Malaysiakini : These enhanced punishments were passed after several drunk driving incidents in October 2020, when Peikatan Nasional was in power.

Now, some are calling for the death penalty.

Machang MP Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal (formerly from Bersatu) said this will send a “clear message that human life cannot be taken lightly and any action endangering others will face the heaviest consequences.”

PAS Youth chief and Alor Setar MP Afnan Hamimi Taib Azamudden also demanded blood, or “a life for a life”. But why didn’t Bersatu and PAS push for heavier penalties, such as whipping or compensation for victims, when they were in power?

That most “Chinese” person, Ridhuan Tee Abdullah, poured oil on the fire, saying, “Yang tonggang arak si kapir, yang mati Melayu (Islam)... Noktahkan segera sebelum org Islam hilang sabar. (The kafirs ride on alcohol while the Malays die. End it before Muslims lose patience).”

His Facebook post got 43,000 likes and 5,500 shares.

With such fury, it’s not surprising that the driver has been charged with murder.

But let’s be consistent. What about other dangerous, negligent, and corrupt behaviour that causes deaths?

Some are “high” on reckless riding or driving, while others are “drunk” on bribes. All have deadly consequences.

1. Mat Rempit

Motorcyclists made up two-thirds of 6,537 road deaths in 2025, with those aged 16 to 30 at the highest risk, according to the transport minister. In contrast, there were only 69 cases of fatal drunk driving over 10 years (2011-2021), according to police statistics.

This is not to downplay the need to punish drunk drivers, but to ask: why isn’t there similar outrage against the notorious Mat Rempit?

So far, they have mostly killed or injured themselves (burdening the public health system), but if an innocent bystander is “murdered” by them, should the death penalty be imposed?

2. Logging and deadly landslides 

Five people were killed in December 2021 near Bentong, Pahang, after deadly landslides laden with mud and logs.

I hiked in the steep hills near Karak a year later and saw that the forests had been cleared and replaced with farms and even a service road. Whole slopes had been washed away.

It made me wonder who was responsible for this disastrous policy and what their punishment should be. Would PAS say “a life for a life”?

3. Dangerous lorry, bus drivers

We have become immune to news of bus and lorry accidents. A total of 203 bus-related accidents occurred in Malaysia from January 2023 to May this year, resulting in 39 deaths and 68 serious injuries.

The causes, said police, included overworked drivers chasing tight schedules, speeding on wet roads, brake failure, worn-out tyres, and yes, drugs.

News reports also point to drivers being hired despite multiple past traffic violations. Biasa la (normal la). Somehow, these don’t raise the same level of indignation as alcohol.

In September 2024, Loke said many long-distance bus drivers had tested positive for drugs.

In May 2025, nine FRU men near Teluk Intan were killed by a lorry driver with six past criminal cases for drugs, rape, and theft.

The carnage continues. In March, a trailer lorry smashed into three cars in Penang, causing serious injuries. The driver tested positive for syabu or methamphetamine.

A study revealed that fatal road accidents involving heavy vehicles like lorries have claimed 1,457 lives from 2019 to 2024. That’s one life lost every 36 hours. Luckily, deaths declined in 2025.

This is a recurring problem in Malaysia. Is it because we live in a “boleh kautim” culture where some “coffee money” can induce some officials to “close one eye” to broken rules?

In April 2025, a Road Transport Department (RTD) official in Malacca was jailed for bribing his fellow officers to ignore overloaded lorries, which is obviously a safety issue.

In July 2024, another RTD official in Kedah was charged with taking RM42,100 in bribes to overlook rules broken by a lorry company.

It’s also been alleged that Puspakom is “riddled” with corruption, where “runners” routinely secure “roadworthy” certificates with perfunctory inspections.

So, if we’re calling for drunk drivers to be hanged, what about bus and lorry drivers on drugs? What about corrupt officers who enable this bloodbath on the roads? What about transport companies that hire drivers with multiple misdeeds?

Some will blame Loke for this, but I do wonder, did he have the power to bust corrupt traffic cops or RTD officers? That seems to be under the jurisdiction of the police and MACC.

4) Rotten system

Finally, let’s come to government responsibility. In June last year, a tragic accident on the East-West Highway killed 15 UPSI students. Six months later, a Transport Ministry special task force released its findings.

Highways have guardrails to prevent vehicles from plunging into ravines. However, at the accident site, they acted not to save the bus, but as a giant “spear” piercing through the left side of the vehicle, causing 11 of the 15 deaths, lamented the report.

How did this happen? The spacing between guardrail posts was 3.8m, far over the 2m limit. The guardrail panels were installed against the flow of traffic, and multiple bolts were missing.

Instead of cushioning the bus, the end of the guardrail snapped and failed to fold upon impact, becoming a sharp, piercing object.

Yet two days after the accident, Works Minister Alexander Nanta Linggi defended the Public Works Department, claiming that the guardrails met “international safety standards”!

To worsen matters, due to dirt and a lack of maintenance, the reflectors on the guardrails were obscured, while the road had no reflective markings. This made it difficult for drivers to see the road edges.

Brake failure was the main cause of the bus losing control and crashing. Yet just two months before, the bus had passed an inspection by Puspakom.

The task force report concluded that only the driver and travel companies were punished, but not government departments or regulatory agencies, despite their failings.

However, few people remember the task force’s findings because it’s a “boring” road safety issue, rather than a fiery racial issue.

And now, we have the Klang accident being racialised. If we want to punish an Indian drunk-druggie driver for murder, the same should apply to bus and lorry drivers who cause fatal accidents when “drunk” on drugs.

Would Ridhuan declare that we should stop all this “sebelum orang Islam hilang sabar”? Most importantly, is there something wrong with the system that enables carnage on our roads to continue? Is it corruption? Negligence? Cronyism?

Will Wan Fayhsal dare to point the finger at the authorities for failing in their duty to enforce road safety rules?

Will he declare that the death penalty is needed to send a “clear message that human life cannot be taken lightly and any action endangering others will face the heaviest consequences”?

Or is outrage limited only to alcohol?

Malaysiakini : Historical truths we must acknowledge

To begin with, let us acknowledge that the Orang Asli are the earliest inhabitants of Peninsular Malaysia who have lived on this land for tens of thousands of years. Their presence represents the foundational layer of our nation’s history. Our Orang Asli brothers and sisters are an integral part of our multi-tiered society.

As noted by Iskandar Carey in “Orang Asli: The Aboriginal Tribes of Peninsular Malaysia”, the Orang Asli occupy a “special position as the truly indigenous inhabitants” of the peninsula. He further emphasised that they lived in the region “before the arrival of the other races, that is, the Malays, the Chinese and the Indians”.

Centuries later, the Malays (early migrants) emerged as the definitive people of the peninsula, shaping its political institutions, cultural identity, and systems of governance through the establishment of enduring sultanates. The rise of powerful polities such as the Malacca sultanate in the fifteenth century marked a turning point in the consolidation of Malay political authority and cultural influence in our society.

In modern times, the Malays have constituted the core of our nation’s political leadership since independence. Our civil service has been largely drawn from the Malay community.

So too have been our army and police, who help to secure our borders and ensure that law and order prevail. Malaysia’s constitutional monarchy, which is rooted in the system of Malay rulers, serves as a bedrock of stability and harmony in our often-fractious society.

This dual recognition is not contradictory. Rather, it reflects the richness, depth, and complexity of Malaysia’s historical evolution and our uniquely layered multi-ethnic heritage.

