KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 10 — Malaysian musicians need more than occasional financial assistance when they fall sick or into hardship — they need a sustainable platform that allows them to earn a living, build savings and grow old with dignity, says Musicians for Musicians (MfM) president Francis Danker.

Danker said the music fraternity had reached a point where musicians, particularly veterans and younger players entering the industry, were struggling to find regular places to perform, with many also facing delayed or non-payment for their work.

“We don’t get any help from the government. We just got to help ourselves,” he said at a press conference here today to announce MfM’s fourth annual benefit concert, “Rocking for a Cause”, which will be held on Oct 10 at Dewan Tunku, Kelab Golf Negara Subang (KGNS), Petaling Jaya.

But Danker stressed that the association’s role should not be confined to helping musicians who were already in crisis.

“We have to think of the future. We have to think of the younger people that are coming up. We cannot leave them alone,” he said.

He proposed that the Government, tourism industry and hotels work with the music fraternity to establish dedicated entertainment spaces featuring Malaysian musicians, particularly in five-star hotels and resorts.

His vision is to see modern musicians performing alongside traditional musicians, creating a distinctly Malaysian sound for both domestic audiences and international tourists.

“Why can’t we play with a sape and combine it with the rebana? Put them together and create something different,” he said.

“Every resort must have a lounge — not a bunch of Filipinos, but really local musicians. Spreading our culture.”

Danker said Malaysia already had a rich musical heritage and a wealth of traditional instruments and songs which could be reinvented for contemporary audiences.

“We have so many of our old tunes from P. Ramlee’s time until here, which we can redo and modernise. And that’s what the tourists want to see,” he said.

“They want to taste our culture, they want to eat our food, they want to see our handicraft, and they want to hear our music.”

He suggested that traditional instruments such as the sape, gambus, sitar and rebana could be combined with modern equipment and contemporary arrangements.

“Who says you cannot play ‘Hotel California’ on a sape? Show them!” he said, drawing laughter and applause from those present.

For Danker, creating regular employment is also about giving musicians a future beyond performing from one gig to another.

Everybody May Want To Be A Musician

“If all the hotels take us in and give us work, can you imagine? Everybody may want to be a musician, everybody wants to work, everybody wants to form their own kind of fusion band,” he said.

Such a platform, he added, could also provide musicians with more stable employment benefits such as EPF contributions, giving them some financial security when they grow older.

Danker, who recalled starting out in music because he had not passed his Standard Six examination, said the situation facing musicians today was markedly different from the 1970s.

“During my time, we had Filipino bands, Indonesian bands, Singapore bands. We had bands from Jamaica. And we were always working,” he said.

“You know why? Because we had more clubs than bands. Today, they are all gone. There are no more clubs.”

He said the disappearance of entertainment venues had left many talented musicians without a dependable place to work.

“It’s tough out there. These musicians are all talented people,” he said, adding that the association regularly received complaints from musicians who had performed at venues but were still waiting weeks to be paid.

“These people are working on a day-to-day basis. They need that small income. And that also they don’t get paid.”

From Helping the Old to Building A Future for the Young

MfM honorary secretary Latifah Abdullah said the association currently has more than 800 registered members, ranging from 18 to musicians in their 80s, with about 300 to 400 considered active members.

She said one of MfM’s key objectives was to make younger musicians more aware of the association and what it could offer them.

“We want them to know that we exist. We exist. We need to be recognised,” she said.

Latifah said younger musicians also brought different perspectives and ideas to the fraternity, making their participation important to the association’s future.

“We need more younger generation to come in because their perception, their ideology, everything is different,” she said.

Deputy president Edwin Nathaniel said the benefit concert was also intended to bring together different generations of musicians while recognising those who had devoted decades to the Malaysian music industry.

This year, MfM will honour 20 musicians who have spent between 40 and 50 years in the industry and are still active, with the identities to be revealed during the concert itself.

Among the performers lined up are Electric Orgasm, marking its 50-year reunion, Datuk Francissca Peter, Goblokes, Heavy Machine, Dato’ Leonard Tan, Lighthouse featuring Vijay David, Royston Sta Maria, Os Pombos, The Polymaths featuring Raja Singham and The Studio 10 Experience.

The concert will also feature tributes to legendary musicians and bands that helped shape Malaysia’s music scene.

Nathaniel said Heavy Machine would be among those receiving a special tribute, particularly to saxophonist Olie, who is unwell. His daughter is expected to perform with the band in his place.

Mulanya Di Sini

A tribute will also be paid to musicians who have passed on, including Seha and Gani, with Royston Sta Maria expected to perform “Mulanya Di Sini” as part of the tribute.

Royston, who is travelling from Australia for the event, said he was pleased to be part of a concert that uses music to support fellow musicians facing difficult circumstances.

“I think it’s a wonderful concert where musicians come together to use their talents to raise money to help their fellow musicians who have fallen on hard times or are unable to work due to their health situation.”

He also urged the media and public to support the event.

“I hope the press will give this show their full support and the public will also get their tickets soon to make this night a success and an unforgettable experience,” he said.

Target of RM100,000

Nathaniel said MfM is hoping to raise RM100,000 from this year’s benefit concert.

The association has received support from several sponsors, including Weststar, which has backed the event for several years, while KJ&S and Memories are among those providing sponsorship and support for the production, sound and lighting.

The money raised will go towards supporting musicians in need, while MfM also hopes to channel part of its resources towards developing the music industry.

“This is our goal, to raise that amount of money, but it all depends on the turnout and the last-minute corporate sponsors,” Nathaniel said.

He described MfM as a zero-based NGO, with the committee members themselves volunteering their time.

Danker said this spirit was at the heart of the association.

A Committee of Musicians

“Everyone in the committee are all musicians — still playing, retired — everybody is just doing it for nothing. Just to see who we can help.”

He said MfM had already assisted musicians facing illness and hardship, including helping families when musicians died with little or no financial resources.

But he insisted that the fraternity could not simply continue responding to crises after they occurred.

“We need to give these musicians a lifeline. We need to give them a place where they can depend on,” he said.

“We want to do this for the younger people. Set a platform for them.”

And that, perhaps, is the deeper message behind Rocking for a Cause: not merely to raise money for musicians who have fallen on hard times, but to remind Malaysians that the people who created, performed and preserved the country’s musical soundtrack also need a place in its future.

“We cannot let the young musicians think this persatuan is only for old people, old musicians,” Danker said.

“We need to do this. We have no choice.” – NMH

Event details

MfM Benefit Showcase 2026 – Rocking for a Cause
Saturday, Oct 10, 2026
4pm onwards
Dewan Tunku, Kelab Golf Negara Subang (KGNS), Petaling Jaya

Tickets include MFM member tickets at RM85, while general admission is RM105 per person, inclusive of a complimentary drink. Table packages are also available, including Standard (RM1,050 for 10 pax), Golden Hearts (RM3,000) and Diamond Hearts (RM5,000).

