High Court rules Siti Kasim’s 2018 arrest unlawful - more victims of police abuse/violation of rights should consider commencing court actions ....

Many a time the police and other law enforcement break the law and violate people's rights - but in most cases, people just may complain or highlight the wrongs, and sadly the PM or the relevant Minister or even Parliament do not do much. Sometimes, some people like Siti Kassim takes the  trouble to fight for their rights by Court action - and it is good to note that we still have some GOOD judges who do uphold the cause of justice without fear or favour...

Of late, more people are losing faith in law enforcement - they do not just make REPORTS to law enforcement - but they also HIGHLIGHT it to the Malaysian public about these wrongdoings and violation of rights...  

High Court rules Siti Kasim’s 2018 arrest unlawful, govt to pay RM120,625 to her and RM53,750 to client

In delivering her grounds, Judicial Commissioner Arziah Apandi said allegations that Siti Kasim had obstructed a public servant or committed kidnapping were unsupported in law, noting that Section 186 of the Penal Code requires physical obstruction or criminal force — not mere verbal disagreement or refusal to comply. — Picture by Miera Zulyana

By Malay Mail

Friday, 19 Dec 2025 3:25 PM MYT

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 19 — The High Court has ruled that the police unlawfully arrested and detained lawyer Siti Kasim and her client, Anis Nur Izzaty Ruslan, during a late-night raid at Siti’s home in June 2018, finding that officers had abused their powers and violated both women’s constitutional rights.

According to Free Malaysia Today, Judicial Commissioner Arziah Apandi held that the police had no lawful basis to enter Siti’s property, describing the raid as trespass and the subsequent arrests as an act of misfeasance in public office.

In delivering her grounds, Arziah said allegations that Siti had obstructed a public servant or committed kidnapping were unsupported in law, noting that Section 186 of the Penal Code requires physical obstruction or criminal force — not mere verbal disagreement or refusal to comply.

“She was detained for approximately 17 hours, from about 12.30am until late evening on June 24, 2018, in clear violation of Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution,” Arziah said, adding that Siti was only released hours after a magistrate had already dismissed the police’s remand application.

The court also found that Siti was acting strictly in her professional capacity as a lawyer representing Anis at the time of the incident, and referred to the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, which safeguard legal practitioners from prosecution for actions taken in the course of their duties.

Arziah further ruled that Anis’ detention — between about 9pm on June 23 and 3am the following day — was similarly unlawful, concluding that the officers involved had acted with reckless indifference to the legality of their actions.

“The evidence before this court of misfeasance in public office is satisfactory,” she said, adding that Anis’ right to personal liberty under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution had also been breached.

The court ordered the government to pay RM120,625 in general damages to Siti and RM53,750 to Anis, along with joint exemplary damages of RM100,000. 

Costs of RM50,000 were also awarded.

The suit named 30 defendants, including police officers involved in the raid.

Siti was arrested on June 24, 2018, following a report lodged by Anis’ mother. 

Siti had denied kidnapping allegations, saying she had assisted Anis in escaping what she described as an abusive situation.

Federal counsel Anis Najwa Nazari and Siti Aishah Ramlan represented the government, while Surendra Ananth appeared for Siti. - Malay Mail, 19/12/2025

Laos: After 13 years, renewed international action needed to ensure justice in Sombath Somphone’s enforced disappearance? Remembering also 'enforced dissaperance' cases in Malaysia - Pamela Ling, Thuzar Maung, Raymond Koh....

Enforced Disappearance must be CRIMINALISED - sadly, even in Malaysia, this crime has yet to investigated, and those criminally liable, be it police officers or even their 'bosses' ought to be charged and tried for this offence..  

“Justice for the Disappeared: What the Raymond Koh and Amri Che Mat Decision Means for Human Rights in Malaysia”- Mohd Hishamudin Md Yunus(SUHAKAM Chair) - a good read..

 HRD Thuzar Maung and 4 family members - a case of ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE? Diligent serious investigation needed by Malaysia - MS by MADPET

Pamela Ling - where is she? 

"You have hunted her, you have watched her every step, you have refused to let her leave this country on the pretext of investigation – the day she disappears you go silent," her family's lawyer Sangeet Kaur Deo told Bloomberg. "The change in the behaviour of the MACC, going from hunting her to not caring whether she is around, also needs to be explained."...Three months have passed, but Ling's mysterious disappearance has not sparked the kind of outrage from politicians who had pressured authorities over similar cases in the past, such as the 2009 death of DAP official Teoh Beng Hock hours after he was summoned for questioning, as well as the mysterious abduction of Pastor Raymond Koh and several social and religious activists. -Malaysia Now, 31/7/2025

 

 

 Laos: After 13 years, renewed international action needed to ensure justice in Sombath Somphone’s enforced disappearance

 15 December 2025. On the 13-year anniversary of the enforced disappearance of Lao civil society leader Sombath Somphone, we, the undersigned civil society organizations and individuals worldwide, urge once again United Nations (UN) member states and Laos’ development and international cooperation partners to demand the Lao government promptly resolve Sombath’s enforced disappearance and deliver justice and an effective remedy and reparations to him and his family.

Despite calls by civil society organizations for states to use the fourth Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Laos in April 2025 to express their concern over the Lao government’s protracted failure to determine Sombath’s fate or whereabouts, only one -- Canada -- recommended the Lao government conduct a credible investigation into Sombath’s enforced disappearance.

We deplore this silence over Sombath’s enforced disappearance, as it is likely to continue to facilitate the Lao authorities in their determination to shield the perpetrators of such a serious crime from accountability.

We note that various individuals who occupied high-ranking positions in the government when Sombath disappeared retain important official roles in the country’s political sphere today. These individuals could and should play a proactive role in clarifying Sombath’s fate and achieving truth and justice.

For example, Thongloun Sisoulith, who served as Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of Laos at the time of Sombath’s enforced disappearance, is now the country’s President and the General Secretary of the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party – effectively, the supreme leader of Laos. Chaleun Yiapaoher, then-Minister of Justice, is now one of the National Assembly’s Vice-Presidents. Thongsing Thammavong, then-Prime Minister, is currently a National Assembly member. These and other influential individuals hold the key to resolve Sombath’s enforced disappearance - a case that has been described by the International Commission of Jurists as “eminently solvable.”

