining and commerce, Indian immigrants worked rubber plantations, and Malays were largely left in traditional rural villages, subsistence farming, and fishing....Malays lagged far behind non-Malays in corporate wealth, urban capital, and professional expertise. Special preferences were designed as an equalizer to help bridge this socio-economic gap. 

The preference that needed to be given Malays is OLD and commonly accepted - it was also acknowledged in the PEOPLE's Constitution and was the reason for the 1947 HARTAL - it differed from the UMNO-British Colonial Government proposal...(Note the Peoples' Constitution was not supported by the then UMNO or the Communist Party. 

The objective of the preferences was to bring about equity in all the Ethnic Groups in Malaysia(sadly the Orang Asli was not included) BUT the implementation need to be reviewed > why are there still so many Malays that are POOR? Did it help only help rich Malay/natives become richer - thus failed to uplift all Malay/Natives ??? 

 

In the late 1940s, as the British colonial government prepared to restructure Malaya, two opposing political factions proposed vastly different blueprints for citizenship and ethnic relations:

Dimension	The Putera–AMCJA Vision (The People's Constitution)	The Anglo-UMNO Vision (The Federation of Malaya Agreement)
The Coalition	A broad, multi-ethnic alliance combining left-wing Malay nationalists (PUTERA) and non-Malay progressive/labor groups (AMCJA).	The British colonial administration working exclusively with conservative Malay elites represented by the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO).
Concept of Citizenship	Proposed a unified "Melayu" nationality applied equally to all residents who viewed Malaya as their home, stripping the term of exclusive ethnic or religious requirements.	Maintained strict ethnic divisions, offering restrictive citizenship pathways for non-Malays.
Malay Preference & Status	Envisioned Malay primacy but not dominance. It rejected institutionalized, permanent special privileges in favor of socio-economic upliftment under a framework of civic equality.	Codified the formal "special position" of the Malays under the protection of the Malay Rulers, safeguarding quotas in civil service, education, and business.

2. The 1947 Hartal as a Protest

When the British government ignored the inclusive "People's Constitution" and opted to move forward with the pro-elite Federation of Malaya proposals, the Putera–AMCJA coalition launched a massive, peaceful protest.

On October 20, 1947, they staged a Hartal—a total cessation of work and closure of businesses across Malaya. Backed heavily by trade unions, the Chinese Chambers of Commerce, and grassroots Malay, Chinese, and Indian citizens, the strike successfully brought the Malayan economy to a complete standstill for a day.

 

 

Home minister: Children of Malay-foreign marriages may be registered as Malay, but foreign spouses won’t automatically gain Bumiputera status

PUTRAJAYA 14/09/2026 Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail speaks to the press during the Monthly Assembly here at Home Ministry, Putrajaya. PICTURE BY SAYUTI ZAINUDIN

Summary

• In a recent parliamentary response, Malaysian Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail clarified that foreign nationals marrying Muslim Malay citizens do not automatically receive a change in ethnicity or qualify for Bumiputera privileges.
• The National Registration Department (JPN) does not alter a foreign national's lineage based on marriage, as Bumiputera status and associated benefits are governed by specific laws and criteria outside its jurisdiction.
• While the ethnic classification of a foreign spouse remains unchanged, children from such unions can be registered under either parent's lineage, impacting their eligibility for various socio-economic benefits.

By Syed Jaymal Zahiid

First Published: Tuesday, 13 Oct 2026 1:10 PM MYT

Last Modified: Tuesday, 13 Oct 2026 1:15 PM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 13 — Foreign nationals who marry Muslim Malay citizens in Malaysia will not automatically see their ethnicity altered or qualify for special Bumiputera privileges, Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said in a written parliamentary reply.

He stressed that the National Registration Department (JPN) does not reclassify a foreign national’s ancestral lineage based solely on marriage, amid persistent questions around the legal and administrative status of cross-border marriages.

“Determining whether an individual holds Bumiputera status, as well as their eligibility to enjoy rights or privileges allocated to Bumiputera, falls outside JPN’s jurisdiction,” Saifuddin said in the written reply dated October 12.

“This is because such matters remain governed by specific laws, policies, and criteria set by the respective agencies or relevant authorities,” he added.

Pang Hok Liong (PH-Labis) had asked the minister whether Muslim foreign nationals could claim Bumiputera status upon marrying local Malay citizens, and what conditions, if any, govern eligibility for affirmative action privileges.

While the foreign spouse retains their original ethnic classification, Saifuddin said children born to a legally recognised marriage between a local and a foreign national enjoy flexibility regarding registration.

Parents can choose to register the child’s lineage following either the mother or the father, meaning the child may legally inherit Malay lineage or that of the foreign parent, subject to registration guidelines.

In Malaysia, ethnic classification and Bumiputera status carry significant legal and socio-economic weight, governing access to government quotas, housing discounts, public university admissions, and specialised financial instruments like Amanah Saham Bumiputera. - Malay Mail, 13/10/2026

 

Bumiputera: Are you one? Or can you ‘become’ one in Malaysia?

The broad constitutional definitions of the word “Malay” raises the question of whether or not someone born to a different ethnic group but fits all the criteria could be considered by both society and the government to be a Malay.

First Published: Wednesday, 26 Jul 2017 7:00 AM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR, July 26 — Mention the word “Bumiputera” and the word “Malay” immediately comes to mind, and to a lesser extent the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, based on decades of experience on how affirmative action policies are carried out.

