Did Malaysian Courts use 'SLAPP like' methods to DETER people from applying for Judicial Review of Government Decisions? RM100,000 cost is UNJUST - in a JR application on Lynas PDF ?

On 9/3/2026, when the Court of Appeal ORDERED Tan to pay RM100,000 COST for challenging a government planning approval of the Permanent Depository Facility, did our Malaysian Courts just use them much opposed SLAPP-like (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) ...

A three-member panel led by Federal Court Judge Datuk Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali, sitting with Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Jaffril and Datuk Ong Chee Kwan, ordered Tan Bun Teet to pay RM25,000 in legal costs to each of the respondents — the Pahang State Planning Committee, the Kuantan City Council (MBK), Gading Senggara Sdn Bhd and Lynas Malaysia. 

Note, in this case the COURT refused to JUDICIAL REVIEW on a 'technicality' because the Judicial Review application was filed late - after the 3 MONTHS the government decision was made. We rely on Media Reports only at this stage - because I have yet to see the Written Judgment of the Court of Appeal. I have looked at the High Court Judgment (which is below, if you are interested)

WAIT, this was an application of a concerned person challenging the planning permission granted by  MAJLIS BANDARAYA KUANTAN to GADING SENGGARA SDN BHD to construct a permanent disposal facility (PDF) in Gebeng, Pahang for Lynas Malaysia Sdn Bhd to store its waste. YES, it was about RARE EARTH - and a lot of Malaysians and others are concerned about this issue. 

In 2012, at least 13 leaders from Pakatan Rakyat had signed a pledge to shut down Lynas' rare earth refinery when they were part of the opposition. They include Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, Transport Minister Anthony Loke, and Digital Minister Gobind Singh Deo. 

We have the Bukit Merah experience and The aftereffects of the ARE facility are still felt today, despite over RM300 million spent cleaning up its waste. It is estimated that Bukit Merah community will have one case of leukemia every three years as a result of radioactivity. Bukit Merah’s rare earth metal processing site cleanup had been the largest radiation cleanup so far in the world’s rare earth industry, and it took about 20 years...Besides cleaning up their mess, ARE have also made monthly payments to affected citizens though their Development Fund. Shareholder Mitsubishi Chemical had settled with the villagers outside of court by donating 164,000 US Dollars to their community school, at the same time denying any responsibility for the diseases striking the villagers. Some academic research showed that the Bukit Merah community will only have one case of leukemia every three years as a result of radioactivity. - CILISOS 30 years ago, a huge radioactive incident happened in Perak. And they’re still cleaning it up…

The long-term, large-scale mining and utilization of rare earths has caused serious environmental pollution and constitutes a global health issue, which has raised concerns regarding the safety of human health. However, the toxicity profile of suspended particulate matter in REEs(Rare earth elements) in the environment, which interacts with the human body, remains largely unknown. Studies have shown that REEs can enter the human body through a variety of pathways, leading to a variety of organ and system dysfunctions through changes in genetics, epigenetics, and signaling pathways.  - NLM National Centre for Biotechnology Information

Whilst many countries have been shutting down MINING, and/or processing of RARE EARTH in their countries - because it is seen as very dangerous (great risk to ENVIRONMENT and also public health)  

In the 1990s, major US rare earth mines such as Mountain Pass scaled down or shut their most polluting processing activities.As the US and other rich countries retreated, the most hazardous processing shifted to countries under economic pressure or more willing to bear the environmental burden.  

So, back to the recent Court of Appeal - this was clearly a matter of public interest, so when the Court ordered the concerned citizen who wanted the COURTS to make sure that the approval was given RIGHTLY, the Court should NOT have ordered him to pay RM100,000 in cost - What will people perceive from this decision > IS IT A MESSAGE OF THE COURT TELLING PEOPLE NOT TO CHALLENGE OR GO FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT DECISIONS?  

Honestly, in such cases, which, I believe, are a matter of Public Interest and JUSTICE - No order of cost should have been made. 

In other cases too, especially when litigants are poor or middle class, if COST is to be ordered, it must be minimal or token >> you do not want to SCARE people from using the Courts, do we now? 

The Court did not commence this action, but HIGH Cost orders may be seen as the Courts, being in the side of those who use SLAPP suits, and in this case when a person challenges a government decision.

The "Chilling Effect" and Judicial Misuse: SLAPP suits often succeed because the court process itself is used as a punishment, with the goal not necessarily being to win, but to deter public participation through "fear, intimidation, [or] mounting legal costs". 

Now, let us consider what COURTS in Malaysia should do according to COURT RULES to ensure justice be done... 

In administering any of the Rules herein, the Court or a Judge shall have regard to the justice of the particular case and not only to the technical non-compliance of any of the rules herein.(Rule 1A Rules of the Court of Appeal, 1994)

A Court or Judge shall not allow any preliminary objection by any party only on the ground of non-compliance of any of these Rules unless the Court or Judge is of the opinion that such noncompliance has occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice.(Rule 3A Rules of the Court of Appeal, 1994)  

'Courts generally adhere to the principle that cases should be decided on their merits—the substantive rights and evidence of the parties—rather than on technical miscompliance or procedural imperfections. While procedural rules are necessary for orderly administration, they are considered handmaidens of justice, not rigid masters.' 

In some jurisdictions, Courts is not bothered whether the form of application used is not the right one, or that it was even filed out of time > Once a matter is bought to the attention of the court - the Courts will proceed to hear it on the merits...in the interest of justice...

But the problem in many jurisdictions, it all depends on the JUDGES - some will 'knock it out' based on technical non-compliance(like wrong mode, out of time, etc), some will focus on JUSTICE and will proceed to hear the case on the merits...

'Personally, I had a case before the Court of Appeal where we were applying for the police/prosecution to furnish everything that came out during investigation - including statements made, witnesses identified - including those not called, pictures of crime scene, etc > all of which are most important for an ACCUSED person to prepare his/her Defence'. The Court of Appeal was very interest in deliberating this case, but the judges were of the opinion, that the questions we were asking be 'improved' on - so that Courts can deal with the issue more comprehensively once and for all', thus we went backed and did the necessary amendments. BUT, when we came back to the Court of Appeal, we had a very different panel - who displayed no interest on hearing on the merits - so they struck of the Appeal on a technicality, saying the form used was wrong - we should have used a different form of application'.

Now, it seems more JUDGES use technical non-compliance to deal with case > so they do not have to hear the matter on the MERITS. Sad, could the 'pressure' being applied that they complete a certain number of cases within a certain time period the cause? QUOTA fulfillment should not override 'JUSTICE be done'...  People want courts/judges to hear and decide on the MERITS - not just strike out cases because of some technical issues > They went to COURT for JUSTICE, but never got it...because the case was struck out on issues on non-compliance of some Court Rule, out of time, NO Locus Standi...