UN member states and Laos’ development and international cooperation partners should press the government to establish the fate or whereabouts of Sombath and all other victims of enforced disappearances in the country, identify the suspected perpetrators of such serious crimes, and provide victims with an effective remedy and full reparations. To date, no case of enforced disappearance in Laos has been resolved and no perpetrators have been identified or brought to justice.

In its September 2025 report, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances emphasized that the disappearance of community leaders such as Sombath resulted in a collective impact on the groups to which they belonged, including by weakening community ties, depriving them of leadership, and increasing their vulnerability to “cultural erosion and environmental exploitation.” The Working Group further stated that Sombath’s disappearance created a chilling effect on public participation, noting reports of “serious risks and fear” of retaliation when his name is mentioned.

We urge the Lao government to promptly ratify, without reservations, the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which it signed in September 2008, and fully implement it into national law, policies, and practices.

We continue to stand in solidarity with Sombath and his family and urge UN member states to support our calls for truth, justice, and accountability for all cases of victims of enforced disappearance in Laos.

Even if 13 years have passed, the Lao government is obligated to answer the question we and many others have been asking since 15 December 2012: “Where is Sombath”?

Background

Sombath Somphone, a pioneer in community-based development and youth empowerment, was last seen at a police checkpoint on a busy street in Vientiane, the capital of Laos, on the evening of 15 December 2012. Footage from a traffic CCTV camera showed that police stopped Sombath’s vehicle at the checkpoint and that, within minutes, unknown individuals forced him into another vehicle and drove him away in the presence of police officers. CCTV footage also showed an unknown individual arriving and driving Sombath’s vehicle away from the city center. In December 2015, Sombath’s family obtained new CCTV footage from the same area and made it public. The video shows Sombath’s car being driven back towards the city by an unknown individual.

 

For further information, please visit: https://www.sombath.org/

 

Organizations:

 

1.       Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma (ALTSEAN-Burma)

2.       Amnesty International

3.       Asia Democracy Network

4.       Asia Human Rights & Labour Advocates (AHRLA)

5.       Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD)

6.       Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)

7.       Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (LICADHO)

8.       Center for Prisoners' Rights

9.       Commission for Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS)

10.    Day of the Endangered Lawyer

11.    Defence of Human Rights

12.    Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearance (FIND)

13.    Focus on the Global South

14.    Fortify Rights

15.    Fresh Eyes, UK

16.    Human Rights Watch

17.    International Coalition Against Enforced Disappearances (ICAED)

18.    International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)

19.    International Federation for human Rights (FIDH), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders

20.    International Organising Committee of the Asia Europe People's Forum

21.    Lao Movement for Human Rights

22.    League for the Defence of Human Rights in Iran (LDDHI)

23.    MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

24.    Maldivian Democracy Network

25.    Manushya Foundation

26.    Mekong Watch

27.    People’s Watch

28.    Thai Lawyers for Human Rights

29.    Transitional Justice Working Group

30.    Vietnam Committee on Human Rights

31.    WH4C (Workers Hub For Change)

32.    World Organisation against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders

 

Individuals:

 

1.     Shui Meng and Sombath Somphone’s family

2.     Andy Rutherford

3.     Anne Sophie Gindroz

4.     Barbara Williams

5.     David JH Blake

6.     Kasit Piromya

7.     Keith Barney

8.     Lara Patriarca

9.     Libby Blake

10.  Linda Gehman Peachey

11.  Murray Hiebert 

12.  Philip Alston

13.  Randall Arnst

14.  Rini Astuti

15.  Rishabh Ghotge

16.  S.Y. Chin

17.  San Yuenwah

18.  Sibilla Patriarca

19.  Sriprapha Petcharamesree

20.  Titus Peachey

21.  Vitit Muntarbhorn

22.  Walden Bello

 

Source: OMCT Website

 

3 months after Pamela Ling vanished, Bloomberg report casts disturbing questions on Azam-led MACC

Chief among them is that despite calling her a 'flight risk', MACC did not pursue her when she failed to turn up on April 9.

MalaysiaNow

July 31, 2025 1:48 PM

MACC chief Azam Baki has come under renewed scrutiny over his handling of the disappearance of Pamela Ling.

A new report by Bloomberg on the abduction of a witness extradited from abroad by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) raises questions about the fact that the anti-graft commission did not seek an arrest warrant even after she failed to turn up for questioning on the fateful day.

The report also touched on the question of why Pamela Ling's appointment with MACC scheduled on April 10 was brought forward to April 9, when her e-hailing vehicle was surrounded by a group of individuals in police gear just 10 minutes before her arrival at the MACC headquarters in Putrajaya.

Family members say it "doesn’t make any sense" that MACC did not seek a warrant for Ling's arrest after she went missing, especially when she had been arrested before and slapped with a travel ban.

"You have hunted her, you have watched her every step, you have refused to let her leave this country on the pretext of investigation – the day she disappears you go silent," her family's lawyer Sangeet Kaur Deo told Bloomberg.

"The change in the behaviour of the MACC, going from hunting her to not caring whether she is around, also needs to be explained."

According to Bloomberg, MACC claimed Ling had been asked to come a day early in order for it to investigate her application for a second passport.

The report comes at a time when MACC under its chief commissioner Azam Baki has come under fire for launching a series of politically-charged investigations into enemies of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, which was the subject of an explosive report by Bloomberg last year.

Ling, 42, is the former wife of Sarawak tycoon Hah Tiing Siu. Both have been through a controversial divorce in Singapore and Malaysia involving a substantial fortune.

MACC said it had launched an investigation into graft and money laundering offences involving the couple, adding that Ling had not co-operated. However, in a lawsuit filed two days before her abduction, Ling claimed that MACC was using anti-money laundering law to pressure her to resolve her disputes with her ex-husband.

Among others, she stated that Hah was present during one session she was interrogated by MACC. She also named one Muslimin Chia Abdullah from MACC who "urged them to settle matters so the case could be dropped", said the Bloomberg report.

Three months have passed, but Ling's mysterious disappearance has not sparked the kind of outrage from politicians who had pressured authorities over similar cases in the past, such as the 2009 death of DAP official Teoh Beng Hock hours after he was summoned for questioning, as well as the mysterious abduction of Pastor Raymond Koh and several social and religious activists.

The government at the time had carried an official inquest, and in the case of Teoh, a royal commission of enquiry, although they failed to specifically conclude what transpired or identify the culprits.

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission headquarters in Putrajaya.

