MINIMUM WAGE - Yes, State Government can increase Minimum Wage, Employer or CBAs can increase MINIMUM WAGE

MINIMUM WAGE - Can the State Government impose a HIGHER Minimum Wage? The answer is YES.

Now, Malaysia has a FEDERAL Minimum Wage - one single minimum wage that applies to all EMPLOYERS and workers - the same irrespective of the REGION and the cost of living in the particular region. The same MINIMUM WAGE for small businesses and small employers who sometimes are barely surviving - like stalls selling vegetables, small food outlets...and this is where the GOVERNMENT fails.

MINIMUM WAGE can be set based on income/profits of the EMPLOYER > that means a HIGHER MINIMUM Wage...

Follow the Charles Hector channel on WhatsApp:

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

 

Minimum Wage can be set based on cost of living of the area. Sabah/Sarawak and Klang Valley's cost of living is much higher than some parts of rural Malaysia > looking at rental, and other cost. SO, JUSTLY, Minimum Wage should be HIGHER depending on cost of living of the area workers live/work.

For the SMALL EMPLOYER - maybe a much lower MINIMUM WAGE, or a requirement that 40% of profits shall go to workers ...

FOR 3D Work, Minimum Wage should be HIGHER to attract more workers to take up this difficult work... 

STATE IMPOSED MINIMUM WAGE > Yes, since to operate business in any State, State and Local Government permission is required - thus ONE of the CONDITIONS could be that workers are paid a 'HIGHER' Minimum Wage - if not, no permit to operate businesses?

ADDITIONALLY, conditions could be imposed on companies/employers applying for government contracts > YES, a Higher MINIMUM WAGE to qualify to get government projects/contracts...

TRADE UNIONS through COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Agreements can get employers to agree to pay a HIGHER Minimum WAGE...

The state government is studying a proposal to raise the minimum basic salary from RM1,700 to RM2,500, a move that could make it the first state to set such a wage benchmark, says Datuk Seri Ab Rauf Yusoh (pic). 

And, the STATE government do not need to get FEDERAL GOVERNMENT approval. Fix a MINIMUM WAGE and impose it on all - yes, all WORKERS will benefits from the HIGHER MINIMUM Wage > maybe not Federal Government employees??

Now, under PM ANWAR IBRAHIM's MADANI GOVERNMENT - the Federal Government set a MINIMUM Wage of RM1,700 - but then DISCRIMINATES against workers. Is not FEDERAL GOVERNMENT employees getting a higher MINIMUM WAGE of RM2,000? 

Is there going to be DISCRIMINATION amongst workers, as Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said recently that minimum wage for public sector workers will be set to RM2,000? 

The planned salary increment will come under what Anwar called a new "human resource framework" that would raise the minimum pay for all public sector workers to RM2,000, among others.

How come Finance Minister Anwar Ibrahim is giving certain GLICs a RM3,000 Minimum WAGE?

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim praised Khazanah Nasional Bhd’s move to set a minimum wage of RM3,000 per month for its employees  

The PRIME MINISTER and government is RESPONSIBLE for the well-being of ALL Workers in Malaysia. How can ANWAR IBRAHIM give public sector employees a HIGHER MINIMUM WAGE - and Khazanah employees a RM3,000 MINIMUM WAGE. NOW, the BOSS(the Malaysian People) is getting a LOWER MINIMUM WAGE compared to the people's employees ? NONSENSE and discriminatory??

ANWAR is certainly NOT FIT to be the Prime Minister of ALL people > when he does this? 

Malaysia is in a BAD FINANCIAL situation, and many new government employees are already being denied PENSION rights - they are put under the EPF/KWSP Scheme...

ONE of the biggest expenses is PENSION for ex-MPs, ex-Senators, ex- Ministers/PM > this right to PENSION should be abolished > and they should be put under the EPF/KWSP Scheme...to save money now and in the future> WHY HAVE PENSION NOT BEEN ABOLISHED FOR MP/ADUN/MINISTERS YET? [Unlike Public officers that work for 30 plus year - these politicians serve for much shorter periods?] 

