Urgent Need to Appoint a New Chief Judge of Malaya(Malaysian Bar) - vacant since 29 February. PM Anwar Ibrahim MUST explain??

 Press Release | There is an Urgent Need to Appoint a New Chief Judge of Malaya 19 Sep 2024 1:40 pm

As one of the key stakeholders in the administration of justice, the Malaysian Bar is deeply concerned about the ongoing delay in the appointment of the Chief Judge of Malaya (“CJM”), a post that has remained vacant since the end of February this year.

We acknowledge and appreciate the commendable efforts of YAA Tan Sri Datuk Amar Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim, who has assumed the role of acting CJM,¹ in addition to his role as President of the Court of Appeal. However, it is crucial to recognise that these two positions were designed to be distinct: each with its own responsibilities, focusing on different tiers of the Court system.  The fact that these positions have historically been held by different individuals also underscores the importance of maintaining the separation of these critical judicial functions.

The Malaysian Bar has closely followed public discourse on this issue.  We share the public’s concern that the continued vacancy in this key position could undermine the perception of stability and leadership within the Judiciary.  The role of the CJM is not merely symbolic but is essential in overseeing the Judiciary, ensuring the smooth administration of justice, and safeguarding the independence of the courts.

Moreover, we firmly believe that the Malaysian Judiciary is composed of capable, experienced, and highly qualified judges who are more than prepared to assume the role of CJM.  Without a doubt, our judges would have spent years in the legal profession and on the Bench developing both the legal and managerial acumen necessary to lead the Judiciary.  Hence, there seems to be no good reason for the delay in appointing a new CJM.

The CJM holds many important functions pertaining to the administration of the High Court in Malaya.  One of the main responsibilities of the CJM is the delegation of cases between the High Court Judges.²  Case law³ has determined that this power is a discretion of the CJM, and is thus not amenable to judicial review.

The CJM also has a role in the appointment of High Court Judges serving in Peninsular Malaysia.  Before tendering advice to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (“YDPA”) on the appointment of a High Court Judge, the Prime Minister is obliged to consult both the Chief Justice and the CJM.⁴  Even with the transfer of a Judge from one High Court to another, a recommendation may be made by the Chief Justice to the YDPA, after consulting both the CJM and the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak.⁵

When it comes to regulating and prescribing the procedure in the Courts, the CJM also plays a central role.  The CJM sits as one of the members of the Rules Committee, which is responsible for issuing the Rules of Court. The Rules of Court determine matters of procedure and are invaluable for the smooth and effective flow of litigation.  Additionally, the CJM has the authority to issue practice directions on the interpretation and execution of the Rules of Court.⁶

The foregoing is merely a glance at the many responsibilities of the CJM. Although a senior judge may assume the role of acting CJM in the event of a vacancy, this should only be a stop-gap measure when the Office becomes immediately vacant.  It should not be a permanent state of affairs.  There is an urgent need to fill this vacancy, not only because of the importance of the CJM’s Office, but because allowing this vacancy to persist prevents the progression of judges within the system who have spent their entire careers honing their judicial skills and abilities.  It would be a great disservice to the Judiciary to withhold the progression of these judges, as they will not be able to make use of their wisdom and skills for the betterment of the Malaysian justice system.  This is especially pertinent, considering judges undergo compulsory retirement at the age of 66 years.⁷

Aside from delaying the progression of judges up the ranks, this stagnancy could also prevent the appointment of new Judicial Commissioners from either the Bar or the Judicial and Legal Services.  There are many members of the legal profession who have dedicated their time and energy to becoming leading practitioners, often in niche areas of law, and are willing to further contribute to the development of the law by joining the Bench. Delays in appointing new Judicial Commissioners would result in frustration, and even deter some from applying to join the Judiciary.  Such a situation would be to the detriment of our justice system.

In recognising the importance of the role of the CJM in upholding the rule of law and ensuring continued public confidence in our legal system, the Malaysian Bar urges the expedition of the appointment of a new CJM.  Any further delay risks undermining the progress our Judiciary has made and could impede the effective administration of justice.


Mohamad Ezri b Abdul Wahab
President
Malaysian Bar

19 September 2024

---

¹ “Abang Iskandar appointed acting Chief Judge of Malaya”, New Straits Times, 6 March 2024.  

² Courts of Judicature Act 1964, section 20.

³ See, for instance, Mkini Dotcom Sdn Bhd & Ors v Chief Judge of Malaya & Ors [2016] 8 MLJ 357.

⁴ Federal Constitution, Article 122B.

⁵ Federal Constitution, Article 122C.

⁶ Rules of Court 2012, Order 92, Rule 3B.

⁷ Federal Constitution, Article 125, Clause 1.

Source: Malaysian Bar Website 

See also:-

Chief Judge of Malaya - none since February 29? Why is Anwar delaying? Appoint NOW...

Art. 122B Federal Constitution  Appointment of judges of Federal Court, Court of Appeal and of High Courts

(1) The Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief Judges of the High Courts and (subject to Article 122C) the other judges of the Federal Court, of the Court of Appeal and of the High Courts shall be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, after consulting the Conference of Rulers.

(2) Before tendering his advice as to the appointment under Clause (1) of a judge other than the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the Prime Minister shall consult the Chief Justice.

According to a media report dated 1/8/2024, the  Chief Justice (CJ) Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat had already tendered the name/s of persons to be appointed as the Chief Judge of Malaya (“CJM”),  

"We see in the past few years, there have been changes and appointments in the judiciary, but I haven’t interfered with a single appointment. I follow the Judicial Appointments Commission’s process and then the Chief Justice will forward (a name) and I will accept it,” he[Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim] said during the ‘Special Narrative with the Prime Minister’ interview on Radio Televisyen Malaysia (RTM) tonight. -- BERNAMA, Sinar Daily, 7/1/2023 

See also the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009

PART IV   SELECTION TO THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE FEDERAL COURT, THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, THE CHIEF JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURTS, JUDGES O...

...26  Report on recommendation

(1) After making its selection, the Commission shall submit to the Prime Minister a report which shall-

(a) state who has been selected by the Commission to be recommended for the appointment to the office concerned;

(b) state the reasons for such selection; and

(c) contain any other information the Commission deems necessary to bring to the knowledge of the Prime Minister.

(2) After submitting the report, the Commission shall provide any further information as may be required by the Prime Minister.