What is chilling is that Ling's abduction took place on a busy stretch of highway leading to the MACC headquarters in Putrajaya.

It is reminiscent of how Koh was similarly kidnapped in broad daylight in 2017 by a group of men who stopped his vehicle in Petaling Jaya.

Suspicions of foul play were further fuelled after a Grab driver stepped forward and narrated how Ling was forcibly taken away.

"There were two men and one woman. One man and the woman were wearing uniforms resembling police attire, and the other man wore a vest labelled 'police'. They approached me and said that my passenger was being detained to assist with an investigation based on a police report," he reportedly said, adding that he was ordered to press the "complete trip" button on the e-hailing app.

Added to this are parts of Ling's divorce affidavits containing serious allegations against her ex-husband Hah.

"He said he had 'connections to organised crime and gang leaders in Malaysia, as well as people in powerful positions'," Bloomberg quoted one of the court filings.

Hah did not answer Bloomberg's queries. His lawyer Selva Mookiah also did not respond to questions about the couple's divorce and Hah’s dealings with MACC.

Azam under scrutiny

In its report today, Bloomberg said Ling's "disappearance has increased scrutiny of the MACC" and its chief Azam, whose tenure was "repeatedly extended by Anwar in a break from past precedent".

Azam's handling of Ling's disappearance has come under scrutiny after he reportedly claimed that MACC "never called her with the intent to arrest her".

Sangeet slammed his statement as "patently false" and reminded that MACC had arrested Ling and extradited her to Malaysia.

"For the chief commissioner to deny a matter already in the public record was alarming. It suggests not only indifference but an absence of fear of accountability," she had said last May.

Azam was at the centre of an explosive report by Bloomberg in September last year, in which three informed sources were quoted as saying that he had told his officers that investigations into Dr Mahathir Mohamad and the late Daim Zainuddin were launched on Anwar's instructions.

The sources also claimed that Anwar had told Azam not to investigate his former political secretary Farhash Wafa Salvador over the controversial purchase of shares in a company linked to the development of a new billion-ringgit immigration system.

Despite a police report calling for Anwar to be investigated for abuse of power, authorities have classified the case as "no further action". - Malaysia Now,. 31/7/2025

Legal Profession Qualification Board(LPQB) - an attempt to put it under Executive Control? Why is the Malaysian Bar not opposing, as they do usually, on this attempt by State to undermine the Independence of Lawyers?

Legal Profession Qualification Board(LPQB)  - amendments that will place it under EXECUTIVE(Minister) control - and no more INDEPENDENT. 

As it is the Judicial Appointment's Commission has a majority of members chosen by the Prime Minister, and it RECOMMENDS persons to be appointed Judges. Many are asking that there should be NO PM(or Executive) appointed members of the JAC to ensure INDEPENDENCE of Judges..

Now, the  Legal Profession Qualification Board(LPQB) - another attempt by Executive to place it under Executive Control? Changing it so that there will be 8 out of 13 in the LPQB appointed by the Minister(executive).

Public Prosecutor - already is decided by the Prime Minister(Executive) - hopefully will change when Malaysia enacts law separating Attorney General from Public Prosecutor - where it is hoped that the Executive(PM) no longer chooses the Public Prosecutor - and he/she will be INDEPENDENTLY appointed, with security of tenure(until retirement age) - Changes on the way - and we still do not what are proposed changes yet....taking TOO MUCH time.

Legal Profession (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2025 was tabled on 17/11/2025, and speedily passed by Dewan Rakyat on 1/12/2025 - YET to be passed by Senate, and herein LIES the problems - 

 

NOW,   

The Board shall consist of -

(a) the Attorney General who shall be the Chairman;

(b) two Judges nominated by the Chief Justice;

(c) the Chairman of the Bar Council; and

(d) a full-time member of the academic staff of a Faculty of Law nominated by the Minister of Higher Education.

The amendment

3. The principal Act is amended by substituting for section 7 the following section:

“Membership of Board

7. (1) The Board shall consist of—

(a) the Attorney General who shall be the Chairman;
(b) the Chairman of the Bar Council who shall be the Deputy Chairman;
(c) a Judge nominated by the Chief Justice;
(d) the Director General of the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister’s Department;
(e) the Chief Registrar;
(f) a member of the Malaysian Bar nominated by the Bar Council and appointed by the Minister;
(g) a full-time member of the academic staff of a Faculty of Law nominated by the Minister charged with the responsibility for higher education and appointed by the Minister;
(h) a full-time member of the academic staff of a faculty of law of a private higher educational institution approved and registered under the Private Higher Educational Institutions Act 1996 [Act 555] nominated by the Minister charged with the responsibility for higher education and appointed by the Minister;
(i) a member who is an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak and
practicing law in the State of Sabah nominated by the Sabah Law Society and appointed by the Minister;
(j) a member who is an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak and
practicing law in the State of Sarawak nominated by the Advocates Association of Sarawak and appointed by the Minister; and
(*k) three other members appointed by the Minister.

What changes?

1)  Reduction of the number of Judges that can be nominated by the Chief Justice, from 2 to now 1;

2) The number of persons appointed by the Minister INCREASED from 1 to 8?? - and, worse the Minister can remove them at anytime without even giving reasons for said removal??? 

Now, even though the Bars may nominate, it is the Minister that appoints (and, as such, the Minister may refuse to appoint by the Bar Council, the Sabah Law Society, the Advocates Association of Sabah and Sarawak the person to be nominated to the Board, and ask for some other nominations of person that the Minister accepts - this allows the MINISTER to choose - why was it that persons nominated by the BARs are automatically appointed to the LPQB??? [Note that the LPA is concerned about the Malaysian Bar (in Peninsular Malaysia), the Sabah and Sarawak Bar comes into being by different respective State Laws) 

 'full-time member of the academic staff of a faculty of law of a private higher educational institution' nominated by the Minister responsible for higher education {not a body made up by full-time member of the academic staff of a Faculty of Law nominated by the Minister of Higher Education.

Then, there are  'three other members appointed by the Minister'

ALL in all, the EXECUTIVE has the power to APPOINT 8 members of the 13 member LPQB, and there is also  Director General of the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister’s Department... In short, the LPQB has just fallen under EXECUTIVE control - the Minister?

Previously, the LPQB was balanced, and not under EXECUTIVE control - because 2 of the 5 member LPQB are Judges appointed by the Judiciary, the Attorney General, the Malaysian Bar President, and only ONE chosen by the Executive - academic staff of law faculties in private higher institution?), and then again it is the Minister in charge of Law that appoints - HENCE, it was more independent.