With Malaysia’s Indian Muslim community recently asking to join the special group of people known as Bumiputera, you might be asking: can you too “become” one, or must you be born one?

1. What is a Bumiputera?

The term “Bumiputera” however is not found in the Federal Constitution, which suggests that its meaning is not set in stone.

Article 160 of the Constitution only states the criteria for a person to be considered a Malay; which is to profess the religion of Islam, habitually speak the Malay language, conform to Malay custom and be born to a Malaysian parent.

The Department of Statistics Malaysia estimates the country’s population this mid-year as slightly over 32 million citizens and non-citizens, with the Bumiputera forming the bulk of the 28.7 million citizens at 19.78 million and the Chinese and Indians at 6.66 million and just below 2 million, and “others” at over 284,000.

One wonders at the tricky bureaucratic decisions in multiracial Malaysia where mixed marriages are not uncommon and ethnic identity can as a result be relatively fluid.

2. When can you be a Bumiputera?

The broad constitutional definitions of the word “Malay” raises the question of whether or not  someone born to a different ethnic group but fits all the criteria could be considered by both society and the government to be a Malay.

Similarly, who can get official recognition as being Bumiputera, which literally means “sons of the soil”?

Can a community stake their claim to the Bumiputera label if their ancestors had laid down roots in this land generations ago, or if they had intermarried with Malays or east Malaysian natives or other locals, or if they profess the religion of Islam and adopt Malay customs and language, or if political expediency allows for it?

It’s a complicated question, but one that at least one group has raised in public. Perkasa had last week called for a careful study of the Bumiputera status, asking the government if Indian Muslims are also to be conferred the status because of their religion. The non-governmental organisation also asked if Muslims of other ethnicity would be given the same status.

3. It’s just a label, isn’t it?

Well, yes and no. Yes, because some Bumiputera may feel that their community is ready to stand on its own feet.

No, because the “Bumiputera” identity comes with a whole range of economical benefits and tangible advantages that often overlap special privileges for the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak. The definition of “natives” of Sabah and Sarawak can be found in Article 161A of the Constitution.

Under Article 153, the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong is responsible for safeguarding both the “special position” of Malays and east Malaysian natives and the “legitimate interests” of other communities. It does not use the word “rights” or “special privileges” however.

This provision covers what Malaysians often refer to as “quotas” for Malays and the east Malaysian natives with regards to scholarships, educational or training privileges, positions in the civil service, special facilities, permits or licences for trade or business activities.

There are certain restrictions under Article 153 on such privileges that act as a form of safeguard to other communities.

Malaysians can quickly pinpoint real-life examples of pro-Bumiputera policies to help the community catch up such as the carving out of contracts; while some hold a lingering suspicion that public university entry and scholarship awards are not purely merit-based and that race continues to play an important role.

And according to the Securities Commission, companies that wish to be listed on Malaysia’s stock exchange must offer at least 12.5 per cent of their shares to Bumiputera investors, while the percentage of mandatory quotas of discounted property units in new developments have been reported to differ from state to state — Johor offers 40 per cent while Negri Sembilan  offers 50 per cent and Kelantan 70 per cent as of last year.

The federal government has even launched this April the second version of its Bumiputera Economic Transformation Roadmap (BETR) to go beyond economic measures and improve the wellbeing of the Bumiputera community in areas such as education, health, income levels and property ownership.

4. Half the title?

Interestingly, the Amanah Saham Nasional Berhad’s (ASNB) mutual funds that are only open to the Bumiputera community also welcomes another group of local investors known as the “minorities”.

ASNB provides a detailed breakdown of who falls under the Bumiputera category, which includes Malays who must also be Muslims. There is no requirement to be Muslim for other indigenous Malaysians under this category—the Orang Asli in the peninsula, the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, or those born to mixed marriages involving Sabahans and Sarawakians.

Aside from helpfully stating the documents required or the departments where Bumiputera verification may be obtained, ASNB’s website also clearly lists out investment eligibility for east Malaysians based on both their parents’ status.

And who are these “minorities” eligible to invest in Bumiputera-only unit trust schemes? Well, they are the “Siamese/Thai, Portuguese/Eurasian/ Serani, Muslim converts/Muslims with non-Bumiputera status, Indian Muslims”.

And who else has been seeking to be recognised as Bumiputera? According to past news reports, it includes the Melaka Chitty community or Indian Peranakan who are also Hindus and the Peranakan Chinese. Malaysians of Siamese descent had in the past been declared as having Bumiputera status.

Does the enjoyment of a benefit normally accorded only to the Bumiputera community mean one has partial Bumiputera status or is de facto a Bumiputera?

This brings us full circle to the question of who is a Bumiputera and who can be one… and which can only be answered by the government in power. - Malay Mail, 26/7/2017

First all–race political action and the People’s Constitution 1 Aug 2007 12:00 am

©The Sun (Used by permission)
by Fahmi Reza

ON Oct 20,1947,the whole of Malaya and Singapore bore witness to the first political action that involved the united action of people of all races – the Malaya–wide hartal.

The hartal, a general strike and the halting of economic activity, was effectively used in the Indian struggle for independence. It was used for the first time in Malaya by the left–wing coalition, Putera–AMCJA as a weapon against British colonialism.

