Party Promises for Malaysian Workers? Regular Employment until retirement, Direct employment with TRUE employer, Universal Pension, Universal Basic Income(where government will TOP-UP if needed), QUOTA, Protect JOBs from LOSS through AI/Automation, etc

Most Political Parties promises JOBS (but what worker wants is REGULAR employment where rights according to law increases the longer they work with SAME employer), and money in terms of increased wages. For most workers, increased RETIREMENT age is not a benefit they enjoy because they DO NOT have Regular Employment. Increase MATERNITY/Paternity Benefits - how can short-term employees benefit? 

Is this trend because most candidates/politicians are NOT WORKERS - but are EMPLOYERS or business owners/investors??? - thus worker rights is a LESSER concern > they are more inclined to improve rights of EMPLOYERS and businesses rather than workers. THUS, should Malaysian workers and their families continue to support politicians and political parties that are PRO-EMPLOYER..PRO-BUSINESSES - how many politicians have really campaigned for improving Worker Rights?  

UNDERSTAND WHAT MALAYSIAN WORKERS WANT - AND INCLUDE IN PARTY PROMISES AND ELECTION MANIFESTOS...IF YOU WANT SUPPORT OF WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES... 

Follow the Charles Hector channel on WhatsApp:

https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb6UokfB4hdNugYmph1B 

 

Politician and Political Parties - this is WHAT Malaysian workers NEED - and the government must provide: (a) REGULAR employment with same employer until retirement; (b) DIRECT employment with principal (all workers at workplace on contract of service with principal/owner of workplace) (C) Ensure all workers in the workplace have the SAME Employer(the principal/owner of workplace) > if not you deprive WORKERS the ability to improve RIGHTS through a stronger union of ALL Employees (No workers of 'OTHER' Employers please (d) Removal of RECOGNITION by employer or reduce from 50%+1 to 10%+1 since now more than 1 union permitted at workplace; (d) Restoration of QUOTA no more 30% migrant worker at ANY workplace to protect LOCAL workers; (e) Introduce UNIVERSAL Pension for ALL workers after retirement age; (f) Adopt UNIVERSAL Basic Income(where government will TOP-UP if monthly income is lesser); (g) A policy to protect worker's employment in light of AUTOMATION/AI (h) Change law to double amount due if employer fails to pay workers wages, Overtime, Work on Rest Days > now worker fight and the Court orders employer to pay JUST amount DUE - not double/triple or even with 10% interest > a PRO-EMPLOYER law and anti --WORKER

1 - REGULAR EMPLOYMENT (kerja TETAP hingga persaraan) until retirement age. This means that worker benefits/rights will increase based on the number of years of employment. It also restores the right of a wrongfully dismissed worker to claim REINSTATEMENT(a return back to their employment). It does not PREJUDICE the employer, who can terminate an employee if there is a serious employment misconduct or a serious breach of employment contract. If the employer no longer needs an employee, there is RETRENCHMENT that can be used. Regular employment employees can benefit when the state changes RETIREMENT age. It also will enable employees to truly enjoy maternity/paternity benefits. 

A worker starts work, his needs are less...then worker gets married has a family - his NEEDS increases with time. Workers 'settle down' buy houses to live until old age.. The law provides increasing rights if working with SAME employer. It also provides RETRENCHMENT/TERMINATION Benefits if worker worked for more than 12 months (many short-term non-regular EMPLOYEEs does not get this - their right to claim REINSTATEMENT by reason of wrongful dismissal is also a JOKE > because your right to employment with the same employer shrinks when you are on short-term employment contracts compared to REGULAR employment where it is secure until retirement age.  

Short term employment contract will have to be ABOLISHED save for very limited situations.

REGULAR employment until RETIREMENT is a FUNDAMENTAL need for Malaysian workers. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY with the same employer -  

2 - DIRECT Employment with the SAME (a) principal or owner of that agricultural or industrial undertaking, constructional work, trade, business or place of work; or that statutory body or that authority ...for ALL WORKERS working at the workplace. Thus, the elimination of workers of another employer at the workplace. 

This is JUST - and it is also most important for UNIONIZATION - a UNION or workers collectively has more power and ability to convince employers to agree to BETTER rights and better working conditions. However, if the workers are only a smaller percentage of Employees of the principal, etc then the UNION is weak as the employer can still 'happily' use other non-employee workers to carry on its business > now there is also NO LEGAL LIMIT as to the number of non-employee workers that can be used at a workplace. 

A non-employee worker has NO RIGHT to demand the principal or the owner of the workplace to provide better RIGHTS - for they are NOT employee and have NO Employment Agreement, and the Owner/Principal has NO EMPLOYMENT obligations/duties with non-employee workers. Now, the Labour Suppliers that provide their employees as workers at the workplace has NO POWER OR CAPACITY to change working conditions and rights at the workplace - so for these workers asking the Labour Supplier(or Contractor for Labour) employer for improvement of working conditions is USELESS.

We need a LAW that imposes EMPLOYER obligations on the Principal/Owner of workplaces for other workers working at their workplaces as workers(but are not EMPLOYEES of the principal) > that should include the occupational safety and health, the right to EQUAL pay and benefits as other workers(employees of the principal) working at the workplace. These worker-employee of another work under the direct supervision of the principal/owner of workplace.

SOLUTION:- All workers at any workplace must be made EMPLOYEES of the owner/principal - all the Minister need do, is to give an ORDER pursuant to Sec.2A of Employment Act(see below). Now, the REALITY is anti-worker, definitely weakens Trade Unions, allow for possible DISCRIMINATION - although the same work done, they do not enjoy SAME wages, same EMPLOYEE Benefits, ... 

The EMPLOYMENT ACT also envisage that all workers justly ought to be the EMPLOYEES of the principal/owner - thus all workers at the workplace are EMPLOYEES - and thus able to act together including as UNION to demand better RIGHTS and working conditions...

Sec 2A  Minister may prohibit employment other than under contract of service [Employment Act]

(1) The Minister may by order prohibit the employment, engagement or contracting of any person or class of persons to carry out work in any occupation in any agricultural or industrial undertaking, constructional work, statutory body, local government authority, trade, business or place of work other than under a contract of service entered into with-

(a) the principal or owner of that agricultural or industrial undertaking, constructional work, trade, business or place of work; or

(b) that statutory body or that authority.

(2) Upon the coming into force of any such order, the person or class of persons employed, engaged or contracted with to carry out the work shall be deemed to be an employee or employees and-

(a) the principal or owner of the agricultural or industrial undertaking, constructional work, trade, business or place of work; or

(b) the statutory body or local government authority,

shall be deemed to be the employer for the purposes of such provisions of this Act and any other written law as may be specified in the order.

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Minister may by order approve the employment of any person or class of persons by such other person or class of persons (not being the principal or owner) as he may specify but subject to such conditions as he may deem fit to impose.

(4) Any person who contravenes any order made under this section commits an offence.

YES - all workers at any workplace JUSTLY should be EMPLOYEES of the workplace principal/owner, who ONLY have the POWER to improve RIGHTS and WORKING Conditions. Other employers(who supply workers) have NO POWER to improve working conditions or enlarge the RIGHTS of workers working at the same workplace. THUS all workers MUST have a contract of service with the principal/owner of the workplace.

