ON HUMAN RIGHTS, JUSTICE AND PEACE ISSUES, LABOUR RIGHTS, MIGRANT RIGHTS, FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY, TOWARDS AN END OF TORTURE, POLICE ABUSES, DISCRIMINATION...
Patrizia Cortellessa/Pacific Pre via Reuters Connect
Dock and port workers from 17 countries will disrupt and block exports to Israel on Friday, with workers joining from countries including Italy, Mexico, Turkey, the US, Morocco and India.
Representatives from more than 100 ports will participate in the international day of action on 30 October, calling for an end to Israel’s genocide against Palestinians and “US-Israeli wars of aggression”.
The Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC)announced on X that workers will take action by “peacefully disrupting and blocking the transfer of military, energy and other dual-use supplies to Israel, including by refusing to handle such supplies”.
Workers will also pressure governments to impose a full military embargo on Israel and end “trade, economic and academic relations serving its illegal occupation and apartheid”.
Explaining the day of action, the BNC said that Israel’s “criminal wars” are “exacerbating the cost of living and economic crises worldwide”.
“Military budgets are swelling in the colonial West, while families and workers struggle with the cost of health, housing, transportation, and education. Our struggles are interlinked,” it stated.
A further 17 Palestinian trade unions and federations have endorsed the action, stating: “Our struggle for justice in Palestine is inseparable from the global struggle against systemic racism, militarisation, exploitation, climate devastation and all forms of oppression.”
The day of action comes a year after dockworkers in Italy blocked the ports of Genoa and Livorno, with unions closing schools and stopping transportation as part of an Italy-wide general strike in response to Israel preventing the Global Sumud Flotilla from reaching Gaza in 2025.
The flotilla was the largest ever naval mission to attempt to deliver humanitarian supplies to Gaza, with around 20 vessels carrying delegates from at least 44 countries.
The flotilla was subject to drone attacks before being illegally intercepted by Israel in international waters. Those on board were detained and have accused Israeli forces of subjecting them to human rights abuses including assault, degrading treatment, and the withholding of medical care.
HAZE - Can Malaysia prosecute criminally liable in Malaysia? YES, (in my opinion) they can for this CRIME as it is an offence in MALAYSIA the moment the haze enters Malaysia's jurisdiction. It is not like MURDER or other crimes where it happens in other countries... FULL STOP.
Malaysia's COURTS have jurisdiction the moment the HAZE enters Malaysia's jurisdiction...in my opinion, it matters not where the source of the pollution is ...the burning/fires could be in Indonesia, ...or even INDIA(it matters not) - but the moment it becomes pollution in Malaysia affecting Malaysians, it becomes a CRIME ... and thus the perpetrator/s can be charged and tried in Malaysia for a Sec. 22 crime...???
Sec. 22 Restrictions on pollution of the atmosphere [ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 1974]
(1) No person shall, unless licensed, emit or discharge any environmentally hazardous substances, pollutants or wastes into the atmosphere in contravention of the acceptable conditions specified under section 21....
...(3) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine of not less than ten thousand ringgit and not exceeding one million ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both, and shall also be liable to a further fine not exceeding one thousand ringgit for every day during which the offence continues after a notice by the Director General requiring him to cease the act specified therein has been served on him.
But, is emitting or causing haze, smoke, etc a CRIME - because then, we have look at what is permissible and what is NOT - when will HAZE or smoke a crime? Do we have those standards - Malaysia should have it since HAZE has been a problem for some time > OR has Malaysia failed to set up LIMITS - when it becomes a CRIME.
Same too, with SOUND - when it exceeds a certain LIMIT, it becomes a CRIME> also when it contravenes acceptable standards/conditions set by the government > a little HAZE/Smoke may not be a crime until it is OVER a certain limit set by government.
In my opinion, if the HAZE is above a certain dangerous value, it automatically becomes a CRIME irrespective where the SOURCE of the Haze is....so, it should be actionable as a CRIME.
Better if Malaysia also has a Transboundary Haze Pollution Act 2014, as what Singapore has > thus the failure of Government and/or Parliament to enact such an ACT for Malaysia yet...
BUT, even without such a Trans boundary Haze Pollution Act 2014, I believe that it is still a CRIME under the ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 1974 and possibly other existing laws.
Then, there are the CIVIL Remedies - where action can be taken in Malaysia, and even in the COUNTRY where the persons/entity are or the source of the pollution exist.
The one QUESTION has been whether the causers of this HAZE are also Malaysioans?
There is no conclusive evidence that Malaysian-linked plantation companies were responsible for fires in Indonesia, Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability (NRES) Minister Datuk Seri Arthur Joseph Kurup said. He said NRES and the Plantation and Commodities Ministry had examined allegations that Malaysian companies were involved in burning activities in Indonesia. “Based on our assessment to date, there is no conclusive evidence confirming that Malaysian-linked plantation companies were responsible for the fires. “The government’s position is clear that any party proven to be responsible for haze pollution must face appropriate action in accordance with the law,” he said. - Malay Mail, 28/10/2026
However, what the Minister says contradicts what Indonesian groups are saying - and what Singapore has done?????
Indonesian environmental non-governmental organisation Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI) has claimed that 21 companies linked to business groups with Malaysian ties were involved in forest and land fires in Indonesia between January and September 2026. - NST, 26/10/2026
Four companies with links to Malaysian-listed groups have been caught up in Singapore's efforts to tackle the haze that has lingered across the region for weeks....Two are Singapore-incorporated subsidiaries of Bursa Malaysia-listed TSH Resources Bhd – TSH Global Plantation Pte Ltd and TSH Oversea Pte Ltd.The third is Wilmar International Ltd, a Singapore-listed agribusiness group in which Malaysia's PPB Group Bhd holds about 18.8 per cent.The fourth, Kencana Agri Ltd, has a more indirect connection. Wilmar holds a 20 per cent stake in the company through a subsidiary. - NST, 27/10/2026
Has HAZE caused death, injury or sickness > then, it is also another criminal offence amd action can be taken?
MINISTER - tell us how many have suffered medically because of HAZE > No one - is it NOT a HEALTH RISK?
MINISTER - tell us if HAZE is above the permitted limits? Have you investigated to determine conclusively the SOURCE --- because the Government naturally has the resources to do this? What are the findings?
