ON HUMAN RIGHTS, JUSTICE AND PEACE ISSUES, LABOUR RIGHTS, MIGRANT RIGHTS, FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY, TOWARDS AN END OF TORTURE, POLICE ABUSES, DISCRIMINATION...
Press Statement by Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement on 29 November 2025, in Kuala Lumpur
Condemning the MACC's Gangster-like Arrest of Albert Tei
The Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement strongly condemns the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) for using unnecessary violence to arrest businessman Albert Tei, who exposed corruption allegedly involving the Prime Minister's Political Secretary, Shamsul Iskandar. This act violates the fundamental human rights due to a person under detention.
Albert Tei had already agreed to give his statement to the MACC on 1st December. However, on the morning of 28th November, MACC officials forcibly broke into Tei's home in Puchong, Selangor, and arrested him in a violent manner.
According to Tei's wife, Madam Lee, even though Tei was fully cooperative during the arrest, masked MACC officers still pushed him to the ground and handcuffed him. MACC officials even pointed a gun at Tei and at Madam Lee, who was recording the incident, and subsequently forced her to delete the videos from her and her children's mobile phones.
The MACC officials did not have any identification badges on them, and the vehicle used to take Tei away had no license plates. When questioned by Tei's lawyer, the MACC officials also refused to disclose where Tei was being taken.
This procedure, which resembles the kidnapping of an innocent citizen by a gangster organization, has left Tei's family unaware of his whereabouts. Such a complete lack of transparency and accountability from an enforcement agency under "Malaysia MADANI" is a great irony!
The MACC's arbitrary and abusive methods recall the tragedy of 16 years ago when MACC officers repeatedly visited the office of Selangor State Executive Councillor Ean Yong Hian Wah, forcibly took Teoh Beng Hock away, and subsequently led to his death. Whay is the difference between th MACC's gangster-like operating procedures, and the abduction of Pamela Ling outside the MACC office?
The MACC officers involved in the abuse of power must be severely punished, and MACC Chief Commissioner Azam Baki must apologize to Albert Tei and his family for the violent enforcement. We also urge Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim to implement sweeping reforms within the MACC, guarantee the fundamental human rights of detainees, and pursue accountability for all deaths linked to the MACC.
Without punishment and accountability, every person could become the MACC's next victim.
Ng Yap Hwa Chairperson Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement
Officers in balaclavas arrest Albert, lawyer in dark on whereabouts
Published: Nov 28, 2025 9:46 AM
⋅
Updated: 5:51
MACC has arrested businessperson Albert Tei after raiding his residence in Puchong, Selangor, according to his lawyers.
Based on short video clips shared with Malaysiakini,
a group of MACC operatives in full tactical gear - including
bulletproof vests and balaclavas - put Tei in handcuffs before escorting
him into an unmarked black sedan.
His legal counsel, Zaid Malek,
who recorded the video, was heard asking the officers repeatedly where
they were taking Tei and to speak to the officer in charge, but to no
avail.
Tei - who is the central figure in a slew of corruption
allegations against prominent politicians - was seen raising his hands
to the camera several times while chanting “lawan tetap lawan” (we fight on) before he was placed inside the car.
The officers, who came in several vehicles, then took Tei away, only to return to the house minutes later.
Puzzled by the action, Zaid told Malaysiakini that he was checking why MACC had returned to the residence.
Later, when met by Malaysiakini
at Tei’s home, Zaid said the MACC officers left for a second time at
about 12.50pm, still with the businessperson in their custody, without
disclosing where he was being brought to.
Likening the
authorities’ actions to an act of kidnapping, the lawyer slammed the
officers for acting unjustly and behaving in a way that “makes it seem
like the law doesn’t exist in Malaysia”.
“Not a single MACC or
police officer showed me their authority card. I asked them repeatedly
where (Tei) was being taken to, and not a single officer informed me (of
the details),” Zaid said.
He confirmed that while Tei had been
issued a search warrant for his home, the document was sent from “an
unknown number claiming to be an MACC officer” who allegedly failed to
state his identity.
A whistleblower’s treatment
Earlier
today, another lawyer representing Tei, Mahajoth Singh, in a statement,
said MACC officers had raided the residence with a warrant.
The counsel described it as an illegal entry as they had already fixed a date to record Tei’s statement on Monday.
“Is
this how an informer of corruption is treated? Why break into his house
when he is the one who provided the information?” Mahajoth asked.
He said the anti-graft officers also demanded to take Tei to their headquarters in Putrajaya.
“The
contradiction is glaring and unjustifiable. These sudden enforcement
actions make a mockery of the prime minister’s public claim that this
administration upholds integrity and due process.
“Institutions
that operate with integrity do not ambush whistleblowers or informers,
contradict their own timelines, or behave as though they have something
to fear from transparency.
“Malaysia now appears to be the only
country where individuals who disclose alleged high-level corruption are
the ones raided, hauled away, and threatened with prosecution.
“This
upside-down use of state power is not just alarming; it is a direct
attack on informers and the public’s right to know,” the lawyer added.
Malaysiakini has reached out to the MACC and its chief commissioner, Azam Baki, for comment.
Meanwhile, former law minister Zaid Ibrahim criticised MACC for raiding Tei’s home while his counsel was out of town.
“MACC definitely needs a total revamp by the next government,” he said on X.
Aide’s alleged association
Tei
has been on a warpath to take down politicians whom he allegedly gave
money to for mineral exploration licences, which he did not end up
getting.
His latest accusation was levelled against Malacca PKR chief Shamsul Iskandar Akin, whom Tei claimed he had spent RM629,000 on.
Shamsul Iskandar Akin
Shamsul,
who is a former political secretary to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim,
had purportedly assured Tei that he could recoup the money channelled to
politicians in Sabah.
Tei had also furnished Malaysiakini with WhatsApp screenshots from December 2023 in which Shamsul purportedly requested money while travelling abroad.
In another snippet of Tei’s conversation with Shamsul’s alleged proxy, it was alleged that Anwar had given the green light for Tei to record his conversations about kickbacks with Sabah politicians.
Shamsul
has since resigned as Anwar’s political secretary in anticipation of
the accusations levelled against him. He has vowed to defend himself.
He
has lodged a police report against Tei over a claim linking Anwar to
video recordings of several Sabah politicians in the mining licence
scandal.
Malaysia
Must Withdraw Government SLAPP action against HRD Murray Hunter in Thailand’s
Criminal Court
Thailand must
refuse to allow its criminal courts to be used for SLAPP actions by anyone, even
fellow ASEAN member States
We, the 44
undersigned groups and organizations call upon the Malaysian Prime Minister
Anwar Ibrahim, Communication Minister Fahmi Fadzil and the Malaysian government
of Malaysia to forthwith withdraw theSLAPP
(Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) criminal complaint and case
against Human Rights Defender(HRD) and social commentator Murray Hunter, that
was lodged in Thailand by the Malaysian Communications
and Multimedia Commission(MCMC), a government entity, that has now resulted
in Murray Hunter being charged and indicted for criminal defamation in the
Thailand Criminal Courts.(Star,3/10/2025).