 

 

NOW, even some companies doing a particular work with their employees ARE choosing to use non-employee worker for the same job > WHY? To escape EMPLOYER obligations, and to weaken TRADE UNIONS or the capacity of workers together fighting for BETTER rights. Note a TRADE UNION improve RIGHTS through a Collective Bargaining Agreement with EMPLOYER, and thus non-employee workers are EXCLUDED, for a CBA generally only benefits the EMPLOYEE workers - and not other non-employee workers. 

c) ABOLITION of Short-term contracts a need to support Trade Unions > Now workers decide to form a Trade Union, and submit registration - but by the time the registration is approved, these very workers who formed the Trade Union is no more employees > because the employer chose not to extend or RENEW employment contracts - same fate for pro-Union employees. The EMPLOYER so easily can get rid of employees who support or want to form Trade UNIONs - thus Short-TERM contracts must be ABOLISHED.

d) REMOVE REQUIREMENT FOR RECOGNITION B4 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS can be entered into. Malaysia amended laws now allowing the formation/existence of more than 1 Trade UNION - and that is good. Before, a pro-employer UNION may prevent other TRADE UNIONS (who will fight for workers) but no more since law changed in September 2024 > but Malaysian government failed to amend laws with regards RECOGNITION of Trade Unions, which is important before a UNION can enter into a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Employer...NOW, if the EMPLOYER refuses to recognize a Trade Union . it leads to a 'secret ballot' and the UNION must get 50% plus 1 worker votes and then the EMPLOYER is forced to recognize the Trade Union > and to maintain that same requirement of 50% plus 1 after more than 1 unions can exist at a workplace is FOOLISH and UNJUST. SOLUTION > ABOLISH the need for the 'secret ballot' - and force employers into automatic recognition the moment the Trade Union shows that it has as members at least 5-10%[or lesser] of the workers at the workplace. MAKE it easier for workers to get an EMPLOYER recognized Trade Union - so that they can speedily negotiate and enter into a Collective Bargaining Agreement - which will result in better rights for workers.

d)  WRONGFUL DISMISSAL and Claims for REINSTATEMENT law. What worker wants is SPEEDY Trial - so if the worker win, he/she can go back to work without any loss of benefits. THUS, wrongful dismissal cases must be fast, to end within 3-6 Months. A speedy trial is JUST so that the worker can go back to his/her JOB, and it is also JUST for the EMPLOYER > how long can any employer keep the JOB available - too long, then employer will hire another worker, and if REINSTATEMENT is ordered because the DISMISSAL was wrong - will the return of the worker reinstated result in that new 'replacement' worker being kicked out? The FASTER the reinstatement case is dealt with, the better - best if it can be dealt with FAST, no more than 3 months.

e)  STATUS QUO for workers and employers whilst WRONGFUL DISMISSAL and Claims for REINSTATEMENT are determined by COURTS. In Malaysia, the POOR WORKER remains jobless and with NO INCOME - best the law is changed, and the Indonesian practice be adopted, STATUS QUO means the EMPLOYER is ordered to give work to worker(and pay wages) as usual, and workers are required to work UNTIL the Court decides whether it is a WRONGFUL DISMISSAL or otherwise. If the Court decides it is NOT Wrongful Dismissal - the worker is JUSTLY out of work. If the Court decides WRONGFUL DISMISSAL, then worker continues work as usual... This is MOST JUST for WORKERS, and this 'status quo' will certainly expedite the trials. STATUS QUO is taken as the situation as was before the alleged wrongful dismissal, and it is maintained UNTIL the COURT decides whether it was WRONGFUL dismissal or NOT. 

SECOND SCHEDULE of INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1967 must be REPEALED

a)  Back wages should be from the date of WRONGFUL dismissal until the date of COURT Judgment - it should not be JUSTLY limited to 24 Months but should be until the COURT Judgment even if it may be 9 years after the dismissal.

b)  Back wages should NOT be calculated on the basis of the 'last drawn salary' BUT must justly include all increments/bonues/promotions that the worker would have enjoyed if not 'wrongfully dismissed'. If not REINSTATED, the compensation should also consider all other losses like the LOSS of Seniority - noting that worker rights increase with the number of years employed by the SAME employer. If not REINSTATED, the wrongfully dismissed worker starts from square one - there is a loss of legally provided benefits, etc. Thus claims of loss of future earnings must NOT be excluded but taken into account ... unless there is NO real LOSS of Future Earnings. 

c)  If he/she is determined by COURT to be wrongfully dismissed, in determining the COMPENSATION, post-dismissal earnings should not be even considered, and so too 'contributory misconduct'. EMPLOYER Guilty - FULL STOP   

SECOND SCHEDULE of INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1967 

FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION IN MAKING AN AWARD IN RELATION TO A REFERENCE UNDER SUBSECTION 20(3)

1. In the event that backwages are to be given, such backwages shall not exceed twenty-four months' backwages from the date of dismissal based on the last-drawn salary of the person who has been dismissed without just cause or excuse;

2. In the case of a probationer who has been dismissed without just cause or excuse, any backwages given shall not exceed twelve months' backwages from the date of dismissal based on his last-drawn salary;

3. Where there is post-dismissal earnings, a percentage of such earnings, to be decided by the Court, shall be deducted from the backwages given;

4. Any relief given shall not include any compensation for loss of future earnings; and

5. Any relief given shall take into account contributory misconduct of the workman.

# Why limit to 24 months > if the case last longer, the back wages should be from date of wrongful dismissal until the date of the COURT judgment, and should include interest.

# Post-dismissal earnings should NEVER be deducted - it is so UNFAIR. Does the government expect the worker to LANGUISH in poverty with no income or no work? So, most WRONGFULLY DISMISSED worker are forced to work and earn somehow - the employer broke the Law by wrongfully dismissing worker - he should pay the FULL Back wages - there should be NO deduction if worker earns after wrongful dismissal.. BEST to adopt in LAW the Indonesian Practice - where worker will continue to EARN until the COURT decides. In Malaysia, sometimes it takes up to 9-10 years before a decision is made (this must CHANGE - trials should be speedily done in 3 months or LESS and so it makes REINSTATEMENT possible... 

FOR Malaysian workers - the other thing to be considered is  UNIVERSAL PENSION - A universal pension is a non-contributory or public retirement payment given to older adults, often funded through general government taxation rather than individual earnings histories.

Universal basic income (UBI) is a social welfare model where every member of a population regularly receives a fixed, unconditional cash payment from the government, regardless of their employment status or wealth. This income could be based on LIVING WAGE - thus when an employer is unable to provide this INCOME being a small employer or business, etc - THEN, the government should step in and provide the remaining so ALL Malaysian workers get a UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME. With the fact that AUTOMATION/AI will reduce the need of HUMAN WORKERS, UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME needs to seriously considered and made a LEGAL right.

 

 

 

AUTOMATION and AI - the risk is the LOSS of JOBs for Malaysian workers, but to date, Malaysian government has failed to address this issue which will affect mostly workers who are not with high education qualifications, and the poorer workers. What happens to workers when their jobs are LOST because of AUTOMATION and AI? 

 

30% QUOTA - use of migrant workers at a particular workplace? 

 

Once, it was believed that Malaysian workers are protected by the imposition of a QUOTA that use of migrant labour per workplace - No more that 30% migrant workers per workplace, and a strict pre-condition for employers to TRY getting LOCAL workers first, failing which they may be given permission to use migrant workers...BUT now it seems that WORKPLACE quota is NO MORE - and the government 'mis-directs' attention to a total number of migrant workers compared to LOCAL workers generally... thus jobs for LOCAL workers disappear in some sectors.

 

AMEND Labour Laws to deter BAD Employments and Provide REAL Justice For workers

 

Now, if an employer does not pay workers wages, overtime, work on public holidays - and the worker files a claim and wins > the law just says that EMPLOYER must pay the amount of monies due >> that is most UNREASONABLE, it should be DOUBLE or TRIPLE the amount of monies due, and that will DETER employers breaking the law.. NOW, the law is so PRO-EMPLOYER - that the employer must JUST pay the amount DUE to the worker... 