There is NO problem with adding on the 2 Presidents of the Sabah Law Society and the  Advocates Association of Sabah and Sarawak.

No problem with adding on a LAW academic from the Malaysian public and/or private universities...BUT the choice should not be with the Minister [At present, the amendments talk about Law Academic from private institutions - what about PUBLIC institutions like the Law Faculties of UM, UKM, UITM,....?

BUT, the troubling part is that they do not become members of LPQB as of right - but needs to also be APPOINTED by the Minister, who also has the power to remove those appointed any time, without even reference to those who nominated'  without assigning any reason for the revocation 

ALL in all, it LOOKS like another attempt for the EXECUTIVE control of the LPQB - and it is most SHOCKING that this time the Malaysian Bar failed to strongly PROTEST in the past of any attempt that will affect the Independence of the Legal Profession in Malaysia - this time only a Media Statement by the Vice President(not even the President)

NOW, there is a concern about the COMPOSITION of the Judicial Appointments Commission - where the Prime Minister picks 5 out of the 9 member JAC. Even the Conference of Rulers have called for removal of the Prime Minister's power/role in picking the members of the JAC?

The Conference of Rulers is proposing that five of the nine members of the Judicial Appointments Committee (JAC) no longer be appointed by the prime minister so that its composition is more balanced and does not carry the interest of any party.

The Yang Dipertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan, Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir, who chaired the 260th Conference of Rulers meeting today, said in terms of the judicial system, the Conference of Rulers is responsible for the appointment of judges in Malaysia, and at present, this process is seen as having weaknesses that can be improved, JAC's membership included.

His Highness said JAC plays a key role in proposing judicial nominations, and therefore its membership was critical in ensuring that the committee continued to be looked up to and is capable of nominating judges of calibre and integrity.

"Instead, it (power to appoint JAC members) should be given to several other institutions such as the Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Society, Advocates Association of Sarawak and Parliament's Select Committee.

"Currently, JAC has nine members, four of whom are senior judges while five more are individuals appointed by the Prime Minister," Tuanku Muhriz said in his message in conjunction with the two-day 260th Conference of Rulers meeting that began yesterday at Istana Negara.- Astro Awani, 30/11/2022

Thus, should also the EXECUTIVE appointed members in the LPQB also be an ISSUE OF CONCERN - as a majority executive appointed LPQB may affect the quality and the members of the Advocates and Solicitors in Malaysia in the future. A 'BAD' or an 'unqualified' lawyer is a great DANGER to the administration of justice in Malaysia - there must be standards to ensure only the qualified becomes lawyers.

In Malaysia, even though Malaysia now recognizes foreign law degrees - it is not enough. There is a requirement for these foreign law degree holders to sit and pass the Certificate of Legal Practice(where it was shown that only about 20% do pass it at every sitting). Those who failed will have to re-sit until they pass >>> this is an important mechanism to ensure only QUALIFIED lawyers are admitted to the Bar and allowed to practice as lawyers...

Of late, there has been great concern about Law Graduates from Malaysian Public Universities - thus, the question has been raised as to whether they too will need to sit for the CLP or some new Legal Profession Qualifying Exams - I think they should, as this is a matter of Public Interest - and we do not want to blindly admit local Public University graduates  to become lawyers. They may be able to EXCEL in their academic LAW degrees - but that certainly do not mean that they will make desirable lawyers..

Now, was that the intention of this AMENDMENT - because the government does not want LOCAL law graduates to undergo any CLP or Legal Profession Qualification Exams - which may show the LAW academic qualification wanting > when the majority fails such CLP or Qualification exams? The Executive may be more interested in protecting 'the standards' of public universities - rather than ensuring that the truly qualified becomes lawyers. Excelling academically does not automatically make one a GOOD lawyer. EITHER way - it will lead to greater EXECUTIVE control, which is wrong...

The problem with majority executive appointed members in the Legal Profession Qualifying Board poses a RISK - as the EXECUTIVE is concerned more about appeasing VOTERS and winning elections rather than ensuring the Independence and professionalism of lawyers, judges and even the Public Prosecutor(prosecutors) - and that is why the LPQB should be INDEPENDENT and should only be comprised of persons in the Judiciary, the various Bars, and the public lawyers(public prosecutors/Federal Counsels) - the Minister and/or the Executive should not have any power or role in appointing members of the LPQB, or in JAC(that picks qualified Judges)...

In the past, the Malaysian Bar, led by the President and the Bar Council, would have REACTED very strongly if there are any attempts that will compromise the INDEPENDENCE, and/or even quality of the Legal Profession. There will be EGMs, and other actions - BUT this time, the response had been just a media statement - What is happening? Why has the BC also not analyzed the proposed amendments - and educated lawyers about the potential concerns/risk?

The said statement did raise some of the CONCERNS - but the question is why did the President and the Bar Council not go FURTHER and move its members towards greater awareness of his amendment (Legal Profession (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2025 was tabled on 17/11/2025, and speedily passed by Dewan Rakyat on 1/12/2025 - YET to be passed by Senate) and STRONGER protests NOW as it may affect the INDEPENDENCE of the Legal Profession???

Another concern is the NEW Section 7A

 7a. (1) The Minister may at any time revoke the appointment of any member of the Board under paragraphs 7(1)(g), (h), (i), (j) and (k) without assigning any reason for the revocation

## Interestingly they left out the Malaysian Bar representative - in 7(1)(f) ...who is also appointed by the Minister??? 

US-Malaysia Agreement - Take it to COURT - let the Court decide whether the PM alone decides, or whether in Malaysia it ought toi get approval of Parliament, States, Rulers and King? Matter of public interest

The US-MALAYSIA Agreement is of great concern, as it will have many NEGATIVE impacts on Malaysia ...many have HIGHLIGHTED the problems. BUT PM Anwar still seems like he is going to put the Agreement into FORCE without getting PRIOR approval from Parliament, the States and even the Rulers Conference. It seems he believes, that as PM, he has the power to do as he wants...

Interestingly, this SOLE DISCRETION of the PM to enter into agreements with other countries, other entities is NOT CLEARLY stated in our Federal Constitution or any LAWS currently, thus making it something that maybe OUR COURTS should decide on....