Putera–AMCJA was a united front comprising two major political forces in Malaya: the Pusat Tenaga Ra’ayat (Centre for People’s Power) and the All–Malaya Council of Joint Action.

The AMCJA was a federation of political parties, labour unions, women’s associations and youth organisations that was inaugurated on Dec 22, 1946 in Kuala Lumpur.

The main organisations in the AMCJA was the Malayan Democratic Union (MDU), Malayan Indian Congress (MIC), Pan–Malayan Federation of Trade Unions (PMFTU),12–State Women’s Federation in Malaya, Malayan New Democratic Youth League (MNDYL) and the Malayan People’s Anti–Japanese Ex–Service Comrades’ Association.

Although dominated by left–leaning parties,the AMCJA was led by a prominent Straits–born capitalist,Tan Cheng Lock.

Putera was a coalition inaugurated on Feb 22,1947,consisting of Malay left–wing parties such as Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM), Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (Api), Angkatan Wanita Sedar (Awas), Barisan Tani Se–Malaya (Batas), Gerakan Angkatan Muda (Geram), Lembaga Persatuan Melayu Johor, and other smaller organisations.

Putera was led by Ishak Haji Muhammad, a journalist and nationalist who was also one of the founders of Kesatuan Melayu Muda (KMM) in 1938.

Putera–AMCJA succeeded in bringing together all the political parties in Malaya except the United Malays National Organisation (Umno) and the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) in a popular people’s front to protest the Federation Constitution that was formulated by the British to replace the Malayan Union.

The coalition argued that the Federation Constitution was undemocratic because it was formulated in secret consultations between the colonial government and the Malay aristocracy,and sidelined the opinions and wishes of the Malayan people who sought democracy and self–governance.

For Putera–AMCJA, the British action of consulting only one party was part of a divisive “divide and rule” tactic. It held mass demonstrations throughout Malaya to protest.

At each gathering, attended by thousands from all races, Putera–AMCJA leaders such as Tan Cheng Lock,Ishak Haji Muhammad, John Thivy, Philip Hoalim Sr, Dr Burhanuddin Helmy, Gerald de Cruz, Ahmad Boestamam, K. Ganapathy and Shamsiah Fakeh explained the importance of people from all races uniting to fight the Federation Constitution and to back Putera–AMCJA’s struggles.

The coalition also held mass meetings throughout Malaya to gain endorsements for resolutions opposing the Federation Constitution. Hundreds of telegrams and protest letters were sent to the British government. But the British did not pay heed to any of this.

The People’s Constitution

Putera–AMCJA realised they needed a stronger and more progressive programme to win mass support. From May 1947,it began drafting an alternative constitution to challenge the Federation Constitution.

On Aug 10, 1947, the People’s Constitution was completed, taking into consideration the opinions and aspirations of the different factions within the Putera–AMCJA pact. It was a comprehensive document that covered provisions for a democratic system of government, towards establishing a new nationality and an independent nation–state.

The Straits Times dubbed the People’s Constitution as “the first political attempt to put Malayan party politics on a plane higher than that of rival racial interests, and also as the first attempt to build a political bridge between the domiciled non–Malay communities and the Malay race”.

On Sept 21, 1947, the People’s Constitution was presented for the first time to more than 20,000 people who had gathered at Farrer Park, Singapore. Subsequently, Putera–AMCJA began a national campaign to explain the contents of the People’s Constitution to Malayans.

Meetings, mass gatherings, and demonstrations were held in various places to get the people’s support.

The constitution was published in four languages and disseminated throughout the states. Copies were also sent to the Malayan Union Government, the British Prime Minister and the Colonial Office in London.

Yet once more, the British refused to pay attention to Putera–AMCJA or to hold discussions. The colonial government also rejected all proposals in the People’s Constitution.

Malaya–wide Hartal

On Oct 6, 1947, Putera–AMCJA released a “Hartal Manifesto”. It called upon all those who regarded Malaya as their home to observe Oct 20, 1947 as a Day of Protest against the Revised Constitutional Proposals,by staging a Malaya–wide hartal on that day.

“October 20 has been selected as the Day of Protest because it is on that day that the British Parliament is scheduled to begin its autumn session, during which it is reported that a debate on the constitutional issue in Malaya will take place.

“On October 20, therefore, between the hours of six a.m. and midnight, all those who regard Malaya as their real home and who support the People’s Constitution issued by Putera–AMCJA, are asked not to carry out their usual occupations, but to remain indoors throughout the day and night.

“You are asked for one day to cease work in order to demonstrate to government that you reject the Revised Constitutional Proposals, and in order to carry our struggle for acceptance of the People’s Constitution one step further.

“October 20 is the day on which the people of Malaya will be called upon to stage the greatest political demonstration that this country has ever seen.”

The campaign to promote the hartal began on Oct 7. Its aim was to ensure the hartal’s success and to prove to the British that the masses were behind the hartal.

Full hartal instructions were issued on how it should be observed, and “12 Hartal Slogans” that pinpointed the reasons for the hartal were sent to the media, all the parties within Putera–AMCJA, and to the 30 Putera–AMCJA centres throughout Malaya to be translated and disseminated to the people so that they fully understood the hartal’s aim as a political act.

Committees were set up in each state to align and plan activities for the hartal. Propaganda corps were established to tour the towns, districts and kampung to put up posters and banners,as well as give out leaflets explaining the hartal and the People’s Constitution.

