While Idrus maintained stoic silence, Anwar, as if the AG himself, went on a tirade of sorts: “Was it 47? Every cheque is a charge. So, the charge is questionable. Every cheque issued is a charge by itself, which does not necessarily seem to be professionally done.”

What Anwar failed to understand or explain is that the Criminal Procedure Code requires every cheque to form a separate charge.

But in Malaysia, nothing is more convincing than throwing in a bit of political drama for a more salacious reading.

“When was the charge proffered? During that time, Dr Mahathir Mohamad was prime minister. When? A week after he called up the president of this nationalist party (Umno), which is a member of my coalition, and told him (Zahid), ‘You dissolve your party and join my party’,” Anwar said.

On Jan 12, Attorney-General Dusuki Mokhtar declared that Zahid's corruption case was “settled once and for all”, but he could have unwittingly exposed a fundamental breach of prosecutorial procedure established by one of his predecessors.

Zahid’s NFA

On May 3, 2019, then-attorney-general Tommy Thomas issued a Public Prosecutor Direction No 2/2019, a directive establishing stringent safeguards against the discontinuance of criminal proceedings.

For context, the directive emerged after a period of public outrage over prosecutorial decisions that appeared to lack transparency and consistency.

Thomas wrote in the directive’s background, lamenting that the spate of discontinued proceedings at that time had called into question the integrity of the entire prosecutorial system.

Lawyers from various quarters are urging the Attorney-General’s Chambers to explain why it has concluded that there will be “no further action” (NFA) in the Yayasan Akalbudi case against Zahid.

However, no answers were forthcoming from the AG.

In May, the Court of Appeal allowed the Malaysian Bar to pursue a judicial review against the decision to temporarily discontinue prosecution against Zahid in 2023.

In a unanimous decision, the panel of three judges led by Faizah Jamaludin said they found the Bar’s judicial review application “appropriate” and not frivolous.

They said the lawyers’ professional body raised arguable issues that warrant a full judicial review and remitted the matter back to the High Court for hearing.

The panel also said Bar’s challenge was not a collateral attack on the criminal court presiding over the case; instead, it challenged the legality and rationality of the AG’s decision that led to Zahid’s DNAA.

With Umno-Pakatan Harapan relations fraying after the Johor and Negeri Sembilan state elections, and leaders trading open attacks, Anwar - who for three years had deflected calls for answers, even in Parliament - now faces renewed demands for a review, with mounting pressure for Zahid to be charged.

Besides, with the MACC and AG prosecuting, among others, former prime minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob and former human resources minister M Saravanan, the voices have grown louder.

Calls for review

On Thursday, DAP’s Jelutong MP RSN Rayer fired the first salvo, urging the AG to review the discontinuation of Zahid’s 47 corruption charges, involving funds from Yayasan Akalbudi, a foundation chaired by Zahid.

Rayer questioned why prosecution against the BN chairperson was discontinued despite the government’s renewed crackdown on corruption, saying the same standards must apply to political allies and opponents.

Yesterday, DAP Youth joined the chorus, calling on the AG to revisit the decision to drop the charges and, if the evidence and legal grounds warrant it, revive the prosecution.

The wing said the matter was closely tied to the country’s institutional reform agenda, arguing that the Madani government’s credibility in fighting corruption could be undermined if politicians within the government were not subjected to the same standards as those outside it.

So, is this sudden surge of prosecutions a flash in the pan or a show of might, or is it another seasonal show to appease citizens calling for a concerted effort to wipe out corruption?

Anwar, despite repeatedly telling Malaysians he would never interfere with the MACC’s work, made a grave error of judgment by giving his take in Singapore when Zahid was given the DNAA in 2023.

The DNAA is not just a procedural twist in a corruption trial - it is a defining moment for Malaysia’s justice system. By defending the move, Anwar has placed his reformist credentials on the line, trying the Madani government’s anti-corruption agenda against a decision that reeks of political expediency.

The silence of the Attorney-General’s Chambers, the apparent disregard for safeguards introduced under Public Prosecutor Direction No 2/2019, and the timing amid coalition fragility all converge to erode confidence in the impartiality of the law.

In the end, the DNAA is more than a legal reprieve; it is a political signal. And unless that signal is corrected with clarity and courage, the Madani government risks losing the very credibility it claims to uphold.

Malaysiakini : Numb to the song and dance

We are exposed to never-ending violence on our television screens, so that horrific images eventually become almost routine. Could the same thing be happening with scandal?

Having been subjected to one major scandal after another for ages, perhaps Malaysians have become desensitised to scandal itself.

FGV, 1MDB, Mara, Felda, LCS, the Defence Ministry, and Tabung Haji.

The names change. The institutions change. The governments change.

Hearing that millions or billions of ringgit may have been lost, we demand answers. There is an investigation. A report is produced. There are calls for reform.

And then? We move on.

Perhaps the most dangerous consequence is not that Malaysians no longer care. It is that we no longer expect anything to change.

Someone may have failed. Someone may have ignored warnings. Someone may have approved the deal. Or the system is flawed. Yet those responsible can appear to escape meaningful consequences.

Another scandal. Another report. Another promise. And another opportunity for the public to shrug and say: “What else is new?”

That is not apathy. It is something potentially more dangerous: resignation.

We may not have become immune to the scandals. We may have become resigned to the lack of consequences.

Scrutiny in Khazanah

That raises an even bigger question: Is the problem simply corruption or poor governance, or is it the absence of political will to stop it?

Who is prepared to act? Political leaders, politicians or senior civil servants? Who is prepared to say “stop” before the next billion disappears?

Some Malaysians claim that Khazanah has historically been treated differently because it is regarded as a sophisticated investment institution, with losses often being framed as investment risk rather than a governance failure.

Oftentimes, scrutiny of Khazanah becomes a debate about whether the fund is being unfairly attacked, rather than simply asking whether individual decisions deserve the same detailed scrutiny as those at Tabung Haji, Felda, or FGV.

Perhaps some of that deference comes from its elitist image, the assumption that because its people are highly educated, including graduates of prestigious universities, they must know best.

But a prestigious degree is not a guarantee against bad judgment, and public money is still public money.

Hence, Khazanah should undergo the same thorough questioning as any other institution entrusted with public money.

Who approved the investment? What due diligence was done? Who raised concerns? And who had the power to stop it?

And this is a marked development. On Aug 20, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim ordered a forensic investigation into Khazanah’s subsidiary Xeraya Capital after governance concerns and irregularities in past transactions were identified.

Perhaps being sophisticated should mean being more accountable, not less.

Speak up when it matters

Nurhisham saw Tabung Haji and thought of FGV. But déjà vu should mean more than recognising a familiar problem after the damage is done; it should force us to ask why the pattern keeps repeating.

Perhaps the challenge to Malaysia’s leaders and senior civil servants is simple: Break ranks.

The old guard cannot remain the permanent gatekeeper of what can and cannot change, and the younger generation cannot simply inherit the same habits.

It is not enough to be younger if you still think like the old guard.

If you know something is wrong, say so. If a deal does not make financial sense, stop it. If warnings are ignored, speak up. If political pressure is being applied, expose it. And if you have the authority to intervene, use it.

Stop telling us, “I don’t know what happened.” Stop telling us, “There is nothing I can do.” And stop blaming everything on the mysterious “deep state” when those in positions of authority refuse to act.