In this case, about JUDICIAL Review of the planning permission of the relevant Public Authority - it is without a DOUBT, in my opinion, a matter of public interest. If the Court had proceeded with the REVIEW, it may have found faults in permission, and could have asked the permission cancelled - and asked that a new application be made, and law compliant justice compliant planning permission be issued...it would have been the right thing to DO in the interest of Justice. ALL of us would have been SAFER - less worried of any error in the Kuantan Local Government decision

NOW, since the Courts refused to do a JUDICIAL REVIEW - would not the Court be also responsible if this Permanent Depository Facility(PDF) build based on 'contested' building plans/approval of government body(which the Courts refused to do a JUDICIAL REVIEW) - is defective and leads to environmental and public health problems later on?  

Applicant has filed in an application for Judicial Review pursuant to Order 53 Rules of Court 2012 to challenge the validity of a planning permission dated 28 January 2023 ("the planning permission") granted by the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondent for the construction and development of a Permanent Disposal Facility (PDF) for Water Leach Purification (WLP) waste on the land known as Mukim Sungai Karang. ...it is an inescapable conclusion that Applicant does not have a locus standi in this suit and this application is filed way out of time. Besides that, the Planning Permission granted was in accordance to law and this court has decided to dismiss the Applicant's application with cost.

Although the Applicant contended that he was only notified of the Planning Permission on 21 April 2022 and this application was filed on 18 July 2022 (3 months shy of the last day prescribe under the Order) it does not necessarily amount to prompt action in filing. The Applicant did not provide any sort of explanation as to why there was a delay in the filing of this application. [19] Furthermore, the Planning permission was granted on 28 January 2022 and this application was made approximately 6 months after the permission was granted.

COMMENT :- Odd, because, in my opinion, did he not file within 3 months from the date he was notified of the Planning Permission?

'The Applicant in this suit is a private person who has filed this application not under the capacity of public interest but under the individual capacity being the chairperson of SMSL and a resident of Kuantan Pahang. The Applicant is also not a person who is living or has any beneficial interest of the lands close to the Development. The Applicant lives approximately 28 kilometers away from the Development site.' (From the High Court Judgment) >  Was it right for the court for the Court to conclude that Tan was not 'person must be adversely affected by that a particular decision of a public authority to be able to apply for any sort of Judicial Review.'

COMMENT: I think this was WRONG - for here we are talking about a RARE EARTH PDF - and the risk is environmental pollution and health risks. If there is a LEAKAGE, would it NOT IMPACT people living hundreds of miles away - if they consume food, plants, livestock and river/sea food - that may be affected if the PDF leaks and the land/sea/river is affected in the future - they would all be adversely affected, in my opinion.

IN Malaysia, most building plans are approved by the Local Government/Council, who also is duty bound to ensure that all homes/buildings are build in accordance to law and the standards - but then after a few years, many people have seen cracks and 'problems' in their homes/buildings appear... This reality itself makes it all the more necessary that COURTS ensure that planning permission and total compliance of such permission is proper and up to standard...more so for PDF for rare earth waste.

Of greater concern, was when the Court said there was no need for compliance with Section 20A and 20B of TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1976  

When both the sections are read together it is crystal clear that the Planning permission granted by the 2^nd Respondent does not fall within this provision thus there is no mandatory obligation to seek the advice from NPCC.

[39] This is solely for the reason that, Sections 20A and 20(B) of TCPA only applies to developments proposed by the Federal and State Departments or agencies and not developments proposed by third parties i.e. the 3^rd Respondent.... The development in this case is a private development on a private land which is solely dedicated for the use of a private company which is the Intervener in this suit.

This is NOT good - the higher standards in Federal Law should be complied with especially when it concerns RARE EARTH... 

It is STRANGE when the High decided not to do a JUDICIAL REVIEW on the grounds of LOCUS STANDI, and that the application was (late?) then goes on to look and seemingly approve what MAJLIS BANDARAYA KUANTAN  did... If the Court was going into the merits, it should have proceeded with a FULL Judicial Review > not refuse the Judicial Review applications and then make comments that suggests NO WRONG done by the Local Government. 

Was the High Court and now the Court of Appeal INDEPENDENT, or did it demonstrate a BIAS in favour of government?  

If the people finds court BIASED in favour of government - this is BAD, for Courts must always strive to be independent - more so in cases of persons against GOVERNMENT..

Now, a big problem in Malaysia is JUDGES and COURTS - there is NOT enough...

 

As of early 2026, Malaysia has a ratio of approximately

one superior court judge for every 239,852 people, according to Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat (via Wan Ahmad Farid). With a population of around 36 million, this low ratio has been highlighted as insufficient to handle the surging caseload, which saw a 59.54% increase in civil cases and 63.37% in criminal cases between 2021 and November 2025. 

Australia: ~1 superior court judge for every 124,000 people.

Canada: ~1 superior court judge for every 47,000 people.

Need for Increase: The Chief Justice noted the need for more judges to avoid exceeding the natural limit of workload capacity, which impacts the well-being of judges and the quality of decisions

Judges should hear case on the MERITS - and avoid disposing cases on technicalities. QUOTA pressures in judges should be removed.

JUDGES must not DETER people using the COURTS by high COST and Damage awards - Courts must be an 'equitable battle field' for everyone - MONEY should never be a deterrent - do not forget Minimum Wage is RM1,700 - so high COST or Damages is unjust for the poorer persons/entities.

Courts must oppose SLAPP actions - and not be seen as using any 'SLAPP' elements to DETER people using the Courts to get JUSTICE 

Now, the Judicial Review application concerning the planning permission granted by the Kuantan Local Government/Council has NOT YET proceeded - because it was 'late' in filing and Tan did not have 'Locus Standi' - we will never know whether the PLANNING PERMISSION had errors or not... or may be invalid... CERTAINLY not comforting for many... ??? 

Court of Appeal dismisses activist’s challenge to Lynas permanent disposal facility planning approval

The Court of Appeal today dismissed an activist’s appeal challenging the planning permission granted to Lynas Malaysia Sdn Bhd to construct a permanent disposal facility in Gebeng, Pahang. — Reuters pic

Monday, 09 Mar 2026 5:24 PM MYT

PUTRAJAYA, March 9 — The Court of Appeal today dismissed an activist’s appeal challenging the planning permission granted to Lynas Malaysia Sdn Bhd to construct a permanent disposal facility (PDF) in Gebeng, Pahang.

A three-member panel led by Federal Court Judge Datuk Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali, sitting with Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Jaffril and Datuk Ong Chee Kwan, ordered Tan Bun Teet to pay RM25,000 in legal costs to each of the respondents — the Pahang State Planning Committee, the Kuantan City Council (MBK), Gading Senggara Sdn Bhd and Lynas Malaysia.

Delivering the court’s unanimous decision, Justice Ong said Tan failed to file the judicial review promptly as required under Order 53 Rule 3 (6) of the Rules of the Court 2012.

He said the provision requires a judicial review application to be filed within three months from the date when the grounds of the application first arose or when the decision is first communicated.

However, he said, Tan filed his judicial review beyond the three-month time limit.

Justice Ong said that the court also agreed with Gading Senggara’s counsel’s argument that the planning permission complied with the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (TCPA) and was in accordance with the Kuantan District Local Plan 2035.