Murray is now facing a criminal
charge of defamation under Section 328 (defamation by publication) of the Thai
Criminal Code, where if he is found guilty, he shall be liable to imprisonment
for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding two hundred thousand
Baht or to both. By reason of this charge, he, who was arrested on 29/9/2025,
and after a night in jail he was freed on bail of 20,000 baht, his passport was
confiscated and he is not allowed to leave Bangkok pending the outcome of legal
proceedings.(Bangkok
Post, 18/11/2025)
Murray was indicted on 17/11/2025
for 4 charges of publishing four articles on his Substack blog about the MCMC,
which means he is liable for a maximum of 8 years imprisonment and a fine of
800,000 Baht (about USD25,000) if convicted. The trial is now fixed to begin on
22/12/2025 after being indicted on a charge of defaming the Malaysian.(Bangkok
Post, 18/11/2025) (THLR
Website)
Use of SLAPP action
by any Government is UNACCEPTABLE
It is shocking that this SLAPP
(Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) against a HRD, which are
usually used by alleged perpetrators that are private corporations and powerful
individuals, is shockingly now used by a State - the Malaysian government,
via the MCMC.
A SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit
Against Public Participation) is the use of lawsuits (criminal or civil suits)
filed to silence individuals or groups who speak out on issues of public
importance. These lawsuits can be brought by various entities, including
governments or government-affiliated bodies, to intimidate and financially
drain critics, journalists, activists, and public officials – and also to DETER
other HRDs from highlighting wrongs in the future.
Some countries have recently rightly
moved towards enacting anti-SLAPP laws, which have been adopted in common law,
civil law and mixed legal systems, including the United States, Canada,
Australia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand.
In Thailand, ‘the Royal Thai
Government Gazette has officially published the Organic Act on Anti-Corruption
(No. 2), B.E. 2568 (2025), with the primary aim of strengthening protections
for whistleblowers and fostering greater public participation in the fight
against corruption. The law now explicitly incorporates Anti-SLAPP
principles, shielding individuals who, in good faith, report
wrongdoing, provide evidence, or express opinions that aid in official duties
or pertain to offences under the National Anti-Corruption Commission(NACC)’s
jurisdiction (Bangkok
Post, 6/6/2025). More Anti-SLAPP laws are imminent.
Murray raises concerns, amongst
others, as to whether the Malaysia’s MCMC have been faithfully carrying out its
statutory duties. Concern raised about whether there is preferential treatment
of certain persons and/or entities, including companies linked to existing MCMC
Commissioners. Rightly, MCMC and other
relevant authorities should be investigating allegations and/or concerns raised
by Murray, and not ‘attacking’ such whistle blowers and those who highlight
possible wrongdoings or shortcomings.
In this case, a perusal of the
charges in Thailand Criminal Court, as found in the Thai Lawyers For Human Rights
website, suggests that this case falls within the scope of falls within the
scope of the Anti-SLAPP principles of Thailand. This must be considered a
matter of public interest as it relates about alleged abuses, wrongdoings,
failures and mis-governance of this Malaysian law enforcement body, the MCMC.
Further, the MCMC itself has a
portal calledsebenarnya.my , whereby it analyses alleged
‘fake’ news, and informs the public why it is false citing credible sources. As
such, if and when Murray had published/circulated any alleged ‘fake news’, this
portal ought to have been used to debunk any falsehood with credible evidence –
and not the use of SLAPP actions against Murray. Did MCMC even use their own
mechanism, when it came to Murray Hunter’s allegedly false statements, and if
not, why?
Malaysia Has the Duty
To Protect HR Defenders – Not Act Against Them
Malaysia, as any United Nation member
State, has the duty and obligation to protect Human Rights Defenders, their
freedom of expression including their right to raise issues of alleged wrongdoings
or issues of mis-governance more so after the UNITED NATIONS General Assembly
on 8/3/1998 by resolution adopted the Declaration on the Right and
Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and
Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms(commonly
known as the UN Human Rights Defenders Declaration)
Murray Hunter, a former lecturer
in University Malaysia in the State of Perlis, is a HR Defender, who has the freedom of
expression and opinion, and also do have the right to highlight or ‘…to
complain about the policies and actions of individual officials and
governmental bodies with regard to violations of human rights and fundamental
freedoms…’.
All States, including Malaysia,
has the duty to protect HR Defenders. ‘The State shall take all necessary
measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone,
individually and in association with others, against any violence, threats,
retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other
arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the
rights referred to in the… HR Defenders Declaration (Art.12(2) HR Defenders
Declaration).
‘In this connection, everyone is
entitled, individually and in association with others, to be protected effectively
under national law in reacting against or opposing, through peaceful means,
activities and acts, including those by omission, attributable to States
that result in violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms…’ (Art.
12(3)).
The State have NO ‘…right to
engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of the rights
and freedoms…’ of any HR Defender. (Art. 19)
As such it was wrong for the
Malaysia through MCMC to take any retaliatory action against HRD Murray Hunter,
even if or when he raised issues or concerns about MCMC, the police or even the
government – as he, like any other persons or HR Defenders, has the right to
also raise omissions or actions of any government body or person.
Transborder SLAPP Attack
by Government Through Criminal Action in Another Country Is An Appalling
Violation of Human Rights
The allegation of CRIME committed
by Murray to date has not led to any criminal charges being filed in the Malaysian
criminal courts, and that means that the Malaysian police and/or law
enforcement, and/or the Public Prosecutor did not find it a crime, or did not
find sufficient evidence to charge him for criminal defamation or any other
crimes in Malaysia after MCMC filed a a police report in Malaysia on or about
24/4/2024, (MCMC
Website). According to said MCMC’s Statement it said, amongst others, that
Murray in his writings allegedly was ‘accusing MCMC of acting beyond its
jurisdiction for self-interest. He also accused MCMC and PDRM of intimidating
the public.’(‘…menuduh MCMC bertindak melangkaui bidang kuasanya untuk
kepentingan diri. Beliau turut melemparkan tohmahan bahawa MCMC dan PDRM
bertindak menakut-nakutkan Masyarakat….).
Malaysia not charging Murray for
the crime of criminal defamation may be similar to the situation that the led
to the Malaysian Attorney-General’s Chambers issuing ‘… "No Further
Action" directive against Bloomberg, following Bloomberg’s report claiming
that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission acted on the Prime Minister’s
instructions in investigating certain individuals. Minister in the Prime
Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman
Said, in a written parliamentary reply, stated that the directive was issued as
“there was insufficient evidence in the investigation papers…”(Vibes,
5/11/2025).