The post ‘We Need A Lifeline’: MFM President Calls For Hotels To Open Their Stages To Malaysian Musicians first appeared on NMH.

KUALA LUMPUR, 03 September 2026 — Impact investing does not necessarily mean accepting lower returns, with investors increasingly looking at whether environmental and social outcomes – ESGs – can translate into stronger businesses, greater market share and ultimately better financial performance.

That was one of the key messages from the “Beyond Impact & ESG: Investing for Outcomes and Returns in Southeast Asia” panel at the Malaysia Private Capital Forum 2026, where speakers discussed efforts to establish a clearer relationship between impact outcomes and investment returns.

The session, moderated by Jamie He of Lockton Companies, brought together representatives from PRI, Impact Circle, AiSED and Bintang Capital. The official programme identified the panellists as Chee Leng Hor, Melissa Ong, Zehan Teoh and Ee Rong Song.

Impact Investing: Beyond the Label

One of the speakers said the aim was to generate empirical data showing whether improved environmental performance could translate into financial value through greater brand equity, larger market share and operating-cost savings.

On the social side, greater gender diversity and stronger employee engagement were cited as factors that could improve organisational performance and, eventually, financial returns.

But the speaker was careful not to claim that the relationship had already been conclusively established.

“It’s our own experiment … I don’t have the answer,” the speaker said, adding that the objective was to try different approaches and see how they performed.

That admission was significant: the argument for impact investing was not presented as a settled formula, but as an area where investors are increasingly attempting to establish a measurable link between non-financial outcomes and financial performance.

The panellists also challenged what they described as a misconception that incorporating impact necessarily compromises returns.

Examples were cited of impact funds that had consistently ranked in the top quartile of performance, as well as a Singapore-based impact fund pursuing venture-style returns.

There was, however, recognition that the time required to demonstrate outcomes can vary significantly between sectors.

Agriculture, for example, may require a longer investment horizon than the conventional 10-year fund period before the full impact of an investment can be demonstrated.

From ESG Reporting to Measurable Outcomes

The discussion also suggested that impact investing is increasingly moving beyond the traditional ESG reporting framework.

The panellists pointed to mainstream venture capital investors beginning to identify outcomes aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, even when environmental considerations are not the original investment thesis.

An education-technology company in Vietnam was cited as an example. Rather than measuring only the number of students enrolled, investors were looking at improvements in students’ academic performance.

That shift — from counting activities to measuring outcomes — was central to the panel’s argument.

As one speaker put it, going “beyond ESG” does not mean abandoning ESG.

It means moving past labels and reporting requirements towards outcomes that are more concrete and measurable.

The distinction between public and private markets was also raised. Listed companies operate within more standardised ESG disclosure requirements, while private capital investors have greater flexibility to develop their own methods of measuring outcomes.

ECF and P2P: From Access to Capital to Getting a Return

The next discussion turned from impact investing to a more immediate question for Malaysian businesses: what happens after companies get access to alternative capital?

The panel on “From Crowd to Capital Stack: The Next Phase of ECF and P2P in Malaysia” examined the development of equity crowdfunding and peer-to-peer financing after more than a decade of operation.

Malaysia was the first jurisdiction in the Asia-Pacific region to establish an equity crowdfunding framework, with the framework introduced in 2015, while P2P financing was regulated in 2016. The moderator noted that ECF had raised close to RM1 billion through 445 campaigns, while P2P financing had raised RM11.3 billion across 150,000 campaigns.

But the headline numbers mask a significant challenge: exits.

For ECF investors, getting into a company is only the beginning. If there is no credible route to an exit, investors ultimately cannot realise their returns.

Elain Lockman said exits remained one of the biggest challenges after a decade of ECF activity, while Goh Boon Peng said his platform had only seen its first project exit after six years.

Investor education is another concern.

Lockman pointed to competition from other investment products and said retail investors needed to better understand alternative investments, particularly at a time when investment scams were also rising.

The Money Comes With Responsibility

For issuers, the challenge is not simply raising money.

Panellists repeatedly returned to governance, reporting and accountability.

Goh said some SME founders did not initially understand their responsibilities towards investors, while Lockman stressed that money raised from investors was not simply the founders’ own money.

“It’s this hard-earned income of other people’s money that you have to give a return,” she said.

The panel argued that companies need to treat fundraising as part of their broader business strategy rather than something they turn to only when cash runs short.

For companies hoping eventually to move towards an IPO, governance, internal controls, reporting and shareholder responsibilities become even more important.

Goh described efforts by his platform to encourage issuers to participate in CEO roundtables and regular sessions on compliance, internal controls and other aspects of running a company.

Building a Capital Stack

The discussion also highlighted a more mature view of alternative financing: ECF and P2P do not necessarily have to compete with venture capital, private equity or bank financing.

Instead, different forms of capital can work together.

P2P financing, for example, can provide working capital without requiring founders to dilute their equity, while ECF can provide equity capital for longer-term growth.

Vincent Soh said P2P financing could potentially serve a much larger portion of Malaysia’s alternative-debt market, while institutional investors were increasingly participating in the space.

The panellists also highlighted growing cooperation across different parts of the capital stack.

Rather than seeing ECF, P2P, venture capital and private equity as isolated channels, participants said greater collaboration could help fill financing gaps and create a more robust funding ecosystem.

From One-Off Fundraising to the Next Round

Another emerging theme was repeat capital.

Companies that raise money through ECF need to plan beyond their first fundraising round, particularly if they intend to scale.

Goh said his platform had companies that had raised at least twice, with several raising three times, while stressing that issuers should plan for two or three fundraising rounds rather than assuming one campaign would be sufficient.

But repeated fundraising also brings another issue: valuation.

The moderator warned that a high valuation at one stage is meaningless if the company cannot sustain it. A subsequent “down round” can create significant problems for both founders and investors.

The ultimate objective, Goh suggested, should be to build towards a credible destination — potentially an IPO — with valuations and growth expectations grounded in realistic benchmarks.

Taken together, the two afternoon discussions pointed to a common theme.

Whether the investment is driven by impact outcomes or alternative financing, the industry is moving beyond simply asking whether capital can be raised.

The harder questions are becoming: What does the capital achieve? Can those outcomes be measured? Can the business grow? Can investors ultimately realise a return? And can the company become strong enough to attract the next round of capital?

For Malaysia’s evolving private-capital ecosystem, those may be the questions that matter most. – NMH

The post Beyond ESG: Impact Investing Is About Better Business, Not Lower Returns first appeared on NMH.