 

When a worker is NOT paid his due wages, he still have to find MONIES to live (pay his rent or monthly house loans, buy food for for the family, pay for the education of his kids, pay for his transportation) thus the POOR worker has to find monies, and getting a BANK LOAN is almost impossible if you do not have property of SECURITY that Banks need before giving you a LOAN - thus the ONLY option is to resort to borrowing from 'illegal' money lenders or ALONGS who charge rather high interests. Then, when the worker has to fight to get his wages, further cost and resources are needed including cost of court fees, lawyers, etc ...and then, when the worker finally wins - is it JUST that all the law-breaking employer has to pay the workers is JUST the wages DUE and payable > so TOTALLY UNJUST. The law must be AMENDED so that the bad EMPLOYER if he fails to pay wages, Overtime, work on REST days or Public Holidays, paid Sick Leave, ... must now pay the worker at least DOUBLE or TRIPLE(or 5 times)  the amount that was due and payable .. This would be JUST. Change the Law...and such DETERRENT punishment will discourage other EMPLOYERS from denying workers wages or payment for work already done. 

 

Payment DUE delayed may have also meant that the employer may have 'invested' and earned more monies - because the BAD employer knows, that even if the worker fights for his/her unpaid monies and WIN - all they have to pay is just the same SUM of monies that they had to pay then. This is a PRO-EMPLOYER law - and so UNJUST to workers. Look also at that small fines and prison sentence that currently are imposed on these law-breaking employers.

 

Section 100 EMPLOYMENT ACT 1955 - Penalties for failure or non-compliance in relation to rest days, overtime, holidays, annual leave, and sick leave 

(1) Any employer who fails to pay any of his employees wages for work done by his employee on a rest day or pays wages less than the rate provided under section 60 commits an offence, and shall also, on conviction, be ordered by the court before which he is convicted to pay to the employee concerned the wages due for work done on every rest day at the rate provided under section 60, and the amount of such wages shall be recoverable as if it were a fine imposed by such court.

(2) Any employer who fails to pay to any of his employees any overtime wages as provided under this Act or any subsidiary legislation made thereunder commits an offence, and shall also, on conviction, be ordered by the court before which he is convicted to pay to the employee concerned the overtime wages due, and the amount of overtime wages so ordered by the court to be paid shall be recoverable as if it were a fine imposed by such court....

What happens when the EMPLOYER or Employer COMPANY goes Bankrupt? Who pays the workers unpaid wages, etc? 

Another concern is what happens when the EMPLOYER company during this fight goes 'Bankrupt' or WINDS-UP > then the Workers May Have NO remedy or means to recover unpaid monies. Should the law be AMENDED that in this case, for workers unpaid monies, that the SHAREHOLDERS automatically become personally liable to pay workers their unpaid wages/monies? 

 

I was involved in a case whether the workers(migrant workers) claimed for UNPAID wages and monies in a trial at the Labour Court - and then the COMPANY wound-up, and there was no monies for workers > JUSTICE DENIED. When Bank gives LOANS to Companies, that insist that a Couple of Human Directors, stand as sureties/guarantors - so even if the COMPANIES goes BUST, the Bank can go after the HUMAN Directors personally to recover the DEBT. NOT SO, in employment contracts YET - as the LAW currently does not require HUMAN Directors or majority shareholders to stand as SURETIES/Guarantors for EMPLOYER Companies > so for workers, if the EMPLOYER goes bust, that is the END of their QUEST for JUSTICE. This is a MOST important issue that the GOVERNMENT must do something about - and what will Election Candidates and Political Parties do about this SAD UNJUST reality for workers??  

 

There are many OTHER issues affecting workers and Trade UNIONs...take PERKESO pay outs for disability and death - now, it is generally based on wages of the worker - so a higher waged worker gets  MORE > is this JUST, and should not all WORKER, Human Beings, be treated EQUALLY?

 

See also some past posts that are relevant:-

JUDGE Erred, BAD law that deceives WORKERS, - Workers CAN still SUE Employers after PERKESO payout - UNJUST if Insurance/PERKESO protects employer who failed in DUTY to ensure safe workplace..

The state of the labour movement in Malaysia (Part 1)

The origins of the labour movement in M’sia (Part 2 of a series)

How the British suppressed the Malayan labour movement (Part 3)

The last breath of the labour movement?(Part 4)

MINIMUM WAGE - a betrayal of the poor by Pakatan Harapan? RM1,200 ends discrimination against non-government employees?

RM1,700 Minimum Wage - Disappointing and possibly DISCRIMINATORY?

PM Anwar Ibrahim:- 'foolish' praise (or 'self praise') for Khazanah(under Finance Minister) for their RM3k MINIMUM WAGE - Minimum Wage RM3,000 for all government companies, GLCs and government project holders - and every worker in Malaysia?

With RM1.5 Trillion Debt, should Malaysia increase wages of 1.7 million Public Officers? Maybe only those who earn below RM4k? But increase MINIMUM Wages now for all?

  

 

 

 

Justice Norliza Othman to be blamed if more refugees are sent by Malaysia to Myanmar - because WRONGLY did make an interim Court Order > Minister says will continue sending back until Court says 'STOP"?

Justice Norliza FAILED to grant an INTERIM Injunction to stop Malaysia from further sending back refugee/asylum seekers to Myanmar, and in my opinion, she ERRED. The government, including PM Anwar announced the sending back of 5,000, whereby the 1^st batch of 1,473 was sent on Tuesday (29/9/20260), and more at risk of being sent back at anytime. The recourse to COURT to prevent further INJUSTICE failed as the COURT failed to grant an INTERIM INJUNCTION..  

In 2026, no INTERIM Stay Order to stop any more sending back refugees to Myanmar by Malaysia BUT in 2021, the Court did grant an interim stay order - and then at a later date, after granting leave to commence Judicial Review EXTENDED the Stay Order > In my opinion, Justice Norliza Othman should have followed what the 2021 Court did....But she ERRED - a mistake that may lead to greater injustice of more people being send back to Myanmar...

And after that, the HOME Minister came out saying that the balance will be sent back to Myanmar if there is NO COURT ORDER stopping the government from proceeding...

“Let the legal process determine the outcome. Until there is a decision to the contrary, we will continue with the repatriation. -  Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail (Malay Mail, 29/10/2026)

THUS, since there is NO Court Order, and Malaysia sends back more refugee/asylum seekers to Myanmar > then the BLAME lies with Justice Norliza > for, she who had the POWER to make a COURT ORDER that will prevent further deportation or sending back NOW and INJUSTICE - at least an interim stay or injunction should have been granted. 

In 2021, the High Court granted an interim stay order until the hearing of the leave to commence Judicial Review is heard and determined, and after that leave was granted, the STAY order was extended. 

Justice Norliza should have justly done this...but she failed, and greater injustice can still happen - all the remaining of the 5,000 yet to be send back could now be send back before 8th December, the date she fixed for the hearing. Once sent back, that GROSS INJUSTICE cannot be reversed > Myanmar will not send them back to Malaysia.

Justice Norliza Othman should have granted an interim stay ORDER to prevent Malaysia from sending back to Myanmar refugees/asylum seekers pending the full hearing of the case or pending the hearing of the leave application. 

This case was a matter of URGENCY given that PM Anwar has announced that 5,000 Rohingya Refugees would be sent back to Myanmar, and the first batch had already been send - and the remaining could be sent back at anytime... 

BUT Justice Norliza failed to issue an INTERIM Order as JUSTICE would demand, and then set the hearing date for December 8 - not speedily within a week or 2.

The High Court has dismissed the Malaysian Bar’s application to temporarily halt the repatriation of about 5,000 Myanmar refugees and asylum seekers, ruling that a stay cannot be granted before leave for a judicial review is given. Justice Norliza Othman said the dismissal was ordered without prejudice to the Bar’s right to renew its application after the court decides whether to grant leave for judicial review. The leave application has been fixed for hearing on Dec 8. 