Thus, on Oct 20, 1947, beginning from 6am,the whole of Malaya underwent the hartal. Merchants shut their shops, labourers stopped going to the mines, factories, shipyards, and rubber plantations, farmers did not work their lands, fishing folk stayed ashore, housewives did not go to the markets, and the youth stayed away from amusement parks. Only colonial government offices, European stores and several other shops operated as usual.

It was estimated that the British colonial government suffered £4 million in losses from the nationwide strike that day.

According to the Putera–AMCJA, the hartal was also “a unique method of political education. It brought the constitutional issue into every home in the country, and confronted every man, woman and child with this issue. Even in the Government English schools, children in the fourth and fifth standards questioned their teachers about the hartal, asked about its nature and why the government was opposed to it”.

Even though the hartal was a complete success in its execution, it failed to change British constitutional policy in Malaya. The British rejected the People’s Constitution and stayed committed to their agreement with the Malay aristocracy and defended their Federation Constitution.

On Feb 1, 1948, the Federation of Malaya was inaugurated to replace the Malayan Union.

Then, to crush Putera–AMCJA’s continued protests against the new Federation of Malaya, the British declared a state of Emergency throughout Malaya in June 1948.

Thousands of Putera–AMCJA leaders and members were arrested. Most were locked up in detention camps for several years while others were banished.

Most of the organisations affiliated to Putera–AMCJA were banned or dissolved. This was the turning point ad marked the beginning of the end of the constitutional independence struggle of the left in Malaya.

Fahmi Reza is the director of Sepuluh Tahun Sebelum Merdeka, a short documentary film that chronicles the events that culminated in the Malayawide hartal day of protest against British colonial rule on Oct 20, 1947. - Malaysian Bar Website

 

 

 

Anthony LOKE why unneccesary bad amendment proposals - Malaysia already has S. 426 CPC > where the COURT can order the CONVICTED to pay COMPENSATION to Victims

Anthony Loke, Ramkarpal - Don't Anthony LOKE know that what he is proposing is already law - See Section 426 of the Criminal Procedure Code - ALL convicted criminals, for any offences under Penal Code and other laws(including the Road Transport Act), can be ordered to pay COMPENSATION to victims of the CRIME. 

In the COURT, which deals with any CRIME, after the COURT finds him/her GUILTY and convicts, then in that same CRIMINAL Court, then the  JUDGE can order the CONVICTED to pay compensations to the VICTIMS of the CRIME.  

The law is VERY CLEAR and it even goes on to state what factors the Court will look into in deciding a JUST compensation.

The LAW also is most clear that the ORDERED compensation will NOT prejudice the VICTIMS, who still go and file a CLAIM for more compensation. - 'but the order for payment shall not prejudice any right to a civil remedy for the recovery of any property or for the recovery of damages beyond the amount of compensation paid under the order.'

Ramkarpal being a lawyer disappoints > he should know of Sec.426 - and should have opposed Anthony Loke's plans to introduce an unnecesary provision when the LAW in Malaysia already allows the COURT that convicts to make orders that the CONVICTED pays the victims compensations... 

Section 426 Criminal Procedure Code - Order for payment of costs of prosecution and compensation 

(1) The Court before which an accused is convicted of an offence-

(a) in its discretion, may make an order for the payment by the convicted accused of the cost of his prosecution or any part thereof as may be agreed by the Public Prosecutor; or

(b) where-

(i) the prosecution of the convicted accused involves evidence obtained pursuant to a request made under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2002 [Act 621]; or

(ii) the accused has obtained pecuniary gain,

upon the application of the Public Prosecutor, shall make an order for the payment by the convicted accused of the cost of his prosecution or any part thereof, the sum of which is to be fixed by the Court as may be agreed by the Public Prosecutor.

(1A) Without prejudice to subsection (1), the Court before which an accused is convicted of an offence shall, upon the application of the Public Prosecutor, make an order against the convicted accused for the payment by him, or where the convicted accused is a child, by his parent or guardian, of a sum to be fixed by the Court as compensation to a person who is the victim of the offence committed by the convicted accused in respect of the injury to his person or character, or loss of his income or property, as a result of the offence committed.

(1B) Where the person who is the victim of the offence is deceased, the order of compensation shall be made to a representative of the deceased person.

(1C) The Court shall, in making an order under subsection (1A), take into consideration the following factors:

(a) the nature of the offence;

(b) the injury sustained by the victim;

(c) the expenses incurred by the victim;

(d) the damage to, or loss of, property suffered by the victim;

(e) the loss of income incurred by the victim;

(f) the ability of the convicted accused to pay; and

(g) any other factors which the Court deems relevant.

(1D) For the purpose of making an order under subsection (1A), the Court may hold an inquiry as it thinks fit.

(2) The Court shall specify the person to whom any sum in respect of costs or compensation as aforesaid is to be paid, and section 432 [except paragraph (1)(d)] shall be applicable to any order made under this section.

(3) The Court may direct that an order for payment of costs, or an order for payment of compensation, shall have priority, and, if no direction is given, an order for payment of costs shall have priority over an order for payment of compensation.

(4) To the extent of the amount which has been paid to a person, or to the representatives of a person, under an order for compensation, any claim of such person or representatives for damages sustained by reason of the offence shall be deemed to have been satisfied, but the order for payment shall not prejudice any right to a civil remedy for the recovery of any property or for the recovery of damages beyond the amount of compensation paid under the order.