Because leadership is not about explaining why something went wrong after billions have disappeared; it is about having the courage to say “No” before they do.

Malaysia does not need another report telling us what went wrong. It needs someone inside the system brave enough to break the pattern.

Whether that person will come from the old guard, the new guard, politics or the civil service remains to be seen.

But until someone does, déjà vu will remain Malaysia’s most predictable political phenomenon.

Malaysiakini : At the sentencing hearing, Shafee complained to the Federal Court judges: “Two articles - a commentary by R Nadeswaran titled ‘Truth, nothing but the truth’ and an editorial titled ‘Don't do the crime, if you can’t do the time’ - were prejudicial to my client.”

He argued that by explicitly demanding a prison sentence and publicly eviscerating the defence's mitigating arguments while the judges were still deliberating on the sentence, the newspaper and I were attempting to exert media pressure on the court.

Shafee claimed this went beyond fair reporting and crossed into sub judice territory, attempting to dictate to the apex court what the final punishment should be.

What the court did not hear was the most crucial part of my critique: “It is not this writer’s or this newspaper’s business to dissect and scrutinise mitigation pleas from convicted people. The competent authority is the court, and we don't seek to influence them or prejudice the case of the convicted person.”

However, the Federal Court panel said they were not affected by any reports and had decided purely on the evidence and the facts.

“None of these reports, either here or other reports, influenced us at all,” then chief judge of Malaya Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin said before he went on to deliver the five-person panel’s unanimous decision.

Outside the court, Shafee was still at it. “But definitely we are filing for contempt against theSun, that’s for sure. That’s one thing Khir wants us to file for both these articles,” he told reporters after his client was sent off to jail.

Fast forward: In October 2022, Shafee apologised for comments made regarding the 1MDB-Tanore trial, yet maintained that his statements made during a press conference were accurate and not exaggerated.

This came after lead prosecutor Gopal Sri Ram said that Shafee's comments could be seen as an attack against the prosecution. Any dissatisfaction, he said, should be aired in the court before the trial judge.

Sri Ram also warned the senior defence counsel not to conduct a trial by media and told him to fight his case in court, adding that he would have to ask the court to bar discussions of the trial in public by those involved.

Outside the courtroom

These days, it is not uncommon to see lawyers, including Shafee, at the footsteps of the courthouse, offering a critique of what had transpired during the trial.

Similarly, comments were made after former Tabung Haji chairperson Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim and former Treasury secretary-general Irwan Serigar Abdullah were ordered to be remanded for seven days by the Magistrate’s Court.

More recently, former human resources minister M Saravanan released a video and issued a 15-page letter even before he was charged, in which he denied wrongdoing.

Besides, there have been scores of other videos and hundreds of comments on social media on the case.

Should innocence or guilt be decided before a judge instead of a trial by media or a trial of public opinion? Do we need the sub judice rule in our statute books if it is being breached with impunity?

In 2016, I posed this question to the then attorney-general Apandi Ali: “Why do we have to maintain the sub judice rule since jury trials have already been abolished? Surely, judges can’t be influenced by our writings.”

The response was: “The rule must stay because judges are only human. We can’t take for granted that judges can’t be influenced. There have been instances (where) judges have been influenced. Even the mere presence of people in a courtroom can instil fear in a judge.”

Remnants of jury system

Former Bar Council chairperson Ragunath Kesavan described the concept of sub judice in the Malaysian context as “subverting a judicial process”.

He explained that it was “a creature of the past”, a leftover from an era when the outcome of court cases was decided by a jury.

“It was relevant in jury trials. You don't want a jury to be swayed by external pressure or undue influence,” he said.

“Judges are trained in the law. They have been sitting on the bench for years. It would be unlikely for them to be swayed by public discussion,” Ragunath was quoted as saying.

So, little said in not as many words, but the Khir case was not just about one man’s fall from grace; it was a litmus test for how Malaysia confronts corruption at the highest levels.

When defence counsel sought leniency through community service, the proposal revealed a troubling mindset - that white-collar crime could be sanitised into charity work, while ordinary citizens face the full brunt of the law for far lesser offences.

To accept such a plea would have been to trivialise corruption, erode public confidence in the judiciary, and reinforce the perception that the powerful play by different rules.

Justice must remain insulated

Equally dangerous is the creeping culture of trial by media, where lawyers, politicians, and even accused persons attempt to sway public opinion outside the courtroom.

While robust reporting and commentary are essential in a democracy, they must never be confused with judicial authority.

The Federal Court’s insistence that it was guided solely by evidence and facts is a reminder that justice must remain insulated from noise, spin, and theatrics.

The real challenge lies in striking a balance: protecting the sanctity of the courts while preserving the public’s right to scrutinise those who wield power.

Sub judice cannot be invoked selectively - weaponised by the powerful to silence criticism, yet ignored when they themselves conduct press conferences or issue videos proclaiming innocence.

If the rule is to have meaning, it must apply evenly, and breaches must be addressed with consistency.

Ultimately, justice must be seen to be done, not bargained down to dental check-ups or drowned out by media campaigns.

The punishment must fit the crime, and the verdict must rest with judges - not with headlines, press conferences, or viral videos.

Only then can the courts command respect, and only then can the fight against corruption carry real weight.

Murray Hunter : If Maszlee had more time as minister of education, according to the source, both the ministry and almost every top position in Malaysia’s public universities would have been filled with members of an Islamic NGO dedicated to enhancing Islamic teachings and practices in daily life. The NGO is Pertubuhan Ikram Malaysia, which is committed to promoting the interests of Islam through all aspects of society. Other organizations affiliated with Ikram are said to assist in this cause. Although Ikram has a respectable reputation within the Malaysian community, the leadership has been infiltrated by Salafi sympathizers pushing fringe ideas of Islam.

Ikram strongly opposes Shia Islam, seeing it as deviant. The NGO was also strongly opposed to the participation of two Israeli para-athletes in an international swimming competition last year in Sarawak, forcing the competition to be moved to another country, and objected strongly to the staging of a play, “Sex in Georgetown City” last year at the Performing Arts Center in Penang.

As a result, according to several sources in the country’s public higher education system, the ministry became insular in its outlook to education and dedicated to implementing an agenda that would hinder any diverse outlook from educational perspectives. A recent example was a Universiti Malaysia Perlis Vice Chancellor, Dr Ahmad Badlishah, who said there was nothing wrong with controversial exam questions that caused outrage and calls for his resignation across the nation. The multiple-choice question in the university’s Ethnic Relations paper claimed Zakir Naik, a controversial Islamic preacher and fugitive from India on charges of money laundering, is an Islamic icon and spreading true Islam.

Klang Federal MP Charles Santiago complained that other questions were offensive to the Indian community, including one that reportedly read: “These people are dark-skinned people and they are found in Asian countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia: What nation is this?” The multiple-choice answers were given as “1) Negroid; 2) Red Indian; 3) Indians; 4) Bushman.”

The exposure of these exam questions led to a widespread belief that public universities in Malaysia had become platforms for propaganda and indoctrination, giving the young biased ideas about Islam and society.