Contributions of all communities

Malaysia, as it exists today, is the product of the contributions, sacrifices, and aspirations of diverse communities. Over time, people of different ethnic, cultural, and religious backgrounds have come together – through labour, enterprise, intellect, and service – to build and sustain the nation.

From early trade networks and colonial economic development to post-independence nation-building, the contributions of multiple communities are the defining hallmark of our national identity.

Non-Malay communities (later migrants) have played a vital role in Malaysia’s nation-building and economic development.

Chinese entrepreneurs and labourers were central to the growth of tin mining, commerce, and urban centres, laying the foundations of modern industry and trade. Indian communities contributed significantly to plantation agriculture, public works, railways, security, and the civil service.

Over time, both communities expanded into business, education, medicine, law, and the professions, strengthening the nation’s human capital.

Alongside other minority groups and together with the Malays, they enriched Malaysia’s cultural diversity, stimulated economic growth, and contributed to the emergence of a dynamic and resilient multi-ethnic society.

Equally, East Malaysians, including the Ibans, Kadazandusun, and many other indigenous communities of Sabah and Sarawak, have played a vital role in nation-building. Their rich cultural heritage, stewardship of the land, and contributions in public service, defence, and governance have strengthened the Malaysian federation.

Any meaningful call for unity must fully recognise and honour their rightful place as equal partners in the nation’s past, present, and future.

Any narrative that diminishes, ignores, or excludes these contributions does a disservice to truth and undermines the very foundations of our national unity.

Eschewing the label ‘pendatang’

It is therefore both unjust and historically unsound to label non-Malays as pendatang in a derogatory manner that questions their legitimacy, belonging, or citizenship. Such a label is not only divisive; it is deeply damaging to the project of nation-building that remains challenging.

A mature and confident society does not foster unity by devaluing others. It nurtures unity by recognising shared belonging, mutual dignity, and common purpose.

Many non-Malay families, particularly the Malacca Baba-Nyonya, Portuguese Eurasians, and the Malacca Chettis, have lived in this country for generations.

They have worked, sacrificed, paid taxes, defended the nation, developed institutions, and contributed to every sphere of national life. They are not outsiders to Malaysia’s story - they are an integral part of it.

Faithful to constitutional vision

Let us remain faithful to the vision of our founding fathers and the Malay rulers: a nation that is secular in character and allows freedom of worship, multi-ethnic in composition, and ultimately just and non-discriminatory.

The framework that binds this diverse society into a cohesive nation is the Federal Constitution. It remains the supreme law of the land, providing both the structure of governance and the moral compass of the nation. It recognises the special position of the Malays and the indigenous peoples under Article 153.

At the same time, it also guarantees equality before the law under Article 8 and citizenship rights irrespective of ethnicity. It is within this judiciously balanced constitutional framework that Malaysia’s identity as a multi-ethnic, inclusive, and just society must be understood and preserved.

A shared homeland, a shared vision

In light of these realities, we must affirm that Malaysia is a shared homeland. It does not belong exclusively to any single group, but to all who are bound by citizenship, loyalty, and a shared commitment to its future.

Unity, therefore, cannot be built on exclusionary narratives or bigoted and divisive rhetoric. It must be grounded in truth, mutual respect, and a genuine appreciation of diversity as a source of strength.

Malaysia urgently needs to rekindle its shared national vision, one that rises above ethnic suspicions and sectarian politics. Malaysia’s vision should be to become a just, inclusive, and progressive nation where every citizen, regardless of ethnicity or religion, feels a genuine sense of national belonging.

Such a vision must inspire all citizens to see themselves first and foremost as Malaysians, bound together by a common destiny. We must learn to work together, not as competing ethnic communities, but as partners in a common national enterprise.

No community can build Malaysia alone. And no community should be made to feel that it does not fully belong to the nation.

What Malaysians must do

To translate this vision into reality, Malaysians must embrace certain fundamental guiding principles. There must first be a commitment to a truthful and inclusive historical understanding, one that acknowledges the contributions of all communities fairly and accurately.

Respect for diversity must be practised consistently in everyday life, transcending differences of ethnicity, religion, and culture.

Citizens must consciously reject divisive narratives that promote prejudice, exclusion, or superiority, and instead uphold constitutional values that define rights and responsibilities within a shared legal framework.

Above all, Malaysians must actively build bridges across communities, fostering trust, empathy, cooperation, and a common national purpose.

The role of government

The government bears a profound responsibility in shaping a united nation. It must ensure that education, particularly the teaching of history, reflects a balanced, accurate, and inclusive national narrative.

History can unite a nation, but only if it is narrated truthfully and inclusively. Scholars such as Azmi Sharom have cautioned against narrow historical interpretations that undermine critical thinking and inclusiveness.

Equally important, the government must uphold justice and equality through the impartial application of laws, while honouring constitutional provisions. Public policies should promote national integration and social cohesion rather than deepen divisions.

National leaders, in particular, must demonstrate integrity, reject divisive politics, and articulate a unifying vision that inspires collective purpose and national confidence.

Truth, courage, and collective will

Ultimately, a united Malaysia will not emerge by accident. It must be consciously and consistently built through courage in confronting uncomfortable truths, discipline in upholding justice, and sincerity in fostering inclusiveness.

The responsibility lies not only with institutions of governance but also with every citizen who calls this nation home.

If Malaysia is to thrive in the years ahead, it must remain steadfast in its commitment to unity in diversity.

A national pledge

Let this be our pledge:

• To honour the truth of our shared past.

• To uphold the principles of justice and equality.

• To reject discord and embrace unity.

• To work together for the common good.

And to build a Malaysia that is not only prosperous and stable, but also just, inclusive, and truly united – for this generation and those to come.

Malaysiakini : And the opposition is not stupid and incompetent, but merely going to use as a blueprint what Madani is doing now if they ever gain political power. The opposition is not making much noise in these corruption issues because they understand that this is the way they are going to handle things when they assume power.

In fact, by remaining silent, they allow Madani to be the corrupt party in this, and what they say will not come back to bite their behinds when they assume power and do the same thing. Let us be honest here. We can talk about “big fishes” when it comes to corruption, but recall when Pakatan Harapan was in power for the first time.

Harapan, if you remember, talked a good game about cleaning up corruption but always found an excuse for not doing it when in power. Remember the investigation into former Sarawak governor Abdul Taib Mahmud - perhaps the white whale of oppositional talking points when it came to corruption - came to a standstill?

Then de facto law minister Liew Vui Keong said, “They were not new evidence that would allow MACC to open a new investigation paper.”

At the time, then-MACC chief commissioner Latheefa Koya said of the status of high-profile cases: “However, not all complaints ended up being investigated, especially those with evidence which were just printouts from the internet.”

Look, I think Latheefa is doing sterling work now, but when folks had the chance to correct the system, nobody took it. Corruption is not a recent phenomenon, but rather it is part of the DNA of the organism, fuelled by racial and religious imperatives and a compromised electoral system.

Umno/BN designed the system, and Madani is attempting to replicate it, or at least this is the way it seems to rational Malaysians.

Game recognises game

Furthermore, remember Perikatan Nasional was briefly in power, and how did that go? With all those really dumb “Langkah, langkahs”, professional charlatans figured out that they didn’t even need voting to get into power, and a small shift in voting got them ejected from the halls of power in Putrajaya.

With the way the system is gerrymandered, and the unequal weightage of votes, issues like corruption and competent governance are not exactly the greatest concerns of a majority of rakyat who sustain themselves on entitlement programmes and the delirium of social media.

The fact that Malaysians have to keep choosing the same recycled politicians is another reason why this country is screwed. Folks forget that all these people know each other. They understand that they are moving parts in a system designed not to encourage independence but co-dependency.

