Anthony Loke - RESIGN on principle > NOT ask PM whether I can resign? How can Loke still represent Malaysia and sign agreements on behalf of Malaysia?

Anthony Loke and DAP is turning out to be a JOKE...Anthony Loke and DAP decided to protest Najib's Pardon that resulted in HOUSE ARREST - and the decision JUST the DAP leader will RESIGN from Cabinet, and all other DAP Cabinet members will stay PUT still in support of PM Anwar Ibrahim...OK good move based on 'principle'?

BUT Anthony Loke did not resign YET - he allegedly submited his letter of resignation and is waiting for PM Anwar to accept it? What nonsense - other members of Anwar Ibrahim's Cabinet resigned without waiting for Anwar's approval? 

Malaysia’s Economy Minister Rafizi Ramli resigned from the Cabinet on May 28, as promised, after suffering defeat at the hands of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s daughter at the ruling party’s polls on May 23. His departure, to take effect on June 17, will leave a gap at a time when Malaysia’s economic reforms are stalling due to global headwinds.Datuk Seri Rafizi’s ally, Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability Minister Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, also announced his exit from the Cabinet effective from July 4, confirming a report by The Straits Times.

But Anthony Loke submitted his RESIGNATION and is waiting for PM Anwar Ibrahim's response -if you are going to RESIGN, resign and maybe give a notice that your resignation shall be effective on ___(due notice - time for PM to pick another). Anthony Loke's resignation is ODD (Maybe Anthony Loke should make public his letter of resignation - or is it a letter of resignation with an UNLESS provision -- that later allows him to continue to be in Cabinet because Anwar did not accept his resignation???)

And, guess what, Anthony Loke is going to China and maybe signing agreements/MOU on behalf of Malaysia... If he is leaving Cabinet, he should NOT be signing agreements which will bing Malaysia???? Should any person who have publicly announced that he is leaving the Cabinet be STILL signing agreements on behalf of the Malaysian government? 

Transport Minister Anthony Loke Siew Fook will deal with matters related to his resignation after completing his official trip to China. In a statement on Monday, the Transport Ministry (MOT) said Loke will proceed with his scheduled official programme in China, where he will represent Malaysia at the 12th APEC Transport Ministers Meeting in Beijing, which will be held from Sept 21 to 22. Loke’s programme includes several bilateral meetings and the signing of two memoranda of understanding (MOUs). (Edge, 21/9/2026)

In response to the Pardon's Board decision, that now allowed Najib House Arrest for the remainder of his prison term - DAP decided to PROTEST by just Anthony Loke resigning as a Minister (and why was it NOT a decision for all DAP MPs in Cabinet resigning based on 'principle' - on protest for that Pardon Board decision which would certainly be better?) That decision itself was ODD - and makes one wonder whether it was a protest on PRINCIPLE or simply a 'SHOW"...because DAP continues to support PM Anwar and the government despite what happened to Najib..WHO CAUSED THE PARDON? Remember, the KING has to act on the advice of the Pardons Board - and cannot ACT if the Pardons Board disagrees..

By act on advice, the Constitution is most clear - The KING must accept and act on ADVICE. The situation where the KING can act based on his own discretion is stated in Article 40(3) and it does not include PARDON 

Article 40 Fed Constitution  Yang di-Pertuan Agong to act on advice 

(1) In the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or federal law the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet, except as otherwise provided by this Constitution; but shall be entitled, at his request, to any information concerning the government of the Federation which is available to the Cabinet.

(1A) In the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or federal law, where the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is to act in accordance with advice, on advice, or after considering advice, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall accept and act in accordance with such advice.

Thus, it was the PARDONS BOARD with the REAL POWER here - The King just act as advised..

THUS, the important QUESTION here is 

(A) Was it a unanimous decision of all 5 members of the Pardons Board? OR was it a SIMPLE MAJORITY decision of the PARDONS BOARD, and the follow up question ought to be 

(B) How did Hannah Yeoh (from DAP), being the Minister in charge of Federal Territories VOTE...How did the AG VOTE, and how did the other 3 Members of the Pardons Board VOTE?, and then the MOST IMPORTANT question would be WHY did they decide on 'HOUSE ARREST' - Yes, Malaysians must know the REASONS - TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

NOTHING in law that prevents the MINUTES of the Pardon Board being disclosed > to tell Malaysians how members of the Pardon BOARD voted - unlike in some laws, like the Judicial Appointments Commission(JAC) Act, where the ACT says CLEARLY as follows:-

Sec. 32  JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2009 Obligation of secrecy 

(1) No member of the Commission and officers and servants of the Commission, whether during or after his tenure of office or employment, shall disclose any information or document obtained by him in the course of his duties.

(2) No other person who has by any means access to any information or documents relating to the affairs of the Commission shall disclose such information or document.

(3) Where any person ceases to be a member of the Commission, he shall return to the Secretary all papers and documents entrusted to him by virtue of his membership of the Commission.

(4) Any person who contravenes subsection (1), (2) or (3) commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.

SO, WHY is the MINUTES and VOTE in the Pardons BOARD being kept SECRET? Remember that the KING has NO CHOICE but to do as advised by the Pardons BOARD. Even if the KING did not want to pardon Najib again, he had NO CHOICE - he had to do as advised by the Pardons Board > so, if people are UNHAPPY blame the Pardons Board - and certainly NOT THE KING. 

So, did Prime Minister ANWAR's Cabinet decide on keeping Pardon Board decisions 'secret'? WHY?  

Malaysia is a DEMOCRACY - thus should not the ADVICE of the Pardons Board take into account the view/position/stance of the Malaysian People? 