Whilst Malaysia itself did not
commence any criminal action, oddly Thailand, acting on the Malaysian
government’s criminal complaint, has now charged Murray for criminal
defamation. Are the legal standards in Malaysia not the same as Thailand?
SOVEREIGNITY and
using laws of other countries to prosecute crimes against Government?
For Malaysian government and
government entities, they should only be using the Malaysian law – and never
the laws or the administration of criminal justice mechanism or processes in
some other jurisdiction or country, which may be also be different from the
laws and rules in Malaysia.
The Malaysian Federal
Constitution states that ‘(1) No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty save in accordance with law (Art. 5(1), and also that ‘(1)
No person shall be punished for an act or omission which was not punishable by
law when it was done or made, and no person shall suffer greater punishment
for an offence than was prescribed by law at the time it was committed.(Art.
7(1)).
The ‘LAW’ referred to in the
Malaysian Constitution is the Malaysian Law – not the Laws of Thailand, or
the Laws of any other country. It must be the Malaysian Law, the Malaysian
Courts – more so when the alleged victim of the crime is the Malaysian
government or its entity as in this case.
To use other country’s laws,
which are most likely different from Malaysia’s own laws, legal standards and
court processes may be seen as an unconstitutional act, disrespecting
Malaysia’s own sovereignty and Malaysian laws.
If Malaysia wanted to charge
Murray Hunter for ‘Criminal Defamation’, then it should do so in Malaysia but
law enforcement decided not to until now.
Remember, Malaysia could have
investigated Murray Hunter in Malaysia, and even charged him in Malaysia if it
was a crime, or there was sufficient evidence. If Malaysia wanted Murray Hunter in Malaysia,
they could have applied to get Thailand to send Murray to Malaysia.
Even if Murray Hunter could not
be physically brought to Court, Malaysian law today allows for him to be
charged in the Malaysian courts and Malaysia’s Section 425A of the Criminal
Procedure Code allows a trial to proceed if the accused fails or refuses to
attend.
Thus, we call on Malaysia to justly
stop or cause the withdrawal of the criminal defamation case against Murray
Hunter in Thailand, initiated by the actions of Malaysian government’s MCMC.
If Malaysia withdraws the
criminal complaint, and inform the Thailand Courts, most likely the criminal
charges against Murray will be dropped in Thailand.
Malaysia – BAD and
Dangerous Precedence of use of SLAPP against HRDs
To date, no corporation or powerful
individuals in Malaysia has resorted to using SLAPP actions against HRDs in
other jurisdictions, other than in Malaysia using Malaysia’s laws and courts,
and, as such, this criminal SLAPP action is a dangerous UNJUST PRECEDENT by the
Malaysian government. It may lead to possible future SLAPP actions against HRDs
in Malaysia by private companies and persons in Malaysia also using laws and
courts in other countries?
Thus, we, the undersigned
groups and organizations,
A.Call on the Malaysian government, and/or the Malaysian
Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) to forthwith cause to withdraw
the criminal complaint and criminal defamation case against HRD Murray Hunter
in Thailand criminal courts,
B.Call on the government of Thailand, that have
already adopted Anti-SLAPP principles and are enacting anti-SLAPP
laws, to not allow its laws and its criminal courts to be used wrongly by
other nations to commence SLAPP actions against HR Defenders who highlighted
alleged wrongs or mis-governance issues of Malaysian government or its
entities. Drop the criminal defamation charges against Murray Hunter.
C.Noting
that Article 39 of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration 2012 already states that
‘ASEAN Member States share a common interest in and commitment to the
promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms’, which
also includes ‘..the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information, whether orally, in writing or through any other medium of that
person’s choice’(Art.23), and as such all ASEAN member States must do more to
protect Human Rights Defenders, by also enacting anti-SLAPP laws. Malaysia, as
current ASEAN Chair, must lead by good example.
D.Call
on Malaysia and all governments to refrain from engaging in abusive
lawsuits, but also take positive measures to ensure that third parties do not
use SLAPPs as tools to silence those exerting legitimately their rights to
freedom of opinion and expression.
Charles Hector
Ng Yap Hwa
For and on behalf the 44
organizations/groups/trade unions listed below
ALIRAN, Malaysia
MADPET (Malaysians Against Death
Penalty and Torture)
Asia Citizen Future Association, Taiwan
Asia Human Rights and Labour
Advocates (AHRLA)
Asian Forum for Human Rights and
Development (FORUM-ASIA)
Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha
Mancha (MASUM), India
BWI AP (Building and Wood Workers
International Asia Pacific Region)
Center for Alliance of Labor and
Human Rights (CENTRAL), Cambodia
Citizens Against Enforced
Disappearances (CAGED), Malaysia
CIVICUS - World Alliance for
Citizen Participation
COAC (Center for Orang Asli
Concerns), Malaysia
Community Resource Centre Foundation
(CRC), Thailand
Democratic Commission for Human
Development (DCHD), Lahore, Pakistan
Disability Peoples Forum, Uganda
Global Women's Strike
GoodElectronics Network
Greenpeace Southeast Asia
Haiti Action Committee
International Federation for
Human Rights (FIDH), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection
of Human Rights Defenders, France
KLSCAH Youth, Malaysia
Legal Action for Women, United
Kingdom
Manushya Foundation, Thailand
MAP Foundation, Thailand
National Union of Banking Employees
(NUBE), Malaysia
National Union of Transport
Equipment & Allied Industries Workers (NUTEAIW), Malaysia
North South Initiative (NSI),
Malaysia
Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM)
Payday Men’s Network (UK/US)
Persatuan Amal Progresif,
Malaysia
Programme Against Custodial
Torture & Impunity (PACTI), India
Redemption Pakistan
Sabah Timber Industry Employees
Union (STIEU), Malaysia
Sarawak Dayak Iban Association
(SADIA), Malaysia
Second Chance Redemption,
Pakistan
Service Industry Workers Union Of
Peninsular Malaysia
SETEM Catalunya, Spain
Singapore Anti Death Penalty
Campaign (SADP)
Social Protection Contributors
Advisory Association Malaysia. (SPCAAM)
Tenaganita, Malaysia
Teoh Beng Hock Association for
Democratic Advancement, Malaysia
WH4C (Workers Hub for Change)
Women of Colour Global Women
Strike, US & UK
Workers’ Assistance Center (WAC)
in Cavite, Philippines
World Organisation Against
Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of
Human Rights Defenders, Switzerland
Thai Lawyers for Human Rights urgently calls your attention to the indictment of Mr. Murray Hunter, an Australian journalist residing in Thailand, under Section 328 (defamation by publication) of the Thai Criminal Code [1] on 17 November 2025.