I mean, with these folks, there is no real ideological difference except game recognises game.

Take this snapshot from the past, for instance. From reportage: “(Lawyer N) Surendran, who is also a former PKR vice-president, said Khairy also organised a roadshow with lawyer Shafee Abdullah after Anwar (Ibrahim)'s sodomy II conviction.”

Corruption cases always start like this. All these rumours and dramas about who the always-present Mister X is then fizzles out when something else happens, and the system endures.

As always, the prime minister maintains his silence and attempts are made to use the state security apparatus to silence his critics. People forget, and those who don’t are vilified by those who want the system to remain but want to kvetch about the system needing reform.

Recent scandals

I am sure Khairy knows more about this most recent of PKR scandals than the average citizen. I am sure Rafizi Ramli knows more about this recent scandal than the average citizen and proves it by naming names.

Why all the drama? The fact that all the players in the corporate mafia scandal are interconnected and Rafizi keeps playing hide and seek with facts that he is privy to muddies the waters when it comes to cases like this.

Khairy and folks like him want to delude people into thinking that they offer change, but they are all imprinted with the imprimatur of old, corrupt men who want the system to endure. There is really no genuine reason to believe that either Khairy, Madani or PN wants to reform the system.

It has come to a point where nobody is even pretending anymore. This is all about who holds on to power, and the non-Malays are merely the vote bank of a coalition which knows it is imploding. There is very little that mainstream politics offers in this country, and the outliers are dodgy at the moment. With PSM getting PAS curious and Muda floundering, the system is content.

I have great sympathy for the agenda of cyber troopers who run around attempting to paint a picture that everything is kosher in Madaniville, because really thinking this through is heart-wrenching. This is how BN got away with their malfeasances for decades.

The difference now is that the world and technology have advanced to a point where masses of people are easily manipulated into surrendering their liberties to fascistic agendas whose oligarchs, clerics and elected officials have no problem colluding with each other.

The only thing that Khairy is evidence of is that Madani and BN's chickens are coming home to roost.

Free Malaysia Today : Rankings over results

When Sarjit met Subahan, the explanation was clearer, but no less contentious.

“He told me he was not happy with the world ranking,” Sarjit said.

Sarjit said the conversation also turned to a remark he had made about the need for a larger player pool.

He told me he took issue with my remark that we need more players,” he said.

Sarjit insisted his comment was taken out of context.

“We have so many tournaments coming, the Nations Cup, World Cup, Asian Games, Sultan Azlan Shah Cup, Asian Champions Trophy. We need more players so we can rotate,” he said. “I said it in a good way.”

The disagreement hinted at a deeper divide between the demands of international hockey and expectations at the administrative level.

Subahan, however, remained focused on Malaysia’s slide in the world rankings following defeats at the World Cup qualifier in Ismailia, Egypt.

But Sarjit pointed to what he believed should have carried greater weight.

“I told him I had already said we would qualify for the World Cup, and we did,” he said. “So I think it’s not fair.”

For Sarjit, the issue was not just the decision, but the timing.

“I think I am the first coach to take a team to the World Cup and not go with them,” he said.

No report, no process

Beyond results, Sarjit questioned how the decision was handled

“You must understand, I had just come back. They had not even seen my report,” he said.

The post-tournament report, he argued, should have been central to any evaluation.

“I have all the data on penalty corners, goals conceded, everything. But I got the boot before anyone read it,” he said.

He also raised concerns over the lack of notice.

“They should give adequate notice, not just remove me like this,” he said.

Sarjit further claimed the coaching and development committee was not part of the decision-making process.

He said it had already been finalised, and Manjit told him he could not intervene.

Pressed on whether this reflected a breakdown in governance, Sarjit stopped short of direct criticism.

“I don’t want to comment on that,” he said. “But the coaching committee plays a very important role.”

‘We qualified, yet I was removed’

At the heart of Sarjit’s frustration is a simple argument.

He met the target set for him.

“When I took the job, I said give me two years. If I don’t qualify for the World Cup, I will resign,” he said. “I kept my word.”

Malaysia secured their place at the 16-team World Cup in the Netherlands and Belgium this August through the world rankings.

They won two matches, lost three and finished fourth in their group.

Ranked No 15, they edged ahead of Poland, who finished fourth in the other qualifying event in Chile but sit lower in the rankings.

“Suppose you are told to qualify and you do it, will you be removed?” he asked.

His answer was direct. “I was made a scapegoat.”

‘Very hurt’, and a warning

Sarjit said the manner and timing of his dismissal, less than five months before the World Cup, made it difficult to accept.

“I did not deserve this,” he said. “Why make a last-minute move and go back on your assurances?

He said he had asked for time to build the team. “I needed two years to build and another two years to get results.”

The experience, he added, left a deep personal impact.

“I am very hurt,” he said. “When they want you, they tell you all sorts of things. When they don’t need you, they just chuck you out.”

Sarjit said the issue goes beyond his own case.

“What happened to me should not happen to any coach in any sport,” he said.

He also pointed to the need for stronger leadership within Malaysian hockey.

“We need the right people in sports, people who know the game, who understand high performance and development,” he said. “We need administrators with vision.”

He acknowledged that his exit may overshadow his past contributions.

“It is sad some people will remember me for this instead of my playing days,” said the two-time Olympian, who represented Malaysia for 12 years and was the national captain for seven years.

Questions that remain

Sarjit did not directly criticise the leadership of Malaysian hockey but his account raises key questions.

If results were the benchmark, why was World Cup qualification not enough?

If rankings were decisive, why was the decision made before a full post-mortem?

And if process matters, who ultimately decides, and on what basis?

Sarjit says he bears no ill will toward his players.

“I have no problems with the players. I wish them all the best,” he said.

He also thanked all parties — players, staff, officials, MHC leadership, the national sports council and national sports institute — for their support during his tenure.

But the sense of unfinished business lingers.

And with the World Cup approaching, Malaysia move forward without the coach who got them there.

Malaysiakini : Who has caused panic at home and abroad by over-reaching himself to help the agenda of a person wanted for war crimes and has a warrant of arrest over his head, in the process causing an oil supply squeeze which threatens the world economy and forcing prices up in the US?

Who has made brazen illegal invasions and attacks across the globe and threatened more, not seen since the days of Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, when tanks and troops rolled into Poland, and when others kept quiet, into the rest of Europe, triggering World War II?

Who rules the world’s most powerful economy and has the levers of destruction at his fingertips, using them like a child that might be given too much, despite being a convicted felon, having instigated a march on Capitol Hill and having numerous allegations of sexual misconduct made against him?

The answer, if you need one: Donald Trump in every single case, amply demonstrating the need for regime change - but in the United States, no less - where a person who should not have become president is wreaking havoc at home and abroad.

Unchecked power threatens global peace

When is the world going to realise that you have to push back against a megalomaniac intent on shaping the world according to his narrow, narcissistic desires to see the return of imperialism and all its untramelled effects?

A world where naked power rules without check or balance, against the norms of behaviour established through international treaties and groupings among nations post World War II to maintain relative peace and equity in a world previously torn asunder by conflict.

Instead, most major countries are bowing to the infantile demands of a spoiled child who has suddenly realised the power he holds in his hands and, instead of using it with great restraint and calm, is taking delight in its irresponsible, irreverent use.

After boasting that he hit Iran’s Kharg Island, which holds many of its key oil facilities, Trump crowed, “We may hit it a few more times just for fun,” demonstrating crass insensitivity, extreme idiocy, and a total lack of sympathy for the needless suffering he imposes on the innocent.