Too many have raised the 'problems' with this rather ONE-SIDED Agreements that also will put pressure on Malaysia to do the needful to 

US has sanctions now on so many countries like IRAN, North Korea, ... and many of these countries of the NON-ALLIGNED Movement(NAM) - so will Malaysia also 'implement' US Sanctions against these countries...  

' The U.S. imposes sanctions on countries like Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, and Venezuela, with some facing comprehensive embargoes (Cuba, Iran, NK, Syria) and others targeted measures (Russia, Belarus, Venezuela). Sanctions also exist for ... China (military), Belarus, Burma, Afghanistan, and others,' So, will Malaysia also now adopt and maintain a measure with equivalent restrictive effect as the measure adopted by the United States???

A clause in the current US-Malaysia Agreement says this - Article 5.1 

'.         If the United States imposes a customs duty, quota, prohibition, fee, charge, or other import restriction on a good or service of a third country and considers that such measure is relevant to protecting the economic or national security of the United States, the United States intends to notify such measure to Malaysia for the purpose of economic and national security alignment. Upon receiving such notification from the United States, Malaysia shall adopt or maintain a measure with equivalent restrictive effect as the measure adopted by the United States or agree to a timeline for implementation that is acceptable to both Parties, to address a shared economic or national security concern, guided by principles of goodwill and a shared commitment to enhancing bilateral relations between the United States and Malaysia.'

But, what about Malaysia - if it imposes similar 'customs duty, quota, prohibition, fee, charge, or other import restriction on a good or service of a third country ' - Is US bound to follow? If Malaysia imposes such economic 'sanctions' on Israel, or countries that are pro-Israel that supply arms or monies to Israel that end up being used to kill Palestinians and destroy Palestine?  

Then, there is that is another clause - the FREEDOM to enter into agreements ... 

(b)        Malaysia shall not enter into agreements or understandings with third countries that include non-scientific, discriminatory, or preferential technical standards or third-country SPS measures that are incompatible with U.S. or international standards; or otherwise disadvantage U.S. exports. 

WHY TAKE IT TO COURT?

Malaysia is a Parliamentary Democracy - a Prime Minister is decided by the Members of Parliament. Parliament has the duty of 'CHECK and BALANCE' to prevent PM or Executive wrongdoings and abuses ...

HENCE, should not in be RIGHT to secure Parliamentary Approval before the PM can enter into any agreement on behalf of Malaysia, more so whose effect will last beyond the tenure of said Prime Minister?

Malaysia is a FEDERATION OF STATES/REGIONS - should not the approval of the said States/Regions be needed before any Federal Prime Minister enters into any agreement which naturally will affect all States and its citizens too..

Malaysia has a King and Conference of Rulers - the HEAD OF STATE is the KING, not the Prime Minister > and, as such, should not also the CONSENT of the King and the individual Rulers be obtained before any sitting PM enters into any agreement on behalf of Malaysia with any other countries and entitities?

These are, I believe, our Malaysian Courts should consider and decide - more so, since there is NO provisions in our Federal Constitution and/or LAWS that clearly state that the PM has full AUTHORITY to sign any such agreements, that will bind Malaysia even beyond the term of this Prime Minister. 

THESE ARE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS THAT MAYBE THE MALAYSIAN COURTS SHOULD CONSIDER AND DECIDE ON...

So, should someone, maybe some politician or a political party or OTHERS take this matter to court, applying also maybe for an INTERIM INJUNCTION preventing the PM from putting this Agreement into FORCE on behalf of Malaysia??? 

Of late, our former Prime Minister also filed a POLICE REPORT - but no news still whether the police is even going to investigate?

Was the US-Malaysia Agreement even legal - Was it NOT a THREAT by Trump to increase TARIFFS the reason why Malaysia, in fear of the Threat and the consequences of the threat if carried out, 'FORCE" Malaysia into such an agreement?

There is still TIME - Will anyone take this Agreement to COURT? 

The said AGREEMENT from the White House website 

Preamble

The Government of the United States of America (“United States”) and the Government of Malaysia (“Malaysia”) (hereinafter referred to individually as “a Party” and collectively as
“the Parties”),

EMPHASIZING their shared values, including their shared commitment to sovereignty, economic prosperity, and resilient supply chains;

RECOGNIZING the bonds of friendship and cooperation between them, in particular in their trade and investment relations, as reflected in the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement between the Government of the United States and the Government of Malaysia;

INTENDING to enhance reciprocity in their bilateral trade relationship by addressing tariff and non-tariff barriers; and

SEEKING to strengthen their commercial relationship through increased alignment on national and regional economic security matters,

HAVE AGREED as follows:

Section 1. Tariffs and Quotas

Article 1.1: Tariffs

1.         Malaysia shall apply a rate of customs duty[1] on originating goods of the United States as set out in Schedule 1 to Annex I.

2.         The United States shall apply a revised reciprocal tariff rate on originating goods of Malaysia as set out in Schedule 2 of Annex I.

Article 1.2: Quantitative Restrictions

Malaysia shall not impose quantitative restrictions on imports of originating goods of the United States except in accordance with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994).

Section 2. Non-Tariff Barriers and Related Matters

Article 2.1: Import Licensing

Malaysia shall not apply import licensing[2] to U.S. originating goods in a manner that restricts the importation of such goods. Malaysia shall ensure that any non-automatic import licensing that it applies is applied only to administer an underlying measure, and in a manner that is transparent, nondiscriminatory, and not unduly burdensome, and that does not reduce the competitiveness of U.S. exports.

Article 2.2: Technical Regulations, Standards, and Conformity Assessment

1.         The Parties recognize their existing rights and obligations with respect to each other under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. Malaysia shall allow U.S. originating goods that comply with applicable U.S. or international standards, U.S. technical regulations, or U.S. or international conformity assessment procedures to enter its territory without additional conformity assessment requirements. In doing so─

(a)        Malaysia shall accord to the conformity assessment bodies of the United States treatment no less favorable than that it accords to its own bodies; and

(b)       Malaysia shall facilitate the acceptance of U.S. compliance procedures for goods that are not subject to third-party conformity assessment in the U.S. regulatory framework.

2.         Malaysia shall ensure that technical regulations, standards, and conformity assessment procedures are applied in a non-discriminatory manner and do not operate as disguised restrictions on bilateral trade, and shall remove existing technical barriers to trade in areas that undermine reciprocity, including requirements for duplicative or unnecessary testing or conformity assessment.