“At this stage, the PDF facility is completed and fully operational, and its safety, environmental and radiological compliance has been affirmed with no further statutory challenge”, he said

On May 30 2023, the Kuantan High Court dismissed Tan’s judicial review application to challenge the permission granted to Lynas Malaysia to build the PDF.

Tan had filed the judicial review application to challenge MBK’s authorisation for the construction of the PDF for radioactive waste. He named the Pahang State Planning Committee, MBK, Gading Senggara Sdn Bhd and Lynas Malaysia as respondents in the judicial review.

In his application, Tan sought the court’s declaration that the planning permission granted by MBK to contractor Gading Senggara was allegedly done without complying with the mandatory provisions of the TCPA, rendering the planning permission void.

Tan, who is chairman of the environmentalist group Save Malaysia, Stop Lynas, also sought a court order to quash the planning permission for the construction of the PDF.

At the Court of Appeal proceedings today, which were held online, a team of lawyers led by M.Thayalan represented Tan, while assistant state legal adviser Munirah Shamsudin @ Baharum appeared for the Pahang State Planning Committee. Lawyer Rosnah Faisal acted for MBK, Lawyer B. Thangaraj represented Gading Senggara and Lawyer Tan Sri Cecil Abraham represented Lynas Malaysia. — Bernama, Malay Mail, 9/3/2026

 

THE HIGH JUDGMENT


[2023] CLJU 1860
[2023] 1 LNS 1860

TAN BUN TEET v. JAWATANKUASA PERANCANG NEGERI PAHANG & ORS HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUANTAN ZAINAL AZMAN AB AZIZ J [APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW NO: CA-25-5-07/2022] 14 SEPTEMBER 2023

Case(s) referred to: Duli Yang Amat Mulia Tunku Ibrahim Ismail Ibni Sultan Iskandar Al-Haj v. Datuk Captain Hamzah Mohd Noor & Another Appeal [2009]        4 CLJ 329 Kijal Resort Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Kemaman & Anor [2015] 3 CLJ 861; [2016] 1 MLJ 544 Ahmad Jefri bin Mohd Jahri @ Md Johari v. Pengarah Kebudayaan & Kesenian Johor & Ors [2010] 3 MLJ 145; [2010]        1 MLRA 524; [2010] 5 CLJ 865 Finn-Kelcev v. Milton Keynes Council [2008] EWCA Civ 1067 Malaysian Trade Union Congress & Ors v. Menteri Tenaga, Air dan Komunikasi & Anor [2014] 2 CLJ 525; [2014] 3 MLJ 145

Legislation referred to: Town and Country Planning Act 1976, ss. 20A, 20B(1), 21(6), (7), (8), 22(2A), (4) Federal Constitution, art. 5 Rules of Court 2012, O. 53 rr. 2 (4), 3(6)

Counsel: For the applicant - Gurdial Singh Nijar, Meenakshi Raman, Jessica Ram Binwani, Theivanai Amarthalingam, Abraham Au & Lalith Kumar (Pupils in Chamber); M/s Theiva Lingam For the 1st respondent - Munirah Shamsudin @ Baharum, Assistant Legal Adviser; Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Pahang For the 2nd respondent - Natasha Aida Zulkifli; M/s Rosnah Faisal & Associates For the 3rd respondent - Thangaraj Balasundram & Nadeem Rafiq; M/s Thangaraj & Associates For the intervener - Tan Sri Cecil Abraham; M/s Cecil Abraham & Partners