The world should remember that Trump and his good friend, the cruel and heartless Benjamin Netanyahu, who is wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court for genocide in Palestine, struck Iran and killed its top leadership with a sneak attack during negotiations for nuclear disarmament.

Trump-Netanyahu duo flouts global law

Can anyone trust this devious, destructive duo after such a flagrant violation of international norms, law, and order, clearly against United Nations protocol and common human decency, to engage in negotiations or enter into any agreements with them again?

Won’t those affected swear eternal revenge against them instead?

The Independent described the Israeli attack on Iran’s energy installations as a possible war crime and a move taken straight out of Vladimir Putin’s playbook in Ukraine. Now, who believes Israel would have done this without US support, despite what Trump says? No one decent trusts him anyway.

The response from the so-called civilised West - the United Kingdom, Germany, and France - was muted, instead of calling Trump to account, expressed mere regret and reiterated that Iran must not have nuclear weapons. There is no evidence they have.

This follows the same kind of reaction when the Venezuelan president and his wife were abducted at gunpoint and whisked away to New York to stand trial. Ahead of this, the US torpedoed boats off Venezuela’s coast on a mere suspicion of being engaged in the drug trade - no evidence needed.

US blockade deepens crisis

With Venezuela falling, the US has blockaded oil to Cuba, a country which has not harmed the US in any way, resulting in considerable hardship to its citizens. The West remained mute, giving courage to Trump to venture forth even more outrageously.

There could be more than a touch of racism here - most of the decisions of the West have always been considered behind racist lenses, and it seems clear that black, brown, and yellow lives matter less than white ones.

But if the history of Hitler and Nazi Germany is to be learnt, it is that despots and demented people need to be put in their place before they get out of hand, and everyone becomes a victim. Who is to know what Trump does next, if Iran does capitulate, or if they don’t?

And what would the West do - indeed, what can they do - if the US moves against Greenland or Canada or if they demand that they want to control the EU? What are they going to do to resist?

The only way is if the rest of the world collectively stood up to the US and its main allies, the way they did against Nazi Germany and Japan - remember the Soviet Union fought with great effect on the side of the allies, as did the Chinese under Mao Tse Tung against Japanese occupation.

If they allow Trump to get too strong, it may be too late to avert a catastrophe - a full-blown war, in other words.

What would happen if the US strongarmed its way into Greenland, for instance? This is not unjustified speculation. Jonas Gahr Store, Norway’s leader, received a text message from Trump in January, according to the New York Times:

“Considering your country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States.”

That’s from a person who is so embroiled in embellishing his own credentials and an unhealthy penchant for the Nobel prize during an international crisis, he has lost all sense of perspective, making him unfit for the presidency and a menace to world peace.

The West needs to push back hard against Trump and, if necessary, act in concert with the rest of the world to do so. Trump cannot simply act as he pleases, and the sooner he is stopped, the better.

Regime change starts with global pushback

Considerable opposition to Trump is building up against him at home, especially about allowing Israel to drag the US into the Iran war at the height of the Epstein scandal, which has also tainted Trump. Some even postulate that the war was to divert attention from that.

If the rest of the world is brave enough to confront Trump, it will also send a message to US voters who will decide who controls the House of Representatives in the November polls. If the Republicans lose that round, Trump’s powers will be considerably curtailed.

The majority party post-election decides the legislative direction of the House, which is responsible for initiating revenue bills, acting on impeachment, and voting on federal law. It may not be regime change yet, but it’s definitely the first step - it will limit presidential power substantially.

The rest of the world needs to show what kind of person Trump is and why he is not fit to lead the US. He will take the US into the gutter, not “Make America Great Again”. The sooner the US public realises it, the sooner regime change in the US will happen.

Malaysiakini : The shrine was part of the scenery. Part of the life of the community.

But the shrine is no more. Or rather, the red structure remains, but it is empty. The porcelain inhabitant who for decades stood guard in the neighbourhood has vanished. No more offerings or lit candles, just a derelict red structure remains.

I was told that people were afraid in the current climate that the shrine would be desecrated. That its immobile guardian within would be defiled. Better safe than sorry, they told me.

It was not as if the road was earmarked for municipal business or construction. Some folks were just worried; in this current climate, you have to be cautious, they said.

So, something which has been there for decades is no more. Soon, the red structure would be removed, and it would be as if it never existed in the first place.

Why ‘defend’ a religion?

I understand the impulse to protect what is sacred. After the supposed land activist, Tamim Dahri Abdul Razak, stepped on a Hindu religious symbol and made a mockery of the state security apparatus, people understood that their religion needed defending.

After the prime minister announced that state governments need to handle illegal temples, people rightly embraced the need to protect and preserve what is sacred to them.

For decades, I never understood this pathological need by some to defend their religion.

Truth be told, the concept was alien to me. I defined it as propaganda meant to control and maintain power over the majority.

It was a political tool that the establishment used to maintain order. I never understood how a religion, any religion, needed to be “defended”.

When the prime minister talked of “illegal” structures and “victory” over the demolition of a structure which predated municipal laws, people became rightfully worried about the way they observed their religions.

After all, these structures existed for decades under various permutations of ketuanaism and endured.

While there had been flashpoints, there was never an organised, state-enabled attempt to disrupt the racial equilibrium when it came to places of worship, for the most part.

PSM deputy chairperson S Arutchelvan recently wrote a piece which I mostly agree with, and I understand the need to make this a class issue and not a racial one.

The problem with this kind of argument is that it smashes into the reality of race in this country, which is embedded in mainstream politics.

Arutchelvan wrote - in defending urban pioneer settlements, such as the mostly Malay-Muslim communities of Kampung Aman, Kampung Chubadak, Kampung Rimba Jaya, Berembang, and others - that PSM has seen surau and mosques built on untitled land, supported by politicians and residents.

But this is about race and religion, because you have to wonder why on earth, besides corporate interests, would anyone be interested in “illegal temples” if not to demonstrate the superiority of their religion over that which they are attempting to demolish.

And yes, temples and the Hindu community are low-hanging fruit.

Oppression

You have to ask yourself, why now? We have all these extremists either engaging in the destruction of temples or claiming that all this is a legal endeavour.

The fact of the matter is that not one of these temples caused any form of social, economic, or legal dysfunction in this country.

Hindu temples are in your face. While Christian places of worship are subject to strict rules when it comes to Islamic sensitivities - the cross, for instance, apparently has a debilitating effect on some people - Hindu temples are gaudy architectural provocations for people who believe in the supremacy of their faith.

Legacy temples are also a reminder of how the Indian community built this country. Cities may have grown around temples, and without the Chinese, there would be no cities, as former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad reminds us.

However, this has given rise to strategists who delude themselves into thinking that they come from technical backgrounds, but only demonstrate such expertise by demolishing and stepping on sacred symbols.

They are the problem, but the state makes the victims of their harassment the problem. Their crusade reeks of an inferiority complex made worse by a state which thinks it is defending race and religion.

Not only is this malicious, but it also creates an atmosphere where people with not much power feel powerful. This, in turn, becomes a distraction from the failings of an all-powerful state.

Folks like Tamim and controversial preacher Zamri Vinoth prove this every time Madani does not censure them.

Rational Malaysians should keep in mind that the establishment portrays non-Muslims as the ones causing disharmony. This is the narrative that is being reinforced by the powers that be.

This is why it is not only about the destruction of temples but also the obliteration of history. Most importantly, this is about compliance.

Temples are not only symbols of dissent in this climate, but also a reminder of why non-Muslim religions need to be defended.