There is also the POSSIBILITY of the Malaysian Government to commence Court Actions in INDONESIA itself, now that the Haze is affecting Malaysians and even disrupting our enjoyment to life??
Who’s behind the haze? No conclusive evidence linking Malaysian firms to Indonesia fires, says Arthur Kurup
A child walks among volunteers struggling to extinguish a land fire that reignited behind an elementary school at Alalak village in Barito Kuala Regency, South Kalimantan, October 28, 2026. — AFP pic
First Published: Wednesday, 28 Oct 2026 4:17 PM MYT
KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 28 — There is no conclusive evidence that Malaysian-linked plantation companies were responsible for fires in Indonesia, Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability (NRES) Minister Datuk Seri Arthur Joseph Kurup said.
He said NRES and the Plantation and Commodities Ministry had examined allegations that Malaysian companies were involved in burning activities in Indonesia.
“Based on our assessment to date, there is no conclusive evidence confirming that Malaysian-linked plantation companies were responsible for the fires.
“The government’s position is clear that any party proven to be responsible for haze pollution must face appropriate action in accordance with the law,” he said.
Arthur was winding up the debate on the Supply Bill 2027 for his ministry in the Dewan Rakyat today. He was responding to Mohamad Shafizan Kepli (GPS-Batang Lupar), who asked about proposals for specific legislation to address transboundary haze pollution and action against companies found responsible.
Arthur said the proposal to restrict financing for companies proven to be responsible for haze pollution required further scrutiny, particularly regarding the legal basis, evidentiary standards, jurisdiction and implications for the financial sector.
“The ministry has also examined on several occasions the merits of enacting a Transboundary Haze Pollution Act, similar to legislation introduced by a neighbouring country.
“However, implementation would present challenges, particularly in terms of jurisdiction, the collection and verification of evidence overseas, the determination of corporate liability and the implications for the sovereignty of other countries,” he said.
On proposals to seek compensation and damages, Arthur said the Asean Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (AATHP) did not currently provide a specific mechanism for compensation claims between countries.
“Nevertheless, the government is open to examining the suitability of other legal mechanisms, subject to the availability of a basis under international law.
“A comprehensive study of the economic losses caused by haze, including its effects on public health, productivity and economic activity, is important in providing a scientific and economic basis for policy considerations and follow-up action,” he said. — Bernama- Malay Mail, 28/10/2026
Indonesian NGO alleges 21 Malaysian-linked firms involved in forest fires
A woman wearing a face mask pushes a cart filled with used plastic bottles along a road amid thick haze from forest and land fires in the region in Palangkaraya, Central Kalimantan, on Oct 25. PIC BY AFP
KUALA LUMPUR: Indonesian environmental non-governmental organisation Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI) has claimed that 21 companies linked to business groups with Malaysian ties were involved in forest and land fires in Indonesia between January and September 2026.
The findings are part of a mapping analysis report titled "Who Are Behind the Fires?" released by WALHI's National Executive.
According to the report, satellite data recorded at least 30,927 hotspots across Indonesia in the first nine months of this year, with nearly 50 per cent located within the operating concessions of oil palm plantation and forestry companies.
The regions with the highest concentrations of hotspots included West Kalimantan, with 9,529, and Central Kalimantan, with 7,141. The fires caused the Air Pollution Standard Index (ISPU) in affected areas to reach unhealthy to hazardous levels.
The analysis also found that at least 21 concession-holding companies in Indonesia with detected hotspots or fire incidents were subsidiaries of, or affiliated with, business groups originating from Malaysia.
Apart from Malaysian-linked companies, the WALHI report revealed that many other high-risk concessions were controlled by foreign capital and conglomerates with parent entities or registered shareholders in Singapore, Hong Kong and tax havens such as the British Virgin Islands and Samoa.
Meanwhile, on Oct 5, Greenpeace Indonesia and Pantau Gambut alleged that plantation companies from Malaysia and Singapore were among 20 entities linked to forest fires, based on a dataset of haze sources covering Aug 1 to Oct 1.
The report said some of the same Indonesian entities had also been identified in a 2019 report in connection with fires on land they owned.
WALHI said forest and land fires in Indonesia should not be viewed merely as technical errors or negligence by local companies holding permits.
Instead, it said the problem was structural, involving parent business groups that controlled operational policies and benefited economically from their control of the land.
The NGO called on the authorities and relevant ministries to take firm action, including reviewing permits, imposing administrative restrictions, suspending operations and revoking concession permits held by companies that repeatedly experienced fires in areas under their control.
It said the recurring pattern of hotspots across subsidiaries belonging to the same business groups showed that the fires were not isolated incidents caused by negligence among individuals on the ground.
Unity government spokesman Datuk Seri Fahmi Fadzil, on Oct 16, had said that no Malaysian plantation companies with oil palm concessions in Indonesia had been found to be involved in forest fires linked to the haze.
He said cross-checks with Malaysian companies showed that most of the fires observed had occurred outside concessions owned by Malaysian firms.- NST, 26/10/2026
Explainer: Are Malaysian-linked firms in trouble over Singapore's haze notices? [WATCH]
KUALA LUMPUR: Four companies with links to Malaysian-listed groups have been caught up in Singapore's efforts to tackle the haze that has lingered across the region for weeks.
But does receiving a notice mean they are responsible for the fires in Indonesia? And could they face penalties?
Here's what you need to know.
Which companies have Malaysian connections?
Two are Singapore-incorporated subsidiaries of Bursa Malaysia-listed TSH Resources Bhd – TSH Global Plantation Pte Ltd and TSH Oversea Pte Ltd.
The third is Wilmar International Ltd, a Singapore-listed agribusiness group in which Malaysia's PPB Group Bhd holds about 18.8 per cent.
The fourth, Kencana Agri Ltd, has a more indirect connection. Wilmar holds a 20 per cent stake in the company through a subsidiary.
What do the notices actually mean?
Singapore's National Environment Agency has asked 10 Singapore-registered companies to provide information about their Indonesian land concessions, corporate relationships and measures taken to prevent or control fires.
The notices are part of efforts to establish who may be responsible for the haze.
They do not mean the companies have been found responsible for causing pollution.