(Black Case No. Aor. 2120/2568) This case stems from four articles that
were published on his Substack between 13 and 29 April 2024, that,
according to the public prosecutor, allegedly defamed the Malaysian
Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC), a Malaysian government
agency. If convicted, Mr. Hunter faces a maximum prison term of eight years and a fine not exceeding 800,000 baht.
The next court hearing—evidence examination hearing—at the Bangkok South Criminal Court is scheduled for 22 December 2025 at 1.30 PM.
Criminal
defamation is a compoundable offense in Thailand. In other words, a
party that alleges injury can withdraw a complaint and the case.
Case Background
Mr.
Hunter is an independent journalist who has covered various political
and governance issues in Malaysia, often publishing critical analyses of
the country’s leadership and institutions on his Substack blog. [2]
MCMC has ordered internet service providers to block access to Mr.
Hunter’s Substack in Malaysia. [3] From 13 to 29 April 2024, Mr. Hunter
published four articles on his Substack criticizing MCMC. (See more
below.)
Charging Stage
On
27 March 2025, the Bangkok South Criminal Court issued an arrest
warrant (No. 404/2568) for Mr. Hunter based on a complaint filed at
Yannawa Police Station by a representative of MCMC. On 29 September
2025, Mr. Hunter was arrested at the Suvarnabhumi Airport, while
attempting to board a flight to Hong Kong. He was transferred to Yannawa
Police Station where he was charged under Section 328 (defamation by
publication) of the Thai Criminal Code. The penalty for violating this
law is a maximum prison term of two years and a fine not exceeding
200,000 baht.
Mr. Hunter was detained for approximately 24 hours
at Yannawa Police Station before he was released on 20,000 baht bail,
pending a 17 November court appearance.
Indictment
On
17 November 2025, the public prosecutor indicted Mr. Hunter under
Section 328 of the Criminal Code in connection with the following quotes
from four articles on Mr. Hunter’s Substack:
Article 1: “The 3Rs are an Instrument of Tyranny for Malaysia” (13 April 2024) [4]
“Behind
the PDRM is the MCMC, under the chair of TS Salim Fateh Din, which is
illegally blocking hundreds of websites of those they deem critics of
the government. The MCMC is working with social media platforms to pull
down material the establishment doesn’t agree with.”
“The
MCMC, under Salim’s stewardship is also blocking critics of his own
company MRCB, a clear conflict of interest and abuse of power. This is
what happens when politically partisan people are put in charge of law
enforcement agencies.”
“The approach taken by the
PDRM-MCMC-JAKIM is using the 3Rs as a tool of suppression of freedom of
speech is a selective manner is tyranny. This is also destroying the
racial harmony of the nation.”
Article 2: “MCMC ordered by the High Court to produce police instruction to block weechookeong.com” (19 April 2024) [5]
“MCMC
is subverting democracy, and covering up whistleblowers who are have
genuine intentions in exposing corruption. The MCMC cannot become a
private cyber police force, in the interests of individuals, rather than
the national interest.”
“Too much evidence is building
up of complicity and conspiracy between the MCMC and police for the
benefit of protecting individual interests.”
Article 3: “MCMC is out of Control” (25 April 2024) [6]
“These
raids on citizens homes are a form of intimidation to support
‘ketuanan’ chauvinists and cover up the exposure of corruption. MCMC is
clearly entering the political arena and claiming to the be the sole
arbitrator of the truth. There is little proper legal process going on
leaving the victims of MCMC actions without any legal remedy to these
home invasions.”
“UMNO stalwart Salim Fateh Din, who is
chairman of the MCMC is using the agency for political purposes. Salim
is building up a political gestapo without any checks and balances to
restrain it from going overboard. The MCMC has become an extra-judicial
para police force to intimidate citizens and cover up issues of
corruption.”
Article 4: “Chegubard’s arrest and charging is a warning to all Malaysians” (29 April 2024) [7]
“Likewise
the MCMC is under the control of an UMNO warlord and corporate mogul.
The MCMC is acting far beyond its statutory powers in self interest.
Together, the PDRM and MCMC are now a massive authoritarian ‘thought
police’ intimidating and terrorizing the community. The authorities are
flaunting the constitution.”
According to the public
prosecutor, the four articles are defamatory because, through their
content, they are likely to cause the MCMC to “lose reputation, be held
in contempt, and be subjected to hatred by the public.” If the court
finds Mr. Hunter guilty in relation to the four articles, he could be
sentenced to a maximum prison term of eight years and a fine not exceeding 800,000 baht.
It
should be noted that “a statement made in good faith … by way of fair
comment on any person or thing normally subject to public criticism”
does not constitute defamation under the Criminal Code [8]. Moreover, a
person shall not be punished for defamation if he can prove that the
statement at issue is truthful [9].
Read out previous Human Rights update on Mr. Hunter’s case here.
(1)
If the defamation is committed by means of publication of any document,
drawing, painting, film, picture or letters made visible by any means,
gramophone record or audio, visual or letter recorder, or by audio or
visual broadcast or by announcement by any other means, the perpetrator
shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and
to a fine not exceeding two hundred thousand baht
Did Selangor State Government just encroach into the powers of Local Government? The decision to appoint the company was made by the State government ??? Will the Selangor Government be also FULLY LIABLE for wrongdoings of Local Councils/Local Governments in the State of Selangor.
In the same way, the Federal Government cannot appoint a Contractor for a matter that comes within the jurisdiction of the State government ...
'The local council asserted to Malaysiakini that it had “no knowledge” of the link to the Selangor palace, as the decision to appoint the company was made by the state government...'
JURISDICTION -The Local Governments/Councils are suppose to be democratically elected by the people within the jurisdiction of individual Local Governments - but, by reason of the 'Indonesian Confrontation' - local government elections by the people was suspended, and later by Act was changed by State or Federal political appointees who will sit as Mayor/President and Local Councillors in Local government.
Federal Government, State Government and Local Government are separate legal entities. So, if there are any WRONGDOINGS of a Local Government, we take the LOCAL GOVERNMENT to Court - but if State dictates what a Local Council does, we can or rather should be taking the State Government also to court.
If LOCAL COUNCIL/GOVERNMENT elections is not to be restored - then, maybe LOCAL GOVERNMENT itself should be ABOLISHED - to be replaced by State/Federal Government departments taking over all duties/responsibilities of the Local Government - I PREFER restoration of LOCAL GOVERNMENT elections, something that was campaigned for by PKR, DAP, PAS then(when it was part of Pakatan Rakyat), and later AMANAH when it was part of Pakatan Harapan.