Malaysiakini : At first, such incidents may appear isolated, but what we are witnessing here is not a one-off controversy. This is a clear progression, where the events escalate step by step.

First, the provocation: stepping on a religious symbol.

Second, the amplification: the act is filmed, uploaded on social media, and widely shared.

Third, the justification. After the public backlash, explanations emerged, with claims of ignorance that the object was mistaken for scrap metal, or that the site was not recognised as religious.

Finally, the escalation emerges in the form of demands, most notably a conditional offer to surrender tied to the demolition of temples deemed “illegal.”

Dangerous line

In short: provoke first, justify later.

If this situation is allowed to fester, compliance itself becomes conditional, and that is a dangerous line.

On the “Tanah Malaya” social media account, Tamim said he would return to Malaysia and surrender to the police only if the authorities demolished a list of allegedly “illegal” Hindu temples.

He wrote: “We, the strategists of Tanah Malaya, come from technical backgrounds instead of arts, and thus we are familiar with only one thing: problem solving.”

This framing goes beyond activism. It turns a legal process into a negotiation, where compliance with the law is tied to political demands.

Calling themselves “strategists of Tanah Malaya” and saying they deal only in “problem solving” sounds confident and technical, but there is irony here. You cannot solve a problem if you are the one defining what the problem is in the first place.

When that definition is disputed, it begins to sound less like problem-solving and more like self-praise dressed as expertise.

The attempt is to make compliance with the law conditional. It links a personal legal situation to an ideological demand, introducing a precedent where the law is treated as negotiable under pressure.

Tensions not new

This is not the first time Malaysia has faced such tensions.

In the case involving convert and controversial preacher, Zamri Vinoth, public perception was that early inaction allowed tensions to build, with enforcement only coming later when the risk of escalation had grown.

Whether that perception was entirely fair is secondary. What matters is the lesson it offers: delays in acting on sensitive, provocative incidents do not calm situations. They often inflame them.

Hesitation creates space for anger to grow, for narratives to harden, and for communities to feel unprotected.

If there is one lesson to be drawn, it is this: timely, consistent enforcement is essential.

When provocative acts are seen to gain attention or receive delayed responses, others may feel emboldened to act.

They do so not necessarily out of malice, but from the belief that they are defending legality, identity, or justice. This is how vigilantism begins, not as defiance, but as misguided justification.

Once individuals begin to take matters into their own hands, believing the law will bend or delay, the consequences become harder to contain. Recent incidents involving religious desecration have already set a public expectation: that action must be swift, enforcement must be firm, and standards must be equal.

If one case is handled decisively while another drifts, the issue is no longer about law.

It becomes about whose sensitivities are protected, and whose are not.

That perception alone is enough to fracture trust.

Rule of law cannot be conditional

Malaysia’s Federal Constitution, under Article 11, guarantees freedom of religion. It requires the state to:

• protect all religious communities

• act fairly and impartially

• prevent acts that inflame tensions

Enforcement cannot bend to the pressure of any kind. Once it does, constitutional protections begin to feel conditional.

At its core, this issue is simple. No person alleged to have broken the law can be allowed to set conditions for compliance or hold enforcement hostage to demands.

The balance of authority must remain with institutions, not individuals negotiating with the law.

That is a line a functioning state cannot blur.

This is where leadership is tested. There will be pressure to manage sentiment, to avoid backlash, to respond tactically, but leadership is not about managing outrage. It is about upholding principles.

Politicians must act in accordance with the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection to all Malaysians.

This moment demands clarity. Not rhetoric. Not delay. Not negotiation.

The rule of law cannot be conditional. Provocation cannot be rewarded, and no individual can be allowed to hold the nation to pressure or make demands. We should draw the line now, clearly and firmly, because if it is not held here, it will be tested again.

Next time, containment may not hold.

Malaysiakini : Yet, FAM’s leaders refused to throw in the towel and instead chose to “go to war” at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), only to be met with an uppercut that left them sprawled on the canvas.

Everyone loves a winner - the sweet taste of glory, the rewards of victory. But failure? Failure flips the script. Friends vanish. Reputation crumbles. Authority is stripped away.

Suddenly, you are the villain. The same fans who cheered now tear you apart. The scrutiny intensifies - especially when the truth about breaking the rules comes to light. There is nowhere to hide.

The entire FAM committee has resigned. But who is really taking the fall?

On March 17, the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) found that FAM had violated the rules by fielding ineligible players in two 2027 Asian Cup Qualifiers matches last year.

Following the finding, the AFC slapped FAM with a fine of US$50,000 (RM196,000) and nullified Malaysia’s wins in the two matches, which ended with the scores: Malaysia 2-Nepal 0 and Malaysia 4-Vietnam 0.

The AFC disciplinary and ethics committee decided that Malaysia lost 3-0 for both matches, based on Article 25.1 of the AFC Disciplinary and Ethics Code.

Govt’s role in citizenship scandal

Even political leaders joined the chorus. PKR Youth chief Kamil Abdul Munim vented his feelings on social media.

“Penyudahnya ‘cekelat angin’,” he said on X, which roughly translates to “We got nothing in the end”.

But Kamil is barking up the wrong tree. He should have sought answers from Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, whom FAM thanked for “facilitating the citizenship papers” for the seven foreign players.

Was it not his party stalwart and Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail who aided in getting citizenship for the seven?

The prime minister also allocated RM30 million for the national football squad. Shouldn’t he and Saifuddin be providing answers instead of maintaining stoic silence, Kamil?

The government was also complicit in the issuance of the false birth certificates and other documents, as confirmed by National Registration Department head honcho Badrul Hisham Alias.

Royal rebuke

But the issue has not ended. They say it never rains, but it pours.

On the heels of the CAS decision two weeks ago, Johor Regent Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim or TMJ, as he is known, has made startling allegations against certain FAM officials - past and present.

The regent claimed he is being made a scapegoat in the scandal and is instead blaming FAM insiders who he claimed had an axe to grind with him over financial matters.

In a post on X, Tunku Ismail claimed that some in FAM had approached him for projects, and to avoid MACC investigations, among others.

These individuals, he claimed, were also unhappy that the government channelled funds directly to the national football team - implying it was because they did not get a cut of the funds.

In a series of social media posts, he alleged misuse and abuse of power and money. In one, he wrote: “Ask him to explain where the TV rights money and sponsorship money that should have gone to each team that competed for years went? Whose pocket?

“Is he still disappointed that his son does not work for FAM anymore because there were issues with the staff?”

In another post, he slammed a former manager of Harimau Malaya.

Those named have retreated into a cocoon, refusing to comment on the allegations.

Due for an overhaul

Football in Malaysia is not just on the ropes; it’s down for the count. It is a multi-million-ringgit enterprise with large amounts flowing through ticket sales, TV rights, sponsorship, allocations from Fifa, etc.

Rightly, it should be run like a commercial organisation, but this is not the case. It is being run like a family-owned business.

Accountability cannot stop at resignations because they risk becoming a convenient exit - a way for those responsible to slip quietly into the shadows without ever answering for the roles they played.

We need a forensic audit conducted by an independent, third-party body with no ties to FAM, no political affiliations, and no vested interests.

This audit must trace the flow of every single ringgit - from broadcasting rights and sponsorship deals, to government allocations and development funds. It must ask the hard questions: Who approved these deals? Who benefited? And who tried to silence those who raised concerns?

Transparency is not just about opening the books; it is about restoring the faith of millions of Malaysians who love this sport. The fans who pack the stadiums, the children who dream of wearing the Harimau Malaya jersey.