The notices differ from those issued to 10 Indonesian companies, which were ordered to take preventive measures against fires, including deploying firefighters, stopping burning activities and submitting prevention plans.
The Singapore-registered companies, meanwhile, have been asked to provide documents and information.
Put simply, one group has been told to tackle fires, while the other has been asked to help investigators establish responsibility.
Is Singapore using a new law?
No. The Transboundary Haze Pollution Act came into force in September 2014.
It allows Singapore to pursue companies over haze pollution affecting the country, even when the fires originate overseas.
What is significant in 2026 is the use of the existing law to seek information from Singapore-registered companies amid a prolonged haze episode linked to fires in Indonesia.
Could the Malaysian-linked companies face penalties?
Potentially, but not simply because they received notices.
Companies found responsible for haze pollution can face fines of up to S$2 million under the Act. Failure to comply with an information notice can also carry separate penalties.
For now, the companies must provide the requested information. TSH Resources' two subsidiaries have until Nov 2 to respond.
Whether further action follows will depend on what Singapore's investigators establish.
Four companies with links to Malaysian-listed groups have been caught up in Singapore's efforts to tackle the haze that has lingered across the region for weeks. Afp pic - - NST, 27/10/2026
Human Rights and JUSTICE requires consistency - and thus DAP and LIM GUAN ENG just made a BIG MISTAKE/FUMBLE and hopefully will correct it soon. Has DAP forgoten about EQUALITY of Persons, and the prohibition of DISCRIMINATION? Have they forgotten of the basic 'EQUAL PAY EQUAL WORK' - means that all workers that do the same work deserves the same pay, the same employment benefits.
NOW, disappointingly, DAP is advocating DISCRIMINATION based on nationality...What happens if some other country discriminates Malaysian migrant workers - Approximately 1.86 million Malaysians live and work abroad, representing about 5.6% of the country's total population, approximately 60% in Singapore > so, if DAP advocates discrimination based on NATIONALITY in Malaysia, that means that if this 1.86 million Malaysian MIGRANT workers can also discriminated based on Nationality, IT IS OK? Then DAP cannot say anything about these Malaysians ...can they?
DAP advisor Lim Guan Eng today called on the government to exclude foreign workers from any increase in Malaysia’s minimum wage,..
... immediate abolition of the mandatory two per cent Employees Provident Fund (EPF) contribution for foreign workers,
When it comes to BASIC or FUNDAMENTAL Human Rights - there is NO COMPROMISE - you cannot say VIOLATE the rights in Malaysia, but we oppose violation of RIGHTS in some other countries.
EQUALITY of persons - and NO discrimination are HUMAN RIGHTS - and it is also acknowledged in Malaysia's Federal Constitution - and United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, other UN Documents and INTERNATIONAL LAW
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights....
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Malaysian FEDERAL Constitution
Article 8(1) (1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
Do not forget that Malaysia had ratified the Equal Remuneration Convention (No. 100),...where it also states that '...the term remuneration includes the ordinary, basic or minimum wage or salary and any additional emoluments whatsoever payable directly or indirectly, whether in cash or in kind, by the employer to the worker and arising out of the worker's employment;...'
The employer's contribution to the worker's account in EPF/KWSP is clearly a worker's benefit under this definition of 'remuneration' - so too will contributions to SOCSO/PERKESO
# As it is Malaysia is discriminating against MIGRANT Workers - when the employer contribution is just 2% when local workers get 11-12%? The employee benefit is the EMPLOYER's contribution - it is OK to keep certain classes of workers contribution to zero or lesser percentage. The Employer Contribution that will benefit an employee is the EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT - and in Malaysia that is based on income for work. So is this NOT a violation of the EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK principle
DAP's position of DISCRIMINATION based on Nationality is MOST DANGEROUS - it opens the door to discrimination based on ethnicity, on religion, on ... that is why we must always advocate for EQUALITY OF PERSONS (Malaysia Constitution says this - NOT equality of citizens) - thus DAP and/or Lim Guan Eng may have violated Malaysia's Constitutional Guarantee...???
“Truth, justice and freedom must not be mere words but core principles that must be upheld to ensure prosperity for all.” - Lim Guan Eng, DAP Chairman
And DAP's objective says - about workers, not just Malaysian workers
To protect workers and trade union rights so that a decent standard of living is accessible to all (should DAP amend its stated OBJECTS - to now say To protect only Malaysian workers???)
No one in DAP spoke against Guan Eng's statement - and this was MOST DISAPOINTING because in the PAST, DAP and its politicians stood up and fought for HUMAN RIGHTS and WORKER rights
REFUGEES and UNDOCUMENTED MIGRANTS - a BERSATU Position?
Recently, it was a BERSATU MP -
An opposition lawmaker today urged Putrajaya to take a tougher stance on refugees and undocumented migrants, claiming the rakyat were fed up with what he described as a seemingly endless problem....a nationwide crackdown on undocumented migrants, including mobilising military personnel to assist the Immigration Department in arresting and deporting them.
On this matter, some quick comments to Radzi Jidin and BERSATU
Note Malaysia under PM Anwar is at present under global condemnation following the sending back to Myanmar about 10,000 (including refugees) despite knowing that the CONFLICT is ongoing against ETHNIC Minority Groups, and pro-democracy forces > around 100,000 said to be killed.
THUS, the statement by a BERSATU MP about refugees and undocumented migrants - that Malaysia should arrest, even using the Military,...is APPALLING
* Are you considering REFUGEES and UNDOCUMENTED migrants the same? So, is PN for the arrest and deportation of even REFUGEES back to their home countries? Are you saying that Malaysia should violate the principle of non-refoulement and international law?
* With regard to UNDOCUMENTED migrants - how many are really victims of HUMAN TRAFFICKING?How many came to Malaysia as documented migrants - and now remain as undocumented migrants - and WHY is that when employer should have arranged for their transport back home?
Are these workers remaining in Malaysia because they have cheated/deceived by their employers/agents - 'come to Malaysia to work' - and when they come no work or different work with different (not agreed wages) or after working ready to back BUT employer still have not yet paid wages/OT and monies owed > and note that for workers to claim RIGHTs, they must be physically present in Malaysia - claims lodged at the Human Resource/Labour Department or Industrial Relations Department mandatorily require physical presence of the worker claimant - the moment that you are ABSENT - your case/claim is cancelled?