In 2021, in a similar application to prevent further deportation, the Court(Justice Dato’ Sri Mariana Yahya) immediately granted a stay to prevent deportation, and then later granted leave for the judicial review application, and extended the stay...

Amnesty International Malaysia and Asylum Access Malaysia applaud the decision by the Kuala Lumpur High Court today to grant leave to proceed with the two organisations’ application for judicial review of the Malaysian government’s decision to deport 1,200 Myanmar nationals in February. 

In addition to granting permission for the case to continue, Justice Dato’ Sri Mariana Yahya also extended the stay against the Director General of Immigration and the Home Minister from deporting the remaining 114 Myanmar nationals until the disposal of the entire judicial review. The 114 were part of the 1,200 Myanmar nationals who were at risk of being deported; Malaysian authorities deported 1,086 Myanmar nationals on 23 February despite a one-day stay earlier issued by the court. Asylum Access Malaysia, 9/3/2021

Justice Norliza Othman ERRED & if others are send back to Myanmar by Malaysia, ALL BLAME lies on her, in my opinion.

Note, even in Civil Cases, Courts do grant interim injunctions fast - immediately after cases are filed...sometimes even before the Statement of Claim is filed, or even before the Cause papers are served on the other side.

Note also that Judges do have inherent powers of the Court to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice, whereby this is clearly stated amongst others in the Rules of Court 2012, amongst others.

4. Inherent powers of the Court (O. 92 r. 4) - Rules of Court 2012

For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court.

YES, this JUDGE had the needed powers to make an ORDER preventing Malaysia from sending back refugees/asylum seekers to Myanmmar > Note from the 1st batch of 1,473 send back - 300-400 have been arrested and detained despite the assurances given by Malaysia...This matter have also been raised in Parliament.

In terms of JUDGES, there are GOOD and Bad Judges > Rather that ensuring justice be done, sadly some Judges use 'technicalities' and procedural matters to delay or even strike out cases -  rather than hearing on the merits. WE NEED JUDGES THAT WILL ENSURE JUSTICE BE DONE - and cases are heard on the merits - sometimes dealt with URGENTLY > where the primary intention here is to prevent Malaysia's further sending back refugee/asylum seekers to Myanmar. So too in cases, where a failure of an interim injunction will result in the EVICTION of people from homes/land, etc... 

Did the Malaysian Bar appeal this decision? Would it be different if the BAR had commenced a WRIT Action - rather than a Judicial Review? 

Justice Norliza struck out the Bar's application for an URGENT Injunction to prevent further deportation was because she was of the opinion that she can only deal with such an INJUNCTION order after the Bar's application for Judicial Review is heard - and, here too, I believe the JUDGE Erred. She said the Bar was free to make another application for an INTERIM INJUNCTION after leave was granted - I have not seen the Judgment but only media reports. I believe that the JUDGE ERRED.

If any more are send back by Malaysia to Myanmar - then, I would call for Justice Norliza to be removed as JUDGE. 

What Malaysia did was clearly in violation of the principle of non-refoulement and international law. Even, the Malaysian Human Rights Commission said so... 

PM Anwar Ibrahim and Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution > You know that this matter is before the COURT - thus irrespective of whether there is a Court Order or NOT, you must respect the COURTS and not send back any more persons to Myanmar, for if you do it will be a disrespect of the Courts, or even a 'CONTEMPT OF COURT'. The Government is a party in that suit. If the Government wants to proceed with sending them back to Myanmar - then rightly get a 'COURT ORDER' saying OK for Malaysia to send back..

Home Minister Saifuddin was also 'dishonest' in Parliament - he failed to explain that the application was not dismissed on the merits, but only because the Judge believed that any application for stay or injunction could be made after the Bar managed to get LEAVE to commence Judicial Review, which I believe was very wrong... What the Minister said (as reported) was 'He said the repatriation efforts would proceed in line with the court’s decision to dismiss the Malaysian Bar’s application for a stay.' He did not clearly state that the decision was not after hearing the application on the merits - but rather a position of the Judge that such application can only be made after LEAVE was granted...In fact, the Judge suggested the Bar make another similar application after LEAVE was granted - 'Justice Norliza Othman said the dismissal was ordered without prejudice to the Bar’s right to renew its application after the court decides whether to grant leave for judicial review.'... In reporting in Parliament, Ministers must be totally HONEST and reveal everything so there is no misunderstanding...

see also:-  

Shocking - HOME Minister Saifuddin says Malaysia will continue with repatriation to MYANMAR until the COURT stops it?? OR maybe PARLIAMENT do? Which religion allows Malaysia to do this to refugees?

Malaysia Guaranteed Their ‘Welfare And Human Rights’, So Malaysia Now Obligated To Independently Verify That 10,000 Returned To Myanmar’s Welfare And Rights Are Protected

Malaysian MUST stop sending refugees and asylum seekers back to Myanmar...

 

High Court refuses Bar’s bid to stay repatriation of Myanmar refugees

16 days ago

FMT Reporters

Justice Norliza Othman says a stay application can only be heard after the application for leave for judicial review is decided.

The Malaysian Bar is seeking permission to challenge the government’s plan to repatriate about 5,000 Myanmar nationals.

KUALA LUMPUR:

 

The High Court has dismissed the Malaysian Bar’s application to temporarily halt the repatriation of about 5,000 Myanmar refugees and asylum seekers, ruling that a stay cannot be granted before leave for a judicial review is given.

Justice Norliza Othman said the dismissal was ordered without prejudice to the Bar’s right to renew its application after the court decides whether to grant leave for judicial review.

The leave application has been fixed for hearing on Dec 8.

The Bar is seeking permission to challenge the government’s plan to repatriate about 5,000 Myanmar nationals, including Rohingya and children recognised by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as refugees or asylum seekers.

It argues that their return to Myanmar could expose them to persecution, discrimination and other harm, and that repatriation could render the judicial review meaningless because the consequences might be irreversible.

The Bar also contends that Malaysia is bound by the customary international law principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning people to a country where they face persecution.

It further argues that the return of children would be inconsistent with the principle of acting in their best interests.

Lawyer M Ramachelvam, representing the Bar, submitted that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

Senior federal counsel Nurhafizza Azizan, appearing for the attorney-general, argued that the application was premature, citing a recent Court of Appeal ruling that a stay could only be considered after leave for judicial review had been granted.

Collin Arvind Andrew, Moganasundari Mahalingam, Ameerul Radzi Azlan and Shahlini Sree Kumar also appeared for the Bar.

Marcus Lee and Samantha Koh appeared on behalf of Suhakam as amicus curiae, or a friend of the court. - FMT,22/10/2026

Malaysia to proceed with repatriation of 5,000 Myanmar refugees after court ruling, says home minister 

 

The government will continue efforts to repatriate Myanmar refugees to their country of origin through lawful channels and established diplomatic processes, Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said. — Picture by Sayuti Zainudin

First Published: Thursday, 29 Oct 2026 2:10 PM MYT

PUTRAJAYA, Oct 29 — The government will continue efforts to repatriate Myanmar refugees to their country of origin through lawful channels and established diplomatic processes, Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said.

He said the repatriation efforts would proceed in line with the court’s decision to dismiss the Malaysian Bar’s application for a stay.

Saifuddin Nasution said the Home Ministry and the Foreign Ministry would continue negotiations with the Myanmar government to facilitate the repatriation of the second group, unless the court ruled otherwise.

“Let the legal process determine the outcome. Until there is a decision to the contrary, we will continue with the repatriation.

“For now, the Malaysian Bar’s application for a stay has been dismissed, so we will proceed. The judicial review has been fixed for Dec 8,” he said in his speech at the Home Ministry’s monthly assembly and Innovation Day celebration here today.

Media reports said the High Court had dismissed the Malaysian Bar’s application to temporarily halt the repatriation of about 5,000 Myanmar refugees and asylum seekers, ruling that a stay could not be granted before leave for judicial review was given.