Selama hampir tujuh tahun, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor bukan sahaja berdepan proses mahkamah.

Beliau turut berdepan “mahkamah masyarakat” — dan di media sosial, hukuman sudah lama dijatuhkan.

Pelbagai cerita diulang sehingga menjadi “fakta” bagi ramai orang. Antaranya, dakwaan bahawa wang projek solar hibrid RM1.25 bilion itu ialah wang untuk anak-anak sekolah di pedalaman Sarawak yang akhirnya digunakan untuk kepentingan peribadi.

Tetapi hari ini, Mahkamah Rayuan membuka satu lagi ruang untuk bukti diuji.

Panel tiga hakim yang dipengerusikan Datuk Azhahari Kamal Ramli, bersama Datuk Dr Choo Kah Sing dan Datuk Muniandy a/l Kannyappan, membenarkan Rosmah mengemukakan keterangan tambahan, termasuk keterangan baharu daripada saksi pendakwaan ke-16, Rayyan Radzwill Abdullah.

Ini bukan bermakna Rosmah sudah bebas.

Mahkamah juga belum memutuskan bahawa keterangan baharu itu benar.

Tetapi mahkamah memutuskan ia cukup penting untuk didengar dan diuji.

Persoalan Yang Sejak Dulu Mengganggu

Saya mengikuti perbicaraan ini dan berada di mahkamah ketika banyak perkara berlaku.

Sejak awal, saya tertanya-tanya tentang kedudukan Rizal Mansor — yang pada mulanya didakwa bersama Rosmah sebelum menjadi saksi pendakwaan.

Saya juga tertanya-tanya mengenai persoalan asas: siapa sebenarnya melihat wang itu diserahkan kepada Rosmah?

Keterangan baharu Rayyan kini menimbulkan persoalan bahawa beliau sendiri tidak melihat Rizal menyerahkan atau mengenal pasti beg wang kepada Rosmah, dan pengetahuannya mengenai perkara itu datang daripada orang lain.

Begitu juga dakwaan bahawa arahan dan komunikasi berkaitan bayaran disampaikan melalui Rizal, bukan secara langsung daripada Rosmah.

Ini bukan bermakna dakwaan baharu itu sudah terbukti.

Tetapi bukankah persoalan-persoalan sebegini patut diuji di mahkamah, bukan dihukum di media sosial?

“Today Justice Has Been Served”

Selepas keputusan itu, peguam utama Rosmah, Datuk Amer Hamzah Arshad, berkata:

“Today justice has been served.”

Beliau juga berkata mengenai keterangan baharu itu:

“We want it to be tested.”

Dan saya rasa di situlah letaknya makna keputusan hari ini.

Rosmah belum menang.

Sabitannya belum diketepikan.

Tetapi selepas tujuh tahun, dia akhirnya mendapat peluang untuk membawa persoalan-persoalan itu kembali ke tempat yang sepatutnya.

Bukan Facebook.
Bukan TikTok.
Bukan netizen.

Mahkamah.

Dan bagi seseorang yang telah bertahun-tahun dihukum, dicaci dan dilabel oleh masyarakat, saya rasa sedikit kelegaan itu memang wajar.

Tujuh tahun dihukum. Hari ini, akhirnya didengar. – NMH

The post Rosmah Mansor: Tujuh Tahun Dihukum, Hari Ini Akhirnya Didengar first appeared on NMH.

There was something unsettling about the sight of three former prime ministers facing separate legal proceedings in Malaysia today.

For some, it was apparently a moment to celebrate. For others, an opportunity to gloat.

I find that response disappointing.

Not because former prime ministers should be above the law. They should not.

Not because those who have held the highest political office should not be held accountable. They absolutely should.

And certainly not because anyone should be protected if there is evidence of corruption, abuse of power or personal enrichment.

But because the spectacle raises a much bigger question — one that goes far beyond Najib Razak, Muhyiddin Yassin, Ismail Sabri Yaakob, UMNO or Bersatu.

What does this say about the way Malaysia understands executive power, political accountability and the exercise of judgement at the highest level of government?

That is a question Corporate Malaysia and investors should be asking.

Nobody should be above the law. But neither should every decision become a potential crime.

A Prime Minister is elected precisely because we expect that person to make decisions.

Some will be good. Some will be bad. Some will be controversial. Some will ultimately prove to be mistakes.

That is governance.

Prime ministers make decisions on infrastructure, procurement, national security, foreign investment, subsidies, GLCs, public-private partnerships and economic policy — often with incomplete information and competing interests.

If a decision made in good faith subsequently produces a bad outcome, that does not automatically make it corrupt.

There is a fundamental difference between bad judgement and criminal conduct; policy failure and abuse of power; political accountability and criminal liability.

If we lose sight of those distinctions, we risk creating a government culture in which nobody wants to make a decision.

Imagine being the next Prime Minister

Imagine being a newly elected Prime Minister.

You are expected to make bold decisions, attract investment, approve major projects and take calculated risks in the national interest.

Then you look at the leaders who came before you and ask:

“If I make a difficult decision today, can someone ten years from now decide that my judgement was wrong and turn that decision into a criminal allegation?”

That is not a healthy question for any executive government to contemplate.

Nor is it healthy for civil servants, government-linked companies, boards and corporate executives who must implement those decisions.

The result can be decision paralysis.

People stop taking responsibility. Approvals multiply. Everyone wants another committee, another opinion, another layer of protection.

The safest decision becomes the one nobody makes.

And countries do not become competitive that way.

Investors are looking for predictability

Foreign investors do not simply ask whether Malaysia has good infrastructure, skilled workers or attractive incentives.

They ask whether Malaysia is predictable.

Can a company rely on a government contract?

Will a regulatory decision survive a change in administration?

Are institutions independent?

Are rules applied consistently?

Can legitimate business decisions be defended years later?

Capital is mobile. Investors can choose Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore or elsewhere.

The competition is not merely about tax rates or incentives.

It is about confidence.

Today’s enforcement action can, of course, send a positive message if it demonstrates that no political leader is above the law.

But there is another side to the equation.

If investors begin to believe that legitimate executive decisions can be revisited years later through a politically charged lens, that too becomes a risk.

The rule of law must mean more than the ability to prosecute. It must also mean predictability in how the law is applied.

Should Prime Ministers have some protection while in office?

Perhaps Malaysia should be prepared to have this difficult conversation.

We could consider a form of qualified immunity for a sitting Prime Minister in respect of bona fide official acts undertaken in the exercise of constitutional and executive functions.

Not blanket immunity.

Not immunity for corruption, bribery, embezzlement, personal enrichment or deliberate abuse of office.

Rather, protection for legitimate executive decision-making while a person is entrusted with running the government.

The principle should be simple:

Protect the office. Do not protect corruption.