VICTIMS of Human Trafficking > Some migrant workers 'cheated' of their promised monies may chose to remain in Malaysia to work and earn first before going back to their country of origin - where debt-collectors may be waiting because many paid agents/etc a lot of money to come to Malaysia to work.
THUS, the main PROBLEM or Cause of PROBLEM for many migrant workers was brought about by the Malaysian LAWS/Practice-Policies forcing them to be undocumented migrants - or they could be victims of human trafficking?
ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS AND ANTI-SMUGGLING OF MIGRANTS ACT 2007 - Section 2
"trafficking in persons" means all actions of recruiting, conveying, transferring, acquiring, maintaining, harbouring, providing or receiving, a person, for the purpose of exploitation, by the following means:
(a) threat or use of force or other forms of coercion;
(b) abduction;
(c)fraud;
(d)deception;
(e) abuse of power;
(f)abuse of the position of vulnerability of a person to an act of trafficking in persons; or
(g) the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to obtain the consent of a person having control over the trafficked person;
"exploitation" includes all forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude, any illegal activity or the removal of human organs
Thus if migrant workers are deceived to come to Malaysia to work based on fraud/deceptions including promises that they will work at this place/occupation, receive so much wages and benefits, and for a term of at least 5 years...then when they arrive in Malaysia, all NOT TRUE - that makes these migrant workers VICTIMS of Human Trafficking
If the employer after the workers have worked fails to pay the wages, OT, work on rest days - and get rid of them > then would they not again be VICTIMS of HUMAN TRAFFICKING too besides workers whose rights have been violated.
Malaysia have wrongly FOCUSED on just that Migrant Workers, after their work permits ends should leave Malaysia back to the country of ORIGIN > that is very very wrong because GOVERNMENT should also ensure that migrant workers to be sent home HAVE no outstanding claims against their EMPLOYERS and/or others noting that access to justice mechanism requires PHYSICAL presence in Malaysia, and ONLY the Malaysian Court has jurisdiction to deal with their claims.
So, Radzi Jidin and BERSATU - are you just interested in getting them out of Malaysia > and NOT bothered that they may have cheated and their rights violated? IF SO, do you not believe in Human Rights and JUSTICE?
Now, when it comes to HUMAN RIGHTS - one should VOTE for political parties that take a principled stance of RESPECT and Promote > that means being consistent and not changing positions as DAP just did, when he proposed anti-human rights actions for FOREIGN Migrant workers shamefully...and then BERSATU - that even asked government to use MILITARY..
Lim Guan Eng says foreign workers should be excluded from minimum wage hike, calls for EPF levy repeal
In a statement, Lim said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is expected to announce a revision to the minimum wage during the tabling of Budget 2027 on Oct 9, following the government’s assessment that wage growth has not kept pace with gains in worker productivity and corporate profits. — Picture by Firdaus Latif
Summary
DAP chairman Lim Guan Eng urges the government to exempt foreign workers from any minimum wage increase to protect local MSMEs from rising operating costs.
Lim argues that the minimum wage increase should apply only to Malaysian workers and calls for abolishing the mandatory EPF contribution for foreign employees.
He stresses the importance of supporting domestic enterprises and preventing policies that may weaken the competitiveness of Malaysian businesses.
By Malay Mail
First Published: Tuesday, 29 Sep 2026 3:10 PM MYT
Last Modified: Wednesday, 30 Sep 2026 2:38 PM MYT
GEORGE TOWN, Sept 29 — DAP advisor Lim Guan Eng today called on the government to exclude foreign workers from any increase in Malaysia’s minimum wage, arguing that the move would help protect local businesses, particularly micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), from rising operating costs.
In a statement, Lim said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is expected to announce a revision to the minimum wage during the tabling of Budget 2027 on Oct 9, following the government’s assessment that wage growth has not kept pace with gains in worker productivity and corporate profits.
While acknowledging the rationale for higher wages, Lim said the prospect of a minimum wage increase has sparked concern among local businesses already grappling with intense competition, higher compliance costs and taxes, as well as price pressures from overseas producers.
He said MSMEs, which form the backbone of the domestic economy, are facing mounting challenges amid a sluggish economic environment and should be consulted before any policy changes are implemented.
Lim argued that any upward revision in the minimum wage should apply only to Malaysian workers, saying foreign employees should not benefit from the increase as they were hired under mutually agreed employment contracts.
He also renewed calls for the immediate abolition of the mandatory two per cent Employees Provident Fund (EPF) contribution for foreign workers, contending that the requirement imposes an unnecessary burden on employers without providing meaningful benefits to migrant workers.
According to Lim, exempting foreign workers from minimum wage increases and scrapping the EPF contribution requirement would help ease cost pressures on local businesses and safeguard the viability of approximately 1.2 million MSMEs nationwide.
He urged the government to prioritise the interests of domestic enterprises and ensure that policies designed to raise wages do not inadvertently undermine the competitiveness of Malaysian businesses.
* A previous version of the article incorrectly stated Lim Guan Eng's party position. It has since been corrected. - Malay Mail, 30/9/2026
Guan Eng wants foreign workers excluded from minimum wage hike
By Audrey Dermawan
September 30, 2026 @ 7:31am
Mandatory EPF contributions for non-Malaysian workers took effect from wages for October 2025. - NSTP FILE PIC
GEORGE TOWN: DAP adviser Lim Guan Eng wants the government to exclude foreign workers from any increase in the minimum wage.
In a statement on Facebook, Lim said the proposed revision, expected to be announced when Budget 2027 is tabled on Oct 9, should take into account the pressures faced by micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs).
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had said the current RM1,700 minimum wage was expected to be raised, with details to be announced when 2027 Budget is tabled.
Lim said any increase should not apply to foreign workers, arguing that local employers had hired them based on previously agreed employment contracts.
"Any increase in the minimum wage must not benefit foreign workers, in order to defend and protect the interests of Malaysians and Malaysian businesses," he said.
Lim also wants the mandatory 2 per cent Employees Provident Fund (EPF) employer contribution for non-Malaysian workers to be scrapped, saying the measure placed an additional burden on local employers and MSMEs.