27  Request for further selection by the Prime Minister

 The Prime Minister may, after receiving the report under section 26, request for two more names to be selected and recommended for his consideration with respect to any vacancy to the office of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the President of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Judge of the High Court in Malaya, the Chief Judge of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak, judges of the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal, and the Commission shall, as soon as may be practicable, comply with the request in accordance with the selection process as prescribed in the regulations made under this Act.

28  Tender of advice

Where the Prime Minister has accepted any of the persons recommended by the Commission, he may proceed to tender his advice in accordance with Article 122B of the Federal Constitution. 

What is happening to the amendment of the Judicial Appointment Commission Act, as proposed by the Conference of Rulers? 

Just a week after Anwar was sworn in as prime minister, the Conference of Rulers had called for curtailing the prime minister's powers in the appointment of judges.

The Rulers made this clear when they proposed that the prime minister be stripped of the power to appoint five representatives to the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), a nine-member body that nominates candidates for appointment to the superior courts.

Four of the nine members of JAC are senior judges, while the remaining five are appointed by the prime minister.

"To ensure the independence of JAC in carrying out its responsibilities, I propose that the appointment of its five members should not be made by the prime minister.

"Instead it should be given to other institutions such as the Malaysian Bar Council, the Sabah Law Society, the Sarawak Bar Association and the Parliamentary Select Committee," Negeri Sembilan ruler Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir had said at the time.

Now, another problem that arises is the fact that Chief Judge of Malaya is mandatory member of the Judicial Appointment Commission - without the Chief Judge in Malaya, that JAC will have 8 members only, with 5 being appointed by the Prime Minister personally.

5  Constitution of the Commission[ JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2009]

(1) The Commission shall consist of the following members:

(a) the Chief Justice of the Federal Court who shall be the Chairman;

(b) the President of the Court of Appeal;

(c) the Chief Judge of the High Court in Malaya;

(d) the Chief Judge of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak;

(e) a Federal Court judge to be appointed by the Prime Minister; and

(f) four eminent persons, who are not members of the executive or other public service, appointed by the Prime Minister after consulting the Bar Council of Malaysia, the Sabah Law Association, the Advocates Association of Sarawak, the Attorney General of the Federation, the Attorney General of a State legal service or any other relevant bodies.

WHY THE DELAY? Please EXPLAIN 

Source: Terrirudin not on list given by CJ to PM for new Chief Judge of Malaya

Speculation that the attorney-general is poised for promotion to the Federal Court evokes fears of executive meddling in the judiciary.

MalaysiaNow

August 1, 2024 1:25 PM

Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, Anwar Ibrahim and AG Ahmad Terrirudin Salleh.

A storm is brewing in legal and judicial circles over Anwar Ibrahim's plan to appoint Attorney-General Ahmad Terrirudin Salleh as a judge of the Federal Court and Chief Judge of Malaya, raising similar concerns that the Conference of Rulers expressed not long ago about the prime minister's powers to appoint senior judges.

MalaysiaNow can now reveal, based on reliable sources, that Terrirudin's name is not among those recommended by Chief Justice (CJ) Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat to Anwar to fill the position of Chief Judge of Malaya. 

The position has been vacant since Zabidin Diah retired on Feb 29

Tengku Maimun is understood to have recommended a list of names to Anwar, in accordance with Article 122B of the Federal Constitution, which states that the appointment of judges to top judicial positions other than that of chief justice shall be made in consultation with the CJ.

Article 122B also states that it is only after this process that the prime minister may advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who in turn consults with the Conference of Rulers.

An official at the Prime Minister's Department declined to comment on the matter, saying only that the government was not obliged to accept the CJ's candidates.

This is a far cry from Anwar's own promise to stay out of the appointment of judges, just months after becoming PM.

"We see in the past few years, there have been changes and appointments in the judiciary, but I haven’t interfered with a single appointment. I follow the Judicial Appointments Commission’s process and then the CJ will forward (a name) and I will accept it," he was quoted as saying in an interview with RTM in January 2023.

The argument that the prime minister is not bound by the advice of the CJ does not go down well with senior judges, many of whom are still struggling to move on after a long history of government interference in the judiciary in recent decades.

"We had to learn the bitter lesson that whilst the independence of the judiciary can be destroyed in an instant, rebuilding and reestablishing its independence can take decades," warned a joint letter signed by past presidents of the Malaysian Bar recently.

"That is the crux of the current concern. There is a fear of renewed executive interference in the judiciary," said a judicial source privy to the matter, who spoke to MalaysiaNow on strict condition of anonymity.

"It is glaring that not a single name put forward by her was accepted. This defeats the constitutional requirement for consultations," the source added.

The plan to appoint Teriruddin as a Federal Court judge and then CJM has been criticised by the legal fraternity, including the former deputy minister in charge of law and institutional reforms, Ramkarpal Singh.

"Appointing an outsider to one of the country’s most senior judicial posts would certainly be a step backward and would reflect poorly on the government’s commitment to judicial reforms," said Ramkarpal, who was not reappointed to his post following the Cabinet reshuffle late last year.

Concerns of Malay rulers echoed

In November 2022, the Conference of Rulers called for curtailing the prime minister's powers in the appointment of judges.

Just a week after Anwar was sworn in as prime minister, the Conference of Rulers had called for curtailing the prime minister's powers in the appointment of judges.

The Rulers made this clear when they proposed that the prime minister be stripped of the power to appoint five representatives to the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), a nine-member body that nominates candidates for appointment to the superior courts.

Four of the nine members of JAC are senior judges, while the remaining five are appointed by the prime minister.

"To ensure the independence of JAC in carrying out its responsibilities, I propose that the appointment of its five members should not be made by the prime minister.

"Instead it should be given to other institutions such as the Malaysian Bar Council, the Sabah Law Society, the Sarawak Bar Association and the Parliamentary Select Committee," Negeri Sembilan ruler Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir had said at the time.

A few months later, Anwar vowed to protect the independence of the judiciary.

"As prime minister, not only have I not encroached upon even a single inch of the sacred terrain of the judiciary, but I shall defend, at all costs,the independence of the judiciary," he said at the Asean Law Conference last year.

Restoring public confidence in the judiciary has been almost a permanent feature of Pakatan Harapan (PH) election manifestos throughout the decades.

In 2018, it pledged to ensure the appointment of judges based on merit and experience and to remove the prime minister's power to influence the appointment of judges.