Once the person leaves office, accountability should resume.

But any reform must be extremely careful about retrospectivity. Parliament should not create a new criminal offence and then apply it to conduct that was lawful when it occurred.

If Malaysia is serious about reforming the relationship between executive authority and legal accountability, the answer should be to establish clear rules for tomorrow — not rewrite yesterday’s criminal law.

This is not about protecting three men

Perhaps this is what some of my friends are missing when they snicker at today’s events.

You can believe that Najib should answer for whatever the courts determine.

You can believe Muhyiddin should face trial.

You can believe Ismail Sabri should answer the charge brought against him.

And you can still believe that Malaysia needs to think very seriously about what this means for the institution of executive government.

Those positions are not contradictory.

This is not about Malays.

It is not about UMNO.

It is not about Bersatu.

It is not even about three former prime ministers.

It is about whether Malaysia is building a political system governed by strong institutions — or one in which every change of government risks turning the decisions of the previous government into a new battlefield.

That distinction matters enormously to Corporate Malaysia.

It matters to CEOs and boards. It matters to civil servants. It matters to foreign investors.

And it matters to the next Prime Minister.

We should want our Prime Ministers to be afraid of breaking the law.

We should not want them to be afraid of making a decision.

Malaysia needs leaders who can exercise judgement, institutions capable of holding them accountable, and laws clear enough to tell the difference.

That is not weakness.

That is institutional maturity.

And perhaps, instead of laughing at three former Prime Ministers appearing in court on the same day, we should be asking ourselves a much more consequential question:

What kind of country do we want the next Prime Minister to inherit — and what kind of country do we want investors to believe Malaysia is? – NMH

The post When Former Prime Ministers Go to Court, What Message Are We Sending Investors? first appeared on NMH.

KUALA LUMPUR, 23 August — The BRICS-ASEAN Chamber of Commerce has announced the establishment of an independent commission for trade and economy, with its president Thayalan Nathan describing the initiative as a step towards strengthening economic links between BRICS and ASEAN.

The announcement was made at the BRICS-ASEAN Business Round Table 2026 at Mines Beach Resort today, where business leaders, diplomats and trade representatives discussed opportunities spanning trade, investment, tourism, technology and economic development.

While details of the commission’s structure and mandate were not disclosed at the event, the announcement came against a backdrop of calls for closer commercial links between ASEAN, BRICS and emerging markets.

BRICS and the Opportunity Beyond Tourism

One of the more substantive proposals came from Kapten Mahadzir Tan Sri Mansor, president of the Malaysia International Tourism Development Association (MITDA), who argued that tourism should be viewed not simply as an industry but as an economic engine.

He challenged the conventional focus on tourist arrival numbers, asking instead what economic activity is activated by each visitor.

A tourist does not simply purchase a flight, hotel room or meal, he said. The visitor creates demand across airlines, hotels, restaurants, transport providers, retail, technology companies and other businesses, and may subsequently return, bring family members, recommend a destination or even become a business partner or investor.

“One tourist is not one transaction,” was the central message of his presentation, which argued that each visitor can activate an entire economic ecosystem.

Mahadzir said the economic cycle begins with tourism creating demand, which drives business activity, trade and investment, eventually generating employment and income.

He also highlighted technology as an increasingly important part of that cycle, with modern tourism driven by digital booking, artificial intelligence and data, cybersecurity, digital payments, smart destinations, mobility and digital marketing.

“Tourism connects the physical and digital economy,” he argued.

MITDA Proposes BRICS-ASEAN Tourism Bridge

Against this backdrop, Mahadzir proposed a BRICS-ASEAN Tourism Bridge, describing it as a potential mechanism for connecting the tourism ecosystems of the two groupings.

The concept goes beyond connecting destinations, he said, bringing together people, cultures, businesses, markets, investment, technology and economies.

He also proposed a broader BRICS Tourism Economic Alliance, bringing together government, the tourism industry, businesses, investors, technology companies and SMEs.

Under the model, government provides the enabling environment, industry develops products and experiences, businesses create transactions, while investors build capacity.

Mahadzir said the opportunity was not merely about increasing tourist flows but about asking a more fundamental question: how much economic value does each tourist activate?

He also linked tourism to wider regional cooperation, arguing that when people travel, they meet; when they meet, they develop greater understanding; and when businesses connect, they trade.

The proposed tourism bridge was therefore presented not only as an economic initiative but also as a potential platform for greater people-to-people engagement between BRICS and ASEAN.

Mauritius Sees Malaysia as Gateway to Africa

The broader push for stronger cross-regional economic links was echoed by Mauritius High Commissioner to Malaysia Rabin Gungoo, who positioned Mauritius as a potential gateway for Malaysian businesses, education providers and investors seeking access to Africa.

Gungoo said there were already strong education links between Mauritius and Malaysia, noting that about 3,000 Mauritian students are currently studying in Malaysia.

He called for more Malaysian educational institutions to establish campuses in Mauritius, saying they could serve not only Mauritian students but also students from other African countries, including Madagascar and Seychelles.

The High Commissioner also highlighted Mauritius’ French- and English-speaking environment as an advantage for businesses and students seeking to operate across different markets.

Beyond education, Gungoo encouraged Malaysian investors to use Mauritius as a platform to penetrate the wider African market, pointing to the country’s existing links and trade arrangements with African countries.

He also noted existing Malaysia-Mauritius trade in areas including automotive products, dried fruits and water, suggesting that the relationship could be expanded further.

The remarks provided a practical dimension to the broader BRICS-ASEAN discussion, with Mauritius presenting itself as a bridge through which Malaysian education, trade and investment could reach African markets.

From Tourism to Wider Economic Connectivity

The discussions at the round table pointed towards a broader interpretation of regional economic cooperation — one in which tourism, education, technology, trade and investment are interconnected rather than treated as separate sectors.

For Malaysia, the emerging opportunity lies not only in attracting visitors or promoting destinations, but in using tourism and business connectivity to activate wider economic relationships across ASEAN, BRICS and markets beyond the two blocs.

The BRICS-ASEAN Business Round Table brought together diplomatic representatives, business leaders and trade stakeholders to explore these opportunities, with the day’s programme also featuring networking and business pitching sessions. – NMH

The post BRICS-ASEAN Chamber Unveils Independent Commission To Strengthen Trade and Economic Ties first appeared on NMH.

Dalam prosiding, peguam kanan GK Ganesan, yang mewakili defendan ketujuh Kelvin Tan, memberi tumpuan kepada peranan Shahrol dalam keputusan pelaburan PetroSaudi bernilai AS$1 bilion.