Judge Norliza Othman said the dismissal did not affect the Malaysian Bar’s right to renew its application after the court had decided whether to grant leave for judicial review.

Meanwhile, Saifuddin Nasution urged the public not to take matters into their own hands over the presence of Myanmar refugees, stressing that enforcement should be left entirely to the authorities.

He acknowledged that refugee issues could give rise to various socioeconomic problems, but said the public should not go to extremes or act beyond the law.

“Their arrival has caused economic, political and social problems in certain communities, prompting some members of the public to take matters into their own hands, such as attacking their homes or forcing them out of their villages.

“The police are carrying out their duties and are urging the public not to take the law into their own hands. Leave it to the authorities and immigration enforcement agencies, which are conducting continuous operations,” he said.

Yesterday, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said Malaysia had opted for a diplomatic approach with Myanmar to address the refugee issue, despite facing international condemnation and criticism over the government’s stance.

He said that following discussions with the Myanmar authorities, the country had agreed to repatriate some of its nationals in Malaysia at its own expense, including by air and sea.

To date, about 10,300 Myanmar nationals have been repatriated, while another 3,000 are expected to undergo the repatriation process this month. — Bernama - Malay Mail, 29/10/2026

Wrong to ask MPs to enter into Agreement NOT to remove PM Anwar Ibrahim - it is against BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE and Constitution even if just to allow passing of important laws like Political Financing Act???

There is NO NEED for MPs to enter any agreement to keep Anwar Ibrahim as Prime Minister until the end of this Parliamentary term - so that some of the pending laws get passed - separation of the powers of the attorney-general and the public prosecutor; a Freedom of Information Act; an Ombudsman Act; an Equitable Constituency Development Fund (CDF) Act; and, a Political Financing Act.... 

MPs signing agreement to not remove PM Anwar Ibrahim maybe against what the people wants.... 

When an Opposition MP or even a government backbencher signs any agreement saying they will NOT remove the sitting Prime Minister - is it not against the CONSTITUTION (Art. 43(4) - (4) If the Prime Minister ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House of Representatives, then, unless at his request the Yang di-Pertuan Agong dissolves Parliament, the Prime Minister shall tender the resignation of the Cabinet.) and also the role of Parliament and MPs to be an effective check and balance against the Executive Branch of government??? Is it also not a BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE(BSD). An agreement to support government BILLs even if BILLS tabled contains 'bad' provisions? 

Did Muhyiddin/Syed Saddiq/.. violate the CONSTITUTION, including the BSD and betrayed the people > by agreeing not to remove PM Anwar Ibrahim until the end of the Parliamentary term?

PN secretary-general Datuk Seri Takiyuddin Hassan said the actions of the Bersatu MPs, led by party president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, had sidelined PN as a coalition and an opposition bloc.As such, he said, PN would not negotiate or sign a CSA to secure allocations. - Scoop, 2/11/2026

Perikatan Nasional chief whip Takiyuddin Hassan has backed calls for Putrajaya to disclose the terms of its confidence and supply agreement (CSA) with 13 Bersatu and independent MPs. - Malaysiakini, 5/11/2026

Parliamentarians, without any such agreement to extend the life of Anwar Ibrahim's government, if it is OK can and should reasonably support any good NEW laws. 

Thus, I would call on Opposition MPs to commit to supporting the separation of the powers of the attorney-general and the public prosecutor; a Freedom of Information Act; an Ombudsman Act; an Equitable Constituency Development Fund (CDF) Act; and, a Political Financing Act....

Opposition MPs must abandon the practice of simply OPPOSING any law tabled by the government, and likewise Government supporting MPs should adopt the practice of LISTENING and accepting what is good/better even if it comes from Opposition MPs - It must be noted that in the legislative history, many a times Opposition MPs have supported government tabled BILLs...

Now, what BILLS the government proposes may sound GOOD as far as the title is concerned - BUT some of the contents/provisions in the BILL may be BAD > so NO MP ought to support any BILL simply based on the 'TITLE' or the proclaimed intention>>

Take the PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY ACT - sounds good. But then, some of the PROVISIONS are BAD. One was the requirement to give the Police 10-days notice(now reduced to 5) - which means that people in Malaysia cannot PROTEST in Peaceful Assemblies immediately after any event that required a prompt response. A MOST unjust killings in Palestine > Malaysians cannot come out immediately in PROTEST > they have to wait 5 or more days before Malaysians can come out in protest (and that may be 'too late' as media/public may have moved on from the issue) 

The Malaysian Bar strongly opposed the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 (later enacted as the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012), arguing that it imposed unreasonable, disproportionate, and unconstitutional restrictions on public gatherings rather than genuinely upholding the right to peaceful assembly under Article 10(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution - see Malaysian Bar Website

Thus, the agreement to support BILLs proposed by government is DANGEROUS even if it is on separation of the powers of the attorney-general and the public prosecutor; a Freedom of Information Act; an Ombudsman Act; an Equitable Constituency Development Fund (CDF) Act; and, a Political Financing Act

-... so, MPs need to scrutinize all BILLS properly and demand needed amendment consistent with justice and human rights. Many a time, the government may choose not to amend the BILL and put it to VOTE...should MPs still vote for the BILL as proposed by Government? 

This is something that may happen with the government proposed amendments or laws for separation of the powers of the attorney-general and the public prosecutor; a Freedom of Information Act; an Ombudsman Act; an Equitable Constituency Development Fund (CDF) Act; and, a Political Financing Act..

Let's consider the separation of ATTORNEY General and Public Prosecutor, and key elements is an INDEPENDENT mechanism of choosing the Public Prosecutor and/or the Attorney General, and the safeguards to protect their INDEPENDENCE >>> if it is still going to be the PRIME MINISTER choosing the Public Prosecutor, and/or have the power to remove the PP easily whenever the PM pleases - then, it may not what we want. 

For me, the Attorney General is basically the government's LAWYER - so no problem if the sitting PM and/or government chooses the AG.

But, when it comes to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - who has GREAT powers in the administration of criminal justice - power to CHARGE criminally liable in Court, power to even to DISCONTINUE prosecution/trials, the power to APPEAL to higher courts when a lower court ACQUITS or imposes a unsatisfactory sentence,... Now, Zahid Hamidi enjoyed a discontinuation > DNAAed, Zahid also enjoyed the decision of withdrawal of Appeal in another criminal Court that acquitted.. THUS, when it comes to a PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, it is crucial that he/she is INDEPENDENT - and have the power to CHARGE even a sitting PRIME MINISTER...??

PM Anwar Ibrahim and the PH-led Coalition Government should have speedily tabled the needed laws - But they have FAILED to do so speedily...Almost 4 years have passed, and about 1 YEAR remains before Parliament will have to be dissolve ..end 2027? 

After losses in Sabah, Johor and Negeri Sembilan elections ... now Anwar Ibrahim and the government has 'started moving' - 

Note many of this issues like separation of AG and PP have been on the national agenda for some time now ... (Bar passed a resolution in 2016, others have also raised the issue )

Political Financing Act - Specific efforts and calls to introduce a dedicated political funding law in Malaysia first emerged prominently around 2011 to 2015, following key civil society initiatives and major political controversies. Amongst others, Transparency International-Malaysia (TI-Malaysia) unveiled a comprehensive 22-point memorandum on political financing reforms in May 2011, calling for full public disclosure of party finances, limits on donations, and channelling funds through party accounts rather than personal ones...The movement for a formal law gained official traction following the 2015 1MDB scandal and revelations regarding funds deposited into political accounts. This led to the formation of the National Consultative Committee on Political Financing, which put forward 32 recommendations and first mooted a draft Political Donations and Expenditure Act in 2016, though it did not reach Parliament before the 2018 general election

In my OPINION - No Member of Parliament should sign any agreement that they will NOT withdraw their confidence/support for Anwar Ibrahim to continue being Prime Minister until the end of this Parliamentary term(now December 2027) > as this would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL and maybe even against the ' BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE(BSD)';

Did Muhyiddin/Syed Saddiq/.. violate the CONSTITUTION, including the BSD and betrayed the people > by agreeing not to remove PM Anwar Ibrahim until the end of the Parliamentary term?