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUANTAN IN THE STATE OF PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR [APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW NO: CA-25-5-07/2022] In the matter of an application for planning permission for the development of a Permanent Disposal Facility (PDF) on Lot 31375, Mukim Sungai Karang, Daerah Kecil Gebeng, Kuantan, Pahang submitted on 08.12.2021 And In the matter of the grant of planning permission for the development of a Permanent Disposal Facility (PDF) on Lot 31375, Mukim Sungai Karang, Daerah Kecil Gebeng, Kuantan, Pahang by the Majlis Bandaraya Kuantan on 28.01.2022 And In the matter of communication of the grant of planning permission by way of letter from the Majlis Bandaraya Kuantan to the Applicant dated 21.04.2022 And In the matter of Sections 20B, 22(2A) (b) and 22(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 And In the matter of Order 53, Rules of Court 2012 And In the matter of Order 92 Rule 4 Rules of Court 2012 BETWEEN TAN BUN TEET [IC NO: 480425-06-5121] ... APPLICANT AND 1. JAWATANKUASA PERANCANG NEGERI PAHANG 2. MAJLIS BANDARAYA KUANTAN 3. GADING SENGGARA SDN BHD [COMPANY NO.: 201201026064 (1010554-M)] ... RESPONDENTS AND LYNAS MALAYSIA SDN BHD [COMPANY NO: 200601032530(752289-D)] ... INTERVENER GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] Applicant has filed in an application for Judicial Review pursuant to Order 53 Rules of Court 2012 to challenge the validity of a planning permission dated 28 January 2023 ("the planning permission") granted by the 2nd and 3rd Respondent for the construction and development of a Permanent Disposal Facility (PDF) for Water Leach Purification (WLP) waste on the land known as Mukim Sungai Karang. Having perused the Judicial Review application, all the affidavits and written submissions filed by all parties, this Court has dismissed the Judicial Review application with cost. [2] The Applicant at all material times is an individual who resides approximately 28km away from the said Land in dispute. The Applicant is a chair person of an informal and unregistered action committee known as Save Malaysia Stop Lynas ("SMSL"). [3] The 1st Respondent is the Planning authority of the State of Pahang which carries the duty to give directions to the local planning authority and the local planning authority shall give effect to those directions. [4] The 2nd Respondent is the local planning authority for Kuantan who regulates, control and plans the development and use of lands and buildings within the municipality of Kuantan. The 2nd Respondent will prepare a draft local plan for an area after considering any directions given by 1st Respondent for the approval of the 1st Respondent. [5] The 3rd Respondent is the beneficial owner of the Land who has been engaged by the Intervener to carry out a Development known as "PEMBANGUNAN PERINDUSTRIAN (KEMUDAHAN PELUPUSAN KEKAL), DI ATAS SEBAHAGIAN LOT 31375 (PN19314), DAERAH KECIL GEBENG, DAERAH KUANTAN, PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR ("the Development"). [6] Dissatisfied with the Planning Permission that was granted, the Applicant has filed this Judicial Review application. The main contention brought by the Applicant in this application is that the planning permission that was granted by the 2nd and 3rd Respondent does not comply with the mandatory provisions of Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (TCPA 1976), including but not limited to Section 20B and/or Section 22(2A) and/or Section 22(4). [7] Before indulging into the issues that was raised by the Applicant in this application, this court would like to delve into the preliminary issues that were raised by the Respondents ie; the time frame of filing the Judicial Review and also the issue on Locus Standi of the Applicant in this suit. TIME FRAME OF FILING A JUDICIAL REVIEW [8] It is a trite law that every Judicial Review application shall be filed within three (3) months' time. The provision of Order 53 Rule 3(6) of the Rules of Court ("ROC") is as follows: "An application for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when the grounds of application first arose or when the decision is first communicated to the applicant." [9] The word "shall" in the abovementioned provision requires a mandatory compliance. This honorable courts refers to the Federal Court case of Duli Yang Amat Mulia Tunku Ibrahim Ismail Ibni Sultan Iskandar Al-Haj v. Datuk Captain Hamzah Mohd Noor & Another Appeal [2009] 4 CLJ 329 where it was decided that: "[35] Even if the word must is to be construed as having the same effect as shall nevertheless it still make compliance with the prerequisites mandatory." [10] Thus, the failure of the applicant to comply with the mandatory time frame provided by Order 53 Rule 3 (6) is considered fatal for this application. [11] This court is further guided by the string of cases that were referred by the Respondents in their submissions whereby in the Federal court case of Kijal Resort Sdn Bhd v. Pentadbir Tanah Kemaman & Anor [2015] 3 CLJ 861; [2016] 1 MLJ 544 that has decided that: "A prompt action to apply for a judicial review is therefore necessary, for non-compliance with the requirement, as to the time frame to file the application would result in the court not having jurisdiction to hear the application right from beginning." [12] This case perfectly explains the situation where if the time frame is not complied with, it goes directly to the jurisdiction of the judge in hearing the application itself. Thus, this court strictly upholds the decision made by the Federal Court. [13] The rationale for the rigid approach taken by the courts with regards to the time frame of filing Judicial Review is laid down in the case of Ahmad Jefri bin Mohd Jahri @ Md Johari v. Pengarah Kebudayaan & Kesenian Johor & Ors [2010] 3 MLJ 145; [2010] 1 MLRA 524; [2010] 5 CLJ 865 where it was held by the Federal Court as follow: "[16] One may ask what is the purpose of these conditions? The basic objective is to protect those entrusted with the enforcement of public duties 'against groundless, unmeritorious or tardy harassment that were accorded to statutory tribunals or decision making public authoritie s by O. 53, and which might have resulted in the summary, and would in any event have resulted in the speedy disposition of the application, is among the matters fit to be taken into consideration by the judge in deciding whether to exercise his discretion by refusing to grant a declaration." [14] The Applicant in this suit has filed this application for Judicial Review together with the prayer to be granted the extension of time to file the Judicial Review. This court is reluctant in granting any further extension of time is because no cogent reason was tendered before this Court as to the delay on filing the said application [15] This court find no evidence on which to satisfy the court that the Applicant had a good reason for failing to file the application for leave for judicial review within time. There is nothing advanced by the Applicant to show that he had a good reason, or any reason at all, for that matter, for failing to the file the application promptly apart from the vague fact that the Planning Permission was only communicated to the Applicant by way of letter dated 21 April 2022. [16] It is well established that public law remedies must be pursued with dispatch and so, time is of the essence. For the exercise of the Judge's discretion in granting the extension of time, at least one good reason would be good enough. [17] This court is of the view that the Applicant at all material times did not apply for the judicial revision promptly and this court is guided by the authority referred by the 3rd Respondent in their submission. Whereby, the words "promptly" and "within three months" under Order 53 rule 3(6) of ROC 2012 are separate and independent of one another and it should not be assumed that filing a judicial review application within three months' time necessarily amounts to filing the judicial review promptly. In this regards reference is made to the case of Finn-Kelcev v. Milton Keynes Council [2008] EWCA Civ 1067. [18] Although the Applicant contended that he was only notified of the Planning Permission on 21 April 2022 and this application was filed on 18 July 2022 (3 months shy of the last day prescribe under the Order) it does not necessarily amount to prompt action in filing. The Applicant did not provide any sort of explanation as to why there was a delay in the filing of this application. [19] Furthermore, the Planning permission was granted on 28 January 2022 and this application was made approximately 6 months after the permission was granted. [20] The Applicant himself has admitted that he has knowledge with regards to the construction of the Development since October 2021 where the Applicant has participated in the public participation process and submitted the applicant's comments on the EIA Report (paragraph 9.9 (k) of the Affidavit in Support). [21] The Applicant has also filed a Notice of Appeal on 27 January 2022 to appeal against the decision of the Director General Environmental Quality of the Department of Environment who approved the EIA Report ("the EIA Appeal"). [22] By having the knowledge of the development since October 2021 and by having taken certain legal actions to dismiss the approval on EIA report, it is impossible to say that the Applicant does not have knowledge of the Planning Permission. [23] Since the approval of the EIA Report is a prerequisite to the granting of the Planning Permission, the Applicant at all material times would be able to anticipate the granting of the Planning Permission. [24] Thus, it could be concluded that, though having full knowledge or could have, with little to no diligence have full knowledge of the Planning permission, the Applicant has failed to file this Judicial Review promptly and within the reasonable time frame. THE APPLICANT HAS NO LOCUS STANDI TO FILE THE JUDICIAL REVIEW [25] The locus standi of a person filing for Judicial Review has been provided under Order 53 rule 2 (4) ROC as follows; "(4) Any person who is adversely affected by the decision, action or omission in relation to the exercise of the public duty or function shall be entitled to make the application." [26] Emphasis should be added to the part where a person must be adversely affected by that a particular decision of a public authority to be able to apply for any sort of Judicial Review. [27] The Applicant in this suit is a private person who has filed this application not under the capacity of public interest but under the individual capacity being the chairperson of SMSL and a resident of Kuantan Pahang. The Applicant is also not a person who is living or has any beneficial interest of the lands close to the Development. The Applicant lives approximately 28 kilometers away from the Development site. [28] For the applicant to have Locus Standi in this matter, he must be able to proof to this court that he is adversely affected by the decision made by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents' in granting the Planning Permission. [29] This honorable court is guided by the Federal Court case of Malaysian Trade Union Congress & Ors v. Menteri Tenaga, Air dan Komunikasi & Anor [2014] 2 CLJ 525; [2014] 3 MLJ 145 where it has clearly explained the adversely affected test: "(2) In order for an applicant to pass the 'adversely affected test', the applicant had to show he had a real and genuine interest in the subject matter, which was different from the 'sufficient interest ' test applied to English cases under the English Supreme Court Rules 1977. As the second to fourteenth appellants had not made a request for access to the two documents, they were clearly strangers to the application by MTUC for disclosure of and access to the two documents. Hence, the majority of the Court of Appeal had correctly decided that the decision of the Minister in rejecting MTUC's application did not make the second to fourteenth appellants persons who were 'adversely affected' by the Minister's decision. The second to 14thappellants had not satisfied the test of threshold locus standi under O. 53 r. 2(4) of the ROC and as such they were not entitled to the reliefs sought in their application." [30] In this case, the Applicant has failed to proof to this court that he is adversely affected by the decision made by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents' in granting the Planning Permission. The Applicant has failed to satisfy the test to show he had a real and genuine interest in the subject matter. [31] The applicant is not someone who is living within the close proximity of the Development nor does he have any beneficial interest over the land or any other neighbouring land within the meaning of Section 21(6), (7) and/or (8) of the TCPA 1976. The mere contention brought by the Applicant that the Development will allegedly cause harm or impact the lives, livelihood and/or the environment was also not supported with any sort of evidence. Therefore, the argument with regards of breach of Article 5 of the Federal Constitution will not be entertained by this Court by failure to prove such contention for this court further consideration. [32] This court strongly believes that the Applicant is not someone who is adversely affected by the decision that is made by the 2nd and 3rd Respondent which in turn ultimately proofs that the Applicant is not someone who has a Locus Standi in this matter. The Applicant has failed to proof that he has any recognized legal right which has been infringed. [33] When the Applicant does not have a Locus Standi pursuant to Order 53 rule 2 (4) ROC, this results in the Judicial Review application being a non-starter itself. [34] A strict approach in defining Locus Standi in this matter is necessary to avoid any sort of application with an individual's interest to be heard in this court in disguise of a public interest. [35] Based on the abovementioned grounds alone, this Judicial Review application that is filed by the Applicant is ought to be set aside by this court. THE PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 20B AND SECTION 22(2A) OF TCPA 1976 [36] This Court is of the view that there is no mandatory obligation for the Respondent's to seek advice from the NPPC and it is definitely misconstrued by the Applicant. [37] This is because it could be clearly under stood that Section 20A of the TCPA should be read together with Section 20B to understand the whole intention behind the provision. [38] When both the sections are read together it is crystal clear that the Planning permission granted by the 2nd Respondent does not fall within this provision thus there is no mandatory obligation to seek the advice from NPCC. [39] This is solely for the reason that, Sections 20A and 20(B) of TCPA only applies to developments proposed by the Federal and State Departments or agencies and not developments proposed by third parties i.e. the 3rd Respondent. [40] Besides that, only proposal listed under Section 20B (1) of TCP requires the Federal and State Departments or agencies to seek advice from the NPPC. [41] It is clear that those sections do not apply to this case as this case does not involves major national infrastructure as per mentioned under Section 20(B)(1) of TCPA. The development in this case is a private development on a private land which is solely dedicated for the use of a private company which is the Intervener in this suit. [42] This court is of the view that the applicant has misconstrued the intention and meaning of the sections mentioned above. Thus, this application should be set aside by this court. [43] Besides that, the applicant also referred to Section 22(2A) of TCPA whereby this provision also has emphasized on circumstances in which the advice of the NPPC is needed. This court has concluded that both the sections referred by the applicants does not apply to the development and the planning permission granted by the 2nd Respondent. The applicant has wholly misplaced, erroneous and without any basis made these contentions. [44] There is no statutory duty imposed on the 2nd Respondent to give reasons for granting the 3rd Respondent the Planning Permission under the TCPA. CONCLUSION [45] In the light of the authorities and reasoning, it is an inescapable conclusion that Applicant does not have a locus standi in this suit and this application is filed way out of time. Besides that, the Planning Permission granted was in accordance to law and this court has decided to dismiss the Applicant's application with cost. (ZAINAL AZMAN AB AZIZ) Judge High Court Malaya of Kuantan Pahang Darul Makmur Dated: 14 SEPTEMBER 2023 [2023] 1 LNS 1860