Members of Ikram, and/or those who strongly sympathized with the movement, that Maszlee appointed to Malaysian public universities in his short time as minister and the dates of their appointment are:

· University Malaysia Sabah: Vice Chancellor Taufiq Yap Hin, Malaysian Chinese Muslim Association president, July 23, 2019

· University Tun Hussein Onn: Deputy Vice Chancellor Student Affairs AP Afandi Ahmad, Aug. 15, 2019

· University Sultan Zainal Abidin: Vice Chancellor Hassan Basri Mat Dahan, Feb. 7, 2019 | Deputy Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs Kamal Shukri Mat, Feb. 12, 2019 | Deputy Vice Chancellor Research and Innovation Mohd Afandi Salleh, Dec. 1, 2018

· University Science Malaysia: Deputy Vice Chancellor Research and Innovation Faisal Rofiq Mohd Abdikan, Oct. 4, 2019 | Deputy Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs, Aldrin Abdullah, March 1, 2019

· Universiti Teknology MARA: Vice Chancellor Azraii Kassim, Feb. 15, 2019 | Deputy Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs Azizan Abdullah, March 6, 2019 | Deputy Vice Chancellor Research and Innovation, Nazir Suratman 15 November 2018

· National University Malaysia: Vice Chancellor, Mohd Hamdi Abd Shukor, Jan. 1, 2019 | Deputy Vice Chancellor Research and Innovation, Mohd Ekhwan Toriman, Aug. 18, 2018 | Deputy Vice Chancellor Community Industry Relations, Imran Ho Abdullah Sept. 5, 2018

· University Technology Malaysia: Vice Chancellor Wahid Omar Aug. 31, 2018 | Deputy Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs Zainudin Abd Manan, Mar. 18, 2019 | Deputy Vice Chancellor Development, Azlan Abdul Rahman, Feb. 15, 2019

· University Malaysia Perlis: Vice Chancellor R. Badlishah, May 16, 2019

· University Malaysia Kelantan: Deputy Vice Chancellor Research and Innovation, Arham Abdullah, June 15 | Deputy Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs, Mohd Rafi Yaacob, Jun 20, 2018

· University Malaysia Pahang Vice Chancellor Wan Azhar Wan Yusof, May 14, 2019 | Deputy Vice Chancellor Research, Kamal Zuhri Apr 8, 2019

· Innovation University Technical Malacca: Deputy Vice Chancellor Research and Innovation Zulkifli Ibrahim, Nov. 15, 2018 | Deputy Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs Nurulfajar Abd Manap, Oct. 23, 2018

· University Science Islam Malaysia: Vice Chancellor Mohamed Ridza Wahiddin, Sept. 12, 2019 | Deputy Vice Chancellor Student Affairs Abd Rahim Abd Rahman, Jun 25, 2018

· International Islamic University of Malaysia: Deputy Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs Zulkifli Hassan, Oct. 3, 2018

The Zakir Naik – Islamic icon exam question was on Badlishah’s watch

Maszlee also appointed Mohd Saleh Jaafar deputy director general of Higher Education (Private Institution) and Gauth Jasmon as chairman of the Universiti Putra Malaysia Board of Directors.

All are described as loyal to the Ikram leadership, which also appears to be strongly aligned with the Pakatan Harapan government. Consequently, decisions on matters such as Putrajaya’s failure to sign the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) in 2018, should be seen in the light that members of Ikram are spread across all aspects of government.

The concern is the reform of the Malaysian education system, not its Islamification. To ensure reform, the sources say, Maszlee’s appointments must be re-vetted as to the suitability to pursue reform within their respective institutions. Otherwise, this Salafist legacy will remain embedded within Malaysian public universities.

Originally published in the Asia Sentinel 15th January 2020

Murray Hunter : The recent assault on the Global House hardware and furniture store in tambon Bana, Muang district of Pattani, marks a striking escalation in Thailand’s long-running southern insurgency.

On the evening of 29 August 2026, shortly before 7 pm, five masked gunmen arrived on two motorcycles and a motorcycle fitted with a sidecar. Armed with assault rifles and handguns, they quickly subdued the security guards at the entrance.

Two of the men entered the store and ordered staff and customers to evacuate immediately. One attacker reportedly told a guard, “If you do not want anyone to be killed, hurry and get everyone out of the store.”

Picture of Global House Pattani

The group then planted three explosive devices at different points inside the building while the fifth man left the loaded sidecar in the loading area. The attackers fled on their motorcycles. Roughly five minutes later, three bombs detonated inside the store. No one was killed or injured.

Bomb disposal teams later examined the abandoned sidecar. It contained an improvised explosive device packed into a gas cylinder weighing nearly 50 kilograms, together with several gallons of petrol. Officials assessed the device as a potential booby trap intended to detonate remotely once security personnel arrived.

Explosive ordnance disposal specialists spent about two hours rendering it safe. The motorcycle-sidecar combination and the coordinated nature of the attack demonstrated careful planning and a willingness to operate openly in a commercial setting with public witnesses present.

For more than two decades, insurgents in the Deep South have largely relied on “hit-and-hide” tactics, using ambushes, roadside bombs, and quick withdrawals that minimize direct confrontation with the public or prolonged exposure.

The Global House raid broke that pattern. The attackers entered a busy commercial premises, interacted with civilians and staff, issued verbal warnings, and only then triggered the explosions. This visible, deliberate presence in a public commercial space represents one of the more brazen operations recorded in the current phase of the conflict.

The choice of target aligns with a broader pattern of strikes against economic infrastructure. Global House is a large retailer of construction materials and household goods. Damaging such a facility disrupts local commerce, raises operating costs for businesses, and signals that economic activity itself is a legitimate objective.

Recent weeks have already seen coordinated attacks on convenience stores, municipal offices, and other commercial or administrative sites across Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat. The cumulative effect is to undermine investor confidence and daily economic life in the three southern border provinces.

Security officials have linked the timing of the attack to the possibility of renewed dialogue. Reports indicate that peace-related discussions involving parties linked to the Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN) and other interlocutors have been floated, with potential talks referenced in connection with Malaysia.

A high-profile, public operation of this kind complicates any claim by negotiating representatives that they can restrain or speak authoritatively for militant elements on the ground. When groups capable of mounting such an action continue to operate independently of declared political tracks, the credibility of those tracks is inevitably weakened.

The incident also fits a wider upsurge in militant activity observed in late August 2026, including multiple bombings, arson attacks, and raids conducted across dozens of locations in a short period.

While the precise command structure and internal motivations behind the Global House assault remain unconfirmed, the operational signature, like open entry, civilian clearance, multiple planted devices, and a secondary vehicle-borne charge, points to growing confidence and a shift toward more assertive methods.

Whether this reflects a deliberate strategic recalibration or the actions of a more autonomous militant faction, the result is the same: heightened insecurity, damage to local economic life, and further obstacles to any meaningful political process.

Malaysiakini : The promise of Merdeka

The proclamation of independence did not proclaim Malaya an ethnic or theocratic state. It declared Malaya a sovereign democratic nation founded upon “the principles of liberty and justice” and dedicated to the welfare and happiness of its people.

In his historic Merdeka address, Tunku called upon the people to create a nation inspired by justice and liberty - “a beacon of light in a disturbed and distracted world”.

A year later, he said Malaya should show how people of different ethnicities and creeds could live together as one people, in peace, for the good of all.

Tunku understood a truth that too many leaders appear to have forgotten: a plural nation cannot be built through domination. It requires trust, accommodation and a shared sense of belonging.

The Alliance leaders who made independence possible - Tunku, Abdul Razak Hussein, Tan Cheng Lock, HS Lee, VT Sambanthan, and their colleagues - did not agree on everything.