Reforms must follow. Not cosmetic changes, not a reshuffling of the same faces, but a fundamental overhaul of how Malaysian football is governed.

That means stronger oversight, stricter conflict of interest rules, and real consequences for those who abuse their power.

The time for an independent audit is now. Not next month. Not next year. Now.

Because every day we wait, the rot deepens, and the trust of the nation erodes further. Malaysian football has been knocked to the canvas - but whether we get back up depends on whether we dare to clean house, once and for all.

Malaysiakini : The same police who knew the location of M Indira Gandhi's husband but were hoping for a happy ending, and the same police who could not contact young James Chai?

Zamri (above, left) and Tamim have been arrested and questioned by the state security apparatus before. For whatever reason, both have demonstrated a brazen attitude to the prospect of being sanctioned by Madani.

Zamri has since claimed he did not flee and was willing to meet the inspector-general of police (IGP), which further makes the Royal Malaysia Police look like a bunch of “Keystone cops” who are incompetent.

The fact that Zamri believes that he can meet the IGP to settle this issue and throws accusations at other prominent personalities reacting to his religious extremism points to how compromised the state security apparatus is when it comes to issues like these.

Unequal power

To understand this kind of thinking, all we have to do is observe the rhetoric of independent preacher Firdaus Wong, who has encouraged minors to disobey their parents if they want to convert, and nothing has happened to him.

He said this about the police, when another agitator was targeted: “Once the operation begins, they will haul everyone in. Trust me.”

This is the kind of confidence which is shaped by the knowledge that the state is sympathetic to your cause and the experience of never being sanctioned by the state.

Keep in mind that Zamri reuploaded a video after the state removed it, and no action was taken against him, which is further evidence that when it comes to insulting minorities and their religion, there will always be insufficient evidence for the state to act.

The police, quick to act against perceived insults to the religion of the state, remain lackadaisical when it comes to insults against other religions.

What we are dealing with here are people who aim to sow discontent in the Indian Malaysian community.

The problem with the religious discourse in this country is not that people are going about insulting each other’s religion, but rather the state has the power to sanction people for trespassing on religious and racial issues.

This power is often applied unequally, with the state-sanctioned religion and its adherents getting off scot-free, when the same does not apply to other religions.

To understand this, I refer you to what Perlis mufti Asri Zainul Abidin hopes for, as reported in the press.

“Asri also voiced his hope that Khalid will consider ‘justice for Muslims’, professionalism, the background of the issues involving Zamri and Tamim, as well as the ‘identity’ of the nation.”

The mufti also hoped that any ruling government would safeguard “the nation’s identity, particularly in matters concerning religion and the Muslim community”.

All this basically means is that people should be treated differently depending on their religion. It is as simple as that.

If you think it is seditious of me to claim that religious operatives are, for whatever reasons, being shielded by the state, which includes the vast religious bureaucracy, hold your horses.

Listen to what the Perlis mufti said about the reasons Global Ikhwan Services and Business Holdings (GISBH) was allowed to operate without state intervention for a long time.

“They may not have picked up this case for certain reasons... some were unwilling to take the risk, and others may have viewed it as insignificant.

“Perhaps some of the group’s (GISBH) beliefs are linked to certain individuals involved, or it may be due to other reasons.”

Law and order

Zamri said he did not flee, and IGP Khalid Ismail said, "Based on intelligence obtained by the police, both suspects have been found to have fled to Thailand.”

Seriously? We are told to believe that the state security apparatus was investigating two suspects in a criminal case, and the police did not have eyes on them?

Think about it this way. Let us say that the police are investigating a terrorist plot, it would only be logical if the police had eyes on the suspects 24/7, right? This is tradecraft 101. What intelligence is the IGP talking about?

The same kind of intelligence that the police in Kelantan had when they raided a Health Ministry-sponsored event in the state, which they claimed was a gay party? So what game is the IGP playing?

Look, I’m not knocking on the police. Believe it or not, from personal experience and a history serving the state security apparatus, I know for a fact that there are police officers who believe that folk like Zamri et all pose a threat to national security.

These are not progressive types by any measure but rather good old-fashioned law and order types who believe that the security of the realm is far more important than any kind of religious ideology.

The fact is, neither Zamri nor Tamim was lying low. Both were using social media for publicity and to agitate against the Indian community.

Zamri was allegedly attacked, and Tamim had caused a firestorm on social media; hence, it was not as if these two criminal masterminds were evading the state.

Indeed, as former Selangor MIC chairperson Awtar Singh, who was involved in a war of words with another agitator, the aptly misnamed Cikgu Chandra (S Chandrasegaran), observed, police personnel were outside the house of this “teacher” when his property was damaged because of his toxic views.

So, if the state security can do all of this, we are to believe that they did not have eyes on these two?

Forces at work

So, what do we know? We know that Zamri was deeply connected with the religious state. We know that both have been investigated at various times and let off by the state.

We know that both were smug and displayed a level of hubris when it came to state investigations into their words and actions.

We have to understand the forces at work here. We have a popular mufti, Asri, who has a well-known animus towards India and who contextualises all conflicts as religious ones.

We have a known Zakir Naik acolyte, Zamri, who is on a crusade to destroy allegedly illegal temples with a supposed nativist activist, Tamim.

The question is not if these two extremists have fled the country, but rather, will the Madani state persecute these two offenders, or will they kowtow to the religious extremists in this country?

Any suggestion of double standards is met with reflexive declarations that “no one is above the law” - a mantra repeated so often it has lost all meaning.

The nation watches, less in awe than in anger, as some break the law with impunity while others face its full weight. The authorities' subdued response to these transgressions has cemented a public perception that justice in Malaysia is not blind - in some cases, it merely looks the other way.

While lawmakers are pushing for the authorities to take action against an “activist” over the desecration of a Hindu symbol, he seems to be enjoying immunity as if he was the special one.

Some leaders speak out but…

DAP politicians have been in the forefront pressuring for action to prevent threats to social harmony and the nation’s stability as racial tensions flare.

DAP chairperson Gobind Singh Deo urged Inspector-General of Police Khalid Ismail to take immediate action against Tamim Dahri Abdul Razak, accused of desecrating a Hindu symbol at the Langkawi Shree Muniswarar Alayam temple.

Tamim brazenly filmed himself and released the video publicly, later insisting that he believed the object he stepped on was “a rusty piece of metal in an unoccupied land clearing,” and not “a place of worship”.

The clip has since triggered highly provocative, emotive, and incendiary reactions across social media, further inflaming tensions.

This is not an isolated case. A handful of others, including two Muslim converts and self-proclaimed preachers, Zamri Vinoth and Firdaus Wong, have in the past escaped citation for similar activities or provocative posts.

---

READ MORE: AGC's inaction will embolden Zamri, Firdaus - NGO leader

When a temple in Rawang was demolished two weeks ago, Gobind, in a statement, said: “I have raised this matter in the cabinet on numerous occasions.

“However, the final authority to prosecute rests with the attorney-general (AG). He must explain why there has been such a slow response thus far and what he intends to do to change the growing perception of inaction.”

Yesterday, Gobind issued another reminder: The authorities need to take swift action against those who disrespect the “soolam” (trident) as the police did in a recent case involving the prosecution of an individual accused of stepping on the Quran.

‘Unwilling to prosecute’

But here is the bitter truth: Zamri and Wong, who were previously reported to have insulted religion, but not prosecuted because the police classified their cases as “no further action”.

Appearing on behalf of the AG, deputy public prosecutor Ainul Amirah said the Attorney-General’s Chambers was unwilling to prosecute the duo as police had classified their cases as NFA.