Shahrol mengakui bahawa beliau menerima analisis daripada Kelvin Tan pada 01 Oktober 2009 yang membangkitkan risiko berkaitan pemilikan dan pertikaian Serdar Field, termasuk tuntutan Turkmenistan dan Azerbaijan.

Namun, Shahrol mengakui perkara itu tidak dibawa kepada Lembaga Pengarah 1MDB. Ia juga tidak muncul dalam minit mesyuarat atau surat kepada Lembaga.

Sebaliknya, Shahrol berkata beliau membangkitkan kebimbangannya secara tidak rasmi kepada Jho Low, yang kemudiannya dikatakan akan membawa perkara itu kepada Perdana Menteri ketika itu, Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Ini menimbulkan persoalan besar mengenai peranan CEO.

Mengapa perkara yang dianggap cukup penting untuk dibawa kepada Perdana Menteri tidak dibawa terlebih dahulu kepada Lembaga Pengarah?

Siapa Sebenarnya yang Bertanggungjawab?

Persoalan itu menjadi lebih ketara apabila Ganesan mengingatkan mahkamah bahawa Shahrol memegang tiga peranan — CEO, pengarah urusan dan anggota Lembaga.

Ganesan mencadangkan bahawa dalam kedudukan tersebut, Shahrol mempunyai tanggungjawab untuk memastikan risiko material dibawa kepada Lembaga dan supaya pelaburan ditangguhkan sekiranya isu pemilikan aset belum diselesaikan.

Shahrol bagaimanapun menafikan bahawa beliau cuai atau bahawa kegagalan pengurusan 1MDB menjadi punca kerugian yang dituntut.

Malah, Lembaga sendiri pernah meminta penilaian kedua yang bebas dan menyenaraikan beberapa firma penilai. Namun penilaian kedua itu tidak pernah dilaksanakan.

Soalan NMH kepada Shafee

Dalam sidang media selepas prosiding, NMH bertanya kepada Shafee sama ada, berdasarkan pelbagai blunders yang didakwa berlaku sepanjang tempoh Shahrol sebagai CEO, para defendan bercadang mengambil tindakan terhadapnya.

Shafee menjawab:

“Possible.”

Beliau bagaimanapun berkata perkara itu perlu dibincangkan dengan defendan-defendan lain, termasuk Datuk Seri Najib Razak, defendan pertama.

Jawapan itu menarik perhatian kerana ia membuka satu persoalan yang lebih besar mengenai pembahagian tanggungjawab dalam 1MDB.

Jika seorang CEO, pengarah urusan dan anggota Lembaga terlibat secara langsung dalam keputusan bernilai berbilion ringgit, sejauh mana tanggungjawab peribadi beliau terhadap keputusan, nasihat dan maklumat yang disampaikan kepada Lembaga?

Shahrol: Saksi atau Pihak yang Patut Dipertanggungjawabkan?

Persoalan ini bukan bermaksud Shahrol telah diputuskan bersalah oleh mahkamah.

Kes masih berjalan dan mahkamah belum membuat keputusan mengenai liabiliti atau kredibiliti mana-mana pihak.

Namun, keterangan Shahrol sendiri telah membuka ruang kepada persoalan mengenai sejauh mana beliau melaksanakan tanggungjawabnya sebagai CEO, pengarah urusan dan anggota Lembaga.

Jika amaran mengenai risiko bernilai AS$1 bilion sampai kepada CEO tetapi tidak sampai kepada Lembaga, jika penilaian bebas kedua tidak dilaksanakan, dan jika komunikasi dengan Perdana Menteri dibuat melalui individu yang tidak mempunyai jawatan rasmi dalam 1MDB — siapa sebenarnya yang harus bertanggungjawab?

Persoalan itu kini berada di hadapan mahkamah.

Dan ketika Shahrol terus memberi keterangan, tumpuan bukan lagi hanya kepada apa yang berlaku kepada wang 1MDB, tetapi juga kepada siapa yang sepatutnya bertanggungjawab terhadap keputusan yang dibuat ketika beliau menerajui syarikat itu. — NMH

The post Shahrol: Kredibiliti Bekas CEO 1MDB Dipersoal, Shafee Tidak Tolak Kemungkinan Tindakan first appeared on NMH.

KUALA LUMPUR: The 1MDB civil trial has raised a question that goes beyond the individual defendants before the court: What is the responsibility of a CEO when billions are lost under his watch?

The question is particularly pertinent in the case of former 1MDB CEO Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi, who was not merely the company’s chief executive.

As highlighted by senior counsel GK Ganesan during cross-examination, Shahrol held three positions — managing director, CEO and Board member.

Ganesan’s central argument was that, in those roles, Shahrol had a duty to ensure that material risks were placed before the Board and that proper advice was given before major investments proceeded.

Shahrol rejected the suggestion that he had been negligent.

But the evidence raises an important corporate-governance question:

Where does the CEO’s responsibility end when the Board ultimately makes the decision?

The Serdar Field Warning

One of the clearest examples came from the proposed US$1 billion investment involving PetroSaudi International.

Kelvin Tan, who was the Director of Investments for 1MDB had written to the management in October 2009 warning that both Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan claimed rights over the Serdar Field, the asset linked to the proposed investment.

Shahrol agreed that this represented a genuine risk.

Yet the Board was not informed of the issue before the investment proceeded, according to the evidence highlighted by Ganesan.

Ganesan put it to Shahrol that, given his positions, he should have advised the Board to hold off until the ownership dispute was resolved.

That goes to the heart of the CEO’s role.

A Board can only make an informed decision based on the information placed before it.

If management knows of a material risk but the Board is not told, can responsibility simply rest with the Board for approving the transaction?

Or does responsibility also extend to the executive responsible for ensuring that the Board is properly informed?

Why Was Jho Low The Channel?

Another striking part of the testimony concerned Shahrol’s communications with the then Prime Minister.

Asked how he communicated with the Prime Minister, Shahrol said he had “alternative means” — through Jho Low (Low Taek Jho).

Ganesan pointed out that Low held no formal position in 1MDB.

He also raised the requirement for Federal Government approval for an investment of that size. Shahrol said that, to his knowledge, such approval had not been obtained.

The question is therefore not simply why Jho Low was involved.

It is why the CEO of a government-owned company relied on someone with no formal position in 1MDB to communicate with the Prime Minister on matters involving billion-dollar investments.

If a CEO believed that a matter required the Prime Minister’s attention, why was the communication not made through formal corporate and governmental channels?

Vincent Beng’s Defence Line

The same broader question of responsibility has emerged through the defence’s questioning, including that of Nur Syafinaz Vani, counsel for Vincent Beng, former Chief Investment Officer of 1MDB.

The defence has sought to distinguish between individuals who had actual authority over 1MDB’s decisions and those who were merely employees operating within the company’s management structure.