Copyright © 2026 CLJ Legal Network Sdn Bhd. Email:support@cljlaw.com Tel: 603-4270 5400 Fax: 603-4270 5402

 

Will States 'endorse' US-Israel ILLEGAL war against IRAN by joining US-Israel to act against IRAN? Justice/Human Rights At Risk? Call US-Israel to STOP the War before asking IRAN to do so

Economic implications to many nations, a result of the consequence of the war, which one must be reminded was ILLEGALLY started by USA and Israel - in violation of UN Principles, International Law, ... that led to Iran exercising it's RIGHT TO DEFEND - whereby it has attacked Israel, and US military bases in the Gulf States and US interests in those States...[Of course, it is almost impossible for IRAN to attack USA as it is simply too far away...]

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations" (Article 2(4) Charter of the United Nations

The only universally accepted exceptions are self-defense (Article 51) and authorization by the UN Security Council (Chapter VII) to maintain or restore international peace and security.

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”  (Article 51 Charter of the United Nations

US-ISRAEL started this ILLEGAL War - without even the consent of the United Nations, and now it seems, the US Congress was unaware and never gave its consent..

RIGHT TO DEFENCE is acknowledged in the UN Charter, and also International Law. Iran, in defending itself, to date have been essentially targetting US bases/interest in the region, and also facilities like airports/ports/facilitied in countries that allowed US-Israel to use them in their illegal war against Iran.

During this 'WAR', both sides avoided targeting ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURES - but that ended the moment US-ISRAEL attacked Iran's energy infrastructure on March 18, and then Iran retaliated...  

On Thursday, March 18, the Israeli Air Force hit a natural gas processing facility in southwestern Iran. This marked the first time in the twenty-day war that Israel directly targeted Iran’s natural gas infrastructure, a sector central to the country’s economy and daily functioning. ... Iran struck Ras Laffan Industrial City in Qatar, where state-owned QatarEnergy reported significant damage. Two refineries in Riyadh were also hit...Israel too confirmed damage to the Bazan Group refinery in Haifa in what it described as an Iranian strike. - India's World, 21/3/2026

US is subsequently denying its involvement on the 'attack' on energy infrastructures - but it is hard to believe, since the perpetrators of the war has been the US and Israel. Iran's retaliation on energy infrastructures in Israel and 'allies' of US may well be justified as part of Iran's exercise of its right to defend itself. SADLY, we cannot anymore depend on the UNITED Nations or its court, which through its actions thus far has been found wanting - It is been seen as 'BIASED' more so when the UNSC passed a motion against IRAN, but still nothing against the US and/or Israel - It may because of US's abuse of the VETO - but still the lack of condemnation for the US-Israel action affects public perception.

I believe that targeted assassination of leaders and key figures in a 'WAR" is wrong. It happened in Venezuela, where the leader was 'abducted' and taken to US - and the world's response was disappointing. In Iran, their leaders have been targeted. WHY IS THE WORLD SILENT? Is it fear of the US? 

REASONABLE JUST RESPONSE for nation States was to CALL US-ISRAEL to stop this 'illegal' war against IRAN, for if US-Israel stops its attacks on IRAN, then IRAN too will reasonably stop. But sadly and wrongly, many States are now asking IRAN to stop its attack ....not US-Israel?

If IRAN stops, US-ISRAEL will continue until there is 'Regime Change' and/or an UNCONDITIONAL surrender by IRAN, and then maybe US-Israel Occupies IRAN until we don't know how long...  

So, countries of the world need decide what they do in the interest of Justice and Human Rights - side with the PERPETRATORS inviting more suffering on IRAN and its people OR side with the VICTIM, in this case IRAN??? 

TO DATE, the world has generally taken the RIGHT POSITION - refusing to enter into this ILLEGAL US-Israel initiated war against IRAN... but when their economies continue to suffer by reason of this was, will some nation states now JOIN US-Israel in attacking and destroying IRAN? Even, if their answer is to open up the States of Hormuz...or to protect energy infrastructures - will it SUFFICE? 