LOCAL COUNCIL/Government collects monies that are meant to be spent in the respective Local Government jurisdiction - not for other areas or matters within the State.
LOCAL Government primary (nay ONLY) concern is for the maintenance/development of the area of the Local Government. No business allowed to operate without the CONSENT of the respective LOCAL GOVERNMENT. A factory like LYNAS will not be able to operate without the CONSENT/Approval of the respective LOCAL Government first - of course the State may have additional requirements that may need to be complied, likewise the Federal Government.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT collects monies for property tax annually, State government collects Land Tax. Local Government decides on PARKING FEES, and is duty bound to maintain all roads, signboards within the area of the Local Government - save for State or Federal Roads. Local Government collects business advertisement fees, and also decides on whether to APPROVE a development project within the area of the Local Government - it ensures strict compliance of building standards...
WHY don't the government restore LOCAL GOVERNMENT elections? WHY don't the government restore SENATORIAL elections - so people can choose their Senators - now Senators are State political appointees.
DEMOCRACY please - end the culture of POLITICAL APPOINTEES...
Other PROBLEM - when a company is owned by ROYALTY, governments, political party/personality
Feudal mentality still exist in most Malaysians - and thus the problem when a company is owned(or partly owned) by the Royalty - will this factor lead to 'preferential treatment' in open tendersor direct awarding of projects/contracts -many issues have emerged with regard to such companies, where it is owned in part by the royalty.
...which detailed Raja Muda of Selangor Tengku Amir Shah’s 16.5 percent beneficial stake in Selmax Sdn Bhd, which has received three concessions thus far under the Selangor Intelligent Parking (SIP) scheme.“The
appointment (of Selmax as the SIP system manager) was made by the
Selangor government with reference to the state executive council,” MPS
said when asked if it was aware of Tengku Amir Shah’s shareholding
before Selmax’s appointment.
This 'PROBLEM' should be dealt with - (1) Prohibit members of the Royalty from owning companies that are trying to get government approvals/permits including logging, mining, etc... (2) OR prohibit such companies from applying for such permits/licence/contracts/tenders/etc...(3) Prohibit the ROYALTY from owning shares or companies - after all the State is paying Royalties, is it not?)...ORmaybe prohibit companies like SELMAX that is partially owned by the Crown Prince of Selangor from trying to get permits/licences/projects in SELANGOR - no problem if it is seeking licence/permits/projects in some other States.
OR should all State Citizens remove themselves from the decision making process when it involves a company where the State Royalty has a part-ownership in the said company. Which State Citizen wants to be seen as 'DISLOYAL' when they decide not to issue permits/licemces/projects to a company that linked by that very State's royalty??
How can the Selangor Chief Minister say NO to the Selangor Sultan or the Crown Prince?
Malaysia, to date, has failed to ADDRESS this problem ...same applies for State owned companies, or State GLCs - or even when some prominent politician is involved.
PARLIAMENT should discuss this issue - and decide how to handle this problem... once and for all...
The
appointment (of Selmax as the SIP system manager) is in QUESTION now - did the fact that Raja Muda of Selangor Tengku Amir Shah’s 16.5 percent beneficial stake in Selmax Sdn Bhd had anything to do with SELMAX being chosen.
It is sometimes not the fault of the ROYALTY but some corporations may 'use royalty' to get State contracts and projects. Some companies may even use 'bumiputras' to get contracts - it is not uncommon to see former drivers being appointed DIRECTORS to get contracts - who is the real owner or beneficiary? A problem that also needs to be looked into.
Malaysian businesses, actually owned by 'foreigners', also happens...
in Malaysia, a company must generally have at least 51% of its equity owned by Bumiputera individuals and have a majority of its board of directors and key management positions held by Bumiputera.At least 51% of the company's equity must be owned by Bumiputera individuals or Bumiputera corporations.
There is a problem with the current requirements to qualify one as a 'Bumiputra Company' - even if 51% are truly owned by Bumiputra, the fact that 49% can be owned by foreigners, even agents of Israeli Zionist Regime is a problem. Should we change the DEFINITION of Bumiputra Companies, requiring 51% to be owned by Bumiputra individuals, 40 % by Malaysians, and ONLY 9% or less to be owned by foreigners? OR better still 51% by Bumiputras, and 49% by Malaysians > that way we prevent any FOREIGNERS from reaping benefits from the existing 'preferential treatment' provided for by our Federal Constitution?
News
Selayang council claims ignorance of royalty link in S'gor parking contracts
Qistina Nadia Dzulqarnain
Published: Nov 21, 2025 8:00 AM
⋅
Updated: 1:43
The
Selayang Municipal Council (MPS) has claimed it was in the dark over a
royalty link to a company awarded a concession within its jurisdiction
under the Selangor government’s initiative to privatise street parking.
The local council asserted to Malaysiakini
that it had “no knowledge” of the link to the Selangor palace, as the
decision to appoint the company was made by the state government.
MPS said this in response to queries based on Malaysiakini’s report, which detailed Raja Muda of Selangor Tengku Amir Shah’s 16.5 percent beneficial stake in Selmax Sdn Bhd, which has received three concessions thus far under the Selangor Intelligent Parking (SIP) scheme.
“The
appointment (of Selmax as the SIP system manager) was made by the
Selangor government with reference to the state executive council,” MPS
said when asked if it was aware of Tengku Amir Shah’s shareholding
before Selmax’s appointment.
When
queried on whether the royalty’s involvement in Selmax was a topic
during deliberations before its appointment, MPS affirmed that it has
“no knowledge” regarding the matter.
“The concession appointment for parking management in MPS was made by the Selangor government,” it maintained.
Selangor State Secretariat building
MPS,
it added, provided an offer letter to Selmax on June 30 for the
provision of “smart parking management services” starting July 1.
“However,
discussions between both parties were held to reach an agreement on the
contents of the letter of acceptance,” it said.
10-year contract, five-year extensionoption
In
an earlier Bourse filing, Selmax’s parent company, ITMAX System Bhd,
recorded that Selmax had only received and accepted a revised letter of
appointment on Sept 2.
ITMAX System said the amended letter of
appointment, dated Aug 29, was awarded by MPS to Selmax for the latter
to be the SIP operator.
The filing stated that the appointment
has a contract period of 10 years, with an option to extend for an
additional five years “subject to the assessment by MPS” and Rantaian
Mesra Sdn Bhd, a wholly owned unit of Menteri Besar Selangor
(Incorporated) (MBI), tasked with overseeing the SIP rollout.
Based on Malaysiakini’s
checks, the heir apparent of Selangor ruler Sultan Sharafuddin Idris
Shah holds a stake in Selmax via two other holding companies: Tanah
Perwira Sdn Bhd and Greyscale Holdings Sdn Bhd.