That distinction is particularly relevant to Kelvin Tan.

Ganesan established that Tan was a staff member, did not sit on the Board and was not named in either the Public Accounts Committee or National Audit Department reports.

When Ganesan asked Shahrol whether it was fair to have named Tan as the seventh defendant, Shahrol answered no.

The defence position therefore raises a simple question:

If a staff member without Board authority can be pursued for losses arising from major investment decisions, what level of responsibility should attach to those at the highest levels of management?

What Did The Law Require In 2009?

There is an important legal distinction when considering Shahrol’s responsibilities.

The PetroSaudi transaction took place in 2009. The governing statute at the time was therefore the Companies Act 1965, not the Companies Act 2016.

Under Section 131B of the Companies Act 1965, the business and affairs of a company were managed by, or under the direction of, its Board.

Section 132, as amended in 2007, required directors to exercise their powers for a proper purpose and in good faith in the best interests of the company, as well as to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence. Crucially, the provision’s definition of “director” included the chief executive officer.

That is significant in Shahrol’s case.

He was not merely an employee of 1MDB. He was its CEO and, as highlighted in court, also its managing director and a Board member.

There was, however, another layer specific to 1MDB.

Article 117 of 1MDB’s Memorandum and Articles of Association required the Prime Minister’s prior written approval for specified matters, including investments and major financial commitments.

That did not, by itself, turn the Prime Minister into 1MDB’s Board of Directors. The Board remained responsible for the company’s affairs.

The question, therefore, is not simply whether the Prime Minister had a role in approving major decisions.

It is whether 1MDB’s management and Board properly discharged their own responsibilities in preparing, evaluating and placing those decisions before the Board, and in seeking the required approval through the proper channels.

If the CEO knew of a material risk — such as the ownership dispute surrounding the Serdar Field — what was his responsibility to ensure that the Board knew about it?

And if Prime Ministerial approval was required, what was the proper corporate process for obtaining it?

Those questions go directly to CEO accountability.

Why Is Shahrol A Witness?

That brings us to the uncomfortable question surrounding Shahrol.

He has appeared as a prosecution witness in the 1MDB-Tanore criminal trial and has testified in other proceedings.

Yet he is no longer a defendant in the current US$8 billion 1MDB civil suit.

That does not, by itself, establish that he bears no civil or criminal responsibility. Nor does being a CEO automatically establish liability.

But it does raise a legitimate question:

What distinguishes a CEO who is an important witness to alleged wrongdoing from a CEO who should bear responsibility for decisions made under his management?

The answer lies in the evidence — what he knew, what he advised, what he communicated to the Board and government, what risks he escalated and whether he exercised the standard of care required of his position.

The Bigger Question for Corporate Malaysia

The 1MDB case should not create the impression that CEOs are responsible only when things go well and become mere witnesses when things go disastrously wrong.

A CEO cannot simply be a conduit between political principals, advisers and a Board.

The role carries professional responsibility.

That includes asking difficult questions, challenging questionable assumptions, ensuring that material risks reach the Board and, when necessary, advising that a transaction should not proceed.

The law applicable at the time recognised that responsibility.

The court must now determine what the evidence says about Shahrol’s own conduct.

But there is another question that deserves attention.

If The CEO Is Not Responsible, Then Why Is Najib The First Defendant?

The bigger question is not simply whether Shahrol should be liable.

It is how responsibility is allocated in the first place.

The 2009 legal framework placed management and corporate decision-making within the Board, while 1MDB’s Article 117 imposed an additional requirement for the Prime Minister’s prior written approval on specified matters.

That means the existence of Article 117 does not, by itself, answer the question of who was responsible for preparing, evaluating and placing investment decisions before the Board.

Nor does the fact that the Prime Minister’s approval was required necessarily mean that the CEO and directors ceased to have their own responsibilities.

And this brings the issue back to the civil suit.

If a CEO who was also managing director and Board member is not responsible for decisions made under his watch, then why was former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak named as the first defendant?

Najib was not 1MDB’s CEO.

He was not its managing director.

He was not responsible for its day-to-day management.

But he was Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and chairman of 1MDB’s Board of Advisers, and Article 117 specifically required his prior written approval for certain major matters. Those facts are central to the case and must ultimately be determined in light of the evidence.

The court will have to determine what each person knew, what each was responsible for, what was placed before the Board, what approvals were obtained and whether the conduct alleged caused the losses claimed.

But as Shahrol returns to the witness stand, the question remains:

If the CEO who ran 1MDB, the managing director who managed its affairs and the Board member who participated in its governance is not responsible for the decisions made under his watch, then why is the former prime minister — named as the first defendant — at the front of the civil claim?

That is not a question of guilt.

It is a question of corporate accountability.– NMH

The post If The CEO Is Not Responsible, Then Why Is Najib The First Defendant? first appeared on NMH.

Liquidator Appointed Over 29 Offshore Entities, the 1MDB Civil Trial was told

KUALA LUMPUR, 10 August 2026 – The 1MDB Civil Trial turned to the recovery and tracing of allegedly misappropriated funds today, with offshore asset recovery specialist Angela Barkhouse telling the High Court that she had been appointed liquidator for 29 offshore entities linked to the transactions under investigation.

Barkhouse, managing director of Kroll (Cayman) Ltd, is the third witness in the US$5.64 billion civil suit brought by 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) and its subsidiaries against former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and several other defendants.

She said the various appointments were made between July 2021 and May 2025.

Among the entities identified were Lucetta Investments Ltd, PetroSaudi Oil Services Ltd, TKIL Global Investments Ltd, PetroSaudi International, Aabar International Investments PJS Ltd, Alsen Chance Holdings Ltd, Blackrock Commodities (Global) Ltd and Platinum Global Luxury Services Ltd.

Barkhouse told the court that her analysis enabled her team to trace funds allegedly misappropriated from 1MDB through a complex network of offshore entities associated with parties allegedly involved in the fraud.

She said her investigations remained ongoing, with further information continuing to be obtained and analysed on behalf of the liquidated estates and claims pursued against parties alleged to have facilitated the movement or laundering of the funds.

Findings Based on Retrospective Reconciliation

An important aspect of Barkhouse’s testimony, however, was the nature of her investigation.

Under questioning, she confirmed that her findings were based on a retrospective reconciliation.

The investigation itself was conducted in 2024 and completed in 2025 – several years after the transactions in question and long after earlier investigations into 1MDB had begun.

Barkhouse explained that the figures and information used in the reconciliation had been obtained from staff within her firm, after which the information was brought together and totalled.

The distinction is important because her evidence was not based on firsthand observation of the original transactions. Rather, it involved reconstructing and reconciling information available to her team at a later stage.

Barkhouse also acknowledged that she did not have the final overall figure for the amount recovered.