Yet they and the Malay rulers recognised that independence required compromise and mutual sacrifice. Every community had to make room for the others.

The resulting 1957 constitutional settlement preserved the Malay rulers, established Malay as the national language, recognised Islam as the religion of the federation and safeguarded the special position of the Malays.

The Constitution also created a common federal citizenship, protected fundamental liberties, and guaranteed equality before the law.

Article 153 required the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard both the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of other communities.

Six years later, the Malaysia Agreement 1963 provided for Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore to be federated with the existing states of the Federation of Malaya, with the federation thereafter called Malaysia.

The Constitution was amended accordingly, including safeguards for Sabah and Sarawak.

Malaysia’s founding story therefore rests on two connected but distinct moments: Malaya’s independence on Aug 31, 1957, and Malaysia’s formation on Sept 16, 1963.

Towards a common nationality

The Reid Commission Report records the Tunku-led Alliance’s declaration that all nationals should enjoy equal rights and opportunities, without racial or religious discrimination.

The Malay rulers likewise hoped that communalism could eventually disappear from political and economic life.

The commission considered the continuation of safeguards for the special position of the Malays justified by the serious socioeconomic imbalances then prevailing.

It envisaged that the need for these safeguards would diminish as the communities became integrated into a common nationality.

It therefore recommended a review after 15 years, with the legislature empowered to retain, reduce or discontinue the quotas.

That review mechanism was not included in the final Constitution, and Article 153 remains fully operative.

It is important to note that the Constitution recognises the special position of the Malays; it does not establish “ketuanan Melayu”. It protects the legitimate interests of all citizens; it does not create masters and guests.

A secular constitutional nation

The 1957 founding record is equally clear about independent Malaya’s constitutional character.

The Alliance memorandum stated that making Islam the religion of the federation would not alter Malaya’s secular character.

The 1957 constitutional White Paper was explicit: the declaration concerning Islam would “in no way affect” the federation’s position as a secular state.

Tunku removed any remaining doubt in the Federal Legislative Council on May 1, 1958: “This country is not an Islamic state as it is generally understood.”

He explained that the Constitution merely provided for Islam as the official religion. The formation of Malaysia in 1963 did not replace that constitutional order with a theocratic one.

Secular does not mean anti-Islam or hostile to religion. The Constitution gives Islam a special and honoured position while allowing other religions to be practised in peace and harmony.

It subjects all public power, including authority over religious matters, to the Constitution and the law.

Article 4 declares the Constitution the supreme law of the federation. Political declarations cannot alter it, and no government may disregard the constitutional division of powers in the name of religious conviction.

How far we have strayed

Yet 69 years after Malaya’s Merdeka, we are still arguing over who belongs. The word “pendatang” is used not merely to describe historical migration but to question the loyalty and legitimacy of Malaysian citizens.

Claims that Chinese Malaysians have China and Indian Malaysians have India as their “homeland” reduce citizenship to ancestry.

The Malay peninsula is the historical homeland of the Malays, whose rulers, language, culture, and institutions shaped its identity over centuries.

It is also the ancient homeland of the Orang Asli, the peninsula’s first peoples, while modern Malaysia is the constitutional homeland of every citizen.

These truths are complementary, not contradictory.

A citizen is not a guest. Citizenship is not a temporary permit that one community may withdraw from another. Malaysians who have worked, paid taxes and built the country should not still be asked to prove that they belong.

Divisive politicians benefit from keeping Malaysians fearful. When questions arise about corruption, incompetence, or abuse of power, it is convenient to declare that one race or religion is under threat.

The formula is familiar: divide the people, distract them from failures of governance and then pose as their protector.

The end result is a nation rich in talent yet impoverished in trust: a nation divided when it should be united, regressing when it should be progressing, and squandering the promise of its people while other nations confidently forge ahead.

Rule of law cannot be optional

The damage extends beyond national unity. Our constitutional balance is also threatened when governments treat the law as an obstacle rather than a restraint on power.

The Kedah gambling-licensing dispute illustrates this wider danger. The issue is not whether gambling is morally desirable. Islam prohibits gambling, and the activity may be strictly regulated.

The question was whether a state could use premises licensing to prohibit an activity regulated and licensed under federal law.

On June 20, 2024, the High Court ruled that Kedah’s blanket non-renewal policy was illegal, irrational and unconstitutional.

A Court of Appeal majority affirmed that decision on Dec 12, 2025, holding that Kedah had exceeded its constitutional powers.

On Aug 12, 2026, the Federal Court unanimously dismissed Kedah’s application for leave to appeal. The lower-court rulings therefore remained undisturbed.

It is disturbing that Kedah Menteri Besar Sanusi Nor subsequently suggested that there might be “another way” to preserve the state’s zero-gambling policy.

He acknowledged that lawyers would have to ensure that any step did not amount to contempt.

Seeking lawful advice is proper. Reproducing the quashed blanket policy through another administrative device would not be.

Governments may pursue available appeals and adopt lawful policies within their powers, but a binding judgment must be obeyed unless it is stayed or set aside.

If governments respect only judgments they like, the rule of law becomes rule by power.

Reclaiming Tunku’s inclusive vision

The way forward does not require us to erase Malay history, diminish Islam, or ignore the legitimate needs of the Malays and the indigenous peoples of Sabah and Sarawak.

It requires us to return to the constitutional balance on which Malaysia rests.

This means moving beyond the politics of “ketuanan Melayu”, recognising that Orang Asli communities trace their presence in the peninsula back thousands of years, long before the arrival of later peoples, and honestly acknowledging the immense contributions of non-Malay communities to the nation’s economic development.

A mature nation does not need to distort its history, deny inconvenient truths, or diminish one community to affirm another. Malaysia can move forward only when every citizen is regarded not as a guest or rival, but as an equal stakeholder in our shared homeland.

First, every government and every political leader must treat the Constitution as a binding national covenant, not an inconvenience.

Court decisions must be obeyed, public institutions protected from political interference, and laws applied impartially.

Second, we must reject the politics of ethnic and religious fear. Malaysians should scrutinise every candidate and reject the corrupt, incompetent, dishonest, and divisive - regardless of ethnicity, religion, or party.

Loving one’s community does not require hostility towards another.

Third, affirmative-action policies should overcome disadvantage and build capability. Article 153 must be honoured.

Assistance should be transparent, effective, and directed towards those facing genuine disadvantage. Such policies must never become a shield for cronyism, mediocrity, or perpetual dependency.

Helping disadvantaged Malays and the indigenous communities of Sabah and Sarawak remains essential; so does ensuring that no poor Malaysian is abandoned.

Fourth, our education system must teach an accurate and inclusive history: the central role of the Malays and Malay rulers, the ancient presence of the Orang Asli, the distinct histories and constitutional position of Sabah and Sarawak, and the contributions and sacrifices of every community.

History should deepen belonging, not manufacture resentment.

Finally, national leaders must speak the language of shared citizenship.

Words matter. A leader who casually labels fellow citizens “pendatang” wounds the nation. A leader who defends constitutional rights, even when politically inconvenient, strengthens the nation.

Merdeka was more than Malaya’s freedom from British rule; it was a commitment to liberty, justice, democracy, and law. We need the moral courage to honour that shared promise.

Let this Merdeka mark a national awakening: no citizen treated as a guest, no community made inferior, no politician allowed to profit from division, and no government placed above the law.