For US-Israel, they have a MORALITY issue - they are concerned only about LOSS of lives of its own citizens, not about the lives of other people - more than 70,000 Palestinians killed, more lives are now lost in Iran, Lebanon and even those middle eastern allies of the US - has the US even expressed condolences for these loss of lives of men, women and children, in most cases innocent civilians not active combatants? It cannot be permitted to be justified as 'Collateral Damage'?

JUSTICE and HUMAN rights are at RISK - how the other States respond really matters? Will these once principled nation states NOW side with the obvious perpetrators that ignored UN principles and international law OR....?

MALAYSIA - what will be this PM Anwar Ibrahim led Coalition Government do? Did Malaysia even send a diplomatic PROTEST NOTE to the US at the start of this war? 

Malaysia may have wanted to stay, shamelessly 'NEUTRAL' but now since the WAR will also affect Malaysia - what will PM Anwar Ibrahim do? 

He(Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim) reaffirmed Malaysia’s position as independent and neutral, while remaining firm in advocating peace and rejecting all forms of violence. - Malaysiakini, 20/3/2026

But, maybe INDEPENDENT or Neutral is NOT Enough... Malaysia must act against those that violated the UN Charter and International law.

But then, Malaysia's allowing US Warships at this time - Was that being INDEPENDENT and NEUTRAL? 

RISK to Malaysia when US armed forces vessels are allowed to use Malaysian ports/waters? Will Malaysia be a reasonable target for IRAN in this US-Israel IRAN war?

ONE thing that was revealed was that many of the Muslim middle-east nation states were in fact US allies - that would be a reasonable observations of any nation that allows US to have military bases and forces in their country, who allowed their ports/airports, airspace/waterways to be used by US forces for attacks in other countries like Iran, Palestine, Lebanon and now maybe Egypt. Was it a FOLLY on the part of Anwar to get these Islamic nations to intervene in ending the injustice happening in Palestine? It would have been better if Anwar had tried to get ALL nation states, not just Islamic nations, to fight together for justice??

Is Anwar capable to deal with this issue? Should he not get all parties, Parliament and others involved?

If Trump asks Anwar to get involved to open up the Straits of Hormuz, what will Anwar do?

The fact is that oil prices are RISING and that would mean that COST of LIVING will also rise? Can PETRONAS break existing agreements to supply petroleum/gas to other nations - so that it can supply Malaysians during the crisis. But why is the cost of petroleum rising - given that we are an oil-producing country? Answer that Finance Minister Anwar Ibrahim???

Malaysia has a 'food security' problem - because we depend on imports from many countries for our food and other daily necessities > thus what happens in other countries will affect Malaysia... 

IT IS IMPORTANT THAT MALAYSIA STAYS COMMITTED TO JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS, NOT JUST IN MALAYSIA BUT ALSO THE WORLD AT LARGE... 

 

Anwar: Stop politicising oil price surge driven by global crisis

Bernama

Published:  Mar 20, 2026 5:35 PM

⋅

Updated: 4:35 P

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has criticised parties he says are politicising rising global oil prices, stressing that the surge is driven by international conflicts beyond Malaysia’s control.

He said that amid escalating geopolitical tensions, particularly in West Asia, some groups continue to blame the government without acknowledging the broader global situation.

“There are those who take advantage of this situation when the economy is declining, and oil supply is disrupted. It is not our fault, yet there are still some opposition members who hurl abuses at us in the current situation.

“The political climate must be controlled, and all parties should come together to find solutions,” he said.

Speaking at a Ramadan programme with community leaders in Permatang Pauh, Penang, Anwar pointed to rising tensions involving Iran, including missile and drone attacks, which have affected oil and gas infrastructure and key routes such as the Strait of Hormuz, contributing to the spike in global prices.

Anwar, who is also the finance minister, said the government has kept fuel prices at controlled levels to cushion the impact on the public, even as many countries have raised prices.

He added that a special cabinet meeting with the National Security Council had been convened to assess the economic and security implications.

The government has also engaged with Petronas to ensure sufficient oil and gas supply, which is expected to remain stable until May.

On the diplomatic front, Anwar said Malaysia has been in contact with several global leaders, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, as well as Asean counterparts, to discuss efforts to de-escalate tensions.

He reaffirmed Malaysia’s position as independent and neutral, while remaining firm in advocating peace and rejecting all forms of violence.

Tensions in the Middle East have intensified since Feb 28, following attacks by Israel and the United States on Iran, and subsequent retaliatory strikes by Tehran against US-linked interests in the Gulf.

- Bernama - Malaysiakini, 20/3/2026

 

 

 

 

Minister Steven Sim must honourably resign, or be removed from Cabinet because the Court have found him to be BIASED - not just allegations by politicians/public?

A former human resources minister acted with “clear bias” when he sided with banks against their employees in a dispute over Hari Raya festive aid, the High Court said in a recent judgment....In her grounds of judgment, Aliza found that the minister had descended into the dispute by supporting MCBA’s proposal, thereby violating the trust placed in his office...“The minister’s support demonstrated a clear bias as he had improperly aligned his office with MCBA, thus compromising the role of the ministry as a neutral arbiter,” the judge stated.

Steven Sim was the then Human Resource Minister that the High Court found to be BIASED - and Malaysia does not need any BIASED Minister, as the Minister must always be INDEPENDENT as he/she deals with many disputes. He should not show preferential treatment for anyone during his carrying out of his duties as MINISTER... 

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

 

Steven Sim

So, after the High Court decision, did Minister Steven Sim apologize and repent his mistake - I have not seen anything of that. If he had apologized sincerely, then Malaysians may consider giving him a 2nd Chance, as he has realized past mistakes...but as there is no apology yet, Steven Sim must honorably resign in view of that High Court decision. 

Alternatively, Prime Minister Anwar must remove him from Cabinet. REMEMBER this was a COURT's decision - not simply allegations from some politicians, members of the public, Trade Unions or workers...

IT is the WORST predicament for any MINISTER - to be found to be BIASED by Court. Steven Sim may appeal to the Court of Appeal, and later to the Federal Court - but until this HIGH COURT decision is overturned by any higher court - Steven Sim is a BIASED individual. Worse, even if the decision is OVERRULED later - the finding of BIAS will not be removed. Maybe Steven Sim can file a court case, asking the Court to specifically declare that Steven Sim is NOT a BIAS person? 

Steven Sim was Malaysia's Minister of Human Resources from 12 December 2023 – 17 December 2025. Now, since then, he has been the  Minister of Entrepreneur and Cooperatives Development. If the High Court found him to be biased when he was Human Resource Minister, what is there to say he won't be BIASED as a Minister of Entrepreneur and Cooperatives Development?