The important question is: why is there inaction on the part of the police, despite hundreds of reports lodged against Zamri?

This has led to speculation that he and the others enjoy special privileges or have a patron who ensures that the long arm of the law does not reach them.

Most believe such a perception is true because Zamri has been belittling other religions, especially Hinduism, continually over the years, and has escaped scrutiny.

Yesterday, Wong dropped the name of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s wife on social media. He wrote: “I was also surprised when Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail mentioned my name during her inaugural speech.

“Azman Abidin, political secretary to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, invited me to attend the Bandar Tun Razak parliamentary Iftar Jamaie event with Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia at the Azzubair Ibnul Awwam Mosque.

“Before Wan Azizah left, she called me over and said: “Keep up your work.”

Firdaus thanked her for those words of encouragement, adding, “They mean a great deal to me.”A post shared by Firdaus Wong Wai Hung (@firdauswong)

The recent parade of provocations exposes a rot that runs deeper than isolated instances of bigotry.

When Wong - a figure with a documented history of controversial religious posts - can publicly name-drop the prime minister’s wife as his source of encouragement, the message to the nation is unmistakable: proximity to power confers immunity.

A failed system

This is the defining characteristic of a failed system. While Gobind rightly demands swift action against Tamim for desecrating a Hindu symbol, the authorities remain conspicuously unmotivated when confronting Zamri - despite hundreds of police reports lodged against him over the years of religious belittling.

The question writes itself: What explains the paralysis in one case and the quickness in another?

We are told no one is above the law. But when preachers drop political names as shields, when activists film their own desecrations without consequence, and when hundreds of reports vanish into bureaucratic oblivion while others face prosecution within days - the mantra becomes mockery.

The authorities cannot posture as defenders of social harmony while allowing serial provocateurs to operate under political patronage. They cannot claim to be blind defenders of justice while selectively closing one eye.

Malaysians are not fools. We see the double standards. We hear the name-dropping. We watch as some are elevated above the law while others are crushed beneath it.

And to those who believe their political connections render them untouchable - remember that in a nation watching more in anger than in awe, public patience is not unlimited.

Justice delayed may be justice denied, but public memory is eternal.

The question now is not whether the system is flawed or failed. The question is whether those who benefit from its failures will ever be held accountable - or whether in Malaysia, the name you drop matters more than the law you break.

Both incidents have ignited intense reactions online and among the public. If offences were committed, the authorities must pursue the case and bring those responsible before the courts. Yet the debate surrounding the case does not stop at the alleged acts themselves. It extends to a more uncomfortable question: why action appears to come only after tensions have already flared.

Over the years, complaints have surfaced about provocative rhetoric directed at other religions. Some reports were said to have been closed with no further action. Whatever the legal justification, the pattern has created a perception problem authorities cannot ignore. In a multireligious society, perception matters almost as much as action. When enforcement appears inconsistent, speculation fills the vacuum.

People begin to wonder whether the same rules apply equally to everyone. The deeper danger is that such provocations are no longer isolated. Each incident nudges the boundaries of what society tolerates.

What was once unthinkable gradually becomes merely controversial, and eventually routine. Social media has accelerated that shift. Today, provocation rarely stays confined to one place. A single video or post can reach thousands within minutes, often stripped of context and driven by emotion. The result is a cycle in which outrage spreads faster than facts.

In that environment, delays in enforcement carry a cost. When people lose confidence that institutions will act swiftly and fairly, anger spills into the public arena – where fury, not evidence, shapes the narrative. Public debate becomes louder, sharper and less patient with due process.

This is why early and consistent enforcement matters. Acting before tensions escalate often protects social harmony more effectively than prosecuting offences after emotions have hardened. Malaysia already has laws that address acts capable of insulting religion or causing public alarm, and the challenge lies in how consistently and visibly those laws are applied.

The credibility of the law is not measured only by punishment, but by predictability – the assurance that the same act will trigger the same response, regardless of who commits it. Predictability builds trust. Communities feel protected when they know the system will respond fairly and promptly.

Uncertainty, by contrast, feeds grievance and suspicion. This affair should prompt wider reflection. Religious harmony cannot depend solely on legal consequences after the damage is done.

It also depends on the confidence that institutions will act firmly, impartially, and in time. In a country as religiously diverse as Malaysia, the law must not only be fair, but must be seen to be fair, and seen to act in time.

Malaysiakini : The MACC is the country’s principal anti-corruption body, responsible for investigating everyone else. When its chief comes under scrutiny, a contradiction arises: who investigates the investigator?

Possible mechanisms include the Attorney-General’s Chambers under Dusuki Mokhtar, the Chief Secretary of the Public Service Department under Shamsul Azri Abu Bakar, parliamentary oversight committees, or a royal commission of inquiry.

Disappointingly, the government has chosen to treat this as a civil service disciplinary matter, leaving the chief secretary to decide the next steps. This cautious move preserves institutional appearance and avoids fully confronting the legal and ethical implications.

Minister Fahmi Fadzil's reluctance to disclose further details of the investigation is unacceptable. How is this a disciplinary issue and not a criminal corruption investigation? This hesitancy has arisen because the investigator is being investigated.

The Madani administration brands itself as a reformist government, and the prime minister knows that the Azam issue functions as a political trap: An aggressive investigation could expose weaknesses within the MACC, undermine the agency’s credibility, and give opposition groups leverage to claim systemic corruption.

On the other hand, to delay or dilute the investigation, reinforces public perceptions of insider protection much like a members-only club, eroding trust and making the GE14 reform promises look hollow.

Paradox

Unsurprisingly, the political instinct has been to delay, redirect, or diffuse pressure. Successive governments tend to use this classic tactic to avoid immediate accountability.

Allegations reported by Bloomberg describe a network of business figures allegedly colluding with enforcement officers to manipulate companies. Politically, this reframes the story from “Did the MACC chief break rules?” to “Is there a broader corporate conspiracy?”

While the narrative appears to show decisive action against systemic corruption, it also diffuses pressure on Azam personally. Talking about a bigger corruption investigation makes the government look active, but also reduces the pressure to answer the specific questions about Azam.

Here lies the paradox: the MACC is simultaneously accused of selectively undermining certain businesses while protecting others, yet the perceived threat of the ‘corporate mafia’ functions as a bogeyman.

Companies and officials not directly involved behave cautiously, fearing scrutiny, which reinforces elite control and maintains the appearance of oversight. In other words, the elites stay protected, and the rest walk on eggshells. It may look like oversight is working, even if it’s just a show.

Cast our minds back to the 2018 general election, which ended decades of uninterrupted Umno-Baru rule. Today, the ruling coalition still includes Umno-Baru elements, with many leaders retaining their Umno-Baru DNA despite belonging to other parties.

Reformers must juggle power-sharing and institutional integrity. In doing so, they hesitate to pursue major investigations that might rock elite networks. Coalition politics and influential officials often undermine well-intentioned reforms.

Ask any Malaysian, and they will say that they expect the rule of law, independent institutions and anti-corruption enforcement in the country. Delays in the Azam investigation feed perceptions of double standards, institutional protection, political survival and selfish self-interests overriding reform.

Trust in governance, both on the domestic and international fronts, depends on visible, credible enforcement, especially at the top. Not listening to the rakyat is why public frustration is growing.

Stakes are high

The core paradox boils down to this: systems versus powerful individuals. Investigating systemic corruption, such as the alleged corporate mafia, is politically easier than investigating the head of the MACC.

Selective enforcement, structural protection, and coalition politics converge to create an environment where the most powerful man in Malaysia can operate with relative impunity, while ordinary citizens and businesses face the bogeyman of systemic oversight.