Tunku carried Merdeka’s ideals into the formation of Malaysia. Sixty-nine years later, we must reclaim that inclusive vision and make every Malaysian feel fully at home.

May God bless Malaysia and keep us united in our diversity.

Malaysiakini : In the end, hopefully during Indira’s lifetime, we will discover what happened to Prasana. We will discover how she grew up, how her upbringing shaped the woman she became, but most importantly, if she even knew that Indira was her mother.

Indoctrination

In this age of instant communication and the dissemination of information, it is difficult to believe that Prasana is unaware of what is transpiring around her.

Children these days are exposed to so much. They literally hold information about the world in the palm of their hands.

Children are wired to be recklessly curious and take unnecessary risks. The cold, hard truth is Prasana could have reached out if she wanted to, if there was any kind of normality in her life.

Years of poring through cases of kidnapped children and the psychological abuse and manipulation at the hands of their captors have led me to believe that Prasana could very well believe that her kidnapper is her saviour and that her mother is the person in the wrong.

Her kidnapper - her father, Riduan Abdullah - will tell her that even the police are on their side.

You only have to read the public comments of various IGPs to make this point. She will believe that even politicians are on her father’s side because they have not done anything to see her returned to her mother.

Willful blindness feeds the narrative

Indeed, the political class has made it very clear that they see no crime in this controversial case because if they did, there would be outrage in Parliament and in the press, as in so many other cases.

What her kidnappers will point to is that various prime ministers of this country have done nothing about this case.

The current prime minister knows that this is wrong. When he was opposition leader in 2013,  he said that the position in Islam was that conversion could only occur with the consent of the mother.

As reported in the press, “There’s a specific case where the Prophet Muhammad sent a child back to the mother because the mother did not convert to Islam and only the father did so.”

Prasana was taken as an infant, and there will no doubt be women and girls in her life when growing up who would reinforce the narratives of her criminal father.

They would make her believe that she was saved from a life in a minority community which is routinely demonised by prominent political and religious personalities.

Who knows if Prasana is married and has a child of her own. Could Indira be a grandmother? This is one way to keep a young woman bound to the community that took her.

Criminology regarding these sorts of crimes, whether it involves cults or religious kidnapping all over the world, indicates that such things are possible.

Here in Malaysia, child marriages are an issue the political class has been grappling with for decades.

It would not surprise me if there are enablers who are average citizens conspiring to keep this child within Islam.

I do not think these people consider Riduan as some sort of religious martyr, but they believe that Indira’s daughter belongs to them and their faith.

She would believe that her kidnapper saved her soul because religion has played a defining role in how the state has managed this crime. This is not a controversial idea.

Social media radicalisation

In 2018, the Federal Court nullified the conversion of Indira’s children because it was carried out without her consent. What was Syariah Lawyers Association president Musa Awang’s response to this after the landmark ruling?

“There might be people who will take advantage (of the ruling) and abscond with the child and hide the child until the child decides (what religion they want to embrace).”

Social media is going to radicalise this kidnapped victim in ways that we cannot fathom.

Reading comments on social media, you will discover that while most non-Malays view this kidnapping as a transgression against a mother, there are many Muslims who have no sympathy for Indira.

They believe that her young daughter was saved from an idol-worshipping culture and from her race, which they define in the most racist of stereotypes.

These are not stereotypical religious people. These are educated people, some even Western-educated, who view Indira as some sort of racial and religious provocateur whose intent is to tarnish their religion by going against the rights of her husband.

The only assumptions I can make after years of following this case and studying the literature on the subject are that Prasana truly believes the narratives of her kidnapper, or she is kept in isolation and those around her are her jailors.

The latter would be a fate I believe even her mother would not want.

Malaysiakini : However, the Bar Council’s reliance on the judicial view that Islam’s constitutional role was primarily ceremonial does not fully capture the legal position.

The constitutional text, read alongside subsequent judicial decisions, points to a more complex and nuanced conclusion.

Definitions matter

An “Islamic state” has no universally accepted legal definition. If it simply means a Muslim-majority country in which Islam is constitutionally recognised, Islamic institutions receive public funding and Islamic law is given legal effect in specified areas, Malaysia qualifies in that broad sense.

However, if it means a state in which syariah is the supreme law, all legislation derives its validity from it and any inconsistent law is void, Malaysia does not.

“Secular state” is equally ambiguous. If secularism requires an impermeable wall between religion and government, Malaysia is not secular: the Federal Constitution expressly recognises Islam and provides extensive machinery for its administration.

If it means that the legal authority of public institutions ultimately derives from and is limited by a written Constitution, rather than directly from religious law, and is exercised through constitutional and representative institutions subject to review by the civil courts, Malaysia has a fundamentally civil-constitutional structure.

The answer therefore depends on the definition being used.

What constitutional text says

Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution states: “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.”

Islam’s position is therefore constitutionally recognised and institutionally significant; it does not rest merely on the country’s Muslim-majority population.

Other provisions give that declaration institutional effect. The Malay rulers are heads of Islam in their respective states, while the Yang di-Pertuan Agong holds that position in the federal territories and the four states without a ruler - Malacca, Penang, Sabah and Sarawak.

Article 12(2) permits public funding for Islamic institutions and instruction. Article 160 links the constitutional definition of “Malay” to the profession of Islam.

Religious freedom is also constitutionally protected, though not without limits. Article 11(1) gives every person the right to profess and practise a religion and, subject to Article 11(4), to propagate it.

Article 11(4) permits state law, and federal law in the federal territories, to control or restrict the propagation of religious doctrines or beliefs among Muslims. Article 11(5) provides that Article 11 does not authorise acts contrary to general laws concerning public order, public health and morality.

Article 74(2), read with Item 1 of the State List in the Ninth Schedule, empowers state legislatures to make laws concerning Islamic personal and family law, mosques, zakat, wakaf, and the creation and punishment of offences by persons professing Islam against the precepts of Islam, except in relation to matters within the Federal List.

This legislative field also encompasses the Constitution, organisation and procedure of syariah courts, whose jurisdiction is confined to persons professing Islam and matters falling within Item 1.

Their jurisdiction over offences extends only so far as federal law permits. These constitutional arrangements make clear that Malaysia is not a polity in which religion is institutionally excluded from public life or Islam confined to private devotion.

Yet, Article 3 does not stand alone. Article 3(4) expressly says that nothing in Article 3 derogates from any other constitutional provision.

Article 4(1) declares the Federal Constitution to be the supreme law of the Federation. Any post-Merdeka law inconsistent with it is void to the extent of the inconsistency. Islam’s protected position must therefore be read together with fundamental liberties, federalism, representative government and judicial review.

Article 121(1A), inserted in 1988, provides that the civil courts “shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the syariah courts”.

It is sometimes cited as proof that Malaysia has two co-equal and autonomous judicial systems. That interpretation overstates its effect.

The provision operates only where a syariah court lawfully possesses jurisdiction; it does not create or enlarge syariah jurisdiction, expand the State List or oust the superior civil courts’ power to determine constitutional and statutory legality.

Syariah court’s jurisdiction must be conferred by valid legislation, be limited to persons professing Islam and matters within Item 1 of the State List and, in respect of offences, remain within the limits conferred by federal law.

Founding fathers’ constitutional vision

The constitutional history reinforces this reading. Paragraph 169 of the 1957 Reid Commission Report recorded the Alliance’s proposal that Islam be the religion of Malaya, together with the assurance that this would not affect the civil rights of non-Muslims or imply that the state was not secular.