(5) Every order made under this section by a Magistrate shall be appealable to the High Court.

WHY is ANTHONY LOKE talking about JUST DUI offences (Drunk Driving or Driving Under the Influence of DRUGs) - and not for all TRAFFIC Offences - His suggestion means that if someone driving causes the DEATH or injury of VICTIMS - he DOES not have to pay compensation simply because he/she was not DRUNK or under the influence of DRUGS? Utter NONSENSE, don't you think?

Amendments compelling those who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs to pay compensation to victims and their heirs are expected to be tabled in Parliament early next year. Transport Minister Anthony Loke (pic) told the Dewan Rakyat that this element will not replace existing penalties. "It will be an additional responsibility for offenders for the consequences of their actions on victims and their families," he said during Question Time on Thursday (Oct 15).- Star, 15/10/2026

It must be HIGHLIGHTED that only if there is a CONVICTION - so the perpetrator needs to be charged, tried and CONVICTED before that same COURT can order COMPENSATION for Victims.

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

However, if COMPOUND is offered and accepted by a SUSPECT, the RIGHT for VICTIMS to get compensations from the Convicted - by the JUDGE in the Court that convicted EVAPORATES and victims get nothing...from the court that convicted....because there was NO CONVICTION.

The ROAD TRANSPORT ACT gives several people/entities to COMPOUND - and many can offer Compound However, if there VICTIMS of the Crime - then there will NO OFFER TO COMPOUND - this will be JUSTl The law must deny COMPOUND for such offences.

We recall how under Minister Anthony Loke - for the 2 LRT accidents, whereby in the 1st  the 24/5/2021 LRT collision of 2 trains on the same track that injured the 213 passengers, 47 severely, and the 2nd in 2024 that caused 1 death > BOTH were offered compound of RM100,000 - thus ALL Victims cannot rely on compensation by the perpetrator, if they had been Charged, Tried, Convicted and sentenced. ARE these LRT Accident VICTIMS still struggling to get JUST COMPENSATION

Loke, again a 'COMPOUND offer' rather than CHARGE in COURT? Is the Minister 'pro-Business' rather than prioritising PUBLIC safety when they use PUBLIC Transport? A new 'PROTECTOR of CRIMINALS'? Have the VICTIMS yet to be compensated?

Criminally Liable In 2021 LRT Collision Must Be Charged in Court and Convicted Before Court Can Order Convicted to Compensate Victims

If it is a COMPOUND - that means no CONVICTION > thus NO CRIMINAL RECORD. Even if the 2nd 'crime' was same, since there was no conviction b4, court will not take into accord past conviction on deciding on appropriate sentence.

Some say, if the Criminal Court that convicted did not order COMPENSATION - then no problem > HOW WRONG CAN THEY BE.

If the SUE the perpetrators of CRIME for damages and compensations in a different CIVIL SUIT, it is VERY DIFFICULT - because they cannot rely on the CONVICTION by the Criminal Court as proof of the wrong...NO, the convictions is NOT admissible 

Criminal convictions are generally inadmissible as evidence in subsequent civil proceedings in Malaysia, under the application of the common law Hollington v Hewthorn rule codified via Section 43 of the Evidence Act 1950. Malaysia continues to follow the old English common law principle from Hollington v Hewthorn & Co Ltd, which states that a criminal conviction is not admissible in a civil suit to prove that the defendant committed the crime.

Thus, the Plaintiff(Victims) have to prove liability of the convicted right from square 1 - and, it not at all easy. The victim cannot act on their own - they best employ LAWYERS and all this cost monies...

Section 426 is a VERY GOOD law as it just does not deal with sentencing the criminal BUT also looks into compensating VICTIMS

Rather than viewing crime purely as an offense against the state (retributive justice), Section 426 serves as a mechanism to integrate restorative justice by holding offenders financially accountable and helping repair the direct harm suffered by victims. 

When we look at past cases of murder. rape, theft, etc > what becomes obvious that 'there was no order for compensation of victims" - this is because of fault of the prosecution(because to get the Court to order compensation for victims, -  upon the application of the Public Prosecutor,..

The Courts also failed - because if the JUDGE had asked or 'reminded' prosecutors about asking for compensations for victims - VICTIMS would have been compensated. 

VICTIMS in Malaysia are not notified by prosecution or Courts > that the person who committed crimes will be charged in Court, and of all trial dates > maybe there should be a LAW that makes it mandatory for the prosecution to inform all VICTIMS of trial dates of those accussed of committing crimes against these victims. 

NOW, often trial starts and ends > and the victims of crime are most of the time totally unaware of this fact. I believe most victims would like to know or even attend the trials of these perpetrators of CRIME.

Although our Attorney General/Public Prosecutors  ordered all deputy public prosecutors to apply for the courts to order compensation for the victims of crimes

Attorney-General Dusuki Mokhtar has ordered all deputy public prosecutors to apply for the courts to order compensation for the victims of crimes, including those killed by drivers driving under the influence. Dusuki said Section 426 of the Criminal Procedure Code gives courts the authority to order convicts to make a payment of costs for prosecution and compensation to victims or their next of kin. “That order can be made on top of a sentence, for the purpose of compensating the aggrieved party.“This is to ensure that, in the appropriate cases, victims obtain adequate compensation under the law to uphold justice and in view of public interest,” he said, according to Berita Harian. - FMT, 15/4/2026

Anthony LOKE - Our Public Prosecutor/Attorney General has already told you about SECTION 426 - so why are you still talking about an unnecessary provision in the Road Transport Act > saying the same thing > that the CONVICTED should be ordered to pay VICTIMS compensation ... AND worse, just for DUI offences, and not all Road Transport Act offences that causes injury/death to victims.