OR does the Pardons Board act based on what the sitting PM wants or the CABINET wants? IF SO, there is a NEED for Parliament to enact a law on PARDON - where it will also deal with the selection and appointment of Pardon Board members - their qualification, who picks, their INDEPENDENCE or whether they should be acting as advised by the government, the principles that should be considered when dealing with PARDONs (of course GUILT or Innocence is not a consideration as that is under the jurisdiction of the Courts) - remorse and repentance? Good behavior since imprisoned? Health and age? What other factors??? 

PARLIAMENT decides and enact LAWS about PARDON Powers? 

Should the VICTIM also be heard in Pardon Board hearings? Surely a RAPE Victim must be given to give views before decision on PARDON made?

What are the SCOPE of Pardon Powers? What are the 'qualification' of Pardon Board members, and how are they appointed? Are Pardon Board members INDEPENDENT or should they listen to the government of the day? When can Pardon Powers be exercised generally - after he/she served at least half the prison sentence? YES Malaysians DECIDE through Parliament that result in CLEAR LAWS on Pardon? 

Sadly, after 2018 > questions arise on the power of the government of the day - it started with Anwar's pardon, and then NAJIB's Pardon No.1 and now Pardon No.2 > should the PM and Executive Powers with regard to PARDONS be removed? 

Attorney General submits an OPINION > what is the kind of OPINION given > why should someone be granted PARDON? It should never be for reasons like BN agreed to join PH in forming government on condition that pardon be given to Najib NOW ...or can such considerations be given?

In the case of Najib's No. Pardon - prison sentence cut to HALF BUT Fine reduced from RM210 million to RM50 million (more than HALF, and ignored Parliaments enactment of law to DETER such crimes...and set the Fine at 5 times the amount involved..) Can Pardons Board ignore such law specifically enacted and reduce the fine by more than 75%?  

Can PARDON BOARD decisions be subject to Judicial Review? When can one apply for PARDON - should it be after half the prison sentence is served?

As it is in Malaysia now,it is the Prime MINISTER who picks or removes Attorney Generals anytime he wants - places the ATTORNEY GENERAL in a position, where his decision should be in line with what the Anwar's Government wants? [This concern may be dealt with when NEW laws are enacted that will effectively divide the Public Prosecutor and the Attorney General. Maybe like JUDGES, the selection will be done by an INDEPENDENT commission, and both the AG/PP will have SECURITY OF TENURE - maybe until age of retirement, and they can be removed through a process similar to how judges be removed??]

The - well, again the Prime MINISTER decides on who is in Cabinet and who holds what portfoliMINISTER Hannah Yeoho > so, reasonably, the Minister may most likely VOTING based on PM or Cabinet's views/position?

What about the other 3 members of the Pardons BOARD - who 'PICKED' them? Did the King ALONE pick these 3 members, but the NORM in Malaysia is that the KING would only APPOINT acting on the advice of the sitting Prime Minister...

THIS IS ALSO WHY WE NEED A 'PARDONS' law - which will make clear the selection of members of the Pardons Board, and also determine whether the members are FREE to independently advice the KING, or whether their advice must be based on the sitting PM/government stance? With NO CLEAR LAW, it is a mess > and reasonably one may suggest that NAJIB would not have gotten 'HOUSE ARREST' unless the PM and/or Government decides that he should get HOUSE ARREST?

ANTHONY LOKE - all he needed to do was RESIGN - but now what  ... he has submitted his resignation and waiting for PM Anwar Ibrahim to accept it - if the PM says do not resign - will Anthony Loke stay in the Cabinet?? ....SO SO LAME. 

(5) Subject to Clause (4), Ministers other than the Prime Minister shall hold office during the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, unless the appointment of any Minister shall have been revoked by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of the Prime Minister but any Minister may resign his office. 

The FEDERAL CONSTITUTION is clear - Minister can just RESIGN, or be REMOVED by the Prime Minister...

What may come? Another U-TURN?  

Now, Anthony Loke submitted his RESIGNATION letter (or did he?) - did he just submit a letter of intention to RESIGN (which means what - maybe if Anwar refuses to accept, Anthony Loke will then remain as MINISTER as a man OBEDIENT to Anwar? Did the 'resignation date' even indicate the date he will leave - Rafizi said he would leave office on June 17, and Nik Nazmi said it will take effect on July 4 - what did Anthony Loke's resignation letter say _ Maybe Anthony Loke should reveal to the Malaysian public his resignation letter > was there even a written letter of resignation submitted? Who did he submit his letter of RESIGNATION - the KING, or just the PM?

That is WHY I think that this is a JOKE - if you are going to resign on principle (because disagreement with Najib's pardon), then  RESIGN...FULL STOP.

Malaysia’s Economy Minister Rafizi Ramli resigned from the Cabinet on May 28, as promised, after suffering defeat at the hands of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s daughter at the ruling party’s polls on May 23. His departure, to take effect on June 17, will leave a gap at a time when Malaysia’s economic reforms are stalling due to global headwinds.Datuk Seri Rafizi’s ally, Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability Minister Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, also announced his exit from the Cabinet effective from July 4, confirming a report by The Straits Times.

In Anthony Loke's case, he is 'asking' Anwar whether he can resign? If Anwar say NO - will Anthony Loke remain a MINISTER? That is where we are, in my analysis of media reports. Anthony LOKE should just RESIGN and maybe give a 2 weeks or 1 month notice as to when he will effectively leave office. NOTICE may be reasonable so that effective hand-over can be done.