Raja Muda of Selangor Tengku Amir Shah
Incorporated
in March last year, Tanah Perwira, a minority shareholder of Selmax, is
wholly owned by Greyscale Holdings, a three-year-old company in which
Tengku Amir Shah owns a majority 55 percent slice.
Besides MPS,
two other local councils have also awarded concessions to Selmax for the
management of the SIP system: the Shah Alam City Council and the Subang
Jaya City Council.
As of press time, the Petaling Jaya City Council is the only local council that backed out of the arrangement with Selmax.
Under
the concession agreement with Selmax, the local councils would each be
compelled to share revenue from parking fees, monthly passes, two-hour
zones, and compounds in a 50-40 percent split with the company, which is
set to receive the bigger share.
The remaining 10 percent is intended to go to Rantaian Mesra.
Track record of operating parking systems
Selangor Menteri Besar Amirudin Shari’s aide previously told Malaysiakini
that MBI had headed a public request-for-proposal process, which saw
the participation of 26 companies, after which only three were called
back to present a detailed proposal.
Selangor Menteri Besar Amirudin Shari
“The
company, which was ultimately picked by MBI, had a track record of
already operating parking systems in Johor, and was also a publicly
listed company,” said Amirudin’s press secretary, Jay Jay Denis.
Graft watchdog C4 Center has since criticised
the state government’s apparent lack of transparency in the SIP
initiative, warning that the involvement of royalty figures must trigger
enhanced due diligence and disclosure mechanisms.
PKR lawmaker Lee Chean Chung has also urged the state government to issue an official explanation
on the matter, stressing that the clarification is necessary to ensure
that no party, including the royal institution, is subjected to
“unnecessary assumptions”. - Malaysiakini, 21/11/2025
When will the Malaysian government give us TRUE freedom of association... Even when members of an association/society/political party or federation of Trade Unions like the Malaysian Trade Unions Congress (MTUC)... Any resolutions passed by members at a General Meeting(the highest decision making body) will not come into force until the Registrar of Societies (ROS) approves - this is utter nonsense > why should the Malaysian government have too much power to control Malaysian Societies??? Now, even after MTUC's elections - It is unable to carry out its day-to-day functions after the Registrar of Societies (RoS) declined to endorse the newly elected office-bearers.
Homework - go find out why MTUC comes under the ROS, and not the ROTU(Registrar of Trade Unions)???
The
registrar has told the labour centre they are probing claims the
secretary-general is not eligible to contest elections or hold office.
Kamarul
Baharin Mansor said he had been nominated by the National Union of
Waste Management Workers in MTUC’s court-ordered triennial election.
PETALING JAYA:
The Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC), which resolved its six-year
leadership crisis with a triennial election after a court intervention
in August, is now facing a new problem.
It is unable to carry out its day-to-day
functions after the Registrar of Societies (RoS) declined to endorse the
newly elected office-bearers.
As a result, the labour centre is facing
administrative difficulties as there are no bank signatories to pay
staff salaries or draw funds for the maintenance of its headquarters.
Its secretary-general, Kamarul Baharin
Mansor, said the RoS informed him that it was investigating complaints
from two MTUC affiliates, including allegations that he was not eligible
to stand for election or hold the post as he was not employed by any
firm that is a member of the union.
Kamarul, who told FMT that he is still
employed and eligible to hold the post, was nominated by the National
Union of Waste Management Workers in the election.
“MTUC submitted the list of elected
office-bearers for the 2025-2028 term soon after the election in August,
following a court order appointing a committee headed by former MTUC
secretary-general J Solomon to conduct the polls.
“We have written two letters and met RoS officials to seek their endorsement so we can carry out business as usual.
“But two weeks ago, I was informed that
they were probing the two complaints, so they cannot endorse the
leadership yet,” he said.
Kamarul said the RoS should not drag the matter as headquarters staff and their families were the ones suffering.
One source said employees have not
received their October and November salaries, and that power supply at
MTUC’s headquarters was recently disconnected after several months of
unpaid bills.
Kamarul said MTUC has also been unable to
nominate a workers’ representative to the boards of the EPF, the Inland
Revenue Board, the National Labour Council, and the National Wages
Council.
“The workers have been deprived of representation in these important bodies for far too long,” he said.
He said MTUC has given the RoS until Nov
30 to resolve the impasse, failing which all 19 committee members will
go to its headquarters in Putrajaya to meet the registrar.
The major leadership crisis, which led to
legal disputes and RoS intervention, was resolved with the re-election
of Halim Mansor as president.
The Shah Alam High Court ordered the
re-election after the 2022 delegates conference and its election were
declared null and void.
FMT has reached out to Halim, home minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, and RoS director-general Zulfikar Ahmad for comment.
US-Malaysia Agreement - So many comments on the dangers of this ONE-SIDED Agreement that may even make Malaysia more a 'crony' of the US, may cause a lose of 'sovereignity', is grossly unfair to Malaysia ...
BUT to date, the most IMPORTANT issue is whether PM Anwar Ibrahim will proceed with this AGREEMENT that will affect Malaysia for years to come - WITHOUT getting Parliamentary Approval, Without getting all the States approval for Malaysia is a FEDERATION, without getting the King/RULERS' approval...
Am extremely worried that our PM Anwar Ibrahim will take the position that I AM PRIME MINISTER so I DECIDE ALONE - as it was always done in the past? his normal 'excuse' for continuing to do what is now no more unacceptable...
ANYWAY, I came across a good article by Tommy Thomas(our former Attorney General) that looks at the US-MALAYSIA Agreement (still not in force YET) - Disastrous US-M'sia agreement must be abandoned
The agreement between the United States and Malaysia on “reciprocal
trade” signed by the two heads of government in Kuala Lumpur on Oct 26
is undoubtedly the worst agreement that independent Malaya/Malaysia has
entered into since Merdeka.
This is whether one considers from the legal perspective or the political, economic, or geo-strategic viewpoint.
Before its heavy lopsidedness in favour of the US is discussed, a brief historical survey of US/Malaysia relations is warranted.
There
have been 14 US administrations headed by 13 presidents between 1957
and 2025. Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy pressed our
first prime minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, to join the US-led alliance,
Seato, to assist the US in its Cold War activities in South East Asia.
Tunku
declined. Despite president Lyndon Johnson visiting Kuala Lumpur in
1965, Tunku refused to support the US in the Vietnam War.
Until
the Anwar Ibrahim administration took office in 2022, every prime
minister kept the US at arm’s length. Malaysia has always been friendly
with the three superpowers: the US, Russia, and China, without showing
partiality to any.
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim welcomes Trump
So
why did Anwar make a fundamental shift in our foreign policy, which has
worked well for us for 68 years? Why the tilt to the US? The
superficial explanation is that, unlike any of his post-World War II
predecessors, Donald Trump is a bully and the global “wrecking ball”.