Steven Sim is from DAP, a member of Pakatan Harapan.  Steven Sim was appointed Penang DAP chairman after the state party elections in September 2024. So, what will DAP and/or Pakatan Harapan do when a member/MP/Minister of the party has been found to be BIASED by the High Court - will Disciplinary Action be taken. If DAP/PH does nothing - will it affect the party itself and the peoples' trust - Is being BIASED not a serious issue? If no action by party, can be assume that the party does not thing that being INDEPENDENT is not an important isssue for DAP/PH - thus, should we then consider any/all candidates of these parties in future elections also may not be INDEPENDENT or possibly biased? Do we want such MPs/ADUNs? So, pressure on DAP and/or PH on what to do when a MP(in this case a Minister) is found to be biased by the HIGH Court???

Many Minister's decision have been subjected to Judicial Review, and the outcome has been the overulling of the Minister's decision - on the basis whether the decision was lawful, rational, procedurally fair, and within the decision-maker’s power.  It is rare that the court explicitly finds that the MINISTER was biased. Thus, this High Court decision was important.

Worse this case was a matter between employers and workers(noting that the majority of voters are workers in Malaysia) - thus, how this decision is responded by the Prime Minister(who decides who sits in the Cabinet as Ministers/Deputy Ministers, whereby the PM also has the power to remove any member of the Cabinet at any time), and by the political party (who picks the candidates to contest as MP/ADUN - so, reputation of the party is also at stake when they are found picking candidates, who end up being found to be BIASED, in this case against workers).

My hope is Minister Steven Sim best apologize, and assure people that henceforth he will act INDEPENDENTLY, and never again be BIASED in favour of any person/entity - and then he honourably resign from Cabinet, rather than be 'expelled' from Cabinet...

All we have had to rely on to date has been Media Reports - we have yet to see the Court's judgment, which will be available later on. Media, generally is careful, and will not report things which the Judge never said...

When Steven Sim became Human Resource Minister, what REFORMS did he bring?  

MINIMUM WAGE - It was most disappointing that 'effective February 1, 2025, Malaysia’s national minimum wage is RM1,700 per month for all sectors, rising from RM1,500 - thus falling short of the Malaysian Central Bank's 2017 report that had proposed a living wage of RM2,700 for single persons living in urban areas, RM4,500 for couples without children, and RM6,500 for couples with two children. Since that report, the cost of living had increased - and now much more is needed. SO, when Steven Sim increased the Minimum Wage by just RM200, it was absurd - was he also biased in favour of employers, not bothered with the reality of Malaysian workers??

In some countries, MINIMUM wage is set differently based on urban/rural or different regions, taking into account the cost of living in that area. So, in places with a HIGHER cost of living, the minimum wages are HIGHER compared to other places where the cost of living is lower. 

The other problem is when one sets a common Minimum Wage for all employers - ignoring that some big companies can afford it > but it is really UNFAIR to insist that market vegetable seller or a small food stall operator also to pay the same MINIMUM WAGE. 

This Minimum Wage applies immediately to employers with 5+ employees and all professional sectors, with a phased rollout for smaller businesses by August 1, 2025. Would it not have been more JUST to have a higher Minimum Wage, which applies ONLY to businesses which showed a profit of more than RM100,000, with more than 5 employees, professional sectors. And a different minimum wage for them smaller employers, who sometimes make profits of less than RM50,000 & whereby for this category, it should also allow maybe 'profit-sharing' schemes which is just for employer and owner of businesses.

BUT yet again, when Steven Sim was MInister, the Minimum Wage was set at a miserably low figure of RM1,700. Sime Darby Property Bhd's move to raise the minimum living wage for its B40 employees by 80 per cent, from RM1,500 to RM2,700 per month in 2024... On May 1, Khazanah Nasional Bhd, Permodalan Nasional Bhd (PNB), the Employees Provident Fund (EPF), Kumpulan Wang Persaraan (KWAP), Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera and Lembaga Tabung Haji announced a RM3,100 living wage policy for all their permanent Malaysian employees. Was this move by some of these companies, and some government linked entities to set a HIGHER Minimum Wage a protest against HR Minister who set minimum wage at RM1,700???

Citing EPF's Belanjawanku guide, he noted that a single person in the Klang Valley typically needs RM2,800 monthly, while a family with one child may need over RM6,400. 

One big problem at many workplaces was the growing usage of non-employees (supplied workers from Labour Suppliers/Contractors for Labour) and the outsourcing of work at the factory to other companies - RESULT is that UNION's powers decrease with the reduction of employees of the Principal/Owner of Workplace > the solution is SIMPLE, all that the HR Minister needed to do was to issue an order under the employment Act, transforming all workers working at any workplaces into EMPLOYEES of the owner/principal of the workplace. Minister Steven Sim did not do this. 

Then, with Migrant Workers - currently they are under both the HR Ministry and the Immigration Department(Home Ministry) - and the Immigration Department just deports workers if and when the employment permit lapses, totally not considering whether there are still UNRESOLVED worker claims against employer, or whether any Claims have been lodged at the Labour Department - so migrant workers forced to leave Malaysia with no ability to claim for rights violation outside Malaysia. The solution is SIMPLE - that no worker is sent out of Malaysia, or deported UNTIL the HR Ministry investigates that there are no outstanding worker claims against employer > thus MIGRANT workers should rightfully come under the HR Ministry.

FORCED LABOUR is a major issue - but some laws are there, but NOT enough. Who investigates FORCED LABOUR and enforces the law. For Occupational Safety and Health, a report will get the Ministry to investigate and take action. Similar mechanisms need to be put in place for FORCED LABOUR... Steven Sim failed to deal with this.

Still NO clear law about Employers having to PAY all recruitment fee, formal and informal - that be the ILO position - EMPLOYER pays - but where is the law? 

All in all, Steven Sim comes out as BAD Human Resource Minister, especially for workers...?

Now, we have a new Human Resource Minister in R. Ramanan (Ramanan Ramakrishnan)( From Anwar's PKR party)  appointed on December 17, 2025 - will he be BETTER?

Was it Steven Sim's 'pro-employer bias' that made PM ANWAR remove him as HR Minister?
 

 

 

Ex-HR minister acted with ‘clear bias’ in banks vs NUBE dispute, High Court finds

National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE) members picket in Kuala Lumpur on July 26, 2024. — Picture by Raymond Manuel

By Malay Mail

Tuesday, 17 Mar 2026 10:14 AM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR, March 17 — A former human resources minister acted with “clear bias” when he sided with banks against their employees in a dispute over Hari Raya festive aid, the High Court said in a recent judgment.

Judge Datuk Aliza Sulaiman said the minister compromised his office’s neutrality by giving “time and input” to the Malayan Commercial Banks’ Association (MCBA) while the dispute was still under a supposedly impartial conciliation process, the New Straits Times reported.

The dispute began after banks, represented by the MCBA, declined to pay a one-month festive aid to members of the National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE) for Hari Raya in 2024, despite a prior agreement.

The banks instead offered a reduced one-off payment, which the union rejected.

The matter was brought for conciliation, but the minister later referred the case to the Industrial Court, a decision NUBE challenged via a judicial review.

In her grounds of judgment, Aliza found that the minister had descended into the dispute by supporting MCBA’s proposal, thereby violating the trust placed in his office.