If Anthony Loke is TRULY Resigning - he should stop signing agreements on behalf of Malaysia, agreements that will be BINDING on Malaysia ...

Transport Minister Anthony Loke Siew Fook will deal with matters related to his resignation after completing his official trip to China. In a statement on Monday, the Transport Ministry (MOT) said Loke will proceed with his scheduled official programme in China, where he will represent Malaysia at the 12th APEC Transport Ministers Meeting in Beijing, which will be held from Sept 21 to 22. Loke’s programme includes several bilateral meetings and the signing of two memoranda of understanding (MOUs). - Edge, 21/9/2026

Since GE15 and the reign of PM Anwar Ibrahim and the PH-led Coalition Government, the SUPPORT for Pakatan Harapan has been ERODING because of the many U-turns on promised reforms. 

DAP had 40 MPs, so much more than PKR and Amanah - but WHY when it comes to the Cabinet - there are  PKR (Parti Keadilan Rakyat): 9 ministers, UMNO (Barisan Nasional): 7 ministers, DAP (Democratic Action Party): 5 ministers, GPS (Gabungan Parti Sarawak): 5 ministers,GRS (Gabungan Rakyat Sabah): 2 ministers, >AMANAH (Parti Amanah Negara): 2 ministers > so why did DAP just get 5 Ministers when it certainly was the party with the most MPs not just in Pakatan Harapan, but also in all other parties that make up the MADANI coalition government? Why did DAP not protest this kind of treatment?

That BIG victory of DAP could have finally seen a non-Muslim become a DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER > a positive development acknowledging the equality of citizens in Malaysia [Interesting FACT - All Malaysian Prime Ministers to date have been from UMNO or ex-UMNO >>> Time to get a Prime Minister NOT from UMNO - maybe, then we may have some changes?? 

I recall, how the PAS Menteri Besar of PERAK did have elections in Kampungs so that finally people can democratically chose their Ketua Kampung and leaders > compared to the BN and now PH practice of POLITICAL APPOINTMENT not the choice of the community??? So, changes may come if we have a NON-UMNO or ex-UMNO Prime Minister..... 

DAP Ministers, Anthony Loke to resign and remaining 4, to stay - WHY? Have DAP, being in Cabinet, even managed to affect PM Anwar's government policies?? 

It was OBVIOUS that DAP contributed the most in securing peoples' support for Pakatan Harapan...

 So, I ask What of the promised REFORMS did DAP(with 40 MPs)  managed to ensure by being in the Cabinet of PM Anwar:-

# That the Prime Minister SHALL never be Finance Minister;

# That draconian laws like Sedition Acts will be REPEALED;

# That Local Council/Government Elections will be RESUMED - When Selangor and Penang wanted to restore Local Council Elections - a Federal Law stood in the way. At the very least this 'WALL' that prevented Local Council Elections could have been removed - thus allowing any State if it so chooses can conduct Local Council elections...BUT NO, even that did not happen > DAP too continued with POLITICALLY APPOINTED Local Councillors...

# DEMOCRATIC Elections for kampung/kampung baru/Taman?... leaders > again DAP did not push for this, allowing the continuation of POLITICAL APPOINTED community leaders by State

# OPEN TENDER commitment > things seems to the same as during BN rule > projects are still sometimes being given to 'selected' companies > and there is still NO OPEN TENDER in all projects..

# NAJIB's Pardon No.1 and No.2 > Are you telling me Anthony LOKE and DAP did not know where this will end? DAP is one of 3 in Pakatan Harapan, and also the party with biggest number of MPs in the MADANI government - and we know that KING will do as ADVISED by the Pardons BOARD. Did Hannah Yeoh(of DAP) advocate HOUSE ARREST or did she oppose this move?

# Things that happened in PH State of SELANGOR > Proposed Guidelines on Non-Muslim Places of Religious Worship, the BAN on Pig Farming(was a proper process followed)

# LYNAS and Rare Earth policy and decision...

# Violation of the principle of NON-REFOULEMENT when Anwar talked about sending back 5,000 Rohingya to Myanmmar?? 

If DAP find itself in a position it CANNOT bring effective REFORMS - why stay in the Cabinet? By being in CABINET, DAP also will be blamed for all failings...(we will look at how this MADANI government did not ONLY stagnate in terms of REFORMS - but also pushed back what we obtained in the 1st PH government - wait for this upcoming post) 

The 'NEW' silence of DAP and its MPs on many issues of concern have resulted in a LOSS of peoples' support - it was shown during the SABAH elections, the JOHOR elections and recently the Negeri Sembilan elections - where Anthony LOKE himself (one of the 3 leaders of PH) was defeated...   

In one of the biggest upsets of the Negeri Sembilan state election, DAP secretary general Anthony Loke has lost the Chennah (N.01) state seat, according to unofficial Election Commission (EC) counts. 

There was HOPE that DAP General Meeting will take a STRONG STANCE in an effort regain Malaysian peoples' support - but alas IT DID NOT HAPPEN > the decision was to remain in PM Anwar's Cabinet...

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

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

But was the absent delegates sending a message to DAP > and why did so many choose to NOT attend?

The decision of this DAP General meeting also should be considered with regards to Anthony Loke's decision to now RESIGN from Anwar's Cabinet > is it in VIOLATION of the decision made in that DAP General Meeting which specifically decided on this very issue > DOES DAP need another EMERGENCY General Meeting to review that decision?

The people have given sufficient 'warnings' - and DAP has chosen to IGNORE these and not to change - and if this sentiment continues, the DAP and Pakatan Harapan may end up suffering the WRATH of the Malaysian VOTER in the upcoming elections...