Under current EPF rules, non-Malaysian citizen employees and their employers each contribute 2 per cent of monthly wages. The requirement took effect from wages for October 2025, with domestic workers excluded.
Lim said the government should engage with businesses, particularly MSMEs, before implementing any increase amid concerns over rising operating and compliance costs.
His call comes as the government considers a possible increase in the minimum wage.
Economy Minister Akmal Nasrullah Mohd Nasir had said the government was considering the impact on employers, particularly MSMEs, and the need to balance workers' welfare with business sustainability.
Anwar had said wage growth had lagged behind productivity growth in Malaysia and that the government would introduce measures to ensure fairer wages in 2027 Budget. - NST, 30/9/2026
Get tough on undocumented migrants, refugees, consider deploying military - PN MP
Hariz MohdPublished: Oct 19, 2026 5:52 PM
PARLIAMENT | An opposition lawmaker today urged Putrajaya to take a tougher stance on refugees and undocumented migrants, claiming the rakyat were fed up with what he described as a seemingly endless problem.
Debating the Budget 2027 Bill, Radzi Jidin (PN-Putrajaya) proposed a nationwide crackdown on undocumented migrants, including mobilising military personnel to assist the Immigration Department in arresting and deporting them.
"I suggest the government launch a massive nationwide operation to arrest undocumented migrants and deport them to their countries of origin.
"We know some may argue that the Immigration Department does not have enough personnel to carry out such an operation.
"For this purpose, I propose that the entire government machinery be mobilised through a whole-of-government approach, as we did during the Covid-19 pandemic.
"This could include deploying military personnel to rid the country of undocumented migrants," Radzi (above) added.
The Bersatu leader also urged the government to empty immigration detention depots nationwide as soon as possible by deporting all detainees to their countries of origin.
He said this would send a clear message to the international community and human trafficking syndicates that Malaysia was serious about tackling the issue.
Radzi claimed that the public had long complained about problems associated with the large number of refugees and undocumented migrants, with many viewing the situation as a never-ending problem.
The former minister also said the actual number of undocumented migrants in the country was unknown, alleging that the situation was compounded by "treacherous" civil servants who facilitated human trafficking activities.
Radzi warned that the country would be "destroyed" if the government failed to effectively stem their entry, including by imposing stricter policies on the employment of migrant workers.
Be firm with UNHCR
Turning to refugees, he called on the government to take a firmer stance towards the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), including by asking the agency to stop registering new refugees in Malaysia.
He said it was unfair for the international community to leave Malaysia to shoulder the burden of hosting some 225,000 registered refugees, while only a small number were resettled in third countries."This effectively puts Malaysia in a trap.
"Has the government exerted sufficient pressure on the UNHCR to ensure that as many registered refugees as possible are resettled in third countries?" he asked.
On July 23, Putrajaya has directed UNHCR to temporarily halt all refugee registrations pending a restructuring of the government’s management system via the Refugee Registration Document (DPP) programme.
According to The Star, Deputy Foreign Minister Lukanisman Awang Sauni (above) told the Dewan Negara that the decision was made to ensure that the management and registration of refugees in the nation are executed in a more orderly manner under government supervision.
“Through the DPP, the government can manage data in a more organised manner, including for data coordination, identity verification, monitoring, and regulation without relying on the records of any foreign entities,” Lukanisman added.- Malaysiakini, 19/10/2026
Migrants: Instead of screaming ‘army’, Radzi should go after the powerful
MPs should understand the root causes of the problem – greed, corruption, exploitation – instead of playing to the gallery.
Radzi Jidin wants soldiers deployed to arrest undocumented migrants and clear immigration depots through mass deportations.
But before we send in the army, we should ask: how does Malaysia produce irregular migration in the first place?
Let’s start with recruitment. While our law caps placement fees at one month’s wage, which is RM1,700, Bangladeshi workers routinely pay recruitment fees of between RM20,000 and RM30,000. That is nearly 12–17 times the legal limit, forcing workers to overstay to recoup their payment.
The 2026 US Trafficking in Persons Report flags that not a single employment agency in Malaysia was prosecuted under the Private Employment Agencies Act between 2025 and 2026.
More troublingly, it identifies official complicity as a significant concern. Even Radzi has acknowledged that civil servants assist traffickers.
So why are we proposing to send soldiers after the workers? Why aren’t we going after those who profit from and sustain this system?
Recruitment agents who impose crippling fees, employers who exploit undocumented labour, and officials who enable trafficking are the problem.
Deploy the army? Then deploy it against the employers, including GLCs, that knowingly hire undocumented workers. Deploy it against recruitment cartels that manufacture debt bondage, and against corrupt officials who enable labour trafficking.
If we are serious about reducing irregular migration, we must dismantle the lucrative recruitment-fee system that generates mega profits at the expense of migrant workers and perpetuates the cycle of debt bondage. Enforce a mandatory employer-pays principle and sign binding bilateral labour agreements with labour-sending countries.
MPs like Radzi need to understand the issues they speak about instead of playing to the gallery. Migrant workers are NOT the root cause of this crisis.
Greed, corruption, exploitative recruitment and unscrupulous employers are. Yet we continue to blame the workers while allowing the people who profit from exploitation to operate with impunity.
Malaysia has repeatedly faced international scrutiny and embarrassment over its poor labour migration governance. We simply cannot deport our way out of a system that we have failed to govern. So stop scapegoating migrant workers and start holding the powerful to account.
Charles Santiago is the former MP for Klang.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of MalaysiaNow. 20/10/2026
How could AG Dusuki Mokhtar publicly say that the removal of NS State Exco by the RULER alone, without allegedly the advice of the Menteri Besar was VALID? It was a DECEPTION of the Rakyat who expects an Attorney General is knowledgeable in our Federal Constitution and laws.
FIRST, Malaysia is a Parliamentary Democracy with Constitutional Monarchy. Any POWER of Rulers/King comes from the Malaysian people, and today it is to be found in our WRITTEN Federal Constitution.
Note, it is the FEDERAL Constitution that even created the KING - before we had no King.The first King of Malaysia (officially the Yang di-Pertuan Agong) was Tuanku Abdul Rahman of Negeri Sembilan, and his reign begin on 31/8/1957(MERDEKA Day) - likewise for State Rulers too, what is their POWERS and how they are to Act is all based on the Federal Constitution and the State Constitution.