“The minister’s support demonstrated a clear bias as he had improperly aligned his office with MCBA, thus compromising the role of the ministry as a neutral arbiter,” the judge stated.

The court found that the minister had “subverted the statutory process designed for impartial resolution” and that his decision to refer the dispute to the Industrial Court was “tainted with unreasonableness.”

It also held that the minister had failed to properly consider the internal dispute resolution mechanism available under the parties’ collective agreement.

The court awarded RM10,000 in costs to NUBE. The judgment, dated Feb 23, did not name the minister involved, who has since taken over another portfolio.

MCBA has since filed a notice of appeal against the decision.

Lawyers Ravi Nekoo and Arvin Kumar Mohan represented NUBE, while Sivabalah Nadarajah and Chua Kim Lin appeared for MCBA. - Malay Mail, 17/3/2026

Ex-HR minister biased in bank festive aid dispute, court rules

2 days ago

V Anbalagan

High Court says then minister Steven Sim compromised the statutory process for impartial resolution and violated the objectives of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 in 2024.

The High Court said the then human resources minister had broken the trust placed in his office by getting involved in the dispute and supporting the Malayan Commercial Banks’ Association.

KUALA LUMPUR:

The High Court here has ruled that a former human resources minister failed to take a neutral position when he intervened in a trade dispute between commercial banks and a workers’ union over Hari Raya festive aid payments about two years ago.

Justice Aliza Sulaiman said that by doing so, then minister Steven Sim had stepped into the dispute and appeared to support the Malayan Commercial Banks’ Association’s proposal on the ex-gratia festive aid payment for 2024.

“The minister’s conduct demonstrated clear bias, as he improperly aligned his office with the association, thereby compromising the role of the ministry as a neutral arbiter,” she said in allowing a judicial review application by the National Union of Bank Employees.

Aliza said she had scrutinised circulars and statements, particularly those issued by Hong Leong Bank, Maybank and United Overseas Bank.

She found that although the minister denied any “secret meeting” with the association, he had evidently engaged with it to discuss the festive aid issue while the matter was undergoing conciliation at the industrial relations department.

In her judgment, Aliza said the minister had broken the trust placed in his office by getting involved in the dispute and supporting the association.

“The minister subverted the statutory process designed for impartial resolution and violated the objectives of the Industrial Relations Act 1967,” she said.

She added the minister had demonstrated bias and that his decision to refer the trade dispute to the Industrial Court was tainted by unreasonableness.

The dispute over festive aid followed unsuccessful conciliation efforts by the industrial relations department in February and March 2024, leading to the case’s referral on April 16 the same year.

The union filed the judicial review to challenge whether the minister’s referral to the Industrial Court complied with Section 26(3) of the Industrial Relations Act, which requires the minister to first consider available internal mechanisms.

The union had sought a one-month payment for 2024, consistent with previous years, but the association refused, prompting industrial action.

The association then referred the matter for conciliation with the department. However, the minister is said to have met with association representatives, following which the association agreed to pay a half-month bonus.

Lawyers N Sivabalah and Chua Kim Lin appeared for the association, while Ravi Nekoo and Arvin Kumar Mohan represented the union.

Ravi said the minister and the association has filed an appeal. - FMT, 17/3/2026

Sime Darby Property sets new wage benchmark

By Azanis Shahila Aman

June 6, 2025 @ 7:00am

Sime Darby Property Bhd’s move to raise the minimum living wage for its B40 employees by 80 per cent, from RM1,500 to RM2,700 per month in 2024, could set a new benchmark for the private sector, economists say.

KUALA LUMPUR: Sime Darby Property Bhd's move to raise the minimum living wage for its B40 employees by 80 per cent, from RM1,500 to RM2,700 per month in 2024, could set a new benchmark for the private sector, economists say.

Economist Dr Geoffrey Williams described the initiative as a positive step, even if it falls short of the RM3,100 monthly living wage recommended by Bank Negara Malaysia and government-linked investment companies (GLICs).

On May 1, Khazanah Nasional Bhd, Permodalan Nasional Bhd (PNB), the Employees Provident Fund (EPF), Kumpulan Wang Persaraan (KWAP), Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera and Lembaga Tabung Haji announced a RM3,100 living wage policy for all their permanent Malaysian employees.

The policy is part of the Finance Ministry's GEAR-uP initiative, which aims to align GLIC efforts to boost growth in key sectors.

"The six GLICs have committed to the RM3,100 living wage in line with the Belanjawanku and Bank Negara estimates. So the RM2,700 is a little below that but still a good threshold," Williams told Business Times.

Williams added that the decision reflects the ability of large companies, particularly government-linked companies and GLICs, to increase base pay for lower-income workers.

"This is a good move that will clearly help their lower-paid staff. However, they should disclose how many people will benefit," he said.

As of Feb 1, the national minimum wage in Malaysia stands at RM1,700 for all employees in businesses with five or more staff, as well as those under the MASCO (Malaysia SME and Small to Medium Enterprises) sector. Employers with fewer than five workers have until Aug 1 to comply.

Putra Business School economic analyst Prof Dr Ahmed Razman Abdul Latiff praised the move by Sime Darby Property, noting that the RM2,700 wage is close to the national median income level.

Razman said this has wider implications than just simply providing better financial support, as higher wages mean the workers will have a higher contribution to their Employees Provident Fund (EPF) account, which subsequently will help them to have a higher quality of life after retirement.

"This decision should be emulated by other large corporations, especially for those hiring many workers who live in urban areas.

"It will also reduce the salary inequality between top bosses and their workers, where the gap is currently increasing," he told the Business Times.

Meanwhile, Bank Muamalat Malaysia Bhd chief economist Dr Mohd Afzanizam Abdul Rashid said the decision could set a new benchmark and attract talent in a competitive labour market.

Citing the trend in the labour markets, Afzanizam said the own-account workers (OAW) have been growing quite persistently at 2.9 per cent per annum between 2019 and 2024 to 3.1 million.

"With youth increasingly turning to gig work and self-employment, substantial wage increases can help address labour shortages, though benefits like flexible hours and career development are also key," he said.

Afzanizam added that while RM2,700 is a good start, the adequacy of income depends on location and family size.

Citing EPF's Belanjawanku guide, he noted that a single person in the Klang Valley typically needs RM2,800 monthly, while a family with one child may need over RM6,400.

"Hence, we need to understand that salaries should reflect the skillset and qualification but at the same time, real income, which will consider the cost of living, also matters. This may require different policies and approaches in order to ensure that the cost of living will remain manageable," he said.

Meanwhile, Sime Darby Property chairman Datuk Rizal Rickman Ramli said the wage adjustment took into account the increased cost of living and aimed to provide better financial support for lower-income employees.

"This initiative highlights our commitment to financial stability and the well-being of our workforce, particularly those most impacted by rising living costs," he said in the group's integrated annual report 2024.

As of March 28, Sime Darby Property's major shareholders included PNB's unit Amanah Saham Bumiputera with a 36.73 per cent stake, EPF with 11.08 per cent, KWAP with 6.25 per cent and PNB with 5.23 per cent. NST, 6/6/2025