WORSE, if that agreement is for the receipt of MONIES/BENEFITS including 'constituency development funds' > then would it not be a 'CORRUPT' practice?? Would it NOT violate the role of MPs? 

 

Recently, it was reported that some Civil Society groups asked Opposition MPs to sign an agreement with the government > for the Opposition MPs to support some laws that the Government expects to table soon...I did not have access to the actual statement - merely Media Reports...

 

Civil Society reallly should also decide on ELEMENTS or principles that should be incorporated in any particular law/Bill say about POLITICAL Financing Act, etc...  what should be covered by that LAW? Will it apply to Political Parties or also individual politicians? When will 'donations' be considered 'bribes/corrupt practice'? What about MPs and their particular constituency? Will they all be subject to be AUDITED by the Auditor General? 

Political Funding - Transparency for all corporation contributions, for individual contributions exceeding RM10k?

POLITICAL Funding LAW > Do we want Saudi Arabia or US or.. to give Malaysian political parties money? Do we want Malaysian politician to receive money from some who do not want Malaysia to improve worker rights?

The fundamental problem in Malaysia is that PUBLIC no access to the DRAFT BILLS - only after it is tabled in Parliament but the practice of speedily approving it and passing it also DENIES the possibility of PUBLIC Feedback - even feedback to their peoples' representatives in Parliament....??/ 

 

Resolutions Adopted at the 70th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar Held at Renaissance Kuala Lumpur Hotel (Saturday, 19 Mar 2016)

• Resolution on the Attorney General, Public Prosecutor and Improvement of Public Perspective of Administration of Justice in Malaysia

WHEREAS:

(1) It is important that the Attorney General, who is also the Public Prosecutor, is both independent, and perceived to be independent, especially when it comes to prosecuting persons and entities that have broken Malaysian laws, irrespective of whether they are currently Ministers, holding senior positions in public service and/or legal entities owned by the government.

(2) It is the Attorney General, as Public Prosecutor, who is vested with the power to prosecute persons and/or entities that have acted against the laws of Malaysia, including criminal laws. 

(3) Of late, there have been several allegations of corruption and/or other breaches of the law made against Najib Tun Razak, who is also the current Prime Minister of Malaysia and Minister of Finance, in connection with large amounts of monies, amounting to more than RM2 billion, that were found in the personal bank accounts of Najib Tun Razak.

(4) There have been allegations of wrongdoings with regard to a Malaysian government–owned company, 1MDB, SRC International and/or other related companies, where Najib Tun Razak also sits as the Chairman of the Board of Advisors of the said 1MDB.

(5) Investigations have been commenced by the relevant authorities including the Malaysian Anti–Corruption Commission (“MACC”).

(6) In the midst of investigations about these alleged offences, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail’s services as Attorney General was suddenly terminated as of about 27 July 2015, and Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali was appointed new Attorney General effective 27 July 2015.

(7) Our Federal Constitution states that it is “on the advice of the Prime Minister” that the Yang Di–Pertuan Agong appoints the Attorney General.  In practice, this means that the Prime Minister decides on the appointment and removal of the Attorney General.

(8) Now, given the fact that this happened when there was an ongoing investigation of Najib Tun Razak personally, and also matters that concern the Minister of Finance, who is also Najib Tun Razak, there are concerns about the appointment of the new Attorney General.

(9) In early December 2015, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak was scheduled to provide an explanation to Parliament about all these allegations.  However, he did not do so, apparently on the advice of the Attorney General.

(10) The Malay Mail Online report dated 3 December 2015 stated, amongst others, that (emphases added):

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was only acting on the Attorney General’s (AG) advice in declining explaining personally in Parliament the RM2.6 billion donation he received, Datuk Seri Azalina Othman [Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department] said today . . . . the federal government made a collective decision to issue a ministerial statement in their response to questions after AG Tan Sri Apandi Ali said Najib may be risking “subjudice” if he attempted to answer in person with investigations into the surrounding controversy still ongoing.  “The AG is the government's lawyer. We are guided by his advice”…

(11) The Attorney General, whilst also acting as Public Prosecutor involved in the ongoing investigation which may lead to the prosecution of Najib Tun Razak, Government of Malaysia, Government–Owned Companies and/or GLCs, should not also be providing legal advice to those being investigated?

(12) The results of the investigations of the MACC were submitted to the Public Prosecutor to consider commencement of trial, but as reported on 26 January 2016 in New Straits Times which stated, amongst others (emphasis added):

…Attorney–General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali said their investigation had showed that the prime minister had committed no wrongdoing in the cases. . . . “I am satisfied that there was no evidence to show that the donation was a form of gratification given corruptly.  The evidence showed that the donation was not an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing in relation to his capacity as a prime minister,” he said.  He said that investigation also showed that in Aug 2013, a sum of USD620 million (RM2.03 billion) was returned by Najib to the Saudi royal family, as the sum was not utilised.

No mention was made about what the monies were for, and for what were some of the monies utilised.

(13) The report also stated (emphases added): 

The Attorney–General’s Chambers today cleared Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak of any criminal wrongdoing in the case involving a donation from the Middle East, as well as that involving SRC International.  The AG’s Chambers will also return the three investigation papers on the cases, and has instructed the Malaysian Anti–Corruption Commission (MACC) to close the IPs.

(14) The pronouncement of the Attorney General about the guilt/innocence of parties being investigated, may be contrary to the United Nations Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, in particular Article 10, which states that, “The office of prosecutors shall be strictly separated from judicial functions”. The determination of guilt or innocence is a function of the Judiciary, not the Attorney General.

(15) The power to commence investigations and discontinue investigations rests with the relevant investigative authorities, and not with the Attorney General/Public Prosecutor.  The duty of the Public Prosecutor is merely to determine the sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence for the purpose of prosecution, and if it is determined that the evidence is insufficient, then investigation papers are returned to the investigating authorities to do further investigation.  

(16) On 24 February 2016, the MACC issued a statement on the advice of its Operation Review Panel concerning the case involving SRC International and allegations regarding the RM2.6 billion (“berhubung kes membabitkan SRC International dan dakwaan wang derma RM2.6 bilion”).

(17) The Operation Review Panel agreed that the MACC should re–submit the investigation papers concerning SRC International to the Attorney General for his consideration.  With regard to the matter of the investigation concerning the RM2.6 billion, it acknowledges that the investigation is yet to be completed, and urges the MACC to apply to the Attorney General to issue the required permission for Mutual Legal Assistance to enable the MACC to get evidence and documents from financial institutions in other countries in connection with the RM2.6 billion investigation.  The relevant text from the MACC statement (which was in Bahasa Malaysia) is as follows (emphases added):

…PPO bersetuju bahawa SPRM perlu mengemukakan kembali kertas siasatan berhubung SRC International kepada Peguam Negara untuk pertimbangan. Memandangkan siasatan SPRM berhubung dakwaan wang derma RM2.6 bilion masih belum lengkap, Panel telah mengesyorkan agar SPRM meneruskan siasatannya dan memohon Peguam Negara agar mengeluarkan kebenaran Bantuan Undang–undang Bersama (MLA) bagi SPRM memperoleh bukti dan dokumen–dokumen daripada institusi kewangan di luar negara sebagai sebahagian daripada siasatan ke atas isu RM2.6 bilion…

(18) The MACC’s request for the necessary action by the Attorney General for Mutual Legal Assistance is not new.  It was also made before, in December 2015, as reported in Bloomberg Business.  Despite efforts made, the said MACC statement could not be accessed from the MACC website.