"The appointment of the chief justice and the president of the Court of Appeal through the backdoor as practised by Umno and Barisan Nasional will be stopped immediately," said the PH manifesto ahead of the 14th general election.

A similar promise was made during the last general election.

"Harapan will continue to protect the integrity of Malaysia’s administration by limiting the power of the executive, ensuring the freedom of our judiciary, and reorganising the political structures of the country," the coalition said. - Malaysia Now, 1/8/2024

Anwar gives clear signal that judiciary is free to carry out duties based on facts

07 Jan 2023 12:22am

Anwar gives clear signal that judiciary is free to carry out duties based on facts. - Bernama Photo

KUALA LUMPUR - The Chief Justice of Malaysia and the country’s judiciary need to be given room to carry out their duties independently and professionally based on facts and laws, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said.

This was important to provide a clear signal to Malaysians that there is seperation of powers between the legislative, executive and judiciary in conducting their duties in accordance to their respective capacities.

He noted that there were assumptions that the judiciary, which had long been held as an institution of irrefutable and unquestionable high standing, had been compromised by executive dominance.

According to Anwar, even the Bar Council of Malaysia and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) were of the view that defects and weaknessses existed within the present judiciary.

"We see in the past few years, there have been changes and appointments in the judiciary, but I haven’t interfered with a single appointment. I follow the Judicial Appointments Commission’s process and then the Chief Justice will forward (a name) and I will accept it,” he said during the ‘Special Narrative with the Prime Minister’ interview on Radio Televisyen Malaysia (RTM) tonight. -- BERNAMA, Sinar Daily

 

When salary payment delayed, Workers should go to Court fast and get court orders to secure RIGHTS. Do not wait. Government should ensure justice for WORKERS not just get conviction against employers for law-breaking.

When your employer does not pay salary and other allowances in time, WARNING BELLS should go off, and workers must ACT immediately to protect their RIGHTS. When a employer delays payment of wage - it is also indicative that the employer may abscond without payment later.

Sony, Panasonic and Daikin are looking into delayed salary payments and alleged human rights violations at its Klang-based supplier Kawaguchi Manufacturing Sdn Bhd....In a Malaysia Gazette report on Sept 9, Kawaguchi president George Wang assured 200 foreign workers and 40 local workers that their salary delays would be resolved by the end of the year. 

Trusting employer's promises or assurance only is FOOLISH - go get a Court ORDER to secure your RIGHTS now. Does the Kawaguchi president speak on behalf of the owners/shareholders? Later the company may be wound-up or be in a situation of having no money to pay the workers... GO TO COURT now ... Do you even have a written agreement that what is owed will be paid with INTEREST, with the Directors or Shareholders giving a GUARANTEE that if the company does not pay, they will pay the workers...???

It is FOOLISH to simply foolishly accept and/or rely on promises that payment will be made later - the SMART MOVE is to secure your rights and/or entitlement...

1) File an action at the Magistrate Court under Employment Act section 78 - Employee's remedy when employer about to abscond

- see Employee's remedy when employer about to abscond - it is in the Magistrate COURT - s.78 Employment Act, s.7N Sabah Labour Ordinance, s.8N Sarawak Labour Ordinance - FILE NOW

The Court will/can  '...order such employer to give security by bond in such sum as to the Magistrate seems reasonable, that he will not leave Malaysia until the Magistrate is satisfied that all the just claims of such employee against him for wages have been paid or settled...'

(3) The bond to be given by an employer shall be a personal bond with one or more sureties, and the penalty for breach of the bond shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and the means of the employer.

Commence the action - and name the employer, not just the employer Company, but also the main shareholders, and maybe Directors. WHY? A Company can end up being wound-up, and may not eventually have the needed monies to settle the claims. However, the human shareholders -the OWNERS of the Company will have the needed monies, including Directors... 

If the the bond is obtained - ensure that the sureties are human owners and/or Directors, not just some poor employee of the company.

2 - File a CLAIM/TUNTUTAN at the Human Resource Department(Labour Office) - now, if the employer is really going to pay later - he will not contest the claim, and agree to a CONSENT ORDER being recorded, which will be useful in proving the debt if in the event the company later ends up being wound-up, etc 

Now, you should also try to GET interest for the late payment - If the employer owes you RM1,500 in wages today - it is grossly unjust to receive RM1,500 6 months or several years later. Try to get interest of 10% or more(or at least 8% which is normal judgment sum interest) - you can also ask for more, say double the sum owed. By not receiving wages NOW, it puts the worker in much difficulty - how does he/she pay for daily needs, pay of his debts(risk of losing house/car/appliances/etc if you do not pay of your monthly debt obligations...). 

But sadly, Malaysian labour laws still provides for JUST paying the workers what the employer was supposed to pay then but did not - HOW UNJUST? Amend the laws, when employer fails to pay wages, OT, etc - when the claim is proven, EMPLOYERS must be ordered to pay 3 or 5 times the amount the worker should have been paid then. This would DETER employers from delaying payments due to workers at the time payment is due. {If they only have to pay the SAME amount later - then delay in payment to workers becomes an attractive 'interest free LOAN' which sometimes re-payment can be avoided because many victimized workers do not go to the Labour Department(Court) to lodge and pursue claims. Or, worse in the case of MIGRANT WORKERS who simply would not be able to claim for monies owed, as they will be sent back to their home country - and also these mechanisms to ensure workers are not cheated by employers require the PHYSICAL presence of the worker at the Labour Department(Courts)...Malaysian law still facilitates EXPLOITATION of workers, especially migrant workers - and worker exploitation is also 'Human Trafficking" 

(3) Any employer who fails to pay to any of his employees wages as provided under section 60D, 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 any work done on any such holiday at the rate provided under section 60D, and the amount of wages so ordered by the court to be paid shall be recoverable as if it were a fine imposed by such court. - sec. 100, Employment Act 1955.

c) FILE a CLAIM(Tuntutan) if you want to get your employer what the OWE you. If you just file a COMPLAINT(ADUAN) - the government may investigate, take action against the employer, and impose a FINE for the offence if the employer is convicted - and worker victims get NOTHING.

See report below entitled, 'In KL, four employers fined RM46,500 for paying workers' salaries late'.  

4 different companies were FINED, but what happened to the worker victims - there was no order for the employer to pay any compensations(OR even wages due) for the sufferings they faced because their employers - WHY? FINES go to the government, not to the worker victims - and the FINES are so small - unjust and laughable. How many workers were victimized, and for how long? Good for government image showing they act against law-breaking employers - BUT NO JUSTICE FOR THE WORKERS.. 