Article 2.3: Agriculture

Malaysia shall provide non-discriminatory or preferential market access for U.S. agricultural goods as set forth in this Agreement. In doing so─

(a)        Malaysia shall ensure that its sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures are science- and risk-based and do not operate as disguised restrictions on bilateral trade, and shall remove unjustified SPS barriers in areas that undermine reciprocity.

(b)        Malaysia shall not enter into agreements or understandings with third countries that include non-scientific, discriminatory, or preferential technical standards or third-country SPS measures that are incompatible with U.S. or international standards; or otherwise disadvantage U.S. exports.

Article 2.4: Geographical Indications

Malaysia shall ensure transparency and fairness with respect to the protection or recognition[3] of geographical indications, including pursuant to an international agreement to which Malaysia is a party. Malaysia shall only protect or recognize a term that identifies a good as a geographical indication where there is a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the good that is essentially attributable to its geographical origin.

Article 2.5: Cheese and Meat Terms

Malaysia shall not restrict U.S. market access due to the mere use of the individual cheese and meat terms listed in Annex II.

Article 2.6: Intellectual Property

Malaysia shall provide a robust standard of protection for intellectual property.[4] Malaysia shall provide effective systems for civil, criminal, and border enforcement of intellectual property rights and shall ensure that such systems combat and deter the infringement or misappropriation of intellectual property, including in the online environment. Malaysia shall prioritize and shall take effective criminal and border enforcement actions against copyright and trademark infringements.

Article 2.7: Services

This Agreement incorporates, mutatis mutandis, any commitment concerning trade in services that Malaysia has made or hereafter makes in a trade agreement to any third country, jurisdiction, or economy. This Article shall not apply to any commitment to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) under any ASEAN trade or investment agreement.

Article 2.8: Good Regulatory Practices

Malaysia shall adopt and implement good regulatory practices as set out in Article 2.21 of Annex III that ensure greater transparency, predictability, and participation throughout the regulatory lifecycle.

Article 2.9: Labor

1.         Malaysia shall adopt and implement a prohibition on the importation of goods mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part by forced or compulsory labor. Malaysia may acknowledge U.S. government determinations on entities under Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and shall take appropriate action to prohibit importation of goods from those companies. The Parties shall cooperate by sharing best practices on the development and enforcement of forced labor import prohibitions, as appropriate. Malaysia shall implement the obligations in this paragraph within two years of the date of entry into force of this Agreement.

2.         Malaysia shall protect internationally recognized labor rights.[5] This includes by adopting or maintaining such rights in its domestic law and practice, and effectively enforcing its labor laws, including by creating or maintaining necessary institutions to protect labor rights. Malaysia shall establish and effectively apply appropriate legal sanctions for violations of those laws. Malaysia shall not weaken or reduce the protections in its labor laws and shall address any such weakening or reduction that has been made to encourage trade or investment to date.[6] In addition, Malaysia shall address issues related to labor rights that contribute to non-reciprocal trade.

Article 2.10: Environment

Malaysia shall adopt and maintain environmental protections, effectively enforce its environmental laws, uphold or institute, as necessary, strong environmental governance structures, and address environment-related issues that contribute to non-reciprocal trade.

Article 2.11: Customs and Trade Facilitation

Malaysia shall facilitate technology solutions that allow for full pre-arrival processing, paperless trade, and digitalized procedures for the cross-border movement of goods.

Article 2.12: Border Measures and Taxes

1.         Malaysia shall coordinate and endeavor to align its border measures applicable to third-country imports with relevant border measures that the United States may adopt in the future, such as border-adjusted tax measures or other border measures, to combat regulatory arbitrage that would disadvantage U.S. workers and businesses.

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.

3.         Malaysia shall not impose value-added taxes that discriminate against U.S. companies in law or in fact. 

Section 3. Digital Trade and Technology

Article 3.1: Digital Services Tax

Malaysia shall not impose digital services taxes, or similar taxes, that discriminate against U.S. companies in law or in fact.

Article 3.2: Facilitation of Digital Trade

Malaysiashall facilitate digital trade with the United States, including by─

(a)        refraining from measures that discriminate against U.S. digital services or U.S. products distributed digitally;[7]

(b)        ensuring the cross-border transfer of data by electronic means across trusted borders, with appropriate protections, for the conduct of business; and

(c)        endeavoring to collaborate with the United States to address cybersecurity challenges and matters of mutual interest, which may include exchanging information on threats and best practices, promoting the use of relevant international standards, and understanding capacity-building activities.

Article 3.3: Digital Trade Agreements

Malaysia shall consult with the United States before entering into a new digital trade agreement with another country that jeopardizes essential U.S. interests.

Article 3.4: Market Entry Conditions

1.         Malaysia shall not impose any condition or enforce any undertaking requiring U.S. persons to transfer or provide access to a particular technology, production process, source code, or other proprietary knowledge, or to purchase, utilize, or accord a preference to a particular technology, as a condition for doing business in its territory.

2.         Nothing in this Article shall─

(a)        preclude the inclusion or implementation of terms and conditions related to the provision of source code in commercially negotiated contracts;

(b)        preclude a Party from requiring that access be provided to software used for critical infrastructure, to the extent required to ensure the effective functioning of critical infrastructure, subject to safeguards against unauthorized disclosure;

(c)        preclude a Party from requiring the modification of source code of software necessary for that software to comply with laws or regulations which are not inconsistent with this Agreement;

(d)       apply to government procurement;

(e)        preclude a regulatory body or judicial authority of a Party from requiring a person of another Party to preserve and make available the source code of software, or an algorithm expressed in that source code, to the regulatory body for a specific investigation, inspection, examination, enforcement action, or judicial proceeding, subject to safeguards against unauthorized disclosure; or

(f)        apply to a Party’s measures adopted or maintained for prudential reasons.[8]

Article 3.5: Customs Duties on Electronic Transmissions

Each Partyshall not impose customs duties on electronic transmissions, including content transmitted electronically, and shall support multilateral adoption of a permanent moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions at the WTO. For greater certainty, this Article does not preclude a Party from imposing internal taxes, fees, or other charges on electronic transmissions, including content transmitted electronically, provided that those taxes, fees, or charges are imposed in a manner consistent with Articles I and III of the GATT 1994 or Articles II and XVII of the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).