…The Malaysian Anti–Corruption Commission said it made several proposals and recommendations for action in the case, according to a statement Thursday. While it has completed investigations involving witnesses in the country, the MACC said it still needs permission from the attorney general to get documents and evidence from overseas financial institutions.  “This evidence can only be taken by the Mutual Legal Assistance process because it is tied to the provision of banking legislation of the country concerned,” the agency said.  “MACC has made an application under the MLA to attorney general to obtain documents and evidence.” — “Malaysian Anti–Graft Agency Submits Probe Results of Najib Funds”, Bloomberg Business, 31 December 2015 (emphasis added).

(19) On the face of it, it looks like the Attorney General has procrastinated in providing the necessary permission for Mutual Legal Assistance, which was essential for the completion of investigations, and this could be perceived as an act “obstructing” criminal investigations. 

(20) It is now revealed that Mohamed Apandi Ali is a Director of the Lembaga Urusan Tabung Haji, whereby the date of appointment is uncertain.

(21) An Attorney General, also the Public Prosecutor, should not be Director of any legal entity, as this would compromise his independence.

(22) The Federal Constitution, in Article 145, stipulates, among others, as follows: 

(1) The Yang di–Pertuan Agong shall, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint a person who is qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court to be the Attorney General for the Federation.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to advise the Yang di–Pertuan Agong or the Cabinet or any Minister upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the Yang di–Pertuan Agong or the Cabinet, and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other written law.

(3) The Attorney General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court or a court–martial.

(23) The Attorney General, as such, has many roles and responsibilities, and some of these are competing obligations and, if exercised at the same time is impossible.  It is absurd when the Attorney General is considering instituting criminal proceedings, and at the same time is also seen to be personally providing legal advice to the suspect(s) or the potential accused.

(24) The Federal Constitution, in Article 8, states that, “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.”  As such, it can be said that no one is above the law, even the Prime Minister or a government–owned legal entity.  When a person and/or legal entity commits an offence, it is the Attorney General, without any other special consideration or treatment, to do the needful to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence.

(25) Article 12 of the UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors stipulates: “Prosecutors shall, in accordance with the law, perform their duties fairly, consistently and expeditiously, and respect and protect human dignity and uphold human rights, thus contributing to ensuring due process and the smooth functioning of the criminal justice system.”

(26) Article 13(a) of the said Guidelines states (emphasis added): “In the performance of their duties, prosecutors shall carry out their functions impartially and avoid all political, social, religious, racial, cultural, sexual or any other kinds of discrimination”.

(27) Prosecutors shall perform their duties without fear, favour or prejudice. Public Prosecutors’ powers should be exercised independently and be free from political interference.

(28) If the Attorney General is unable to act as Public Prosecutor, then rightly he should not.  Malaysian law, in 376(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593), states (emphasis added): “The Solicitor General shall have all powers of a Deputy Public Prosecutor and shall act as Public Prosecutor in case of the absence or inability to act of the Attorney General.”

(29) As such, in this case involving Najib Tun Razak, the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of Malaysia, and government–owned companies, Mohamed Apandi Ali clearly is unable to act as Public Prosecutor, and the Solicitor General should act as Public Prosecutor.

(30) With reference to the abovementioned and other matters, the following points of concern, among others, have arisen concerning Attorney General Mohamed Apandi Ali:

(a) The manner and timing of his appointment raises the perception that Mohamed Apandi Ali may have been appointed to speedily replace a Public Prosecutor who may have proceeded to institute criminal proceedings against Najib Tun Razak (the current Prime Minister) and/or against legal entities owned and/or controlled by the Government;

(b) That there may exist a perception that Mohamed Apandi Ali may have acted to derail or delay investigations against Najib Tun Razak (the current Prime Minister) or against legal entities owned and/or controlled by the Government.  The fact that the MACC, which has been asking for the required Attorney General’s permission since December 2015 for usage of the Mutual Legal Assistance that is required to obtain evidence and documents from financial institutions in other countries, has yet to be given the relevant authorisation required to complete investigation, is a matter of concern;

(c) That Mohamed Apandi Ali may have failed to have acted professionally as a Public Prosecutor, when it was alleged that he had advised the Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, the suspect and possible future accused in an ongoing criminal investigation, to not provide an explanation to Parliament;

(d) That Mohamed Apandi Ali allegedly attempted to speedily clear Najib Tun Razak and SRC International of alleged crimes, including corruptions and/or other breaches of law, and to stop investigations;

(e) The failure of Mohamed Apandi Ali to acknowledge that in these circumstances when the Prime Minister and Government were the subject of investigations, he would be unable to perform the duties of the Public Prosecutor as required by law, and thereby should have disqualified himself, enabling the Solicitor General to carry out the duties and obligations of the Public Prosecutor, while he as Attorney General continued to carry on his role as adviser and “government lawyer” to the Prime Minister, Cabinet and Government; and

(f) The fact that he still is a Director of Lembaga Urusan Tabung Haji, and maybe also other companies and/or legal entities, raises the question of his independence, and his ability to carry out the duties of the Attorney General impartially, without fear and favour.

(31) As such, even if Mohamed Apandi Ali may personally not be guilty of any wrongdoing or dereliction of duties, for the good of Malaysia and for the improvement of public perception of the administration of justice, we may have to take drastic actions, including the appointment of a new Attorney General.

(32) The public need to have confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system, whereby prosecutors play a crucial role in the administration of criminal justice, and as such prosecutorial discretion should be exercised independently and be free from political interference.

(33) Events of the recent past, especially concerning the RM2.6 billion, have eroded the confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system, and immediate and even drastic steps need to be taken to restore confidence in the administration of criminal justice, for the good of Malaysia.

THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved:

(A) That the Malaysian Bar calls on Mohamed Apandi Ali to immediately resign as Attorney General, for the good of Malaysia, to restore public confidence and perception of the rule of law, in particular the administration of criminal justice in Malaysia.

(B) That the Malaysian Bar calls for the Solicitor General, pursuant to section 376(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to assume the role and responsibilities of Public Prosecutor in the cases involving Najib Tun Razak, 1MDB, SRC International and the RM2.6 billion, considering the disability of the Attorney General to continue to act as Public Prosecutor for these cases, by reason of past conduct and the existing competing and conflicting roles of the Attorney General.

(C) That the Malaysian Bar also calls on Attorney General Mohamed Apandi Ali to immediately resign as Director in Lembaga Urusan Tabung Haji, and any positions held in companies, statutory body and/or legal entities, save those positions that the law specifically requires.

(D) That the Public Prosecutor and prosecutors should always not only be independent but also be seen to be independent.  They should not be receiving any other income, “donations” or benefits from any other sources.  They should also not be Directors of companies, or holding any other positions in legal entities, save those specifically provided for in law.

(E) That the Malaysian Bar promotes and works towards the adoption and application of the principles contained in the UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, and such international standards, in Malaysia.

(F) That the Malaysian Bar promotes the establishment of an independent commission or committee for the purposes of the selection and recommendation to the Yang di–Pertuan Agong for the appointment of the Attorney General.

(G) That the Malaysian Bar continues doing all that is necessary to promote the rule of law, and a just administration of justice in Malaysia.

The motion was proposed by Charles Hector Fernandez, Francis Pereira and Shanmugam a/l Ramasamy.