- fined RM12,000 for violating Section 19(1) of the Employment Act 1955 involving the offence of late payment of wages to employees 

-fined RM12,000 for violating Section 43 of the National Wages Consultative Council Act 2011 (Act 732), namely, failing to comply with the minimum wage payment of RM1,500.

-  fined RM2,500 for offences under Section 43 of Act 732

-  fined RM20,000 in the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court for violating Section 24D(1) of the Workers’ Minimum Standards of Housing and Amenities Act 1990 (Act 446)

Malaysian government MUST act to ensure workers are all paid the moneys owed to them by employers, PLUS compensation/damages. Government should help workers in filing claims too - to expect the poor worker to do it on his/her own, get own lawyers, etc is UNJUST. CARE FOR WORKERS MORE THAT YOU CARE FOR EMPLOYERS...

 

Japanese electronics giants probe M’sian supplier after delayed salary payments

Jason Thomas

-17 Sep 2024, 11:19 PM

However, Klang-based Kawaguchi Manufacturing Sdn Bhd has assured its workers that the delay will be resolved by the end of the year.

125

Shares

Total Views: 39,804

Workers protesting outside the Klang factory earlier this month over their delayed salaries.

PETALING JAYA:

Sony, Panasonic and Daikin are looking into delayed salary payments and alleged human rights violations at its Klang-based supplier Kawaguchi Manufacturing Sdn Bhd.

Earlier this month, it was reported that hundreds of Bangladeshi workers employed by the plastics manufacturing company were allegedly not paid for up to six months, were forced to work seven days a week, subjected to exorbitant recruitment fees, and were housed in overcrowded and unhygienic accommodation. 

International non-profit organisation Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC) then invited Sony, Panasonic and Daikin to confirm whether they still sourced components from Kawaguchi.

It also urged the companies to disclose any human rights due diligence that they had undertaken prior to entering into contracts with suppliers, and disclose the steps they had taken to investigate and remedy the violations reported.

In response, the three Japanese electronics firms all confirmed they sourced from Kawaguchi, adding that they were looking to find appropriate solutions to the issues raised by the workers. The responses were posted on BHRRC’s website today.

Regarding the supplier, we will work with the relevant government authorities and organisations to conduct a thorough fact-checking investigation, said the senior general manager of Sony Group Corporation’s sustainability department, Mitsu Shippee.

Shippee said it would then take appropriate measures in accordance with Sony’s supply chain code of conduct – which explicitly prohibits the use of forced labour or collection of recruitment fees in its facilities and supply chain.

In the event that a supplier is confirmed to have committed a major violation of the code, Sony will take appropriate countermeasures, including requesting for the implementation of corrective actions and terminating business with the supplier.

Tamotsu Namiki from Daikin Industries Ltd’s human rights promotion office said Daikin Malaysia is still purchasing from Kawaguchi and has not decided whether to terminate its contract with the company.

Namiki said Daikin Malaysia visited Kawaguchi’s premises twice this month to discuss the allegations with Kawaguchi, after which it received a written commitment from the company that it would pay its workers’ salaries based on a schedule.

Daikin Industries Ltd and Daikin Malaysia have been continuously monitoring whether such commitments are being kept, said Namiki.

We will make serious efforts to improve the process of human rights due diligence… to ensure that human rights will be respected.

In its response, Panasonic Holdings Corporation said it is investigating the issue and will consider taking necessary measures in cooperation with relevant Malaysian authorities and other stakeholders.

Panasonic said this includes requesting Kawaguchi to take corrective action to safeguard the interests of the impacted workers.

In a Malaysia Gazette report on Sept 9, Kawaguchi president George Wang assured 200 foreign workers and 40 local workers that their salary delays would be resolved by the end of the year.

Wang explained that the delay in salary payments was unavoidable due to a surge in orders from its two main clients, Panasonic and Daikin. 

We had to make advance payments to accommodate the unexpected surge in orders from major electronics players like Panasonic and Daikin. We had to inject significant funds to purchase raw materials to meet our customers’ orders, he said.

Wang also said he had contacted the company’s customers to explain the rationale behind the temporary delay in paying the workers their salaries.

They have accepted our explanation, and no immediate action is required from their side. Our business operations continue as usual, Wang had said. - FMT, 17/9/2024

HR Ministry opens probe into slave labour claims against contractor for Sony, Panasonic and Daikin

The Manpower Department under the HR Ministry has opened investigation papers into allegations of slave labour practices by Kawaguchi Manufacturing Sdn Bhd. — Bernama pic

By Syed Jaymal Zahiid

Friday, 06 Sep 2024 3:16 PM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 6 — The Manpower Department has opened investigation papers into allegations of slave labour practices by Kawaguchi Manufacturing Sdn Bhd, the contractor that supplies components to Japanese electronics giants Sony, Panasonic, and Daikin.

Malay Mail understands that the company’s office was raided by the Port Klang Manpower Office (PTK) on September 3 following a complaint by a migrant worker rights activist, Andy Hall, who has worked on multiple cases of foreign worker abuses in the country.

Following the raid, the department said it found evidence that Kawaguchi has not been paying over 200 of their Bangladeshi workforce since April this year. The department also found that the company had withheld the workers’ passports, which is a violation of labour laws and an indicator of forced labour practices.

“PTK Port Klang had carried out an investigation on the premises on 3.9.2024 and found that (Andy Hall’s) complaints had basis.

The employer had failed to pay their workers’ salaries from April to August 2024 as well as discovering that passports of their foreign workers had been withheld,” the office said in an internal memo sighted by Malay Mail.

The investigations into Kawaguchi Manufacturing is the latest in the series of foreign worker-exploitation cases involving Malaysian contractors and companies, several of which have been flagged for abuses that activists alleged to amount to “modern day slavery”.

Some of these companies have been slapped with export bans while Malaysia has had its rating downgraded to the lowest tiers by the US Department’s anti-human trafficking report.

The plight of Kawaguchi’s foreign workforce was first brought to attention in late July by the Bangladeshi press. Some of the workers who were interviewed said they were forced to work for 12 hours despite not being paid.

Many were afraid to speak up because their passports were withheld.

Malay Mail understands that the company’s top management has been served the F Form and was summoned to appear before PTK officers on September 5, alongside all the relevant documents. It is unclear what the outcome was.