They may have LOST their 'pull' of being an ALTERNATIVE government that will bring about REFORMS and changes to improve DEMOCRACY, justice and human rights in Malaysia...

And recently, it was reported that in the future, tuition centres licences will not be renewed unless it has 30% Bumiputra equity - DAP of the past would have been at the forefront protesting this...but today, DAP in government, may be even responsible for this NEW proposed policy...??? (we will discuss this in maybe a later post)   

THE CHOICES FOR MALAYSIAN VOTERS is now limited..

We have:-

The BARISAN NASIONAL - that means back to the same regime since MERDEKA until 2018;

The PAKATAN HARAPAN - it's U-turns and 'promises not kept'(Janji Tak DiTepati), the suppression of freedom of expression - removal of post and blocking of accounts, the DNAAs, the withdrawal of appeals, NAJIB Pardons > has seriously affected its once image as an ALTERNATIVE government that will bring REFORMS, it's apparent forgiveness and working together with the 'still unforgiven by people until GE15' also will affect PH.

The PERIKATAN NASIONAL - a strong alternative with PAS (whose image is good considering the lack of charges of corruption/abuse of powers against its leaders). This may however be affected by indication that they may form electoral pact with the BN in some upcoming elections...

THUS, not much of a CHOICE ...with PAS's PERIKATAN NASIONAL seemingly having a 'upper hand' - the problem is many Malaysians still suffer from Islamaphobia - that if PAS wins, Malaysia will be converted to an Islamic State, and non-Muslims will be treated as 2nd class citizens > but PAS has ruled Kelantan for so many decades, and it could have but have not changed into a 'dreaded Islamic State'. 

DAP may still have time to CHANGE to preserve the people's support - but that means DRASTIC changes...

Should Anthony Loke and current leadership RESIGN and allow a 'new' interim leadership - that may appease some as the DAP leaders acknowledge their mistakes since GE15 to today - a DRASTIC MOVE... but is DAP too already corrupted by 'Federal Power' and unwilling to give it all up > WHAT NEW REFORMS HAVE THE DAP MINISTERS ACHIEVED? 

Anthony LOKE, Minister of TRANSPORT > he failed to even REVIVE affordable public transport (public busses in all towns and districts) - This was very important that is why Penang and Selangor (when in Opposition) pushed for it... Anthony Loke did it for Negeri Sembilan - but as Federal Minister - we have to look at ALL towns in all STATES? 

Likewise, we need to look how the different DAP ministers performed when they were MINISTERS...what REFORM did they manage to PUSH FOR or achieve as Ministers???

 

 

Loke to deal with resignation after China trip

By Choy Nyen Yiau / theedgemalaysia.com

21 Sep 2026, 09:44 am

Transport Minister Anthony Loke Siew Fook (filepix)

KUALA LUMPUR (Sept 21): Transport Minister Anthony Loke Siew Fook will deal with matters related to his resignation after completing his official trip to China.

In a statement on Monday, the Transport Ministry (MOT) said Loke will proceed with his scheduled official programme in China, where he will represent Malaysia at the 12th APEC Transport Ministers Meeting in Beijing, which will be held from Sept 21 to 22.

Loke’s programme includes several bilateral meetings and the signing of two memoranda of understanding (MOUs).

As Malaysia advances its industrial landscape and accelerates towards a low-carbon future, the national economic imperative has shifted. Attracting investments and building state-of-the-art infrastructure are vital but their ultimate success hinges on having a competent, future-ready workforce capable of operating and sustaining the industries of tomorrow.

One of the MOUs is on transport cooperation between the governments of Malaysia and China, covering land transport, rail, maritime, aviation and logistics.

The other is an MOU on aviation safety cooperation between the Civil Aviation Authority of Malaysia (CAAM) and the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC), covering areas including airworthiness, aviation organisation certification, personnel licensing, operational oversight, and mutual recognition of findings and certificates of compliance.

After completing his official programme in Beijing, Loke is scheduled to travel to Shanghai to join Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s delegation before returning to Malaysia to attend to matters related to his resignation as transport minister.

MOT said it will continue to ensure that all ministry affairs and responsibilities are carried out professionally and in an orderly manner.

Loke, who is also DAP secretary-general, announced on Saturday that he would step down from the Cabinet following the conditional pardon granted to former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Anwar has reportedly said he will meet Loke soon to discuss his resignation. - Edge, 21/9/2026

Malaysia’s Transport Minister Anthony Loke resigns over former PM Najib’s conditional pardon, other DAP ministers to stay on

The decision was reached during an emergency meeting of Democratic Action Party's central executive committee on Saturday (Sep 19), a day after Najib Razak’s pardon was granted by the Malaysian king.

Democratic Action Party (DAP) Secretary-General Anthony Loke (centre front) addresses the press. Loke has resigned in protest against the conditional royal pardon granted to jailed former prime minister Najib Razak. (Photo: Facebook/Ng…see more

19 Sep 2026 06:28PM (Updated: 20 Sep 2026 09:10AM)

KUALA LUMPUR: Democratic Action Party (DAP) chief Anthony Loke has announced his resignation as Malaysia’s Transport Minister in protest over the conditional royal pardon granted to jailed former prime minister Najib Razak.

The party’s other ministers will remain in Cabinet to maintain political stability, he said at a press conference on Saturday (Sep 19) evening after an emergency meeting of DAP’s Central Executive Committee. 

This came a day after Najib’s pardon was granted by the Federal Territories Pardons Board meeting chaired by the Malaysian king, Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar.