Despite the PUBLIC PROSECUTORS/ATTORNEY GENERAL's some Deputy Public Prosecutor continue to disobey this ORDER. Will action be taken against  deputy public prosecutor Fathin Nadhirah Kasim, who based on the media report failed to ask the COURT to order that the Perpetrator pay the rape victim COMPENSATION (a very high COMPENSATION I propose) 

A Sessions Court judge said a 24-year jail term for a father who raped his 13-year-old daughter reflected the need to deter sexual offences....However, deputy public prosecutor Fathin Nadhirah Kasim sought a heavy sentence, arguing that the public interest outweighed the accused's personal circumstances.  NST, 14/10/2026

MPs and MINISTERS need a personal staff, who is a lawyer or with legal knowledge, for which PARLIAMENT must pay for > then, we will have less situations where Ministers and MPs make wrong statements....

 

JUDGES, please remind prosecutors to apply for ORDER that Convicted Pay Victim COMPENSATION pursuant to Sec, 426 Criminal Procedure CODE.

 

Now, if the DPP/Prosecutor failed to apply for compensation for VICTIM > Can the VICTIM sue the prosecutor - I believe they can. After all, going by way of a different civil suit is VERY VERY difficult - would the relevant law enforcement agency and prosecution willingly share with victims evidence they gathered which will be needed to AGAIN prove the 'convicted' liable? 

 

Questions for ANTHONY LOKE(still Minister)

How many Road Transport Act accidents that caused injury/death to victims were COMPOUNDED - thus denial of victim's right to be compensated by the Convicted (if compound, no trial, no conviction and no orders of compensation for victims?

 

How many Road Transport act 'accidents' when the perpetrator was charged and convicted, BUT the prosecutor FAILED to apply that the Court ORDER the Convicted pay compensations to the victims? 

 

Law compelling DUI offenders to pay compensation slated for tabling in early 2027

---

By KHOO JIAN TENG and GERARD GIMINO

Thursday, 15 Oct 2026 | 1:02 PM MYT

 

Photo: Bernama

KUALA LUMPUR: Amendments compelling those who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs to pay compensation to victims and their heirs are expected to be tabled in Parliament early next year.

Transport Minister Anthony Loke (pic) told the Dewan Rakyat that this element will not replace existing penalties.

"It will be an additional responsibility for offenders for the consequences of their actions on victims and their families," he said during Question Time on Thursday (Oct 15).

He said the Bill was expected to be tabled in Parliament in early 2027, subject to the completion of consultations and the legislative process.

"The Cabinet agreed in principle to the proposed amendments on July 15, allowing compensation orders to be imposed in addition to existing penalties such as imprisonment, fines and disqualification from driving," he said.

He added that his ministry is consulting relevant agencies and ministries to refine the compensation mechanism, intended to help families affected by fatal crashes, serious injuries and permanent disabilities.

He told Syahredzan Johan (PH-Bangi) that the ministry would also seek to improve public awareness and encourage motorists to use alternatives such as e-hailing services instead of driving after consuming alcohol.

Separately, Loke said the proposed amendments would also strengthen the driver demerit points system, which he described as ineffective under the current arrangement.

"The demerit system is not implemented effectively because points are only imposed on drivers after they pay their summonses.

"We will improve the system so that drivers will be more careful and more aware of road safety,” he added.

Loke said the changes were part of broader efforts to make motorists more accountable for their actions, stressing that road safety involved responsibility not only towards individuals themselves but also other road users and society.

Responding to Datuk Haji Ahmad Saad (PN-Pokok Sena), Loke said the government was also studying how compensation could be secured if convicted offenders cannot afford to pay.

Possible measures include additional penalties under existing laws and asset seizure, although the mechanism has yet to be finalised.

"The government is also open to seeking views from Islamic legal experts on the principle of diat, or compensation for death or injury, but stressed that the proposed mechanism would operate under common law and apply to everyone.

"Prevention remains crucial, with tougher penalties intended to deter motorists from driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs," he said. - Star, 15/10/2026

 

Ramkarpal wants clear formula for road crash victim compensation

Qistina Nadia DzulqarnainPublished: Oct 15, 2026 6:31 PM

PARLIAMENT | Ramkarpal Singh (Harapan-Bukit Gelugor) has urged the government to clarify how compensation will be calculated for victims of serious road traffic offences, including those involving drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

While welcoming proposed amendments to the Road Transport Act 1987 that would empower courts to order offenders to compensate victims, the former deputy law minister said the government must explain how the amounts would be determined.

Ramkarpal (above) asked whether compensation would be calculated using a standard formula or assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account factors such as the severity of injuries, medical and rehabilitation costs, loss of income, long-term care needs, and the impact on victims’ dependents.

“How will compensation be determined for fatal cases compared to (those involving) injuries that cause permanent disability or loss of limbs?” he asked during his debate on Budget 2027 in the Dewan Rakyat today.

He also called for clear guidelines or a uniform assessment mechanism to ensure compensation is awarded fairly, transparently, and consistently.