Meanwhile, Kawaguchi’s clients have been notified, according to Human Resources Ministry sources, and Hall told Malay Mail that the three companies responded saying they were not aware about what’s happening at Kawaguchi.

Sony EMCS (Malaysia) subsequently responded to Malay Mail to say it was “currently looking into the matter”.

PTK Port Klang has asked representatives from the companies to meet on September 12, a source familiar with the matter said.

Kawaguchi is an international plastic injection molding company and supplies among others plastic components for electronic products such as LCD televisions and microwaves.

Hall alleged working conditions in the Malaysian plastic production industry are rife with practices amounting to migrant forced labour.

“The Malaysian based plastics industry, which is indeed an essential part of many international companies and brands globally supply chains and finished products, currently consists of conditions prevalent for systemic migrant forced labour,” the activist said.

“The industry is surely a primary target for the US CBP and its forced labour related trade enforcement sanctions in the future if things don’t improve.”

Malay Mail could not independently verify Hall’s allegations. - Malay Mail, 6/9/2024

In KL, four employers fined RM46,500 for paying workers' salaries late

The Department of Labour Peninsular Malaysia (JTKSM) said a company in the hospitality sector was fined RM12,000 for violating Section 19(1) of the Employment Act 1955 involving the offence of late payment of wages to employees at the Shah Alam Magistrate's Court, Selangor on February 8. — Reuters pic

Saturday, 24 Feb 2024 1:56 PM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 24 ― Four employers were fined a total of RM46,500 after they were found to have violated the country's labour laws.

The Department of Labour Peninsular Malaysia (JTKSM) said a company in the hospitality sector was fined RM12,000 for violating Section 19(1) of the Employment Act 1955 involving the offence of late payment of wages to employees at the Shah Alam Magistrate's Court, Selangor on February 8.

In the same court, a company in the security or security services sector was also fined RM12,000 for violating Section 43 of the National Wages Consultative Council Act 2011 (Act 732), namely, failing to comply with the minimum wage payment of RM1,500.

On February 19, a company in the cleaning services sector was fined RM2,500 for offences under Section 43 of Act 732 by the Kuala Terengganu Magistrate's Court.

A company in the mining and quarrying sector was 

 on Feb 22.

“JTKSM will continue to intensify enforcement and will take stern action against any employers or companies found to be in violation of the provisions of the country's labour legislation,” according to the statement. ― Bernama, Malay Mail, 24/2/2024

MoU - good that Opposition MPs chose not to 'compromise' for MONEY? BERSIH should insist on LAWS not improved MOUs? Separation of Power - Check and Balance duties of Government Backbenchers and Opposition MPs..

BERSIH(The Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections) recent media statement appears to endorse the idea of a requirement that Opposition Members of Parliament should sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the government before they receive allocations of Constituency Development Funds, and that I cannot agree.

In addition, the draft MoU would require opposition MPs not to challenge the position of the prime minister until the end of the current parliamentary term and to pledge not to speak out on issues that fall under the so-called 3Rs - race, religion and royalty.

There should be no need for Opposition MPs to sign any MOU or Agreement with the government, before they receive EQUAL Constituency Funds. More so, if such MOUs includes a condition, directly or indirectly, an agreement that they will not cause the removal of the sitting government of PM Anwar Ibrahim before the next General Elections.

This is a VIOLATION of Malaysia's Federal Constitution - an attempt to deprive the right of a Member of Parliament to get rid of a sitting Prime Minister if he/she no longer has confidence that he/she, in this case Anwar Ibrahim, should remain as Prime Minister.

Art 43 Federal Constitution - Cabinet

... (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.

It is the DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY of every single Member of Parliament - to decide for the best interest of Malaysia and all Malaysians WHO shall be the Prime Minister, and who shall be removed as Prime Minister. After all, Malaysians never chose Anwar Ibrahim to be the Prime Minister - Anwar Ibrahim is Prime Minister only because the majority of MPs have confidence that Anwar Ibrahim should be the Prime Minister,and when Anwar loses the confidence of the majority - he will no longer be the Prime Minister. ... the Prime Minister shall tender the resignation of the Cabinet.

The MPs, individually, in fact decides on who shall be the Government(the Executive) - for it is the Prime Minister that picks and chooses his CABINET(Ministers, Deputy Ministers, etc) - and, as such, MPs' right on deciding or removing PM shall not be 'jeopardised' in any way - be it MOUs between government and Opposition, Agreements with political parties that may 'force' MPs to follow party positions rather than their individual positions, Agreements(even laws) that prevent MPs their FREE CHOICE on who the Prime Minister should be or should be removed, etc.

Likewise, the offer of money and additional positions(with power and monies) to MPs, be it positions in Cabinet or in some other GLCs or agencies should be ended. Some perceive that the purpose maybe to just secure the position of the Prime Minister(or government) - thus causing MPs to not be FREE to exercise their free choice on determining who shall be PM(or whether the PM should be removed).

In Thailand recently, Thailand's Constitutional Court removed Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin  

Judge Punya Udchachon said in reading the court's judgment. Punya said that Srettha must have known about lawyer Pichit Chuenban's 2008 conviction when he appointed him to the cabinet. "The appointment of the second respondent [Pichit] shows the first respondent [Srettha] has no honesty and breached ethical standards," Punya added.

When PM Anwar appointed the 'court cluster' into his Cabinet - maybe, he too should have been removed for this? Zahid Hamidi,  when appointed as Deputy Prime Minister, was facing a criminal trial, where on 24/1/2022, the High Court had already ordered former deputy prime minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi to enter his defence on all 47 of his corruption, criminal breach of trust (CBT) and money laundering charges. Judge Collin Lawrence Sequerah ruled that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against Zahid.(FMT, 24/1/2024). If I was a MP, even if I supported Anwar as PM before, the moment this happened, I would have withdrawn my support. 

MPs are elected by the people - Thus END DISCRIMINATION on the basis one is an Opposition MP. 

When Anwar decided to not give give Federal Government allocations to Opposition MPs, he violated people's rights to FREELY chose their peoples' representative, and the democratic practice in Malaysia. Why are the people being 'punished' because they voted for the Opposition? 