Remember Malaysia is not simply a MONARCHY - where King and State Rulers can do as they please on their own > the powers come from the Federal Constitution and the relevant State Constitution > the powers they have is what the Malaysian people decided to give them - and the powers of King/State Rulers can also be further diminished, or increased if the people decide so, and this will be done by Constitutional Amendments
ONE power that was removed by the Malaysian government - was the ability of the KING to block the passing of LAWS, as for laws to be passed, it requires it to be passed by MPs in Parliament, then approved by Senators in Senate, and lastly the ASSENT(approval) by the King - and if NO royal assent, the law is NOT PASSED. Then the constitution was amended - and today, the right of the KING to stop the passing of a LAW is GONE - even if the King do not give his ROYAL assent, it is assumed that he did - Art 66(4 - 4A)
(4) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall within thirty days after a Bill is presented to him assent to the Bill by causing the Public Seal to be affixed thereto.
(4A) If a Bill is not assented to by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong within the time specified in Clause (4), it shall become law at the expiration of the time specified in that Clause in the like manner as if he had assented thereto.
The KING cannot simply appoint Anthony Loke or Hadi Awang as Prime Minister > because he can only appoint a MP who has the confidence/support of the majority of Members of Parliament - today, it is more than 111 of the total of 222 MPs.
Now, when it comes to members of the Cabinet, the KING has no more power/discretion in the matter, as has to appoint whoever as advised by the Prime Minister... same too in Negeri Sembilan as per that States Constitution, that was enacted post-MERDEKA.
XXXVIII The Executive Council LAWS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NEGERI SEMBILAN 1959
(1) The Ruler shall appoint an Executive Council.
(2) The Executive Council shall be appointed as follows, that is to say—
(a) the Ruler shall first appoint as Menteri Besar to preside over the Executive Council a member of the Legislative Assembly who in His judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly;
(b) He shall on the advice of the Menteri Besar appoint not more than ten nor less than four other members from among the members of the Legislative Assembly; and
(c) The Ruler shall, if the Menteri Besar so advises, appoint a member in the State Executive Council to be the Senior Executive Council who shall assist the Menteri Besar in the performance of his duties and the carrying out of his functions on the directions of Menteri Besar,
but if an appointment is made while the Legislative Assembly is dissolved a person who was a member of the last Legislative Assembly may be appointed but shall not continue to hold office after the first sitting of the next Legislative Assembly unless he is a member thereof.
(3) The Executive Council shall be collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly.
(4) If the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then unless at his request the Ruler dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.
(5) Subject to Clause (4), a member of the Executive Council other than the Menteri Besar shall hold office at the Ruler's pleasure, unless the appointment of any member of the Executive Council shall have been revoked by the Ruler on the advice of the Menteri Besarbut any member of the Council may at any time resign his office.
(6) A member of the Executive Council shall not engage in any trade, business or profession connected with any subject or department for which he is responsible and shall not, so long as he is engaged in any trade, business or profession, take part in any decision of the Executive Council relating to that trade, business or profession or in any decision likely to affect his pecuniary interest therein.
And, the meaning of 'acting on advice' as per the NS Constitution is similar to the provision of the Federal Constitution
XL Ruler to act on advice of the NS Constitution - (1) In the exercise of His functions under the Constitution of the State or any law or as a member of the Conference of Rulers the Ruler shallact in accordance with the advice of the Executive Council or of a member thereof acting under the general authority of the Council, except as otherwise provided by the Federal Constitution or the State Constitution; but shall be entitled, at His request, to any information concerning the Government of the State which is available to the Executive Council.
As it is, the Negeri Sembilan Constitution is similar to the Federal Constitution, and thus The RULER cannot remove any member of the Executive Council save on the advice of the Menteri Besar, The other way, other that personal resignation of the EXCO member, is when the Menteri Besar no longer commands the majority support resigns
Media report allege that the removal of the State EXCO members was not on the advice of the Menteri Besar - so it was wrong/void.
But, then our Dusuki Mokhtar (AG/PP) says it is OK- in my opinion, it was WRONG and UNCONSTITUTIONAL - and one would expect anyone with a legal background would know this - that is why DUSUKI must resign - we need a better AG/PP
The revocation of the appointments of 10 Negeri Sembilan executive council members is valid, says Attorney-General Dusuki Mokhtar. ...“According to Article 38(5), an exco member other than the menteri besar holds the post at the pleasure of the Yang Dipertuan Besar,” he said.
Dusuki refers to Art 38(5) of presumably the NS Constitution - and here to he is wrong as it clearly states that the removal by Ruler on the advice of MB - unless they RESIGN on their own.
38(5) Subject to Clause (4), a member of the Executive Council other than the Menteri Besar shall hold office at the Ruler's pleasure, unless the appointment of any member of the Executive Council shall have been revoked by the Ruler on the advice of the Menteri Besar but any member of the Council may at any time resign his office.
Now, with regards to removal of Attorney General, a similar provision exist - does this mean that it was the KING that removed the 2 past AG/PP of this Anwar Ibrahim's government WITHOUT the advice of the PM Anwar Ibrahim > this is ABSURD so much so no further comment now...
Art 145(5) Federal Constitution - Subject to Clause (6), the Attorney General shall hold office during the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and may at any time resign his office and, unless he is a member of the Cabinet, shall receive such remuneration as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine.
Does DUSUKI believe that the KING/RULERS can act on their own and REMOVE the ATTORNEY GENERAL, Cabinet Members and State EXCO members, without the advice of the Prime Minister or the relevant Menteri BESAR?
Fortunately, this UNCONSTITUTIONALITY was raised in Parliament by an MP - why did no DAP, PKR,PH MP raise this fundamental issue - a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS > if NS Ruler can do this, then RULERS of other States may also do so, and also the KING - YES, the King can remove, say Anthony Loke as a member of the Cabinet - without the advise of the PM? Is that OK? It is not, and thus the NS Exco Removal by RULER, NOT on the advise of the Menteri Besar is a SERIOUS ISSUE...