Earlier today, Transport Minister Anthony Loke (below) said the proposed amendments would empower courts to order offenders convicted of serious road traffic offences to compensate victims or their lawful next of kin.

The compensation would be in addition to imprisonment, fines, and other penalties under the law. The government is also considering seizing the assets of convicted motorists to fund the payments.

However, responding to Ahmad Yahaya (PN-Pokok Sena) in the Dewan Rakyat, Loke said no decision had been made on how the proposed compensation system would operate.

The Transport Ministry is working with other government agencies to finalise the details, with the amendments expected to be tabled in Parliament in early 2027.

When tabling Budget 2027 on Oct 9, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim confirmed that the compensation mechanism for victims of accidents caused by motorists under the influence of intoxicating substances would be included in the proposed amendments.

In June, the Dewan Rakyat passed a separate Road Transport (Amendment) Bill aimed at strengthening enforcement and increasing penalties for serious traffic offences.

However, the compensation proposal was not included, prompting several MPs to question the government’s commitment to addressing driving under the influence.

Civil claims

Ramkarpal also questioned how the proposed compensation mechanism would interact with victims’ existing rights to seek damages through civil proceedings.

He noted that under civil law, accident victims or their legal representatives can, subject to applicable laws, claim damages from the party responsible. These claims typically cover medical expenses, loss of income, care needs, and other losses recognised by law.

He asked whether compensation awarded through the proposed mechanism would be factored into the calculation of damages in civil proceedings.

“How will the government ensure that victims do not receive double compensation for the same loss without compromising their rights to claim appropriate damages?

“At the same time, we need to ensure that this new mechanism does not inadvertently limit the victims' rights to seek justice through the court,” Ramkarpal said.

Loke previously said Malaysia’s existing system requires motorists who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs to face criminal proceedings, while victims seeking compensation must file separate civil suits.

“This is where the problem lies because some victims do not have the means to file a civil case, and it will take years for them to get compensation in a civil case.

“What we are doing right now is combining these two into one so that when the case is brought to the court, the judge can also award compensation to the victims,” Loke reportedly told a press conference on Oct 12. - Malaysiakini, 15/10/2026

DPPs ordered to seek compensation for crime victims

6 months ago

FMT Reporters

The Criminal Procedure Code allows the courts to order convicts to pay costs of prosecution and compensation to victims or their next of kin.

Attorney-General Dusuki Mokhtar said a court can order compensation on top of a sentence, for the purpose of compensating the aggrieved party. (Bernama pic)

PETALING JAYA:

Attorney-General Dusuki Mokhtar has ordered all deputy public prosecutors to apply for the courts to order compensation for the victims of crimes, including those killed by drivers driving under the influence.

Dusuki said Section 426 of the Criminal Procedure Code gives courts the authority to order convicts to make a payment of costs for prosecution and compensation to victims or their next of kin.

“That order can be made on top of a sentence, for the purpose of compensating the aggrieved party.

“This is to ensure that, in the appropriate cases, victims obtain adequate compensation under the law to uphold justice and in view of public interest,” he said, according to Berita Harian.

Section 426 states that the court must consider the nature of the offence, the injury or expenses sustained by the victim, the damage or loss of property suffered, the loss of income incurred by the victim, and the convict’s ability to pay compensation.

Dusuki said this meant that prosecutors would need to obtain additional information to fulfil the criteria for the court to order payment of compensation.

He acknowledged that seeking compensation was not a conventional practice of deputy public prosecutors and would not be possible in all cases.

“This department remains committed to ensuring that prosecutions are conducted independently, fairly, and with integrity, and that justice is upheld and the interests of the public and victims are preserved.” - FMT, 15/4/2026

Father jailed 24 years for raping daughter

By Dawn Chan

October 14, 2026 @ 4:38pm

A Sessions Court judge said a 24-year jail term for a father who raped his 13-year-old daughter reflected the need to deter sexual offences. - File pic

RAUB: A Sessions Court judge said a 24-year jail term for a father who raped his 13-year-old daughter reflected the need to deter sexual offences.

Judge Noor Zaihan Mohamad Ali, in her grounds of judgment, cited previous court decisions stressing the need for heavy sentences to deter sexual crimes, particularly those committed against children by their own fathers.

She referred to Md Adam Mustafar v Public Prosecutor, in which the judge stressed that severe punishment was necessary to deter fathers from preying on their children and other vulnerable victims.

She also cited Yek Hock Soon, in which judge Datuk Azman Abdullah said sentences should serve as a lesson and instil fear among offenders and society.

Azman had warned that a mere "pinprick" punishment could lead society to regard rape as a less serious offence.

Noor Zaihan said the principles were particularly relevant in the case involving the 54-year-old father, who pleaded guilty to repeatedly raping his daughter

The judge said the fact that the accused was the victim's father made the offences particularly serious, as he should have protected her rather than caused her trauma and pain.

"She should have received love and affection from him but was treated otherwise.

"These acts clearly showed that the accused did not regret his actions and continued to repeat the offences against his own biological daughter," she said.

The court sentenced him to 12 years in jail and 10 strokes of the rotan for each of two rape charges, with the sentences ordered to run consecutively.

The offences took place on March 17 and May 27 at their house in Bentong.

The court also took into account another rape committed against the victim on Sept 19 last year, for which the accused was sentenced to eight years in jail and 10 strokes of the rotan. That sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence for the first rape charge in the present case.