I had hoped that this 'bad practice' of the previous BN regime would have ended after GE14 - but PM Anwar's PH-led coalition government retained this unethical practice. MOST Dissapointed with Anwar - that financial allocation caused many problems, even some openly supporting Anwar, possibly to simply get the allocated monies. Personally, I think that those 6 MPs should be 'kicked out' and let the people elect new MPs - will the people vote the same MP because they to want these 'constitutional development funds' or not? However, the said MPs were not disqualified, because ultimately they were OUSTED by their party - and did not leave on their own.

Should the Executive Branch of Government(PM Anwar and his Cabinet) have CONTROL over MPs and the Parliament(the Legislative Branch) ? No, they should not - and it is definitely a violation of the DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION of power - Parliament should have ITS OWN FUNDS, and it alone decide how monies and/or other rights of MPs are disbursed and/or used.

Parliamentary Service Act 1963 ( Repealed by the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1992 [Act A837], which was an act providing for the Parliament of Malaysia to conduct its own administration, staffing and financing.  may be coming back, but it may be inadequate.

An improved version of the Parliamentary Services Act (PSA), previously repealed, will be reintroduced in Parliament this October, says Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department M. Kulasegaran.The PSA, originally repealed during Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's administration, allows Parliament to function as an independent body, managing its affairs, selecting its staff, and controlling its expenditure. - NST, 12/7/2024

We need an Act of Parliament or Constitutional Amendment that provides for the funding/financing of a MPs staffs, utilities and rental of service centres, and monies to facilitate meetings and consultations between MP and/or his/her constituents as a MP is a PEOPLES' REPRESENTATIVE and has a duty of regular reporting, meeting and consultation with their constituents to be an effective representative of the people they represent. 

A MP should not be provided by Parliament any additional funds for development or projects in their constituency. WHY? Because there are already budgetary allocations to the relevant Ministery/Department/Agencies to do the needed work - so, no need for MPs to duplicate works already allocated to government. They can bring to the attention of relevant departments that are tasked to do the needful.How many staff and service centres depends on the size of the Constituency... 

So, this will be the law with regard to additional Constituency Allocations, not for 'development' purposes but to help MPs better do their WORK as MPs ALL MPs equally entitled, and the disbursing body will be Parliament, no more the Prime Minister and the Executive Arm of Government. A Special Consolidated Fund for Parliament/Legislature???

Should PM Anwar and the government be give any 'additional monies' to selected MPs? ABSOLUTELY NOT. If some 'development work' needed like road repairs, house repairs/building for the poor, etc and the Budget sum inadequate - then government sends monies to the relevant Ministry/Department to do the work - NOT to the MP.

So, BERSIH's proposal that it be in the MOU cannot be accepted - and REFORMS should be made law

No more will PM Anwar Ibrahim or the government have POWER over MPs.

Noting that Parliament's Primary Role is to ACT AS A CHECK AND BALANCE to ensure no wrongdoings, abuses, etc by the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, and the Ministries/entities under the government, NO government backbencher MP and Opposition MP should ever be 'compromised' by the offer of additional monies/benefits, positions in GLCs/Government Agencies(with or without additional monetary benefits and/or powers).

MPs are peoples' representatives, with a duty to always be in communication with the people they represent - this itself takes a LOT OF TIME and EFFORT. Then they have the responsibility to attend and perform their duties in Parliament (which include perusing Bills, highlighting flaws, asking relevant questions and making relevant comments). Then, there are the Parliamentary Select Committee duties - very important mechanisms to MONITOR the government. Thus, they should not be taking up other Government(Executive) appointments...also important to preserve the doctrine of "Separation of Powers', and their fundamental duty of being the CHECK AND BALANCE of what the Executive and Judicial Branch of government is doing.

Parliament failed in the 1MDB issue - they failed to detect and check the abuses of the government. MPs failed, when they allowed Najib to continue to remain PM and Finance Minister after becoming aware of the 'abuse/wrongdoings' - how much could have been SAVED if Parliament detected sooner and acted faster. Where MPs 'failed', the people did not when Najib and the BN government were ousted in GE14.

BERSIH's independence was tarnished after GE14, as prominent leaders and staff 'joined hands', even accepted positions in government then. We lost INDEPENDENT BERSIH - a human rights movement focussed not just on Free and Fair Elections, but also good governance. Since then the 'new' BERSIH has been striving to regain the perception of an independent pro-people movement...as such caution must be exercised so that BERSIH never be seen as pro-any political party or government. 

Attached below is also a statement by MP Hassan Karim entitled MoU antara Kerajaan dengan Pembangkang di Parlimen Satu Pelanggaran Prinsip Pengasingan Kuasa [MoU between Government and Opposition in Parliament Is A Breach of the Principle of Separation of Powers]

See also BERSIH's statement - Deraf MOU Kurang Agenda Pelaksanaan Reformasi yang Jelas sebagai Parameter Penting, Pembangkang Tiada Alternatif untuk Diusulkan

## The MOU that was signed during Ismail Sabri's reign as Prime Minister was because of exceptional times - Covid-19 Pandemic, Suspension of Parliament - Declaration of EMERGENCY,.. It was an agreement between the Government and Pakatan Harapan(not all Opposition MPs, it seems}. It was a power-sharing agreement, with EQUAL number of government and Opposition MPs - not exactly the same as this current MOU at all. This current MOU seems to be an attempt by PM Anwar to remain as PM until GE16, and prohibits MPs from raising certain matters like 3R, etc {Have not seen the Draft of the current MOU yet - so based on media reports only). As such, it should never be seen as a PRECEDENCE at all. 

Personally, I am of the view that MPs should seriously consider whether Anwar Ibrahim should remain as Prime Minister. We can always have some other from Pakatan Harapan as Prime Minister - thus not changing who is in power... With the issue raised by Muhyoiddin abotu his having the support of 115 MPs, and Anwar not specifically proving that he has majority support of MPs - noting that the vote of confidence in Parliament in December 2022 was merely a 'voice vote' - so we do not know exactly HOW many MPs support Anwar remaining PM, how many opposed, and how many just ABSTAINED. Constitutional requires explicit support of more half of all MPs - Time for another vote of confidence, and this time PLEASE COUNT - that will confirm matters without a doubt. Many things have happened since 2022, does Anwar still have the support of the majority of MPs???