The commission’s majority did not recommend inserting such a provision. Judge Abdul Hamid from the Pakistan High Court supported it in his sole note of dissent, and the present clause was subsequently adopted through the working party process.

The 1957 government White Paper, Federation of Malaya Constitutional Proposals, was explicit that inserting the declaration on Islam would not alter the Federation’s existing position as a secular state.

On May 1, 1958, Tunku Abdul Rahman similarly told the Federal Legislative Council that Malaya was not an Islamic state in the generally understood sense, even though Islam had been made the state’s official religion.

Formation of Malaysia

The formation of Malaysia added another layer. The 1962 Cobbold Commission recorded serious concerns in North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak.

Its Malayan members agreed that Islam should be the national religion of the Federation, while concluding that religious freedom would not be jeopardised and that the Federation would, in effect, remain secular.

These historical sources do not override the Constitution’s enacted text.

They do, however, show that Article 3 was not intended to establish a theocracy or make every law subject to a religious validity test.

In this context, “secular” did not mean hostility towards religion or the banishment of Islam from public life.

It described a civil constitutional polity in which public institutions derived their powers from the Constitution, non-Muslims retained religious freedom, and ordinary law did not become invalid merely because it failed to conform to a religious rule.

What courts have decided

The starting point remains Che Omar Che Soh v Public Prosecutor (1988) 2 MLJ 55. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that a federal criminal law became unconstitutional merely because it was inconsistent with Islamic law.

Then-lord president Salleh Abas held that, in the context of Article 3, “Islam” meant acts relating to rituals and ceremonies, and concluded that the law then operating was “secular law”.

Che Omar should nevertheless not be read as reducing Islam to pageantry in every constitutional respect.

In Nik Elin Zurina Nik Abdul Rashid & Anor v Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan (2024) 2 MLJ 150 (Nik Elin), the Federal Court explained that Malaysia’s general legal system “leans more towards secularity without being purely secular”, because the Constitution also permits the limited enactment and application of Islamic law.

---

READ MORE: Apex court strikes down 16 Kelantan syariah criminal provisions

---

The controlling point in Che Omar remains that Article 3 does not make conformity with syariah the general test of validity for every Malaysian law.

Indira Gandhi’s case

Later Federal Court decisions have reaffirmed the constitutional hierarchy. In Indira Gandhi Mutho v Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & Ors and other appeals (2018) 1 MLJ 545, the court held that Article 121(1A) does not remove the civil courts’ power of judicial review.

Civil and syariah courts operate within their respective constitutional spheres, and syariah courts cannot acquire jurisdiction beyond what valid state law confers within constitutional and federal statutory limits.

In Iki Putra Mubarrak v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Anor (2021) 2 MLJ 323, the Federal Court invalidated a Selangor syariah offence because its substance fell within federal criminal law.

In Nik Elin’s case, an 8-1 majority declared 17 Kelantan provisions - 16 complete sections and paragraph 37(1)(b) - invalid because, in pith and substance, they fell within Parliament’s legislative power over criminal law.

The court emphasised that the case concerned legislative competence, not the constitutional position of Islam or the authority of the syariah courts within their lawful sphere.

On June 19, 2025, a 3-1 majority in SIS Forum (Malaysia) & Anor v Jawatankuasa Fatwa Negeri Selangor & Ors (2025) 4 MLJ 625 followed the court’s earlier decision in SIS Forum (Malaysia) v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor; Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (Intervener) (2022) 2 MLJ 356.

---

READ MORE: SIS fatwa: Apex court rules only people, not companies can be declared deviant

---

The majority held that paragraph 1 of the fatwa was valid only insofar as it applied to natural persons, because SIS Forum, as a corporation, was incapable of professing the religion of Islam.

It invalidated paragraphs 2 and 3, which mandated the confiscation of publications and directed the MCMC to block social-media content, because those matters lay beyond Selangor’s legislative competence. Paragraph 4 remained valid. The court expressly declined to rule on the theological merits of the fatwa’s condemnation.

Judicial secularisation?

Critics sometimes characterise such rulings as judicial secularisation. That confuses the subject of a law with the source of legislative power.

A measure does not become constitutionally valid merely because it is made in the name of Islam, just as a federal law does not become valid merely because Parliament enacted it.

Both Parliament and the state legislatures derive their powers from the Constitution. If the present division of powers is considered inadequate, the remedy lies in constitutional amendment through the prescribed democratic process - not in criticising judges for applying the existing constitutional allocation of powers.

Hybrid constitutional system with clear legal apex

In Iseas Perspective 2025/27, “Legal Pluralism in Malaysia: Navigating the Civil and Shariah Systems”, constitutional scholar Shad Saleem Faruqi referred to “Malaysia’s hybrid, partly secular, partly religious constitutional system”.

That description is persuasive because it acknowledges both sides of the settlement: Islam has an exalted constitutional and institutional position, while the overall system rests on constitutional supremacy, parliamentary law-making, federalism and judicial review by the superior civil courts.

Malaysia is not secular in the strict separationist sense, but neither is it a theocratic Islamic state.

Political declarations cannot change that architecture. A prime minister may call Malaysia an Islamic state, a secular state or something in between, but such a statement neither amends the Constitution nor binds the courts. Constitutional identity cannot be created by proclamation.

The most defensible formulation is this: Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy in which Islam is the religion of the Federation and enjoys a special institutional position, while Islamic law enacted by the states - and by Parliament for the federal territories - operates within constitutionally defined fields, and the Federal Constitution remains supreme.

So, is Malaysia an Islamic state? Malaysia is unquestionably a Muslim-majority country in which Islam enjoys special constitutional and institutional recognition.

But in the constitutional sense of a state governed by the supremacy of syariah, the answer is no. The Federal Constitution is the supreme law, and any legal answer must ultimately be anchored in it.

After nearly seven decades of independence, Malaysians should be celebrating our remarkable diversity, not allowing this recurring dispute to drive us further apart.

Malaysia belongs to all its citizens. Our future depends not on endlessly contesting one another’s place in the nation, but on respecting the Constitution, embracing our shared citizenship and recognising our diversity as a source of strength.

That is the Malaysia we should strive to build - and the nation we should be proud to leave to future generations.

Malaysiakini : Substantially reworked

As Ranjit said in the introduction to the book, each chapter has been “substantially reworked: expanded with richer detail, sharpened analysis, and supported by specific citations from authoritative sources.”

The impetus for the book, in Ranjit’s words: “Since 1996, Malaysia’s secondary school history textbooks have presented a markedly one-sided narrative - overwhelmingly framed through Malay and Islamic perspectives - resulting in distortions, half-truths and the omission of important facts vital to nation-building.

“In effect, many young Malaysians are likely learning a government-sanctioned version of history framed largely through the perspective of one ethnic group and perceived by critics as aligned with the concept of ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ (Malay supremacy).”

He further goes on to outline what’s missing in the textbooks that merit attention.

First, the pivotal roles of non-Malays in tin-mining, rubber cultivation, commercial agriculture and infrastructure development are minimised or erased.

Second, civilisational coverage emphasises Islam, minimising Indian and Chinese civilisation and sidelining the “profound Hindu-Buddhist influence on Malay language, literature, governance, and culture”.

Third, in terms of accuracy and attributions, there are occasional errors in dates, attributions, and the portrayal of historical figures such as Parameswara, which undermines credibility.