“As a party we have a stand, we feel this is difficult to accept for DAP and many Malaysians, hence we have discussed for three hours and debated, we have reached a decision,” Loke said, while reiterating that the party respects the king’s power to grant such a pardon.

When asked by journalists why the other DAP ministers were also not resigning, Loke said that it is aware of “political games” by “some parties and factions waiting for DAP to leave the government”.

This would cause instability in the unity government led by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and potentially leading to parliament being dissolved. 

“It is what our enemies want. We don’t want to give them the bullet to do what they want,” Loke said. 

“If every DAP minister resigns, we are (giving them what they want), but through this decision we are able to still make our stand (while maintaining political stability),” he added. - CNA, 

Loke to deal with resignation after China trip

By Choy Nyen Yiau / theedgemalaysia.com

21 Sep 2026, 09:44 am

Transport Minister Anthony Loke Siew Fook (filepix)

KUALA LUMPUR (Sept 21): Transport Minister Anthony Loke Siew Fook will deal with matters related to his resignation after completing his official trip to China.

In a statement on Monday, the Transport Ministry (MOT) said Loke will proceed with his scheduled official programme in China, where he will represent Malaysia at the 12th APEC Transport Ministers Meeting in Beijing, which will be held from Sept 21 to 22.

Loke’s programme includes several bilateral meetings and the signing of two memoranda of understanding (MOUs).

As Malaysia advances its industrial landscape and accelerates towards a low-carbon future, the national economic imperative has shifted. Attracting investments and building state-of-the-art infrastructure are vital but their ultimate success hinges on having a competent, future-ready workforce capable of operating and sustaining the industries of tomorrow.

One of the MOUs is on transport cooperation between the governments of Malaysia and China, covering land transport, rail, maritime, aviation and logistics.

The other is an MOU on aviation safety cooperation between the Civil Aviation Authority of Malaysia (CAAM) and the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC), covering areas including airworthiness, aviation organisation certification, personnel licensing, operational oversight, and mutual recognition of findings and certificates of compliance.

After completing his official programme in Beijing, Loke is scheduled to travel to Shanghai to join Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s delegation before returning to Malaysia to attend to matters related to his resignation as transport minister.

MOT said it will continue to ensure that all ministry affairs and responsibilities are carried out professionally and in an orderly manner.

Loke, who is also DAP secretary-general, announced on Saturday that he would step down from the Cabinet following the conditional pardon granted to former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Anwar has reportedly said he will meet Loke soon to discuss his resignation. - Edge, 21/9/2026

 

Human Rights Defender and Organisation falling prey to Malaysia's pre-conviction 'bank accout freezing' laws that can 'kill' HR groups? Abolish sec.44 of AMLATFPUAA Act - Respect presumption of INNOCENCE principle

 

Media Statement – 20/9/2026

Repeal Section 44 and provisions of AMLA Law that allows Mere Officers of Enforcement Agency to Issue Order to Freeze Bank Accounts – Only Judges Should Be Allowed to Issue Such Orders Affecting Suspects/Entities Who Have Yet to Be Proven Guilty in Court

Presumption Of Innocence Until Proven Guilty – And END Pre-Conviction Punishments

It was reported that Human Rights Defenders and their organizations are now falling victim to these unjust ‘account freezing’ laws whereby bank accounts of MANDIRI, HAYAT, Dobby Chew and Amir Hariri Abd Hadi have been frozen. Previous reported victims this same law include GISBH (Global Ikhwan Services and Business Holdings Sdn. Bhd.)

It was also just reported that ‘NGOs MANDIRI and HAYAT said nearly 20 officers from the anti-money laundering unit raided their new shared office to seize organizational documents.’ (Malaysiakini, 18/9/2026). The State crackdown on Human Rights Defender organizations and HR Defenders is a matter of great concern

Abolish Law Allowing Mere Officers to FREEZE Bank Accounts – COURT orders needed

The freezing of bank accounts of persons and entities now under Section 44(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001(AMLATFPUAA Act) is based on simply orders of an officer of enforcement agencies, and without even a COURT order.  

Further, Section 44A (Variation or revocation of order to freeze property) provides that the order can be varied and even revoked on including application of victims by simply ‘an officer senior in rank to the officer who issued the order’ which is ABSURD, and this provision can also be used to deny speedy access to courts because generally all process of appeal provided by law must be complied with first. ONLY after compliance with procedures in the Act, can victims access the Courts.

Enforcement agencies generally investigate and secure evidence, and then it is usually the Public Prosecutor that checks and evaluates the evidence to determines whether it is sufficient to prove guilt, and, if so, then only can the accused be charged in court. Public Prosecutor also verifies and approves other actions like compound offers.

Then, after a Fair Trial, it is the Courts and JUDGES that will determine whether prosecution have managed to proof guilt beyond reasonable doubt that will result in conviction and an appropriate sentence.

AMLATFPUAA Act thus is a contradiction of the norm, when a mere officer of an enforcement agency is empowered to issue an order freezing bank accounts, and seizing property. Even the prosecution does not come into the picture to verify and confirm such an order can be made.

This power to freeze bank accounts and/or seize property should never be a power given to any officer of the enforcement agency or investigation body, but rightly it should always be with the COURTS that determines that all required conditions are satisfied before deciding to issue an order to freeze bank accounts or seize property at this early stage because the alleged victim is yet to be charged, or more importantly found guilty after a fair trial. In this case, the Human Rights Defenders have not even been called in for investigation.

Rationale to prevent money being dissipated out of the Court’s jurisdiction?