Section 4. Rules of Origin

Article 4.1: General Provision

The Parties intend for the benefits of this Agreement to accrue substantially to them and their nationals. If benefits of this Agreement are accruing substantially to third countries or third-country nationals, a Party may establish rules of origin necessary to achieve the Parties’ intention for this Agreement.

Section 5. Economic and National Security

Article 5.1: Complementary Actions

1.         If the United States imposes a customs duty, quota, prohibition, fee, charge, or other import restriction on a good or service of a third country and considers that such measure is relevant to protecting the economic or national security of the United States, the United States intends to notify such measure to Malaysia for the purpose of economic and national security alignment. Upon receiving such notification from the United States, Malaysia shall adopt or maintain a measure with equivalent restrictive effect as the measure adopted by the United States or agree to a timeline for implementation that is acceptable to both Parties, to address a shared economic or national security concern, guided by principles of goodwill and a shared commitment to enhancing bilateral relations between the United States and Malaysia.

2.         Malaysia shalladopt and implement measures, in accordance with its domestic laws and regulations, to address unfair practices of companies owned or controlled by third countries operating in Malaysia’s jurisdiction that result in─

(a)        the export of below-market price goods to the United States;

(b)        increased exports of such goods to the United States;

(c)        a reduction in U.S. exports to Malaysia; or

(d)       a reduction in U.S. exports to third-country markets.

3.         Malaysia shall adopt, through its domestic regulatory process, similar measures of equivalent restrictive effect as those adopted by the United States to encourage shipbuilding and shipping by market economy countries. The Parties shall discuss the structure and effect of such measures, recognizing the Parties’ commitment to address shared economic or national security concerns in the shipbuilding and shipping sector.

Article 5.2: Export Controls, Sanctions, Investment Security, and Related Matters

1.         Malaysia shall, through its domestic regulatory process, cooperate with the United States to regulate the trade in national security-sensitive technologies and goods through existing multilateral export control regimes, align with all unilateral export controls in force by the United States, and ensure that its companies do not backfill or undermine these controls.

2.         Malaysia shall cooperate with the United States, in a manner consistent with applicable requirements of domestic laws and regulations, with a view to restricting transactions of its nationals with individuals and entities included in the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security Entity List (Supplement 4 of Part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations), as well as the U.S. Department of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control Lists of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) and the Non-SDN Consolidated Sanctions List.

3.         Malaysia shall explore the establishment of a mechanism to review inbound investment for national security risks, including in connection with critical minerals and critical infrastructure, consistent with widely accepted international best practices, and shall cooperate with the United States on matters related to investment security.

4.         If the United States determines that Malaysia is cooperating to address shared national and economic security issues, the United States may take such cooperation into account in administering its domestic laws and regulations pertaining to export controls, investment reviews, and other measures.

Article 5.3: Other Measures

1.         The United States shall work with Malaysia to streamline and enhance defense trade.

2.         Malaysia shall, in accordance with its domestic laws and regulations,adopt and effectively enforce measures to combat transshipment and other practices to evade or circumvent duties applied by the United States. Malaysia shall enter into a duty evasion cooperation agreement with the United States.

3.         If Malaysia enters into a new bilateral free trade agreement or preferential economic agreement with a country that jeopardizes essential U.S. interests, the United States may, if consultations with Malaysia fail to resolve its concerns, terminate this Agreement and reimpose the applicable reciprocal tariff rate set forth in Executive Order 14257 of April 2, 2025.

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.

Section 6. Commercial Considerations and Opportunities

Article 6.1: Investment 

1.         With respect to the central level of government, Malaysia shall, in accordance with its laws and regulations, facilitate and promote investment by the United States in sectors including critical minerals, energy resources, power generation, telecommunications, transportation, and infrastructure services.

2.         The United States shall work through U.S. institutions such as the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM Bank) and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), if eligible, to consider supporting investment financing in critical sectors in Malaysia in collaboration with U.S. private sector partners, consistent with applicable law.

3.         Malaysia shall facilitate, to the extent practicable, approximately USD70 billion in job-creating investment, including greenfield investment, in the United States over the next 10 years.

Article 6.2: Commercial Considerations

1.         Malaysia shall ensure that its State-Owned or -Controlled Enterprises (SOEs) operating in its market, when engaging in commercial activities─

(a)        act in accordance with commercial considerations in their purchase or sale of goods or services; and

(b)       refrain from discriminating against U.S. goods or services.

Malaysia shall refrain from providing non-commercial assistance or otherwise subsidizing its goods-producing SOEs, except for the achievement of their public service obligations. Malaysia shall ensure a level playing field for U.S. companies in Malaysia’s market with respect to SOEs of third countries.

2.         Upon the written request of the United States, Malaysia shall provide non-confidential[9] information regarding all forms of non-commercial assistance or subsidies that it provides to a manufacturing enterprise in its territory, and shall take action to address the distortive impacts of those subsidies and support mechanisms that may materially affect bilateral trade and investment with the United States.

Article 6.3: Purchases

Malaysia intends to purchase, or to facilitate the purchase by Malaysian companies, of originating goods of United States, as set out in Annex IV.

Section 7. Implementation, Enforcement, and Final Provisions

Article 7.1: Recognition of Existing Rights and Obligations

The Parties recognize their rights and obligations under the WTO agreements, including provisions of those agreements that reflect a WTO member’s sovereign rights to protect essential security, address unfair trade practices, and pursue other public policy objectives.

Article 7.2: Entry into Force

This Agreement shall enter into force 60 days after the date on which the Parties have exchanged written notifications certifying completion of their applicable legal procedures or on such other date as the Parties may agree.

Article 7.3: Modifications and Amendments

Either Party may request reasonable modifications to any provision of this Agreement. The other Party shall consider such modifications in good faith. The Parties may agree, in writing, to amend this Agreement. An amendment to this Agreement shall enter into force 60 days after the date on which the Parties exchange written notification of the completion of their respective applicable legal procedures or on such other date as the Parties may agree. An amendment shall not affect the rights and obligations of the Parties provided for under this Agreement until the amendment enters into force.

Article 7.4: Enforcement

1.         Nothing in this Agreement shall constrain, or otherwise prevent, a Party from imposing additional tariffs to remedy unfair trade practices, to address import surges, to protect its economic or national security, or for other similar reasons consistent with its domestic law.

2.         If a Party considers that the other Party has not complied with a provision of this Agreement, the Party may review the terms of this Agreement and take action in accordance with applicable domestic law. A Party shall, when practicable, with a view to finding a mutually satisfactory solution, notify and seek consultations in good faith with the other Party prior to taking any action.