Anwar
was in awe of Trump. Anwar did not deal with Trump as an equal head of
government during their negotiations. Malaysia’s bargaining power was
further diminished because Anwar desperately wanted to host Trump in Kuala Lumpur on the pretext of an Asean Summit.
Trump
deigned a flying stop, but completely on his terms. Principally, a
trade agreement with Malaysia, and for Trump to claim credit for
brokering a truce between Thailand and Cambodia arising from their
recent border skirmish.
Perhaps there may be a profound explanation for Anwar’s conduct: time will tell.
Even
the title given to the agreement is Orwellian. There is nothing
“Reciprocal” about it: simply stated, the US demands, Malaysia caves in.
Nearly all the obligations are imposed on Malaysia: all the rights
devolve to the US.
It appears as if the Malaysian negotiating team
- presumably from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), Wisma Putra, the
Investment, Trade, and Industry Ministry (Miti), and the
Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) - did not negotiate at all.
The
spirited Rafidah Aziz, perhaps our most effective Miti minister, would
never have agreed to this agreement. The US handed them their draft. And
it was signed lamely by Anwar, who had Trump’s pen to show for, and a
ride in Trump’s car.
The agreement
Even the
online edition of the agreement manifests US domination. It is on the
White House masthead. Doesn’t Wisma Putra publish it? A review of the
entire agreement discloses the frequent use of the following 19
expressions:
“Malaysia shall apply…”;
“Malaysia shall not…”;
“Malaysia shall not apply…”;
“Malaysia shall allow…”;
“Malaysia shall accord…”;
“Malaysia shall facilitate…”;
“Malaysia shall ensure…”;
“Malaysia shall provide…”;
“Malaysia shall only protect or recognize…”;
“Malaysia shall not restrict…”;
“Malaysia shall prioritize…”;
“Malaysia shall adopt and implement…”;
“Malaysia shall coordinate…”;
“Malaysia shall not impose…”;
“Malaysia shall cooperate…”;
“Malaysia shall explore…”;
“Malaysia shall enter into…”;
“Malaysia shall refrain from providing…”; and
“Malaysia intends to purchase…”.
There
are hardly any similar obligations on the US; hence, the terms
“reciprocal” and “complementary” are wholly inappropriate. It is
doublespeak.
Any impartial reviewer of this agreement, when
reminded of these obligations imposed upon Malaysia without any mutual
obligations on the US, will conclude that it is a gross example of a
one-sided bargain.
When one is then referred to five specific
articles, any doubt is removed that the agreement as a whole is against
our interests, and is wholly detrimental to our status as an
independent, sovereign nation.
What does “sovereignty” mean? Like
many words describing concepts, it is multifaceted. I suggest that part
of a nation’s sovereignty is its ability and freedom to decide and
determine its own policies, whether foreign, military, economic,
political, or otherwise, and to pass laws.
When that freedom is
impinged upon by its agreeing to act or not to act in a particular way
in the future, its sovereignty is compromised.
Applying that
yardstick, this agreement undoubtedly diminishes our freedom to operate,
and thus it compromises our sovereignty. Simply stated, our hands have
become unnecessarily tied. And now to the five articles.
Signing of the US-M’sia trade deal
Five obnoxious articles
1. Article 2.3 Agriculture
“Malaysia
shall provide non-discriminating or preferential market access for US
agricultural goods as set forth in this Agreement. In doing so –
(b) Malaysia shall not enter into agreements or understanding with third countries that…or otherwise disadvantage US exports.”
(My emphasis)
First,
the US does not have to provide “non-discriminatory or preferential
market access” for Malaysian agricultural goods. Secondly, Malaysia is
prohibited from entering into similar agreements or understanding with
the 200-odd countries in the world, excluding the US.
Of course,
the US is not prohibited in like manner. The critical test is that
Malaysia must refrain from taking such action if it “disadvantages US
exports”. And of course, the US determines that. How is this article in
Malaysia’s interests?
2. Article 2.12 Border Measures and Taxes
“2. No party shall contest at the WTO
a measure adopted by the other party to rebate or to refrain from
imposing direct taxes in relation to exports from that party”.
(My emphasis)
The
US, Malaysia, and more than 190 countries subscribe to the WTO
international regime, which includes an agreed dispute resolution
mechanism to resolve disputes between member states.
Why has
Malaysia given up this right if the US adopts measures “to rebate or to
refrain from imposing direct taxes in relation to exports” from
Malaysia?
3. Article 3.3 Digital Trade Agreements
“Malaysia shall consult with the US before entering into a new digital trade agreement with another country that jeopardises essential US interest”.
(my emphasis)
“Digital
trade” is not defined in the agreement, and will be given a wide and
general meaning in the rapidly evolving scientific and technological
world. Why should Malaysia consult the US before it can enter into
digital trade agreements with the 200 countries across the globe?
The
key words are “jeopardises essential US interest”. Obviously, the US
will determine the scope and extent of its interests: the US will
dictate what they are, and Malaysia will have to comply. Does this not
result in a serious inroad into our freedom to operate independently?
4. Article 5.3 Other Measures
“3. If Malaysia enters into a new bilateral free trade agreement or preferential economic agreement with a country
that jeopardises essential US interests, the US may, if consultations
with Malaysia fail to resolve its concerns, terminate this Agreement and
reimpose the applicable tariff rate set forth in Executive Order 14257
of April 2, 2025.”
(my emphasis)
This targets
Malaysia’s liberty to enter into “bilateral free trade agreements” and
“preferential economic agreements” with the rest of the world. Does this
not severely prejudice our freedom to negotiate with, and enter into
trade and economic agreements with any country we wish?
If we do
so, the US can take retaliatory measures - terminating this agreement
and restoring the original Trump tariff specified in his executive order
of April 2. We become subject to blackmail and threats by the US.
(v) “4. Malaysia shall not purchase any nuclear reactors, fuel rods or enriched uranium from certain countries, except where there are no alternative suppliers on comparable terms and conditions.”
(my emphasis)
In
recent years, there has been public discussion about whether Malaysia
should build nuclear plants to provide another alternative energy
source; that is, to diversify our sources of energy and to comply with
climate change obligations.
If, as a nation, we decide to go on
that route, our freedom is again impinged because we cannot purchase any
“nuclear reactors, fuel rods or enriched uranium” from any country
except the US unless “there are no alternative suppliers” to or
“comparable terms and conditions” with US manufacturers.
And of
course, the US will decide how suppliers “alternate” to the US will
offer terms and conditions “comparable” to those offered by the US.
Again, there is no parity between the two countries: Malaysia will
succumb to US wishes.