The object of bank account freezing laws is presumably to prevent fruits of the crime or ‘dirty money’ being dissipated or send out of the country before the trial is over. If this happens, it becomes almost impossible to recover it.

This happened in the case of former Prime Minister Najib Razak, when about RM2 billion in Najib’s account was send out of Malaysia.

So, the primary concern is to PREVENT the dissipation beyond the jurisdiction of the Malaysian courts making recovery difficult. In the case of Najib, the proof that this money dissipated was ‘fruits of a crime’ was only confirmed by the Courts when Najib was found guilty on Dec 26 2025 by the High Court, and was sentenced to 15 years in jail and fined RM13.4 billion after he was found guilty of all counts of abuse of power and 21 money laundering charges involving RM2.28 billion in 1MDB funds.

Thus, there is rationale for preventing ‘dirty monies’ moving out from the jurisdiction of Malaysian Courts, but it also can invite gross miscarriage of justice if at the end of the day, the victims are found to be not guilty. Do we just need law that prevents the dissipation of such monies/property from Malaysia, rather than freezing entire accounts?

Thus, the decision to freeze accounts should never rest simply on an ordinary officer of an enforcement agency but must be decided by the Courts, which should also allow victims the right to be heard.

Care must be taken not to freeze money that will affect or ‘kill’ a business/organization or an individual’s wellbeing noting the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in court.

COURT orders needed for arrest/search should also be required for freezing of bank accounts orders

Even for arrest and search in Malaysia, the Court comes in to prevent abuse by requirement that a WARRANT is required for arrest or search. This is a needed check and balance, where the Magistrate/Judge will judiciously consider whether the legal requirements for an arrest or search warrant is satisfied before a warrant is issued. If not, no warrant will be issued. Likewise, for detention beyond 24 hours, a Magistrate’s remand order is needed.

Likewise, it should JUSTLY be the same for cases of ORDERS for account freezing or property seizure under AMLATFPUAA Act.

Judges will decide judiciously whether to legally issue such orders. This is very important also because of the serious implications that may follow these pre-charging and pre-conviction orders that may effectively ‘kill’ organizations/businesses/entities and also cause serious irreparable harm and injustice to individuals affected.

It is shocking that now even Human Rights Defenders personally, and Malaysian Human Rights Organizations have fallen prey to these draconian provisions including Section 44(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001(AMLATFPUAA Act) and other bad provisions in PART Vi   Freezing, Seizure and Forfeiture of the AMLATFPUAA Act.

HR Defenders and Organizations is falling victim to orders to freeze accounts

It was reported that the personal bank accounts of Human Rights Defenders Dobby Chew and Amir Hariri Abd Hadi, and the bank accounts of HR groups HAYAT and MANDIRI have been frozen (Malaysiakini, 11/9/2026).

MANDIRI is a youth-led civil society organization founded in 2024 to empower young people and strengthen democratic participation in Malaysia.

HAYAT is human rights and advocacy organization focused on criminal justice reform, decarceration, restorative justice and anti-death penalty.

Pre-Conviction Account Freezing Orders can KILL Businesses/Organizations

We recall that similarly in 2024 the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) had frozen a total of 206 accounts linked to GISB Holdings (GISBH), valued at more than RM1.35 million to date, where ‘…the freezing of accounts and assets related to GISBH was also carried out under Section 44(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUAA) (Act 613)...’.(Malay Mail, 3/10/2024). In that case of GISBH, there has been yet no report that GUILT has been proven in Court after a Fair Trial that would validate the freezing of these bank accounts and seizure of property.

We are also aware of the impact on the businesses allegedly linked to GISBH, where in many towns all around Malaysia, GISBH linked businesses have already been closed down even though the proof of GUILT after a Fair Trial is yet to happen.

Even if at the end of the day, it is determined that they are not GUILTY – the freezing of bank accounts and the seizure of property may never be able to overturn the consequences.

Businesses may be killed, and individuals may even lose homes/cars simply because the accounts were frozen – and there was no money to even settle loan obligations.

Freezing Bank Account impact on businesses/organizations and individuals

The freezing of bank accounts of organizations or business entities literally mean the ‘killing’ of such entities, as worker wages cannot be paid, rent and utility bills cannot be paid, and normal operations cannot continue without monies.

When an individual person’s bank account is frozen, it also means that a person is at risk at losing homes, cars and other property which may be lost because the loan obligations simply cannot be settled.

Thus, the power to prematurely freeze accounts and seize property is MOST DRACONIAN when it happens even before the ‘suspects’ are charged in court for their alleged crimes.

GROSS injustice happens when at the end of the day, the alleged suspects are not even charged in court, and if charged, and then found NOT Guilty.

The law also states in section 44(6) that ‘…An enforcement agency shall not be liable for any damages or cost arising directly or indirectly from the making of an order under this section unless it can be proved that the order under subsection (1) was not made in good faith…’

What it means is that the victim has the onerous task of proving ‘lack of good faith’? Should not the wrongful freezing of accounts, proven ultimately at the trial, be sufficient for the victim to receive just compensations and damages from the government?

In the recent case, involving the Human Rights Defenders and their organizations, it was reported that they were not even being investigated when their bank accounts were frozen. ‘“Not once have we been contacted regarding this block. We have also never been summoned for any investigation.” (Malaysiakini, 11/9/2026)

Now, HR Defenders groups may be ‘killed’ even before their GUILT is proven in court, and that is not acceptable. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and the Government must protect HR Defenders, and ensure these organizations are not subdued.

WHY COURTS orders needed to prevent abuse?