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.

Article 7.6: Annexes, Appendices, and Footnotes

The annexes, appendices, and footnotes to this Agreement constitute an integral part of this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto by their respective Governments, have signed this Agreement.

DONE in duplicate at Kuala Lumpur, this 26th day of October, 2025.

________________________________                    _______________________________

FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF                                FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                   MALAYSIA

---

[1] Customs duty includes any duty or charge of any kind imposed on or in connection with the importation of a good, and any surtax or surcharge imposed in connection with such importation, but does not include any─

(a)           charge equivalent to an internal tax imposed consistently with Article III:2 of GATT 1994;

(b)           fee or other charge in connection with the importation commensurate with the cost of services rendered; or

(c)           antidumping or countervailing duty applied pursuant to a Party’s law.

[2] For greater certainty, “import licensing”, “automatic import licensing”, and “non-automatic import licensing” have the same meanings as provided in the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.

[3] For greater certainty, Malaysia shall not protect or recognize a predetermined list of geographical indications.

[4] For purposes of this Agreement, “intellectual property” refers to all categories of intellectual property that are the subject of Sections 1 through 7 of Part II of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Further, for purposes of this Agreement, the protection of intellectual property includes matters related to technological protection measures and rights management information.

[5] For purposes of this paragraph, internationally recognized labor rights include those in the International Labor Organization (ILO) Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-Up (1998), as amended in 2022; a prohibition on the worst forms of child labor; and acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages and hours of work.

[6] For greater certainty, the scope of this paragraph includes special economic zones, including export processing zones, or sector-specific laws or regulations that have lesser labor protections than the overall economy.

[7] For greater certainty, Malaysia has the right to regulate in the public interest. [1] The Parties understand that the term “prudential reasons” includes the maintenance of the safety, soundness, and integrity or financial responsibility of individual financial service suppliers as well as the safety and financial and operational integrity of payment and clearing systems.

[8] For purposes of this paragraph, “non-confidential information” means information other than confidential information, and “confidential information” means information that relates to a specific enterprise and is protected under the laws and regulations of Malaysia.

[9] For purposes of this paragraph, “non-confidential information” means information other than confidential information, and “confidential information” means information that relates to a specific enterprise and is protected under the laws and regulations of Malaysia.

'I, Mahathir bin Mohamad, wish to report sabotage': Historic police report filed against Anwar over Trump deal

The former leader also urges that everyone involved in the preparation, negotiation and finalisation of the Oct 26 trade agreement be questioned.

MalaysiaNow

December 2, 2025 11:32 AM

Dr Mahathir Mohamad at the Putrajaya police headquarters accompanied by his lawyer Rafique Rashid.

Dr Mahathir Mohamad today called on authorities to investigate Anwar Ibrahim for economic sabotage and undermining the country's sovereignty over an agreement signed with the US, in a historic police report lodged by one of Malaysia's best-known post-independence figures against a sitting prime minister.

In his report lodged at the Putrajaya police headquarters this morning, accompanied by lawyer Rafique Rashid, the centenarian said the Malaysia-US Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (ART) signed by Anwar with President Donald Trump in October could harm Malaysia's position and undermine its economic and political sovereignty.

"I believe that the action was taken without fully considering the national interest and, in my opinion, can be considered an act by someone who disregards the sovereignty of Malaysia as a sovereign country, and has the potential to drag the country into a situation where it is mortgaged to the influence of foreign powers," Mahathir said in his police report seen by MalaysiaNow.

- Advertisement -

He cited breaches under various sections of the Penal Code, namely sections 124B, 124C and 124K, dealing with acts of sabotage and activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy.

Mahathir also listed at least four major clauses in the agreement which he said effectively surrender Malaysia's sovereignty and trade independence to a foreign power.

They include clauses obliging Malaysia to follow any unilateral sanctions by the US against other countries, and to reveal Malaysia's cross-border data, which has "potential to interfere with the country's regulatory policy".

He also listed 14 negative implications for Malaysia, including those related to regulation of the halal industry, Bumiputera economic empowerment, national strategies for the high-tech sector, and export of critical minerals such as rare earth elements.

"All of these matters raise serious concerns, as in my opinion, they eliminate Malaysia's power to determine foreign policy, economic policy and the use of national strategic resources independently and sovereignly," said Mahathir.

'Probe MITI, AG and everyone involved'

He said any investigation should also probe elements of power abuse and negligence in discharging official duties, including breach of trust regarding decisions involving rare earths and critical minerals.

- Advertisement -

He said that besides Anwar, police should also question officials of the Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry (Miti), the attorney-general, and all parties involved in the preparation and negotiation of the agreement.

Today's police report comes four days after  Mahathir said Anwar should face charges of treason for signing the agreement.

"It is now clear that the statement by the government on the agreement with the US hid many serious undertakings by Malaysia to submit to the US," said Mahathir, the man widely credited with Malaysia's rapid economic growth throughout the eighties and nineties.

The agreement, which has been hailed by Anwar and government leaders, has sparked public outrage and criticism from experts and politicians over clauses seen as overwhelmingly favouring Washington's interests.

Among them is former attorney-general Tommy Thomas, who said the various commitments imposed on Malaysia showed that those involved in the negotiations – from the Prime Minister’s Office to the Attorney-General’s Chambers – "did not negotiate at all".

"The US handed them their draft. And it was signed lamely by Anwar, who had Trump’s pen to show for it, and a ride in Trump’s car," he said, referring to Trump's gift of a White House pen to Anwar shortly after the latter signed the agreement in Kuala Lumpur on the sidelines of the Asean Summit on Oct 26.

Details of the deal only emerged to the Malaysian public after the White House published them on its official website hours later.

At the heart of the outrage is a provision that obliges Malaysia to become a direct participant in US economic conflicts.

It states that if Washington imposes sanctions or tariffs on any third country for national security reasons, Malaysia "shall adopt or maintain a measure with equivalent restrictive effect", effectively ending Malaysia’s long-held foreign policy of non-alignment and mirroring US sanctions against other nations.

Anwar's defence of the agreement has renewed accusations of the Pakatan Harapan chairman's leaning towards US and Western policies, a claim cited by Mahathir as far back as 1998 when he sacked Anwar from the government during the height of the Asian financial crisis. - Malaysia Now, 2/12/2025