Noor Zaihan said the two offences in the present case could not be treated as a single transaction because they occurred on different dates and involved separate acts.

The accused, who was unrepresented, had appealed for a lighter sentence, citing heart disease and high blood pressure. He said he worked as a security guard earning about RM2,000 a month and had a wife and three other daughters aged 11, 10 and six.

However, deputy public prosecutor Fathin Nadhirah Kasim sought a heavy sentence, arguing that the public interest outweighed the accused's personal circumstances.

She said he should have protected and educated his daughter instead of raping her.

The court also ordered him to undergo rehabilitation counselling in prison and be placed under police supervision for two years after completing his sentence.

The victim disclosed the offences to her mother on May 27, and the accused was arrested later that night.

Noor Zaihan said the sentence was adequate and appropriate after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and should deter the accused from repeating his criminal conduct.- NST, 14/10/2026

 

Admission of guilt 

19 Jul 2011 12:00 am

©The Star (Used by permission)
ARTICLES OF LAW By BHAG SINGH

When a person has pleaded guilty to a charge, it does not necessarily follow that this will be admissible in civil proceedings arising out of the same matter.

WHEN an accident happens, the party who considers it to be the other party’s fault, may feel he has a right to make a claim and that it is a simple and straightforward matter.

Such is the case of a reader who, following a collision which he feels is due to the fault of the other party, has incurred substantial costs in having his car repaired.

Following the accident, the driver of the other car was charged in court where he pleaded guilty. However, when our reader asked to be compensated for the expenses incurred by him, the other party wanted to pay only a part of the amount claimed.

Our reader wants to know why he should not be entitled to the full amount he is claiming? Afterall, the driver of the other car had pleaded guilty in court. Has he not admitted full responsibility?

It is hard to determine the position based on the bare facts disclosed so far.

The legal issues are not that simple and straightforward. The other party may have refused to pay the entire claim for various reasons. For one, the claim may have been excessive.

The other aspect involves this consideration: to what extent is the evidence of a guilty plea admissible in civil proceedings?

Admissible in evidence?

The question is: when a person brings a civil action arising out of damage suffered in an accident, is he entitled to be compensated for what he asked for merely because the other party has been convicted?

The answer to this depends on whether there was a trial and a decision was made by the court after hearing witnesses, and considering the evidence and submissions. Or was it a case where the defendant just pleaded guilty?

In considering these matters, the nature of the offence and the facts of the situation are very important. The eventual decision will be based on the facts before the court as well as the applicable law in the circumstances.

As stated in Re Hardjo Soekatmo (deceased): “It is settled law that a conviction obtained against a defendant in criminal proceedings is inadmissible in evidence in civil proceedings but a plea of guilty being an admission which may support the plaintiff’s case can be admissible”.

Why the distinction

The reason for this is that in the former situation, a decision is made by the court in a criminal proceeding. To accept the decision would amount to an adoption of that decision which has taken into consideration different standards.

When a person pleads guilty, what is relevant is not the conviction but his admission as to the commission of the offence. Section 21 of the Evidence Act 1950 states: “Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them or his representatives in interest.”

However, whilst admissions can be admissible, these are not conclusive. It is for this reason that Section 31 of the Evidence Act 1950 states: “Admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but they may operate as estoppels under the provisions hereinafter contained”.

By reason of the fact that the admission of guilt in the face of such a case is not conclusive, our reader has no automatic right to have the court make an award that he be paid whatever he chooses to claim.

As stated in Re Hardjo Soekatmo and particularly in the context of an accident claim: “A plea of guilty is not to be regarded as conclusive, and that it is open to the person who had pleaded to explain, in a subsequent civil trial, why he had so pleaded”.

Whatever weight the court would attach to a plea of guilty as an admission must depend on the circumstances of the case. A defendant may plead guilty for various reasons, for example, to save time and expenses, or to prevent some embarrassing facts from coming out.

In the case cited, the defendant had given reasons for pleading guilty. In any event, the judge noted that the record of conviction did not indicate any particular form of carelessness on his part.

The defendant had pleaded guilty to a statement of facts which merely recited the collision. It was silent as to whether the defendant was wholly negligent or that the other party was not negligent at all.

Thus in that case the court held that the party that claimed to be aggrieved could not rely entirely on the guilty plea to consider its case proved without doing anything else or more.

Otherwise

However, it is not always the case that a guilty plea cannot be relied upon. In certain cases, a court may well rely on a guilty plea in coming to a decision.       

In Ong Tua Chor v Lee Beng Tong, a case involving the repealed Control of Rent Act 1966, the landlord sought to evict the tenant for having committed a breach of the provisions of the building by–laws made under the Town Board Enactment (Cap 137) by partitioning the front portion of the ground floor illegally, thereby exposing the landlord to a penalty or fine.

The tenant had pleaded guilty and she was fined RM80. The landlord produced a certified true copy of the charge and the notes recorded by the magistrate.

The court took the view that based on the facts that were disclosed in the charge, the guilty plea by the tenant constituted sufficient admission within the meaning of Section 21 of the Evidence Act 1950, and therefore could be admitted and in consequent be considered.

It must be noted that in some cases, a conviction may be admissible in evidence, but the reliance placed on and the weight attached to such an admission is an entirely separate matter. - Malaysian Bar website