Section 44(1) states that ‘…an enforcement agency may issue an order to freeze any property of any person, any terrorist property or proliferator property, as the case may be, wherever the property may be, and whether the property is in his possession, under his control or due from any source to him, if- (a) an investigation with regard to an unlawful activity has commenced against that person; and  (b) either-        (i) the enforcement agency has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence under subsection 4(1) or 4A(2), a terrorism financing offence or a restricted activity financing offence has been or is being or is about to be committed by that person; or (ii) the enforcement agency has reasonable grounds to suspect that the property is the proceeds of an unlawful activity or the instrumentalities of an offence.

Hence, before any ‘account freezing order’ there must already be an investigation commenced, and most importantly there must be REASONABLE GROUNDS TO SUSPECT that the offence has been committed or about to be committed, OR that the property to be frozen/seized are fruits of the crime before bank accounts can be frozen.

It is only JUST and reasonable that Courts determine whether there is REASONABLE GROUNDS TO SUSPECT and the relevant conditions are complied with before Orders to freeze accounts or seize property are made. There must be sufficient evidence to prove reasonable grounds to the Courts – not mere suspicion but REASONABLE suspicion. The law that now empowers mere officers in an enforcement agency, who is investigating the crime, to issue account freezing orders must be abolished.

In the recent case, involving the Human Rights Defenders and their organization, it was reported that they were kept in the dark. ‘“Not once have we been contacted regarding this block. We have also never been summoned for any investigation.” (Malaysiakini, 11/9/2026) So, has investigation even been commenced when the victims are yet to be called in to be investigated? What is the CRIME being investigated?  

In issuing such account freezing orders at this stage where GUILT is yet to be proven after a FAIR TRIAL, it should best not affect the running of business or activities of the organizations, and/or must take into account monies needed by individuals to continue their life normally. This is CRUCIAL for any orders at this stage as guilt after a fair trial is yet to be establish, and we have to be true to the legal principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty in court.

The amended law could allow the enforcement agency or prosecution to speedily allowed to obtain an ex-parte order, but then victims should have the right to challenge and/or vary the order in an inter-parte hearing soon after usually within 14 days.

Is the ‘freezing of accounts’ because of a politician’s allegations?

So why have the accounts been frozen in these HR Defender’s cases? Is it connected to what a PKR Youth chief Kamil Munim of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s party allegedly claimed that funds were connected to political movements, including the financing of social media operations and the mobilization of street protests aimed at creating anti-government sentiment under the guise of democracy and human rights? ( FMT, 17/5/2026). No clear report indicating what exactly prompted the issuance of the bank account freezing orders against these HR Defenders?

In Malaysia, HRD Organizations like HAYAT and MANDIRI, may be receiving foreign funding but everything usually are reported to the authorities as required by law. Are they receiving money from organizations that Malaysia has specifically prohibited receiving money from? OR is this action by State mere reactions to Human Rights Groups that have been critical about Malaysian government led by PM Anwar in terms of human rights and justice issues?

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) calls for the REPEAL of Section 44(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001(AMLATFPUAA Act) that now also allows an officer of the enforcement agency ALONE, with NO COURT ORDER, to issue an order on its own to freeze any property of any person, with no prior notice or right to be heard accorded to persons/entities affected;  

Alternatively, MADPET calls for an amendment of Section 44(1) requiring a Court Order before bank accounts are frozen or properties seized. Victims will have the right to be heard at inter-parte hearings, that should happen fast, within 14 days or less.

As in remand applications, where Magistrate order needed for remand beyond 24 hours, and warrants are required for arrests and search, the Judiciary plays an important role to prevent abuse and mistakes by law enforcement agencies. Thus, MADPET calls for the need of a COURT order before accounts are frozen or properties seized.

MADPET also calls that even if accounts are frozen, it must never affect the ordinary running and operation of the organization/business – because it will be seen as a GROSS INJUSTICE more so since these orders are pre-conviction orders and there is a possibility that Courts may eventually find that no crime was committed. It is wrong for workers to lose wages and jobs, and other irrevocable consequences to happen because of such pre-conviction orders, and in the case of these HR Defender groups and persons even before they have been charged in court.

If the allegations are concerning funds from certain entities, then only those funds should be affected by any freezing orders and not ALL the funds coming from other sources and sometimes also from the Malaysian public.

Malaysia must acknowledge Human Rights Defenders and their organizations, which today has also been acknowledged by the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which was adopted by consensus by State and its leaders who do or say things that are in violation of Human Rights.

It is a folly for Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and/or the Malaysian Government to always expect that Human Rights Defenders will always ‘blindly’ support the government. HRDs will voice out and highlight HR violations, and even participate in peaceful assemblies and other actions.

MADPET also calls on Malaysia to end ‘attacks’ on HR Defenders. MADPET ask for the government to provide specific details about the alleged crimes committed by HAYAT, MANDIRI and the affected HR Defenders.

 

Charles Hector

For and on behalf of MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

 

######

 

SNAPSHOT | Cops raid Mandiri, Hayat office; Hadi ready to produce evidence on alleged US plot

Malaysiakini TeamPublished: Sep 18, 2026 9:21 PM

KINI SNAPSHOT | What’s going on in the news today, with updates at 9am, 2pm, 6pm, and 9pm.

---

9pm

Police raid

- NGOs Mandiri and Hayat said nearly 20 officers from the anti-money laundering unit raided their new shared office to seize organisational documents.

In a joint statement, the groups said they had fully cooperated but were not given an explanation for the investigation.

They handed over various audit, registration, staff, payroll, tax, financial and banking documents, as well as a computer and a pendrive containing Hayat’s financial information.