The stakes are high, and a transparent, high-profile investigation would:

• Reassert MACC independence and restore domestic credibility,

• Boost investor confidence by signalling fair enforcement and a level playing field,

• Strengthen the reformist image of the Madani administration ahead of GE16, and

• Ensure governance is predictable, transparent, and resilient.

Failing to act decisively risks entrenching cynicism, undermining public trust, and sending the wrong signal internationally: that Malaysia tolerates selective enforcement at the top while expecting compliance from everyone else.

A rigorous, transparent investigation into Azam and a full probe of the MACC would carry substantial benefits. Public trust would be restored. Institutional independence would be strengthened, and show that the MACC is not a political tool. Investor confidence would be enhanced.

Perhaps, more importantly for the leaders of the Madani administration, whose reputations are declining, they would gain political advantage ahead of GE16.

Decisive action would signal courage and principle, strengthen the coalition’s reformist image, and counter perceptions that parties such as DAP are passive or disengaged.

For Anwar, the choice is stark: Inaction? Or act decisively to uphold transparency and the rule of law?

For the nation, the implications, political, economic, and reputational, could not be higher. Malaysians will not tolerate the most powerful man in Malaysia remaining beyond meaningful accountability.

---

Editor's note: Amid allegations that its officers are entangled in a “corporate mafia” scheme, the MACC on Feb 24 issued a second firm denial and dismissed the claims as baseless.

This agreement was not unconditional.

Sabah’s leaders accepted the formation of Malaysia only after receiving assurances that specific constitutional, political and financial safeguards would protect the autonomy and interests of the Borneo territories within the new federation. Among the most important of these safeguards were the financial provisions now reflected in Articles 112C and 112D of the Federal Constitution, which guarantee Sabah 40% of the net federal revenue derived from the state.

This arrangement was never presented as a discretionary federal grant.

It was designed as a structural constitutional safeguard to ensure that Sabah would retain a fair share of the wealth generated from its own land and natural resources, allowing the state to develop and prosper within the Federation. It is therefore reasonable to say that Sabah might not have considered joining the Federation in 1963 had such assurances — including the 40% revenue safeguard — not been given.

These safeguards were not peripheral concessions but fundamental conditions intended to ensure that Sabah would not be economically disadvantaged within the new federation.

Constitutional Basis of the 40% Formula

Sabah’s entitlement to 40% of the net federal revenue derived from the state is not an abstract political claim. The formula itself is embedded in the Tenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, which sets out the financial arrangements between the Federation and the Borneo States.

The inclusion of this formula in the Tenth Schedule demonstrates that the 40% revenue entitlement was designed as a structural component of Malaysia’s constitutional framework at the time of its formation in 1963. It reflects the financial safeguards negotiated under the Malaysia Agreement 1963, ensuring that Sabah would retain a fair share of the wealth generated from its own territory.

In other words, the safeguard was incorporated directly into the constitutional architecture of Malaysia itself. The issue before the courts is therefore not whether Sabah should receive special treatment. The real issue is whether the constitutional safeguards written into the Federal Constitution will finally be implemented as originally intended.

Why the 40% Safeguard Was Created

The financial safeguards provided to Sabah were not arbitrary arrangements. They were introduced because the Borneo territories were significantly less economically developed than Malaya when Malaysia was formed in 1963. The architects of the Malaysia Agreement recognised that Sabah would require greater financial capacity to build infrastructure, develop its economy and improve the living standards of its people.

The 40% revenue entitlement was therefore intended to ensure that a substantial portion of the wealth generated from Sabah’s own territory would remain available for the development of the state. In other words, the safeguard was designed to ensure that Sabah could catch up economically within the new federation rather than fall further behind.

Yet more than six decades later, the reality remains deeply troubling.

Despite its immense natural wealth — including petroleum, timber and other valuable resources — Sabah today remains one of the poorest and most economically underdeveloped states in Malaysia. For many Sabahans, this painful reality reinforces a growing belief that the constitutional safeguards intended to protect Sabah’s economic future have never been fully implemented.

The Historical Assurances Given to Sabah

It is also important to recall the assurances that accompanied Sabah’s decision to join Malaysia. At the time, Tunku Abdul Rahman publicly acknowledged that the Borneo territories were entering the new federation on the understanding that the arrangement must benefit them.

Historical records further indicate that shortly before the formation of Malaysia in July 1963, Tunku Abdul Rahman stated that the territories joining the federation would have the freedom to reconsider their position if the new nation did not bring them benefit. These assurances were intended to address the concerns of Sabah and Sarawak that they might otherwise be dominated within the new federation.

The message conveyed at the time was clear:

Malaysia must work for the benefit of all its founding partners, including Sabah and Sarawak. These assurances formed part of the broader understanding that the constitutional safeguards granted to the Borneo territories would be honoured in good faith.

Historical Context of Sabah’s Entry into the Federation

The circumstances under which Sabah entered the Federation must also be properly understood. Historical records indicate that the political institutions of North Borneo were still in their formative stages when discussions on the formation of Malaysia took place. Sir William Goode acknowledged that local political leadership in the territory was still in the early stages of development when the question of forming Malaysia arose.

Similarly, Donald Stephens later reflected that many of the local leaders involved in the negotiations had limited political experience, as North Borneo was only beginning its transition towards self-government. In such circumstances, the constitutional safeguards negotiated for Sabah — including the financial protections contained in Articles 112C, 112D and the Tenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution — were particularly important.

These safeguards were intended to ensure that Sabah’s interests would be protected within the new Federation despite the asymmetry in political and administrative experience among the parties involved.

Sabah and Sarawak as Founding Partners It must also be remembered that the constitutional position of Sabah and Sarawak differs fundamentally from that of the eleven states of Malaya. Malaysia was not created by simply enlarging the Federation of Malaya.

Rather, it was established through the Malaysia Agreement 1963, an international agreement concluded between the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore. Sabah and Sarawak therefore became founding partners in the creation of a new federation called Malaysia, rather than simply joining an existing federation as ordinary states.

The constitutional safeguards granted to the Borneo territories — including the financial arrangements reflected in Articles 112C, 112D and the Tenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution — were therefore structural components of the constitutional settlement that made the formation of Malaysia possible.

Respecting these safeguards is not merely a fiscal matter.

It is a matter of honouring the constitutional foundations upon which the Federation itself was built. The Question That Cannot Be Ignored

The Federal Government is entitled to pursue its legal rights through the courts. However, the appeal cannot resolve the deeper constitutional issue that now confronts the nation.

If the safeguards promised to Sabah under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 were genuine, they must be honoured both in letter and in spirit. If they were never intended to be honoured, then the historical basis upon which Sabah agreed — though cautiously — to join the Federation deserves honest reassessment.

For many Sabahans, this issue is not merely about constitutional interpretation or fiscal calculations. It is about whether the dignity, rights and future of Sabah within Malaysia are being treated with the respect that was promised in 1963.

Ultimately, the question before the nation is simple:

If the safeguards that persuaded Sabah to join Malaysia in 1963 are not honoured today, how can the people of Sabah continue to believe in the promises upon which the Federation itself was built? Because a federation founded on trust cannot endure if the promises that created that trust are allowed to fade into history.

In the end, this is not merely a legal dispute about revenue. It is a test of whether the constitutional promises that persuaded Sabah to join the Federation in 1963 will be honoured in good faith — because the strength and unity of Malaysia ultimately depend on the trust that those founding promises will be kept.

Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)

Issued in the interest of constitutional accountability and the faithful implementation of the Malaysia Agreement 1963.