Although she was involved in recovery work, she could not attest to a final consolidated recovery figure.

That prompted questions over the scope of the reconciliation – including what information was available to the team at the time and whether the exercise was intended to establish the full amount ultimately recovered or to address a more specific aspect of the liquidated estates.

The issue may become significant as the defence continues to examine the relationship between the amounts allegedly misappropriated, funds traced and sums subsequently recovered.

Shafee Puts Jho Low at the Centre of Questioning

During cross-examination, lead defence counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah focused on the role of fugitive financier Low Taek Jho, better known as Jho Low.

Shafee asked Barkhouse whether she had encountered Low’s name during her investigation.

She confirmed that she had.

Shafee then put to her that Jho Low lay at the centre of the controversy surrounding 1MDB and the alleged conspiracy to destroy the sovereign wealth fund.

Barkhouse responded: “Among others, yes.”

When Shafee asked whether she agreed that Jho Low was the main person behind the alleged conspiracy, however, Barkhouse said she was uncertain.

She explained that her focus was on those who had received the allegedly misappropriated funds.

That exchange is significant because it illustrates the distinction between Barkhouse’s role as a liquidator and the wider question of who ultimately bears responsibility for the alleged wrongdoing.

Her mandate, as described in court, is principally concerned with identifying and pursuing assets and claims connected to the liquidated estates. Determining the overall hierarchy of responsibility for the alleged 1MDB fraud is a broader question for the court.

Tracing Funds Versus Establishing Responsibility

The distinction between tracing funds and establishing responsibility could become an important feature of the next stage of the trial.

Barkhouse’s evidence provides the plaintiffs with a detailed picture of the complex offshore network through which funds were allegedly moved.

But the existence of an offshore entity, a transfer or a recipient does not necessarily, on its own, establish who authorised a transaction, who knew about it or who was ultimately responsible for the alleged misappropriation.

That distinction is likely to be tested further during cross-examination.

It also follows the broader pattern established during the first week of the trial, when defence counsel questioned former investigator Richard Templeman about the methodology and documentary basis of his investigation.

The defence has repeatedly sought to distinguish between evidence showing where money went and evidence establishing who was responsible for sending it there.

The Recovery Question Remains

Barkhouse’s inability to confirm the final overall recovery figure also leaves open an issue that has already featured prominently in the defence’s narrative.

At a press conference last week, Shafee said approximately RM31 billion had been recovered by 1MDB and its subsidiaries – a figure exceeding the approximately RM24 billion being claimed in the civil action.

That figure was not put to Barkhouse as part of this morning’s evidence, and she did not attest to it.

Nevertheless, her testimony that she had been involved in recovery work but did not have the final consolidated recovery figure raises a question that may warrant further examination – how the various recovery exercises, liquidated estates and sums recovered fit together in determining the amount ultimately sought from the defendants.

That is particularly relevant in a civil action where the plaintiffs are seeking to recover billions of ringgit.

A More Complex Picture of the Evidence

Barkhouse’s testimony therefore adds another layer to the 1MDB Civil Trial.

On one level, the court has heard evidence of an extensive tracing exercise involving 29 offshore entities and a network spanning multiple jurisdictions.

On another, the evidence highlights the complexity of reconstructing transactions years after they occurred, with the liquidator relying on information compiled by her team and reconciling figures retrospectively.

Her evidence also stops short of identifying Jho Low as the sole person responsible for the alleged conspiracy, with Barkhouse telling the court that her focus was on recipients of allegedly misappropriated funds.

As the trial continues, the court will have to consider not only the tracing of the funds but also what the evidence establishes about the roles, knowledge and responsibilities of the various defendants.

The hearing continues tomorrow. – NMH

The post 1MDB Civil Trial: The Money Trail and Questions Over Recovery first appeared on NMH.

Plaintiffs Put Najib at the Centre of the 1MDB Civil Trial

KUALA LUMPUR, 6 August 2026 – The opening week of the 1MDB Civil Trial has revealed a significant contrast between the plaintiffs’ case and the approach taken by the defence.

The plaintiffs have alleged that former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, together with fugitive businessman Low Taek Jho (Jho Low) and several former 1MDB officers, orchestrated a fraudulent scheme that caused losses amounting to approximately US$5.6 billion, with the civil suit seeking about RM24 billion from Najib and the other defendants.

The defence, however, has focused increasingly on a broader question – whether responsibility for the alleged losses can fairly be attributed to any single individual without examining the respective roles of the Board of Directors, senior management and corporate officers involved in the transactions.

That approach was evident in the cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ first witness, former UK investigator Richard Templeman, by counsel GK Ganesan and lead defence counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah.

It was also reflected in Shafee’s challenge to portions of former DAP lawmaker Tony Pua’s witness statement later in the week.

GK Ganesan Tests the Investigator’s Findings

Ganesan’s questioning went beyond the conclusions reached by Templeman and examined how those conclusions had been formed.

Templeman agreed that he had never worked for 1MDB, never attended its board or management meetings and had no personal knowledge of discussions involving the company’s senior management during the relevant period.

He also accepted that his witness statement was a retrospective reconstruction based primarily on documents reviewed years after the events rather than matters he had personally observed.

Ganesan’s questioning subsequently examined the distinction between Board authority, management responsibilities and the duties of corporate officers.

Templeman agreed that the individual represented by Ganesan was employed as Director of Investments but was never a member of the Board of Directors.

He further agreed that officers were expected to implement decisions made by their superiors and could not unilaterally override lawful Board resolutions.

The questioning therefore placed the wider corporate decision-making structure under scrutiny rather than focusing solely on the conduct of one individual.

Warnings And The Documentary Trail

Ganesan also referred Templeman to contemporaneous correspondence showing concerns being raised over discrepancies in banking information before funds were remitted.

Templeman accepted that the correspondence reflected an attempt to alert then-chief executive Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi to the anomaly.

Board minutes were also referred to, including financial warnings concerning loan maturity mismatches, concentration risk, currency exposure and political risks associated with investments.

Templeman accepted those concerns had been presented to the Board and agreed he had not seen documents showing the warnings were subsequently withdrawn or that the Board had been encouraged to disregard them.

Ganesan also walked Templeman through the Good Star, Aabar, Tanore and Options Buyback phases of the alleged transactions.

Templeman agreed that while his witness statement identified transfers involving several defendants, it did not identify the seventh defendant as having personally received funds in any of those phases.

Shafee Challenges The Documentary Record

Shafee’s cross-examination raised a different but complementary set of questions over the reliability of the documentary evidence.

Templeman acknowledged that he was unaware a handwriting expert had previously testified that signatures and handwritten notes attributed to Najib on minutes of 1MDB board meetings were not his.