Speaking during the debate on the Supply (Budget) Bill 2027, Takiyuddin Hassan (PN-Kota Bharu) argued that the removal of 10 Negeri Sembilan excos by ruler Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir, without the advice of Menteri Besar Ismail Lasim, was unconstitutional.
He questioned why the Attorney-General’s Chambers had deemed the action constitutional, despite Clause 4 of the Negeri Sembilan constitution stipulating that members of the state exco, other than the menteri besar, hold office at the ruler’s pleasure, subject to removal by the ruler on the menteri besar’s advice.
"This (removal) was unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the attorney-general, who advises the government, has stated that the action taken is constitutional, when in fact it is inconsistent with the Constitution.
"I would like to ask the attorney-general: which constitution is he referring to when he says that what has been done is lawful?
"This is a constitutional matter that this House has the right to debate, because any constitution and amendments to it are dealt with here,” said the PAS secretary-general.. Malaysiakini, 19/10/2026
No KING or State Ruler has the power to remove any member of the Federal or State Cabinet on his own. They must ACT of the Advice of the PM or MB.
NOTE - Here I am only dealing with the removal of State EXCO members by the RULER, allegedly without the ADVISE of the Menteri Besar.
The NS issue now is much more - it allegedly starts with the 'questionable' removal of 1 of the 4 Undangs, the Undangs decision to remove the RULER...and a lot more > I may discuss it later or not. The current crisis has also raised issues of State-Federal relations > who appoints a State Legal Adviser and Secretary > should not the State have 100% control in such matters?
One thing that the NS Constitution has but not yet in the Federal Constitution is 'BAR' - A member of the Executive Council shall not engage in any trade, business or profession connected with any subject or department for which he is responsible...Should we consider including this in our FEDERAL CONSTITUTION too?
Sacking of Negeri Sembilan exco members valid, says AG
FMT Reporters
The gazette on the revocation aligns with Article 38(5) of the state's constitution, says Dusuki Mokhtar.
The revocation of the appointments of 10 exco members was gazetted on Thursday. (Bernama pic)
PETALING JAYA: The revocation of the appointments of 10 Negeri Sembilan executive council members is valid, says Attorney-General Dusuki Mokhtar.
Dusuki said the gazette on the revocation, effective Sept 20, aligns with Article 38(5) of the state’s constitution, Sinar Harian reported.
“According to Article 38(5), an exco member other than the menteri besar holds the post at the pleasure of the Yang Dipertuan Besar,” he said.
The Negeri Sembilan administration gazetted the revocation of the 10 exco members’ appointments on Thursday, with their sackings effective Sept 20.
The gazette said their appointments were revoked and annulled as they had violated their pledge of allegiance to the Yang Dipertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan, Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir.
The 10 now-former exco members include Umno’s Mustapha Nagoor (Palong), Faizal Ramli (Linggi), Zaiful Bahri Idris (Chembong), Razi Ali (Sungai Lui), Asna Amin (Lenggeng), Siti Nur Umaira Hasim (Labu) and Suhaimizan Bizar (Gemencheh).
The other three are MCA’s Siow Kong Choon (Chennah), PAS’s Fairuz Isa (Serting) and Razali Abu Samah (Sikamat) of Wawasan.
Their sackings come a week after they issued a statement purportedly affirming Tuanku Muhriz’s removal as Yang Dipertuan Besar. Menteri besar Ismail Lasim endorsed the statement a day later.
This was disputed by the state’s Dewan Keadilan dan Undang as well as the Attorney-General’s Chambers. - FMT, 26/9/2026
'Which constitution are you referring to?' Takiyuddin questions AG advice on N Sembilan exco removals
PARLIAMENT | A Perikatan Nasional lawmaker today raised the Negeri Sembilan royal dispute in the Dewan Rakyat, accusing Putrajaya of undermining the Federal Constitution’s guarantee of state constitutional autonomy.
Speaking during the debate on the Supply (Budget) Bill 2027, Takiyuddin Hassan (PN-Kota Bharu) argued that the removal of 10 Negeri Sembilan excos by ruler Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir, without the advice of Menteri Besar Ismail Lasim, was unconstitutional.
He questioned why the Attorney-General’s Chambers had deemed the action constitutional, despite Clause 4 of the Negeri Sembilan constitution stipulating that members of the state exco, other than the menteri besar, hold office at the ruler’s pleasure, subject to removal by the ruler on the menteri besar’s advice.
"This (removal) was unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the attorney-general, who advises the government, has stated that the action taken is constitutional, when in fact it is inconsistent with the Constitution.
"I would like to ask the attorney-general: which constitution is he referring to when he says that what has been done is lawful?
"This is a constitutional matter that this House has the right to debate, because any constitution and amendments to it are dealt with here,” said the PAS secretary-general.
Takiyuddin (above) also referred to Article 71(1) of the Federal Constitution, which stipulates that disputes over a state’s succession to the throne must be resolved by the authorities and in accordance with the procedures prescribed under the state constitution.
He questioned whether the federal government could guarantee that state constitutions would be respected and implemented without federal interference.
"I would like to ask, as an MP representing a state within the Federation, whether the current federal government truly guarantees the freedom of state constitutions to be applied at the state level, and whether it can assure us that the federal government will not interfere in matters governed by the provisions of state constitutions,” he said.
Article 66 (4A) permits the King to be bypassed but cannot apply to other institutions and agencies with constitutional role in law–making.
FOR the first time in the history of our Constitution, a Bill became law without the consent of the Yang di–Pertuan Agong. This was when the National Security Council Act 2016 (NSC Act), passed by the two Houses last December, was gazetted on June 7 without royal assent.
This draws attention to the complex constitutional procedures for enacting laws and specifically to Article 66 (4A), which permits the Government to bypass the King.
Bypassing the King: Under Article, 44 Parliament consists of the Yang di–Pertuan Agong, Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara. In normal circumstances, royal assent is needed for a Bill to become law.
However, in the event that the Yang di–Pertuan Agong refuses or delays assent, Article 66 (4A) provides that the Bill shall become law 30 days after it is presented to the King.
Chequered history: The Merdeka Constitution imposed no time limit for signifying royal assent but in August 1983, a Constitution Amendment Bill sought to insert a new Clause to provide that “if for any reason whatsoever the Bill is not assented to within 15 days of the Bill being presented to the Yang di–Pertuan Agong, he shall be deemed to have assented to the Bill and the Bill shall accordingly become law”.