RM1,700 Minimum Wage - Disappointing and possibly DISCRIMINATORY?

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

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

Abolish PENSION for MP/Minister - EPF only. Abolish double income for Ministers - 1 pay, the highest pay only? Parliament has full control of funds spend on MPs - including funds for MP's work, staff, office, etc...

BNM governor Muhammad Ibrahim said people should be paid so they could live comfortably. The central bank estimates that the living wage in Kuala Lumpur for a single adult is RM2,700, a couple without child RM4,500 and couple with two children RM6,500. “But it doesn’t mean that everyone should be paid according to these numbers. It’s a number that equates the living standards in Kuala Lumpur,” - - FMT News, 29/3/2018   

Melaka mulls increasing minimum wage to RM2,500

 

MELAKA: The state government is studying a proposal to raise the minimum basic salary from RM1,700 to RM2,500, a move that could make it the first state to set such a wage benchmark, says Datuk Seri Ab Rauf Yusoh (pic).

The Melaka Chief Minister said the proposal would be evaluated from various perspectives before being submitted to the Federal Government for consideration.

"We will examine it from every angle and conduct the necessary assessment before presenting the proposal to Putrajaya,” he said after a town hall session with youths that was held in conjunction with the "Karnival Anak Muda" at the Melaka International Trade Centre (MITC) in Ayer Keroh here on Saturday (Sept 5).

Ab Rauf said the proposal was part of the state government’s efforts to provide young people with better career prospects and encourage them to build their future locally.

He said they must be given clear guidance and made aware of the opportunities available in the state.

“They must be given direction so that they no longer feel there is no room for them to build a promising future here,” he said.

Ab Rauf said the state government was also looking at ways to support women, particularly young mothers whose careers had been disrupted by personal or marital difficulties.

He said suitable employment opportunities would enable them to return to the workforce, regain financial independence and rebuild their lives.

“There should be no generational divide or gender-related barriers in this state.

“Everyone must be given equal opportunities based on their skills and capabilities,” he said.

Ab Rauf said the state was considering an employment model similar to one adopted in Tanjung Pelepas, where young mothers facing difficult circumstances were given opportunities to enter or rejoin the workforce.

"The Melaka Inland Port (MIP) was among the locations being considered for the initiative, he said.

He added that young mothers who had left their jobs because of personal circumstances should not be permanently excluded from the labour market or the state’s development.

Meanwhile, Ab Rauf said the carnival provided young people with a platform to explore educational, career and entrepreneurial opportunities.

“We brought young people together through this town hall to understand their aspirations and guide their future in line with the state government’s direction.

“They must be given clear guidance so that they do not feel there are no opportunities or hope for them here,” he added. - Star, 5/9/2026

 

Justice Leong ERRED - wrong to ask lawyer to personally pay RM1.3 millon cost for making a RECUSAL application?

 JUDGE Leong ERRED

1.  Lawyers and their clients > Lawyers act for and on behalf of their clients on the INSTRUCTION of their clients. THUS, it is absurd and very wrong for any Judge/Court to penalize lawyers personally for court applications filed in Court. For any applications/appeal filed, if the Judge/Court wants to impose COST on the losing party, then it must be imposed on the litigant/party in the suit NEVER directly on lawyers??? 

Leong also ordered lawyers for the defendants who filed the recusal applications to personally bear costs totalling RM1.3 million in relation to the two suits. 

2. RECUSAL application. One of the most important aspect of a FAIR TRIAL is an INDEPENDENT JUDGE. Thus Judges who believe he/she may be perceived to be not independent often RECUSE themselves. If any party believes that a Judge may not be 'independent' can apply for the said Judge to recuse himself/herself. This is BASIC - for after all, the desire is for a TRULY INDEPENDENT Judge presiding and determining a case independently fairly... Thus, any application for RECUSAL, it is a BASIC RIGHT which must be considered and decided upon - and NO PARTY should  be PENALIZED for daring to suggest that a Judge may not be independent. 