 

- Malaysian Bar Website 

PN refuses to sign CSA, Muhyiddin’s decision does not represent coalition: Takiyuddin

Takiyuddin Hassan says those who signed the agreement comprised several groups that were not actively involved with PN, including a faction from Bersatu, former Bersatu members and MUDA

Scoop Reporters

2 November, 2026

10:28 AM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR – Perikatan Nasional (PN) has rejected the idea of signing a Confidence and Supply Agreement (CSA), as done by six Bersatu MPs, saying it was an individual choice and did not reflect the coalition’s official stance or decision.GliaStudios

PN secretary-general Datuk Seri Takiyuddin Hassan said the actions of the Bersatu MPs, led by party president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, had sidelined PN as a coalition and an opposition bloc.

As such, he said, PN would not negotiate or sign a CSA to secure allocations.

He said those who signed the agreement comprised several groups that were not actively involved with PN, including a faction from Bersatu, former Bersatu members and the Malaysian United Democratic Alliance (MUDA).

“The CSA was their own choice as Members of Parliament. Coincidentally, the MPs who joined the CSA were from groups that are not actively involved in PN, namely Bersatu itself, former Bersatu members who had previously defected, as well as MUDA.

“Therefore, PN was not involved in the negotiations or the signing of the agreement. We were not involved,” he said, Utusan Malaysia reported.

On Thursday, six Bersatu MPs signed a Confidence and Supply Agreement (CSA) with the Madani Government, committing to support the passage of the Supply Bill 2027 (Budget 2027).

The agreement was signed by Bersatu president Muhyiddin and two vice-presidents, Datuk Dr Radzi Jidin and Datuk Seri Ahmad Faizal Azumu, as well as two other party MPs, Datuk Mohd Suhaimi Abdullah (Langkawi) and Datuk Ali Biju (Saratok).

Also signing the agreement were Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman (MUDA) and several other MPs, including Datuk Dr Zulkafperi Hanapi (Tanjung Karang), Datuk Syed Abu Hussin Hafiz Syed Abdul Fasal (Bukit Gantang) and Zahari Kechik (Jeli).

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was reported to have said that the agreement was intended to ensure continuity of government administration, while providing the necessary space to implement the national development agenda effectively, including the 2027 Budget, for the benefit of the people.

Yesterday, Barisan Nasional (BN) chairman Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi described the CSA as a positive development in addressing and resolving issues affecting the people. – Nov 2, 2026, Scoop

PN whip demands CSA details, cites 'no confidentiality' clause in 2021 MOU

Qistina Nadia Dzulqarnain

 Published: Nov 5, 2026 4:08 PM

Perikatan Nasional chief whip Takiyuddin Hassan has backed calls for Putrajaya to disclose the terms of its confidence and supply agreement (CSA) with 13 Bersatu and independent MPs.

Takiyuddin argued that without complete disclosure of the Oct 29 deal, questions will remain about its stipulations, including regarding the allocation received by MPs who inked the agreement.

In making the demand, the PN secretary-general pointed to the previous memorandum of understanding during former prime minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob's administration, where the details were readily available to the public.

“In the MOU between the federal government and Pakatan Harapan signed on Sept 13, 2021, there is a ‘no confidentiality’ clause stating that the parties agree to fully disclose the MOU to the public as a commitment towards full openness and accountability.

As such, we want to know whether the (particulars of the) CSA recently signed has been announced to the public,” the Kota Bharu MP told a press conference in Parliament today.

Also present were opposition leader Hamzah Zainudin and several other opposition lawmakers.

PN sec-gen Takiyuddin Hassan and Wawasan Negara leader Hamzah Zainudin (front, left) speaking at a press conference in Parliament today

Under the existing CSA, the government is required to table two constitutional amendments - one on the prime minister’s term limits and another to separate the roles of the attorney-general and the public prosecutor.

In return, the opposition and independent MPs involved will support Budget 2027 and Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s administration until the end of the parliamentary term, with the promise of receiving their constituency development allocations.

The lawmakers taking part in the CSA are six Bersatu MPs, six other former Bersatu lawmakers who previously declared their support for Anwar, and Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman.

PAS MPs and suspended Bersatu MPs perceived to be aligned with Hamzah, the party’s former deputy president, are said to have been neither invited nor informed of the signing.

CSA signing between 13 opposition and independent MPs with the Madani government on Oct 29

Yesterday, Bersatu MP Radzi Jidin, who was among the 13 MPs who signed the CSA, similarly called for the agreement to be made public.

The Putrajaya MP emphasised that the CSA was signed for the sake of the nation’s welfare and the rakyat’s best interests, following PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang criticising it by likening the agreement to the Dajjal.

---

Draft MOU on opposition allocation

Takiyuddin today also referred to the government's Aug 1, 2024 draft MOU on allocations for opposition MPs.

“In this draft, it (details) openness, transparency and confidentiality, (stating) that if this memorandum is signed, it will be displayed to the public.

“Since we, the opposition, rejected (that draft), what we want to know and ask to be disclosed is what was signed on Oct 29 recently,” the PAS secretary-general said.

He further sought clarification on the total allocation set to be received by opposition and independent MPs under the CSA, the mechanism that will be used to disburse the funds, and when its implementation will take place.

PN had previously rejected the draft MOU, with Hamzah claiming then that the proposed agreement could potentially affect several legal provisions under the Federal Constitution. - Malaysiakini, 5/11/2026

Civil society groups demand cross-party deal on eight key reforms

By New Straits Times

November 3, 2026 @ 11:27am

A coalition of civil society organisations (CSOs) wants the government and opposition to sign a cross-party agreement involving all 218 members of parliament. - NSTP file pic

KUALA LUMPUR: A coalition of civil society organisations (CSOs) wants the government and opposition to sign a cross-party agreement involving all 218 members of parliament.

This, they said, was to execute eight key institutional reforms before the end of the 15th Parliament's term.

They said that without such an agreement, key reforms may be held back by political uncertainties and may be susceptible to unelected forces that do not want these reforms to empower Malaysian voters.

"This agreement should aim to pave the way for the consolidation of parliamentary democracy before and after the 16th General Election and to restore public and international confidence in political stability and accountability in Malaysia.

"It must therefore cover concerns of both the Madani government and Perikatan Nasional," they said in a statement.

They also want Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to reach out directly to PN's top leadership to deepen democracy and enhance stability.

"As (Anwar) enters the last year of his term, this is his moment as a statesman to unite all parties to introduce far-reaching changes.

"It is equally a golden opportunity for PN to propose a comprehensive deal to the government, to show its visionary leadership and democratic commitment for Malaysia after GE16."

Among the eight reforms are limiting a prime minister's term to 10 years; separation of the powers of the attorney-general and the public prosecutor; a Freedom of Information Act; an Ombudsman Act; an Equitable Constituency Development Fund (CDF) Act; and, a Political Financing Act with public funding for political parties.

The others are that the Election Commission be made answerable to Parliament and not the prime minister and that a three-month notice for parliamentary dissolution if there is no agreement for the 15th Parliament to serve its full term till Dec 18, 2027.

The CSOs said Anwar should keep to the promise he made at the beginning of his term, as the first two reforms require a two-thirds majority (148 votes) to amend the Federal Constitution.

"The PM's 10-year tenure limit would enable leadership renewal and rejuvenation and prevent power abuse and dynastic politics. The AG-PP separation is necessary to prevent selective prosecution, selective impunity and a two-tiered society."

The Freedom of Information and Ombudsman acts, said the CSOs, would empower ordinary Malaysians, enhance transparency, and motivate civil servants to deliver better public services.

The group noted these reforms might face resistance, but urged any party seeking to form the next government to deliver them within the current term.

They added that the four other reforms are vital to ensure a level playing field for both the government and the opposition.

"Equitable CDF should be accessible to all MPs and assemblymen without being monopolised or made conditional on government support," the group said.

As for the Political Finance Act, they said this would prevent money politics and foreign interference.

Among the 33 CSOs are Aliran, G25 Malaysia, the Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) and the National Human Rights Society. - NST, 3/11/2026