 

 

Kenyataan Media BERSIH (17 September 2024): Deraf MOU Kurang Agenda Pelaksanaan Reformasi yang Jelas sebagai Parameter Penting, Pembangkang Tiada Alternatif untuk Diusulkan

Gabungan Pilihan Raya Bersih dan Adil (BERSIH) merujuk kepada kenyataan Ketua Pembangkang YB Dato Seri Hamzah Zainudin dan YB Timbalan Perdana Menteri II (TPM II) Dato Sri Haji Fadillah bin Haji Yusof berhubung isu Deraf Memorandum Persefahaman (MOU) berkaitan penyaluran peruntukan kepada ahli Parlimen antara Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Ahli Parlimen Pembangkang di Parlimen.

 

BERSIH berpandangan bahawa deraf MOU yang didedahkan oleh TPM II kelmarin tidak mempunyai item pelaksanaan reformasi yang lebih jelas sebagai parameter penting untuk agenda persefahaman antara Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Pembangkang selain daripada pemberian peruntukan pembangunan kawasan (CDF) kepada Ahli-Ahli Parlimen Pembangkang. Satu sudut positif yang harus dipuji di dalam MOU ini adalah pemberian akses kepada sumber rujukan, sumber pentadbiran dan sumber kewangan seperti ruang pejabat dan pembantu parlimen.

 

Halatuju di dalam MOU di antara Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Pembangkang haruslah lebih jelas objektifnya iaitu untuk memastikan agenda reformasi terlaksana sebagai hasil kesepakatan antara Kerajaan dan Pembangkang agar negara kita dapat bergerak ke hadapan sebagai sebuah negara demokrasi yang dapat dijadikan contoh di rantau ini.

 

BERSIH berpandangan bahawa MOU ini dapat ditambahbaik dengan memasukkan pelaksanaan agenda reformasi untuk disepakati bersama di antara Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Pembangkang. BERSIH mencadangkan supaya butiran di dalam MOU yang termeterai antara Kerajaan Persekutuan ketika era pentadbiran Perdana Menteri Ismail Sabri dan Pakatan Harapan dijadikan titik mula untuk dilanjutkan pelaksanaannya kerana kebanyakan pimpinan tertinggi BN, PN dan PH berada di dalam perbincangan dan pemeteraian MOU Tranformasi tersebut.

 

Berikut adalah cadangan BERSIH untuk dijadikan parameter dan kandungan MOU ini:

 

1.    Peruntukan pembangunan kawasan harus dikanunkan dalam undang-undang  menerusi penggubalan Akta Peruntukan Pembangunan Kawasan – Constituency Development Fund Act (CDF) yang saksama kepada Ahli Parlimen Kerajaan dan Pembangkang. Ini bagi memastikan hak dan keadilan untuk semua ahli Parlimen dijamin oleh undang-undang.

 

2.    Reformasi SPR dengan memastikan ahli-ahli SPR selepas ini dilantik melalui Jawatankuasa Parlimen sebelum nama-nama calon tersebut dibawa ke Yang di-Pertuan Agong untuk dilantik. Hal ini supaya SPR menjadi bebas, adil, diperkasakan dan dipertanggungjawabkan ke Parlimen bagi memastikan pilihan raya bebas dan adil.

 

3.    Peraturan Mesyuarat Dewan Rakyat (PMDR) perlu dipinda bagi memasukkan tatacara dan mekanisme undi tidak percaya dan undi percaya yang lebih jelas dan bermakna dengan memperkenalkan Confirmatory Vote of Confidence (Undi Percaya Pengabsahan) dan Constructive Vote of No-Confidence (Undi Tidak Percaya Berkonstruktif). Selain itu Bersih juga mencadangkan agar PMDR direformasi untuk memperuntukkan Masa Urusan Bukan Kerajaan apabila parlimen bersidang. Ini dapat  memperkasa peranan pembangkang di parlimen dengan lebih bermakna.

 

4.    Pengiktirafan Kabinet Bayangan Pembangkang dengan peruntukan yang mencukupi untuk membayangi Menteri dengan akses maklumat yang berpatutan supaya mereka dapat berfungsi dengan berkesan sebagai pembangkang yang konstruktif dan kerajaan menunggu.

 

5.    Reformasi Jabatan Peguam Negara (AGC) dan SPRM untuk menghapuskan kawalan politik oleh Perdana Menteri. Kerajaan Persekutuan perlu menyegerakan pemisahan peranan Peguam Negara dan Pendakwaraya agar tidak wujud lagi persepsi pendakwaan politik terpilih oleh kerajaan. SPRM perlu direformasi agar pelantikan Pengerusi SPRM dapat dibuat dengan lebih telus dan melibatkan Parlimen.

 

Kemasukan agenda ini penting untuk memastikan pelaksanaan reformasi berjalan dengan baik demi kebaikan rakyat. BERSIH menggesa agar Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Pembangkang bersikap dengan lebih profesional, telus dan jujur dalam perbincangan kandungan perjanjian persefahaman supaya manfaat daripada kesepakatan tersebut akan dapat dirasai oleh rakyat keseluruhannya. Dalam perkembangan berkaitan, Bersih turut menegaskan kepentingan CSO untuk dilibatkan sama dalam rundingan Ahli Parlimen khususnya melibatkan isu kestabilan politik sebagai mewakili suara rakyat.

 

Dikeluarkan oleh:

Jawatankuasa Pemandu BERSIH

BERSIH Secretariat

A-2-8, 8 Avenue Business Centre,

Jalan Sungai Jernih 8/1,

46050 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.

Tel. No. : +603-76280371

 

MoU antara Kerajaan dengan Pembangkang di Parlimen Satu Pelanggaran Prinsip Pengasingan Kuasa

Oleh Hassan Abdul Karim 

Ahli Parlimen Pasir Gudang 

Kewujudan MoU antara Kerajaan Persekutuan dengan ahli-ahli parlimen pembangkang Pembangkang di satu pihak dan antara Kerajaan Persekutuan dengan gabungan Pembangkang di Parlimen adalah bercanggahan dengan amalan demokrasi berparlimen.

2.Di bawah Perkara 59 Perlembagaan Persekutuan setiap anggota Parlimen tanpa kecuali dikehendaki mengangkat sumpah.

Kandungan sumpah itu antara lainnya ialah setiap anggota Parlimen itu bersumpah untuk memelihara, melindungi dan mempertahankan Perlembagaan Malaysia.

3.Satu ciri penting Perlembagaan Malaysia iaitu Perlembagaan Persekutuan ialah mengamalkan prinsip pengasingan kuasa.