Finally, he takes issue with the poor representation of the position of the original inhabitants, the Orang Asli, who “are virtually invisible in the narratives of the Form 1 to 5 textbooks”.

Common distortions

Chapter 1 kicks it off with a discussion of common distortions in Malaysia’s textbooks which centre around diminishing the contributions of non-Malays. This is expanded further in the next seven chapters.

Examples include diminishing the role of Yap Ah Loy’s contributions in founding Kuala Lumpur.

While a 1979 edition of the Form Four history textbook devoted three pages to this, it was reduced to a mention subsequently. “That such a rich account has been reduced to a perfunctory mention in the latest textbooks is not merely an oversight; it is an act of historical diminishment."

Another example is the minimisation of the treatment of Orang Asli, with the current series of textbooks providing only minimal coverage. They are no longer explicitly acknowledged as the first people.

Ranjit said the Form Four textbook (2019, page 225) explicitly states that the Malays are the “rakyat asal Tanah Melayu” (the original people of Malaya).

Such omissions matter, and risk obscuring the primacy of the Orang Asli and the peninsula’s deep indigenous heritage, he added.

Parameswara converted?

One more example is the diminishment of Indian influences on Malay language, culture and practices and the myth perpetuated in the 2017 Form 2 history book (page 82) that Parameswara (Malacca’s founding prince) converted to Islam in 1414 and adopted the name Megat Iskandar Shah.

Ranjit cites Ming Dynasty sources quoted in books to say that Parameswara and Megat Iskandar Shah were father and son. “This primary evidence not only debunks the textbook’s claim but also exposes a troubling disregard for well-established historical facts,” he added.

There are numerous other examples of misrepresentations in this chapter and the seven chapters that follow, including the following:

• Quoting one author to say that the real home of the Malays is Sumatera, not the Malay Peninsula. Most Malays migrated to the Malay Peninsula in historical times and owe their origin to Sumatera.

• In 1931, less than 60 percent of those recorded as “Malay” had resided in Malaya for more than 40 years.

• In 2013, Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, then-home minister, declared that “over half of Malaysian ministers are of Indonesian descent”.

• Indian presence in Malaya dates back 2,000 years, while Chinese presence is evident from the 15th century

There are many such snippets of information interspersed within the first eight chapters. Most of the rest of the chapters cover the minority communities - even those within the Chinese, Indian and Malay communities, those in Sabah and Sarawak and the indigenous communities.

They are all interesting, well-researched and give glimpses into their lives and history, bringing back echoes of a past era which is in dire danger of being forgotten altogether in the future.

Chapters 30 to 34 are devoted to five leaders - Social Front activist Karam Singh Veriah (not many youngsters will remember him), DAP leader Karpal Singh, PAS leader Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, former deputy prime minister Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman and former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Only Mahathir is still around. There are interesting insights about each of them.

Setting history straight

The final Chapter 35 is a brief account of May 13, 1969, its origins and participants, and a discussion of the numerous theories surrounding its occurrence, the only large-scale outbreak of racial riots in the country.

It’s an excellent, balanced and informative starting point for those interested in knowing more about this sad, momentous episode which reshaped Malaysian history in startling ways.

It’s perhaps the most significant event in post-Merdeka Malaysia, changing its character forever.

This is a badly needed book for Malaysia simply because it helps to set the historical record straight and suggests ways and means that this can be achieved.

One hopes that our leaders pay attention. Distorting history is no way to build a nation.

The only major complaint I have is the price point of the book at RM100. But it is a hard-cover edition.

My hope is that it is produced in a soft-cover edition at perhaps half the price and is available in an e-book version too.

Along with this, a Malay edition will also improve accessibility and help foster what I hope is an informed debate about the real history of the country without the disturbance of politics, racial, religious and regional differences.

A nation must be built on truth. Ranjit has made an important contribution here, an attempt to help put history right by setting it straight.

Malaysiakini : ‘Heritage’ players fiasco

However, the search for the truth about the footballers who caused the country’s name to be dragged through the drain to the sewers has not ended…yet.

The damning indictment by the Appeals Committee of the International Federation of Association Football (Fifa) still reverberates around the sporting world:

“Using fraudulent documentation to allow a player to compete constitutes, pure and simple, a form of cheating, which cannot in any way be condoned.”

Doesn’t anyone care if we are called cheats?

READ MORE: ‘Heritage’ players probe hits roadblock, says committee

Ten months on, the scandal still smoulders - truth lies in plain sight, yet it remains buried beneath silence and deceit, the daily currency of power.”

But in seeking the truth, the starting point has to be Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, whose actions may hold the key to how and why we have been treated with contempt and dislike, and made a laughing stock.

The morning after Malaysia beat Vietnam 4-0 in the Asia Cup qualifier in June last year, the Football Association of Malaysia (FAM) thanked him not only for the financial support through special allocations for Harimau Malaya, but also acknowledged that the government facilitated the documentation process for new heritage players, enabling them to feature in the match.

So, it was a tacit and implicit admission that the government “organised” the citizenship to enable the seven foreigners to play.

Yes, the prime minister and his government accepted the plaudits for their efforts, especially from the football fans.

PM’s silence is deafening

However, sad to say, despite making headlines shouting himself hoarse about honesty and integrity, his silence on this issue is deafening.

Will he lead the voice for greater openness - the truth - or maintain his golden silence for political expediency or otherwise?

Next, we have to ask about the parliamentary statement by Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, who claimed Article 20(1)(e) of the Federal Constitution provides discretionary power to a home minister when considering a citizenship application from a foreigner, particularly in the fulfilment of the minimum residency requirements.

As human rights lawyer Eric Paulsen pointed out: “… the residence requirement is clear and unambiguous, with no room or provision for Saifuddin to grant an exemption or improvise.”

Next question: Who submitted the application? Was it an individual or the FAM? Can a sports body apply on behalf of the players?

EAIC points out irregularities

But the EAIC noted: “The minister had exercised his powers and discretion in granting special approval to the players, taking into account their contribution to football and the potential to bring glory to the country.

“However, the task force found that consideration of the requirements for the special approvals had been carried out within an extremely short period and in an irregular manner.”

The EAIC, among other issues, identified irregularities in the issuance of entry permits involving the interview process and security screening conducted by the Immigration Department on the players.

Yet, another agency under the Home Ministry - the National Registration Department (NRD) - is the cog in the wheel that processed falsified documents, declared them to be true, and issued MyKads which the players used to submit applications for citizenship, and then passports.

In a note in the form of a statutory declaration to Fifa, New Straits Times reported NRD director-general Badrul Hisham Alias saying: “NRD never received the original birth certificate, and instead issued a new birth certificate based on secondary information and foreign documents from Argentina, Brazil, and Spain.”

According to the NRD, all required documents were submitted by the applicants and cross-checked with records from Argentina, Brazil, and Spain.

While original handwritten birth records could not be retrieved from historical archives, official copies were issued based on the evidence. The process also confirmed residency in Malaysia, sufficient knowledge of Malay, and good conduct.

How did they pass the language test without being able to speak Malay? Who conducted the test? Shouldn’t the NRD be culpable?

So, isn’t there a contradiction between the EAIC findings and Badrul’s claims?

But NRD’s deceit had already been called out by Fifa which held that the seven footballers granted Malaysian citizenship don't have any grandparents born in the country as claimed.