The Constitution (Amendment) Act 1983 applied this 15–day time limit to State Rulers as well. The Conference of Rulers, acting under Article 38 (4) and 159 (5), vetoed this Bill. A constitutional crisis ensued. After four months of negotiations, a compromise was worked out between the Government and the royal houses.
The Constitution (Amendment) Act 1984 provided a multi–tiered procedure for enabling the King to object to a Bill but for the Government to ultimately bypass the King in the legislative process.
• The King was granted 30 days to consider a Bill that was presented to him.
• His Majesty was given a right to return the Bill to the House where it originated from with written reasons for his objections.
• If the Houses of Parliament re–enacted the Bill a second time, the Bill would be returned to His Majesty for royal assent.
• His Majesty could delay the Bill for a second 30–day period.
• If he still refused to give his assent, the Bill would be deemed to become law.
• The provision about bypassing State Rulers was abandoned.
For reasons unknown, the 1984 Amendment Act survived only 10 years. By the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1994, Article 66 was amended for a third time in 10 years. The provisions for the King to send his written objections to Parliament; for Parliament to re–enact the Bill; and for the King to have a second 30–day delay period were repealed. The bypassing procedures were extended to State Sultans.
The 1994 amendment to Article 66(4A) allows the King and the State Sultans only 30 days to give royal assent, after which the measure becomes law.
Inapplicability of 66 (4A): It is generally believed that the effect of Article 66 (4A) is that since 1994, the Government and the two Houses of Parliament can enact any Bill into law by gazetting it 30 days after presenting it to the King. This view is mistaken. Article 66 (4A) permits the King to be bypassed. But the Article cannot apply to other institutions and agencies that have a constitutional role in the nation’s law–making process.
Conference of Rulers: The Conference is an essential component of the amending process in respect of those amendments specified in Article 159 (5). The Conference has been conferred the momentous power to block amendments to nine key provisions of the basic charter.
These provisions are: restrictions on free speech prohibiting the questioning of “sensitive issues” in Article 10 (4); citizenship rights in Part III; privileges, position, honours or dignities of the Rulers in Article 38; applicability of the law of sedition to legislative and parliamentary proceedings in Articles 63 and 72; precedence of Rulers in Article 70; Rulers’ rights of succession in Article 71; special position of the Malay language in Article 152; privileges of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak in Article 153; and the special procedure for amending the Constitution under Article 159 (5).
Any amending Bill that affects the above matters must be supported by a special two–thirds majority in both Houses and receive the consent of the Conference of Rulers. It is argued by some that as the NSC Act confers powers on the Prime Minister that are akin to the King’s emergency powers under Article 150, the law requires the consent of the Conference under Articles 38 and 159 (5).
This submission is not supported by the case of Phang Chin Hock (1980). The Yang di–Pertuan Agong and the Rulers are distinct entities. The Rulers have no role in the declaration of emergency and so the NSC Act is not caught by Article 38.
Governors of Sabah and Sarawak: Under Article 161E, any modification to the special rights of Sabah and Sarawak requires a two–thirds majority in both Houses of the Federal Parliament, the assent of the Yang di–Pertuan Agong and the consent of the Governors of Sabah and Sarawak. Without the Governors’ consent, the federal Bill cannot become law.
Consent of the State legislatures: Some federal Bills cannot become law unless assented to by the state legislatures concerned. Under Article 2 (b) a federal law altering the boundaries of any State shall not be passed without the consent of that state legislature and the Conference of Rulers. Laws under Articles 80 (3), 76 (3), 76 (4), 161 (3) and 161B (1) likewise need the state legislature’s approval.
Consent of State Sultans: Does the 30–day rule apply to State Sultans? The Constitution (Amendment) Act 1994 (Act A885) meant this to be so.
But it is submitted that the federal amendments to Article 66 and the Eighth Schedule do not apply automatically to State Constitutions unless either of two conditions are met: first, that the States have amended their own Constitutions to incorporate the 30–day federal law.
Second, the federal Parliament has used the sledgehammer of Article 71(3) to pass a law to secure state compliance with the Federal Constitution.
Shad Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM. The views expressed are entirely the writer’s own. He wishes all Malaysians the blessings of Ramadan and the approaching Eid. - Malaysian Bar Website
A Penang landslide that was waiting to happen
-
And so it came to pass… and tragically, another live is lost. Check out the
statement by SAM below. And to think that the draft 2040 Penang Structure
Plan ...
APA PADA NAMA
-
1. Sejarah Malaysia dikait rapat dengan UMNO, Parti Kebangsaan Melayu
Bersatu. Parti UMNO pula dikenali dengan pemimpinnya. 2. Demikian di
peringkat permul...
China and HK may be barred from Asia Team meet
-
PETALING JAYA: The status of next week’s Asia Team Champion-ships in
Manila, the Philippines, is in quandary as two badminton nations – China
and Hong Kong...
PRU14 - Keputusan TEMERLOH - Parlimen dan DUN
-
Keputusan di Temerloh, harus kita analisa
1- Parlimen dimenangi Pakatan Harapan, yang juga menang DUN Mentakab,
tetapi BN menang DUN Lancang dan DUN Kuala ...
Thank you, Malaysians
-
Before the lights go out on The Malaysian Insider at midnight, we say
"Thank You" to our readers. TMI started on February 25, 2008. Today, after
eight year...
I believe in the freedom of expression - and everyone is free to use, reproduce, quote, copy and circulate, etc... materials published here. Please credit the source: http://charleshector.blogspot.com/.
For those of you who do have Blogs/Websites, it would be good if you could add a link to CHARLES HECTOR Blog. Please do promote the BLOG.
Anonymous comments or those containing profanities and obscenities (or irrelevant matters) will be rejected. Note that all comments made in post are personal opinions.
Number of Visits
Over 4 million visits. On an average, we have about 700-750 visits per day.Thank you all for your support and encouragement..
d
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2021/06/6182de3ce188b32350303621b52f464c.jpg)
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2024/10/35873bc044f6e1a7a0a62774aef16f30.jpg)
/file/1186/3cc1d0667f4de2c53b6c379319518169.jpeg)
Posts