Prinsip pengasingan kuasa itu bertujuan untuk memelihara 3 badan utama negara iaitu Parlimen ( Legislative), Kerajaan ( Executive) dan  Mahkamah ( Judiciary) masing-masing bebas menjalankan peranan dan tanggungjawab mereka seperti yang ditetapkan oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

4.Tetapi MoU tersebut telah mengikat peranan dan fungsi ahli-ahli parlimen pembangkan di Parlimen.

5.Ahli-ahli parlimen sama ada di pihak kerajaan atau di pihak pembangkang atau di pihak bebas apabila mereka telah menandatangani dokumen angkat sumpah mereka di hadapan Yang di Pertua atau Speaker maka mereka terikat dengan sumpah tersebut.Tidak perlu menandatangani satu lagi dokumen yang bernama MoU antara kerajaan dan pihak pembangkang.

6.Sifat mengikat MoU itu akan memandulkan dan membonsaikan peranan ahli-ahli parlimen pembangkang dan Gabungan parti pembangkang di Parlimen.

7.Mereka hilang kebebasan untuk berperanan sebagai satu kuasa efektif untuk melakukan semak dan imbang terhadap kerajaan.

8.Ahli-ahli parlimen pembangkang dan gabungan pembangkang yang merupakan kerajaan bayangan atau "Shadow government" terpaksa tutup mulut dalam perkara-perkara penting melibatkan hal rakyat dan negara.

Kenapa? Kerana mereka telah menandatangani MoU dengan kerajaan iaitu Badan Executive.

9.Jadi MoU yang dikemukakan oleh pihak Kerajaan bersifat membelenggu kebebasan ahli-ahli parlimen pembangkang dan gabungan pembangkang. 

10. Cadangan memperkenalkan MoU tersebut pada asasnya adalah satu contoh pencerobohan kuasa Eksekutif iaitu kerajaan yang berkuasa terhadap kebebasan ahli-ahli parlimen pembangkang yang merupakan pihak yang penting di dalam Parlimen.

11.Cadangan mengenakan syarat menandatangani MoU tersebut  juga boleh dianggap pihak Executive  iaitu Kerajaan Persekutuan cuba melanggar prinsip pengasingan kuasa kerana dengan sengaja cuba melemahkan blok pembangkang di Dewan di Parlimen.

12.Reformasi yang dikehendaki di Parlimen ialah Kerajaan membawa satu Rang Undang-Undang Peruntukan kawasan parlimen, bahawa Setiap Kawasan Parlimen di seluruh negara diberi hak secara otomatik tanpa syarat, tanpa perlu menandatangani sebarang perjanjian atau MoU.Setiap ahli parlimen sama ada di blok kerajaan atau di blok pembangkang atau di blok bebas dijanjikan oleh undang-undang untuk mendapat peruntukan kawasan parlimen masing-masing sama banyak dan sama adil.

13.Undang-undang seperti inilah yang mesti diinstitusikan mulai sekarang bukannya MoU seperti yang dihebohkan kini.

Hassan Abdul Karim

Ahli Parlimen Pasir Gudang 

Rabu 18 September 2024

 

 

Reject government's draft MoU on equal allocation, PN told

Equal allocation should be given by default, says lawyer.

MalaysiaNow

September 10, 2024 12:02 PM

 

Perikatan Nasional chief whip Takiyuddin Hassan shows a copy of the draft MoU, which he says contains several 'unusual' conditions.

A lawyer has advised Perikatan Nasional (PN) to reject a proposed memorandum of understanding (MoU) that would impose conditions on the coalition's MPs for equal allocations for their constituencies.

Rafique Rashid said "unusual conditions" which are reportedly part of a draft MoU submitted to the PN leadership for consideration recently, would only restrict opposition MPs from carrying out their duties as elected representatives.

He cited conditions such as requiring PN MPs to declare assets, something normally demanded of those in power and not opposition politicians.

In addition, the draft MoU would require opposition MPs not to challenge the position of the prime minister until the end of the current parliamentary term and to pledge not to speak out on issues that fall under the so-called 3Rs - race, religion and royalty.

Rafique said these conditions would prevent MPs from standing up for the people.

"With restrictions like the 3Rs, how can the opposition speak up for the welfare of the Malays or the Islamic religious schools?" he asked, adding that the definition of 3Rs had been misinterpreted in the past.

PN said it would study the terms of the draft MoU prepared by the government last month.

The coalition's chief whip Takiyuddin Hassan said a decision will be made before the next Dewan Rakyat sitting in October.

Rafique Rashid.

Rafique said PN should make it clear to the government that equal allocation is the right of MPs and the constituencies they represent.

Veteran analyst Ahmad Atory Hussain said the conditions proposed by the government were against parliamentary democracy and freedom of speech.

- Advertisement -

"The ban on 3Rs is too extreme," he told MalaysiaNow.

"Apart from that, it is totally undemocratic and unconstitutional not to allow any challenge to the prime minister's office until the next general election."

Rafique said the prime minister's position is set out in Article 43 (4) of the constitution, which states that he must either resign or call a fresh election if he loses the support of the majority of MPs.

Government leaders have often cited the agreement signed in 2021 between then-prime minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob and Pakatan Harapan, then the opposition, that ensured the government's survival in return for fulfilling several conditions, including the passage of a law banning MPs from switching parties.

However, critics said that the agreement under Ismail's government served to prevent the collapse of the government amid the Covid-19 pandemic, and that it was not suitable in the current situation where the government claims to have achieved a two-thirds majority.

Rafique said allocations to MPs should be made by default as they are meant for the people and not for politicians or their parties.

"Allocations should be distributed to all elected representatives without conditions.

"There is no law that requires an MoU with conditions imposed," he added.

- Advertisement -

However, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)'s Mazlan Ali disagreed that opposition MPs automatically get allocations under Malaysia's parliamentary system.

He said it was customary for the government to channel all allocations and expenses through its agencies.

He said Ismail had taken a different approach when he offered to sign a confidence and supply agreement with the opposition, adding that such agreements were common in democracies where conditions are set between rival parties.

"They (PN) cannot insist that they get the allocations without any conditions. This does not happen in any democracy, not even in developed countries," he said.

Mazlan rejected claims that the conditions imposed by the government were unusual and defended the move to make opposition MPs disclose their assets.

He also welcomed the ban on 3Rs, adding that it should also be extended to ruling MPs.

"It would be better if the PN came up with a 'counter-proposal' to the coalition government," he added. - Malaysia Now, 10/9/2024