The annexes
Malaysia’s
obligations multiply in the four annexes to the agreement. Annex I
deals with tariff and customs matters. Annex II is the “market access
list” relating to the import into Malaysia of American cheese and meat.
Annex
III refers to specific commitments; it is lengthy, running to 42
separate matters on diverse subjects. Let me cite a few examples.
By
Article 1.2 in Annex III, Malaysia agrees to exclude US imports of
agricultural and seafood products from our sales and service tax (SST).
This is highly discriminatory in favour of the US. Under Article 2.9,
Malaysia shall allow any US halal certifier designated by Jakim as
meeting our halal requirement, without additional requirements.
By
Article 2.17, Malaysia shall fully implement eight international
agreements and ratify or accede to five other international conventions.
Finally,
by Article 6.2, Malaysia commits to the expedient development of its
rare earth and critical minerals sector in partnership with US
companies, and we agree to supply rare earth magnets to the US. In sum,
all these specific commitments are made by Malaysia; hardly any by the
US.
Annex IV deals with purchases and investments. Again,
hopelessly lop-sided. The small developing nation that is Malaysia is
obliged to purchase from and invest in the richest nation in world
history, with the largest economy ever. And the US has no reciprocal
duties.
Thus, we have to purchase 60 aircraft and LNG valued at
approximately US$2 billion (RM8.3 billion) per annum for five years from
2025 to 2029. Our multi-national companies must purchase US$150 billion
(RM623 billion) worth of semiconductors, aerospace components, and data
centre equipment from US companies.
TNB has to purchase coal
valued at US$42 million (RM174 million) per year, and Telekom Malaysia
has to purchase US products and services worth US$119 million (RM494
million). Finally, we must make a capital investment of US$70 billion
(RM291 billion) over the next 10 years (US$7 billion annually). Taken
together, if this is not a “sell-out”, one does not know what is?
Although
the British made their appearance in Penang in 1776 and Singapore in
1819, their intervention into the Malay States only occurred in 1874
with the Treaty of Pangkor. Malaya was thus under direct British rule
for some 80 years.
Never under the British Empire did the colonial
and imperialist power exercise such a degree of direct control and
influence over Malaya’s economy. Hence, we will be much worse off after
68 years of Merdeka.
The US trade treaty is far more sinister and
insidious: it is neo-imperialism at its worst. And to think that
Malaysians freely and voluntarily agreed to this.
From a
geo-strategic perspective, Malaysia has moved very much into the US
sphere of influence, a development that would be detrimental to our
independence.
The US immediately flexed its muscles when its
ambassador, Edgard Kagan, warned early this month that Trump “has been
very clear about what some red lines are and the political consequences
that would come from crossing those”. What audacity; a temerity never
manifested by the US previously.
Edgard Kagan
Moving forward
Against
this background, it is impossible to contend that this agreement is in
our interests. The government must immediately take action to ensure
that we are not bound by it. We must abandon this agreement as soon as
possible.
Fortunately, there are two escape clauses within its terms which assist Malaysia, viz, Articles 7.2 and 7.5.
Articles 7.2 : Entry into Force
“This
Agreement shall enter into force 60 days after the date on which
Parties have exchanged written notifications certifying completion of
their applicable legal procedures or on such other date as the Parties
may agree”.
This is usual in agreements between nations,
which are invariably signed by the executive branch, but require
approval by their legislative branch, or their domestic laws have to be
amended to harmonise with the requirements of any agreement.
Hence, there is a time-lag between the signature (which was Oct 26) and its coming into force.
Fortunately,
both Malaysia and the US must agree under this article - it is mutual,
and not one-sided, before it comes into force.
Under the express
terms of Article 7.2, Malaysia must “exchange written notifications” or
agree on when the agreement comes into force. By declining to take
either positive measure on the part of Malaysia, this agreement cannot
come into force, in which event it lapses and will never be binding.
If
this agreement has already come into force (which would be very
surprising since it was only executed three weeks ago), then we can
resort to Article 7.5, which reads:
Article 7.5 : Termination
“Either
Party may terminate this Agreement by written notification to the other
Party. Termination shall take effect 180 days after the date of the
notification.”
Obviously, this article only becomes
applicable if the agreement comes into force. In that contingency,
Malaysia can terminate by simply issuing a termination notice in
writing. No reason or explanation for termination is required to be
included in the notice.
If Anwar wants to save face with his hero,
Trump, the prime minister can allow a free vote, that is, without the
whip being enforced, of the 222 members of the Dewan Rakyat who will
have to decide based on their conscience and feedback from their
constituents. Of course, indirectly, the voters at the next general
election are thus brought into the discussion.
A defeat in
Parliament would give sufficient political reason for Anwar to maintain
his deep friendship with Trump, despite the agreement not coming into
force. After all, the US Congress often vetoes treaties entered into by
the US government: the League of Nations in the 1920s is a famous
example.
Whatever it is, Malaysia should renounce this agreement
as soon as possible. It is disastrous and an insult to our dignity as a
sovereign, independent nation.
TOMMY THOMAS is a former attorney-general.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini. - Malaysiakini, 20/11/2025
Speak up for Penang event
-
Calling all Penangites, researchers, policymakers and community leaders.
Come and share your opinions and ideas for a better, more liveable Penang.
This is...
APA PADA NAMA
-
1. Sejarah Malaysia dikait rapat dengan UMNO, Parti Kebangsaan Melayu
Bersatu. Parti UMNO pula dikenali dengan pemimpinnya. 2. Demikian di
peringkat permul...
China and HK may be barred from Asia Team meet
-
PETALING JAYA: The status of next week’s Asia Team Champion-ships in
Manila, the Philippines, is in quandary as two badminton nations – China
and Hong Kong...
PRU14 - Keputusan TEMERLOH - Parlimen dan DUN
-
Keputusan di Temerloh, harus kita analisa
1- Parlimen dimenangi Pakatan Harapan, yang juga menang DUN Mentakab,
tetapi BN menang DUN Lancang dan DUN Kuala ...
Thank you, Malaysians
-
Before the lights go out on The Malaysian Insider at midnight, we say
"Thank You" to our readers. TMI started on February 25, 2008. Today, after
eight year...
I believe in the freedom of expression - and everyone is free to use, reproduce, quote, copy and circulate, etc... materials published here. Please credit the source: http://charleshector.blogspot.com/.
For those of you who do have Blogs/Websites, it would be good if you could add a link to CHARLES HECTOR Blog. Please do promote the BLOG.
Anonymous comments or those containing profanities and obscenities (or irrelevant matters) will be rejected. Note that all comments made in post are personal opinions.
Number of Visits
Over 4 million visits. On an average, we have about 700-750 visits per day.Thank you all for your support and encouragement..
Posts