In the grounds of its ruling to sanction FAM and the seven players, Fifa revealed it had acquired the original birth documents of the players’ “Malaysian-born” grandparents, which contradicted the allegedly doctored documents submitted by the Malaysian side.

NRD and the verification players were caught with their pants down.

What about FAM?

Finally, we have to address the perpetrators of this drama - the FAM.

This has been asked before and it is worth repeating: Who was responsible for hiring the agents to recruit the foreigners? Was it the FAM president, his deputy, the secretary general, or the entire council?

When the Fifa Disciplinary Committee pulled up FAM, the immediate response was that it was a technical error in the administrative staff's document submission process.

FAM continued to state it did not do anything wrong, but added yet another ridiculous reason - it is legally barred from disclosing details about the seven foreign players, citing Malaysian laws governing official secrets and passport procedures.

FAM stressed that Fifa’s claim that the players “obtained or were aware of forged documents” was unfounded, as no solid evidence had been presented to support the allegation.

After Fifa’s Appeals Committee rejected the appeal, I wrote: “The global governing body’s core finding still stands, unexpunged and echoing in the football pitches of international sports and hallowed halls of governments:

“Using fraudulent documentation to allow a player to compete constitutes, pure and simple, a form of cheating, which cannot in any way be condoned.

“This was more than a ruling; the fact stated subjected Malaysian football and its systems of governance to global odium, ridicule, and contempt.”

Then there was FAM acting president Yusoff Mahadi declaring that it will take its challenge to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), describing it as “a major war” to defend Malaysia’s footballing reputation, adding that all resources would be used.

I asked: “But what kind of war is this, when the generals march empty-handed? The birth certificates of the players’ grandparents presented by FAM are forged. CAS will have access to the originals, and FAM will be left with egg - not honour - on their faces”

You can’t get different results by relying on the same set of documents. Naturally, FAM retreated with its tail between its legs.

If one reads the various reports from Fifa, FAM, its officials, the government and the EAIC, he or she can come to an understanding of what transpired.

So, how do we get the truth?

Anwar must act

The process must start from the very top. For a man who promised openness, Anwar has been restricted on this fiasco, preferring to exercise his oratory skills, mesmerising selected audiences - but not a word about the deceit carried out by his government officials.

He must lead the way for Saifuddin, Badrul, FAM officials and other officials to start telling the truth.

If he had not sanctioned such an act, why did FAM thank his government for “facilitating the documentation process for new heritage players”, which is a misnomer because they had no heritage - they were journeymen (read: sports mercenaries) who got paid hundreds of thousands of ringgit by our taxpayers' money to just change their nationality to represent Malaysia - albeit illegally.

But will he do it and put this behind in our country’s history? Or, because it serves no political purpose, will it be ignored and fade into oblivion?

The scandal over Malaysia’s naturalised footballers is more than a sporting misstep - it is a damning reflection of how silence, excuses, and irregularities corrode governance.

The EAIC flagged irregular approvals, the NRD knowingly processed falsified documents, and the FAM deflected blame with evasions.

Yet the loudest silence comes from the prime minister, whose government facilitated the process but has offered no accountability.

If Malaysia is serious about integrity, its leaders must confront the truth rather than bury it under political expediency. Otherwise, this episode will remain as a permanent stain on the nation’s credibility.

Malaysiakini : Issues abound.  

The RCI found that Tabung Haji should have reported a RM1.4 billion loss in 2017, rather than the RM3.4 billion profit it reported.

It also found that political considerations influenced decisions on hibah, haj payments, and financial assistance.

Losses and impairments were not properly recognised, while hibah was paid despite the institution’s deteriorating financial position.

This wasn’t a one-year accident. The financial crisis stretched back to 2014, and Bank Negara reportedly issued five warnings between 2014 and 2016.

So who received those warnings? More importantly, why wasn’t the problem stopped?

Was Tabung Haji being run as a financially disciplined institution, or was it being asked to serve political and social objectives that its finances could not sustain?

How could an institution this important be allowed to decay across political administrations?

Billions in losses

The RCI identified 14 problematic investments which ultimately produced almost RM13 billion in losses.

It recommended forensic audits into how those investments were made and said those involved in the decisions should be held responsible for the losses.

That raises some very simple questions: Who approved them? Who carried out the due diligence? Who raised concerns? Who ignored them? And who signed off?

There is no need to accuse anyone of stealing money to demand answers.

Tabung Haji paid about RM367.7 million in bonuses between 2010 and 2017. The RCI found the payments excessively high and identified unauthorised bonuses at its subsidiary as well.

This is where the story becomes more than financial.

Tabung Haji exists to help Malaysian Muslims save to fulfil a fundamental religious obligation - to perform the haj, one of the five pillars of Islam.

So what does it say about an institution entrusted with that sacred purpose when its financial position is deteriorating while substantial bonuses are being paid?

For many depositors, this isn’t simply mismanagement. It is a betrayal of trust.

Uncomfortable questions

But no theft does not mean no wrongdoing, and it does not mean good governance either.

An institution can lose billions through reckless investments, poor decisions, inadequate controls, political interference, and failure to act on warnings.

The RCI found evidence of precisely these kinds of failures and another uncomfortable question.

The auditor-general had already raised concerns in 2018 about Tabung Haji’s impairment practices, including RM227.81 million in impairments that had not been recorded.

So, why did it take a subsequent PwC review and the RCI to expose the much larger underlying problem?

Now the MACC is investigating possible corruption, abuse of power, falsification, and money laundering.

Let the evidence determine whether criminal offences occurred, but even if nobody is ultimately convicted of stealing a single ringgit, the accountability question remains.

The RCI examined a period spanning successive governments, so this cannot simply become another political blame game.

The uncomfortable question is whether Malaysia’s political system repeatedly failed to protect Tabung Haji.

Bank Negara warned. The financial position deteriorated. Investment losses accumulated. Hibah continued. Bonuses were paid. The accounts were audited. And eventually the government had to intervene.

So who was responsible?

So who was watching the institution? Who was responsible for acting when the warning lights were flashing?

Ultimately, ordinary people don’t get to make their losses disappear by calling them “accounting differences”.

The RCI has now exposed almost RM13 billion in losses associated with 14 problematic investments, and Malaysians deserve to know who was responsible.

Who knew? Who was warned? Who authorised the investments? Who approved the hibah? Who approved the bonuses? Who signed off on the accounts? Why weren’t the losses recognised earlier?

Why weren’t Bank Negara’s warnings acted upon? Why did it take years for the public to see the RCI report? Where is the accountability?

The government must provide answers. If criminal wrongdoing is established, will those responsible face the law? If it isn’t criminal, that cannot mean everyone simply walks away from responsibility.

Tabung Haji isn’t an ordinary investment company. It was entrusted with something more valuable than money: people’s faith, savings, and hope of fulfilling one of Islam’s five pillars.

For years, Malaysians put aside their hard-earned savings believing Tabung Haji would safeguard them and help them fulfil a fundamental religious obligation.

That trust deserved better, and those entrusted with it owe Malaysians an explanation.

Imagine putting passengers into a car after dinner, knowing the driver is unfit to drive. The warning signs are there. People know about them. Yet nobody stops the journey.

When the car crashes, we don't just ask what went wrong. We ask: Who knew? Who was warned? Who allowed the driver to continue? And who was responsible for the passengers' safety?

That is the question Tabung Haji now raises. If nobody stole the money, who was responsible for losing it?