He also agreed that the minutes contained no record of other individuals being present or participating in the meetings.

The exchange raised questions over how the minutes could reliably establish what had actually taken place during the meetings when they contained no indication of discussion, deliberation or contributions by other attendees.

As put during Shafee’s questioning, the minutes presented an unusual picture – effectively, Najib appearing to have a “monologue” with himself.

The issue is significant because the minutes form part of the documentary material relied upon in the civil claim, while the defence is challenging whether such records can reliably establish the events and decisions they purport to record.

Questions Over The Investigation And Recoveries

Shafee also questioned Templeman over the completeness of his investigation into the movement of funds.

Among the issues raised was approximately US$620 million returned by Najib.

Templeman acknowledged that he had not investigated whether the money, after being returned, had subsequently been rerouted.

That exchange went to whether all subsequent movements of the funds had been examined before conclusions were drawn.

Shafee had also raised the issue of recoveries at a press conference on Tuesday, saying about RM31 billion had been recovered by 1MDB and its subsidiaries – more than the approximately RM24 billion being claimed in the civil suit.

The recovery figure does not, by itself, determine liability. But it forms part of the defence’s wider questioning of the scope and basis of the claim, including concerns over potential double recovery.

Tony Pua’s Evidence Comes Under Scrutiny

The scrutiny of the plaintiffs’ evidence continued when Tony Pua took the witness stand.

Shafee mounted extensive objections to portions of Pua’s witness statement, arguing that parts relied on hearsay, opinion and third-party materials.

The High Court subsequently upheld several objections and ordered numerous portions of the statement to be expunged.

The judge stressed the requirements of relevance and objectivity in witness evidence and cautioned against reliance on third-party media reports where such material could give rise to hearsay concerns.

Among the references ordered removed were passages concerning the arrests of Matthias Chang and Datuk Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan, as well as references to Bersih rallies.

The plaintiffs argued that media reports had been cited to reinforce and corroborate Pua’s evidence. However, the court ruled that several portions should not remain on the record.

Importantly, the court did not strike out Pua’s entire witness statement – only specific portions were expunged following the defence objections.

What The First Week Of The 1MDB Civil Trial Reveals

The first week of the 1MDB Civil Trial has therefore been about more than tracing billions of dollars through a complex web of transactions.

It has also become a contest over the quality of the evidence, the methodology used to investigate the transactions and the reliability and admissibility of material relied upon by the plaintiffs.

While the plaintiffs have sought to place Najib at the centre of the alleged fraud and are pursuing a claim of about RM24 billion, the defence has questioned whether the evidence presently before the court establishes liability without a fuller examination of the respective roles played by the Board, management and corporate officers.

Ganeson’s cross-examination tested the investigator’s methodology and the corporate decision-making structure. Shafee’s questioning went further into the reliability of documents used to reconstruct events, the completeness of the fund-tracing exercise and the significance of sums already recovered.

The subsequent objections to Pua’s witness statement added another dimension, with the High Court scrutinising whether portions of the evidence met the requirements of hearsay, relevance and objectivity.

Ultimately, those questions will be determined by the High Court after hearing all the evidence.

For now, however, the opening week suggests that the outcome of the 1MDB Civil Trial may depend not only on where the money went, but also on whether the evidence is sufficient to establish responsibility against those the plaintiffs seek to hold liable – and how the court ultimately assesses the sums already recovered against the losses being claimed. – NMH

The post 1MDB Civil Trial: Defence Tests Whether Liability Can Be Attributed to a Single Individual first appeared on NMH.

KUALA LUMPUR, 04 Aug – The government’s decision to pursue a RM24 billion civil claim against Datuk Seri Najib Razak has come under renewed scrutiny after the defence revealed that authorities have already recovered more than RM31 billion linked to 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).

Najib’s lead counsel, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, disclosed the figure at a press conference after court proceedings on Tuesday, following the conclusion of testimony by the plaintiff’s witness, former UK investigator Richard Templeman.

Shafee said the recovery figure was disclosed during the discovery process in the civil proceedings, questioning why it had not been made public despite exceeding the amount being claimed against Najib.

According to him, the RM31 billion recovered did not include the value of remaining 1MDB assets such as Bandar Malaysia and Edra, which could further increase the total recoverable value.

“The plaintiff is claiming RM24 billion, yet documents disclosed during discovery show recoveries have already exceeded RM31 billion,” Shafee said, adding that the Treasury should explain why these figures had not been publicly disclosed.

He argued that once the recovered funds and remaining assets were taken into account, questions naturally arose over the basis and quantum of the government’s civil claim.

Templeman’s Testimony Concludes

Templeman, a former investigator engaged by UK-based law firm Kobre & Kim in relation to international asset recovery efforts involving 1MDB, completed his testimony after two days of cross-examination.

The trial will resume on Wednesday with former DAP national publicity secretary Tony Pua expected to take the witness stand as the plaintiff’s next witness.

Defence Challenges ‘Top-Down’ Narrative

Reflecting on Templeman’s evidence, Shafee said the defence had successfully challenged the government’s assertion that Najib exercised complete control over 1MDB through a so-called “top-down approach”.

He said Templeman eventually accepted that the documents shown in court reflected the normal governance structure of a company, where decisions were made by the board of directors before being referred to the shareholder for approval where required.

According to Shafee, this was consistent with the governance framework of a government-linked company and did not, by itself, demonstrate that Najib directed the company’s day-to-day affairs.

The defence also referred Templeman to Article 117 of 1MDB’s Memorandum and Articles of Association, a provision frequently cited throughout the proceedings.

Shafee said Templeman acknowledged that, based on the documents he had reviewed, he had not seen any instance where Najib exercised powers under Article 117 to override the board’s decisions.

No Documents Showing Najib Directed The 1MDB Board

Shafee further highlighted that Templeman agreed there were no documents showing Najib had directed the 1MDB board on its decisions.

He also noted that Templeman was unaware that a handwriting expert had previously testified that the signatures and handwritten notes purportedly belonging to Najib on certain 1MDB board meeting minutes were not his.

The defence further pointed out that the board meeting minutes themselves contained no record of any other attendees or participants, giving the impression that Najib was effectively “having a monologue with himself” rather than recording discussions involving other board members.

On the issue of fugitive businessman Low Taek Jho, or Jho Low, Templeman disagreed that Jho Low acted as a shadow director controlling 1MDB from outside the company. However, he accepted that there were some instances suggesting Jho Low’s involvement in the company’s affairs.

With Templeman’s evidence concluded, the trial is expected to enter a new phase with Tony Pua’s testimony when proceedings resume on Wednesday. – NMH

The post 1MDB Civil Trial: With RM31 Billion Recovered, RM24 Billion Suit Questioned first appeared on NMH.