You are a FOOL if you continue believing that the Judge/Referee is biased or UNFAIR.. it is smart to get a change of JUDGE - to someone more independent.. 

Thus, Justice Leong should have heard the application and decided on it ...best with No Order as to Cost and certainly not ask lawyers to pay personally RM1.3 Million??? IMPACT - will any lawyer even thereafter be willing to make a RECUSAL application > because end result the lawyer may end up BANKRUPT? I believe that the majority of lawyers cannot afford to pay RM1.3 Million. 

Will justice be undermined as lawyers "FEAR" advising clients to make needed applications - why the fear that some other JUDGE may order lawyers to pay cost personally? As it is, many a poorer client choose not to make needed applications for worry that Courts may ask them to pay HIGH Cost they simply cannot afford. END RESULT - JUSTICE IS NOT DONE.

# We have yet to read the judgment - so comments are based on media report.

Why did they apply to RECUSE the Judge > it seems that the judge made a comment that ...

Eight of 12 defendants in the second suit – led by Jayaveeran and former employee Tung Chee Cheong – filed applications claiming that Leong explicitly informed counsel during an in-chambers meeting on June 3 that he had already decided the issue of liability against them, leaving only the quantum for determination. To back their claims, the lawyers representing the applicants submitted identical statutory declarations detailing their recollection of the chambers meeting.

As a lawyer, if a JUDGE has already made comments that he had already pre-judged even before the FULL trials has commenced and ended, it is a MATTER OF CONCERN. 

Any JUDGE must never make any pre-judgment as to liability or other issues > he will first go through the FULL TRIALS - and then ONLY decide based on evidence submitted as who is LIABLE or not - and then other matters ... 

YES > a judge who already decided on GUILTY or liability even before the TRIAL starts and ends should RECUSE himself/herself to ensure JUSTICE is done and is seen to be done.

Will Leong's decision be appealed to the Court of Appeal?

Many years ago, when I was the appellant lawyer at the Court of Appeal before a panel that included Gopal Sri Ram, the said Judge asked me this

'Are you telling us that the Learned Judge of the High Court ERRED?'

# What should I say? Me, a young lawyer --- audacity to suggest a High Court Judge made a MISTAKE?

I answered, YES the learned High Court Judge ERRED...

And, Gopal Sri Ram repeated again the question ... and again, I said YES.

And, he again asked me a third time the same question...

WHY did the JUDGE asked this question > well, he wanted to know that I verily believed that the High COURT JUDGE ERRED - made a mistake...  

HERE, based on media report, Judge LEONG ERRED...

RM1.3million COST is MOST ABSURD - will it not deter people from going to court to resolve disputes??? Has the COURTS just become an avenue of access of JUSTICE open to the RICH and SUPER RICH? 

When parties end up in court - PRIORITY must be to ensure that JUSTICE be done >> thus 'HURDLES' like COST(excessive cost), or...must be removed. If the poor man, believes that he he files a NEEDED application, he is at risk of having to pay cost of RM10,000 or RM1million > will this not reasonably DETER JUSTICE....I have had clients who CHOOSE not to file needed applications and appeals simply because of this MONEY factor...Malaysian MINIMUM WAGE is RM1,700 > so, do you think a COST of RM1.3 million is JUST > 

ARE MALAYSIAN COURTS FOR ALL > OR IS IT JUST FOR THE RICH AND SUPER RICH???  

 

 

 

Judge warns litigants against using recusal bids to stall trials

18 days ago

V Anbalagan

Justice Leong Wai Hong dismisses defendants’ applications in Brainlab suits and orders lawyers to personally bear RM1.3 million in costs.

Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Leong Wai Hong said the defendants actively participated in both proceedings for over two years without objecting to him presiding over either case, making their sudden recusal applications mid-trial highly suspect.

KUALA LUMPUR:

A High Court judge here has rejected applications for his recusal by the defendants in two multi-million-ringgit corporate lawsuits, warning litigants against attempting to “manufacture” grounds for judicial bias to shop for new judges or stall trials.

Justice Leong Wai Hong dismissed the recusal applications brought by several defendants in two interconnected High Court suits filed by German medical technology giant Brainlab AG and its Hong Kong subsidiary.

The underlying legal battle centres on allegations that Brainlab’s former regional sales director, S Jayaveeran, along with key associates and corporate entities, orchestrated an unauthorised device-rental scheme, breached fiduciary duties and pocketed secret profits.

Among the 12 defendants named in the second suit is prominent law firm Messrs Thomas Philip, which is accused of conspiring to dissipate about RM10 million under the guise of legal fees – a sum currently frozen under an interim Mareva injunction.

The recusal bid was filed 19 days into the trial of the first suit, and months before the trial of the second suit was set to commence.

Eight of 12 defendants in the second suit – led by Jayaveeran and former employee Tung Chee Cheong – filed applications claiming that Leong explicitly informed counsel during an in-chambers meeting on June 3 that he had already decided the issue of liability against them, leaving only the quantum for determination.

To back their claims, the lawyers representing the applicants submitted identical statutory declarations detailing their recollection of the chambers meeting.

However, the plaintiffs and opposing defendants, including Avro Medical Sdn Bhd and its director Jakly Cox, denied the allegations.

Lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Gopal Sreenevasan, submitted that the recusal applications were brought in bad faith and were directly contradicted by contemporaneous evidence.

Specifically, a WhatsApp message sent by Tung to Jayaveeran on the day of the in-chambers meeting revealed that the solicitors merely held a subjective “perception” that the judge favoured the plaintiffs during standard settlement inquiries, rather than any explicit declaration of liability by the judge.

Unfounded allegations of bias

In his 110-page grounds of judgment, Leong said judges must not lightly recuse themselves without cogent, realistic evidence of a real danger of bias.

Tracing jurisprudence from landmark Malaysian and Singaporean appellate rulings, including the seminal observations of the late Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram, Leong warned against the persistent misuse of recusal applications as weapons of abuse or tactical delay.

Leong added that despite a wealth of jurisprudence, the tendency to allege judicial bias on flimsy grounds showed no sign of abating.

“A demonstrably inaccurate attribution of bias is an aggravating factor against the applicant, suggesting either a misunderstanding or, in the worst cases, an attempt to manufacture grounds for recusal,” he said.

The judge also said that the defendants actively participated in both proceedings for over two years without objecting to him presiding over either case, making their sudden recusal applications mid-trial highly suspect.

The High Court ordered the parties to proceed with the remaining evidence and final submissions in the primary suit, while setting the stage for trial in the second action to commence later this year.

Leong also ordered lawyers for the defendants who filed the recusal applications to personally bear costs totalling RM1.3 million in relation to the two suits. - Free Malaysia Today, 19/8/2026

Nicky Liow - 'associate of Anwar? PKR?' - did it affect how his money laundering case was resolved vide a COMPOUND offer after he was charged? Some Comments...

TIME to abolish COMPOUND for serious crimes like corruption, money laundering and even for industrial accidents where lives were lost and injury caused. 

OK to maintain COMPOUND for small common speeding, parking offenses or other traffic offences  - WHY? Because those who broke laws and committed serious crime should result in charges in court, and COURT decides > not some Minister/Department as COMPOUND offers is an administrative decision NOT a JUDICIAL decision > thus it can be open to abuse and corruption...by the administration...'friends' get a compound offer...and it is also the administration that decide on the amount...Nicky Liow...the maximum could have RM180 million but the compound offer was RM10 million???