They said Mandiri’s lawyer requested to meet the investigating officer for further clarification, but were informed that the latter was unable to come after an hour’s wait.

“Mandiri and Hayat wish to assert that we have committed no crime and maintain our position that this investigation constitutes a form of ongoing pressure against Mandiri, Hayat, and civil society organisations,” they claimed. - Malaysiakini, 18/9/2026

'Blocked bank accounts, travel ban': Mandiri cries intimidation, LFL slams 'oppressive' crackdown

Published: Sep 11, 2026 1:29 PM

Mandiri has claimed that bank accounts belonging to the NGO and its leaders have been blocked, a week after two of its figures were informed of travel restrictions preventing them from leaving the nation.

The development follows travel bans issued against several Bersih activists, who had sounded the alarm over a supposedly “worrying precedent” for civil society organisations in Malaysia after they were barred from entering Sabah.

In a statement last night, Mandiri executive director Amir Hariri Abd Hadi said he had received news regarding a ban on him leaving the country last week, while Mandiri financial director Dobby Chew faced trouble when returning from Jakarta.

While Chew was informed that there was a “restriction from Bukit Aman” before finally being allowed to enter Malaysia, Amir (above) insisted that neither of the duo had been contacted or given reasons for the alleged bans against them.

He further asserted that his and Chew’s (above) personal bank accounts, as well as those belonging to Mandiri and Hayat, an NGO managed by Chew, were also blocked yesterday.

“Not once have we been contacted regarding this block. We have also never been summoned for any investigation.

“Mandiri once again urges the authorities to provide an explanation for these restrictions and immediately revoke them.

“Mandiri is always ready to be investigated should there be any need and will give full cooperation to the police and authorities,” Amir said.

Pressure on govt critics

He insisted that such restrictions, allegedly without any notification or explanation, are “clearly a form of continuous intimidation used to pressure those who do not align with the government”.

“As a civil society organisation, Mandiri is not involved in any political manoeuvrings, or as previously accused, supposedly working to overthrow Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim,” Amir said.

He is believed to be referring to PKR Youth’s previous call for authorities to investigate the youth-based organisation for an alleged threat to national security - an accusation which Mandiri has denied.

“The fall and rise of political parties and politicians are determined by the people.

“The demands from our campaigns are the same demands fought for together with organisations and individuals who are now in government, back when they were on the opposition bench,” Amir added.

Amir, a former Muda secretary-general, today confirmed being told that the restriction on his personal bank account was executed under Section 44(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, which allows law enforcement officers to freeze a person's property during an ongoing investigation.

However, he reiterated that neither he nor Chew, who is also a Muda vice-president, has been summoned by the police to facilitate their probes yet.

LFL fires a salvo

In a separate statement today, Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) condemned the account freezes and travel bans against Mandiri and its leaders as “unlawful, unreasonable, oppressive, and authoritarian”.

Noting that Mandiri, Amir, and Chew are well known for their work in youth empowerment, human rights, and peaceful democratic change, LFL coordinator Rania Aljunied (above) labelled the actions against them as being “clearly calculated to intimidate and silence”.

Highlighting that the right to criticise the government is protected under Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, she said LFL is “particularly disappointed” with Pakatan Harapan.

“Harapan, which forms the backbone of the government today and had promised reform and democracy, has condoned these oppressive actions by the authorities with their silence and complicity.

“Harapan should remember it was the long-standing struggles and efforts of principled and committed civil society organisations like Mandiri that paved the way for it to obtain federal power,” she added. - Malaysiakini, 11/9/2026

 

PKR Youth urges probe into alleged foreign funding linked to political activities

4 months ago

FMT Reporters

Its chief Kamil Munim claims the funds were used to finance anti-government protests and social media operations.

PKR Youth chief Kamil Munim cited reports alleging that a US-based foundation had channelled more than RM1.5 million to a local company linked to a NGO.

PETALING JAYA:

PKR Youth has urged the authorities to investigate allegations of foreign funds being channelled to politicians, individuals and certain organisations for political activities that could threaten national security and stability.

In a statement, PKR Youth chief Kamil Munim claimed the funds were connected to political movements, including the financing of social media operations and the mobilisation of street protests aimed at creating anti-government sentiment under the guise of democracy and human rights.

Kamil cited reports alleging that a US-based foundation had channelled more than RM1.5 million to a local company linked to a NGO through several transactions between November 2024 and June 2025.

He also referred to allegations that the foundation made seven transactions amounting to more than RM680,000 to the NGO’s executive director, and several other people linked to the NGO, between 2024 and 2025.

Noting that Malaysia is currently facing increasingly challenging global economic conditions, Kamil said any effort at destabilising the country through foreign funding and systematic political manipulation must be stopped immediately before it becomes a greater threat to the nation’s future.

“If these allegations are true, then this is an extremely dangerous matter. Malaysia must never become a testing ground for foreign powers seeking to shape the country’s political landscape through local proxies,” he said.

“Such interference not only erodes national sovereignty, but also has the potential to trigger political instability that would ultimately have a direct impact on the economy, investor confidence and the country’s stability.”

Kamil called on the police, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, Bank Negara Malaysia, and related security agencies to immediately conduct a comprehensive investigation into all parties linked to the revelations.

On Friday, youth group Mandiri denied that it took foreign funds to help bring down Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, and that it is acting as a proxy for former PKR deputy president Rafizi Ramli.

The group was responding to a police report about a viral video alleging that over RM1.5 million in foreign funds was channelled from a US group called Tides Foundation to Mandiri. - FMT, 17/5/2026

---