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.

Orang Melayu Bukan Mudah Lupa. Mereka selalu ingat pada masa pilihan raya.

Sabah.

Johor.

Kini Negeri Sembilan.

Tiga pilihan raya.

Tiga kekalahan yang membawa mesej yang sama.

Namun sehingga hari ini, Pakatan Harapan (PH) masih kelihatan gagal memahami mengapa sokongan orang Melayu semakin sukar diraih.

Seperti biasa, penjelasan yang diberikan juga tidak banyak berubah.

Politik perkauman.

Main sentimen.

Fitnah.

Maklumat palsu.

Segala-galanya dipersalahkan.

Kecuali satu perkara.

Muhasabah.

Hakikatnya, orang Melayu tidak mengundi semata-mata berdasarkan manifesto.

Mereka mengundi berdasarkan pengalaman.

Mereka mengundi berdasarkan memori.

Dan lebih penting, mereka mengundi berdasarkan apa yang mereka rasa.

Kerana hati orang Melayu tidak mudah dimenangi melalui ceramah atau slogan.

Hati orang Melayu dimenangi melalui rasa hormat.

Luka Yang Bermula Pada 2018

Bagi ramai rakyat Malaysia yang mahukan perubahan, kemenangan PH pada PRU14 membawa harapan baharu.

Namun bagi sebahagian besar orang Melayu dan umat Islam, tempoh selepas itu meninggalkan kenangan yang jauh berbeza.

Mungkin setiap keputusan mempunyai alasan pentadbiran.

Mungkin setiap tindakan mempunyai justifikasi undang-undang.

Tetapi dalam politik, persepsi sering mengatasi penjelasan.

Ramai orang Melayu masih mengingati bagaimana pekerja kontrak kerajaan terjejas.

Bagaimana isu berkaitan elaun guru agama dan institusi tahfiz menjadi perbualan.

Semuanya berlaku ketika Ramadan.

Mungkin bagi sesetengah pihak, ia hanyalah keputusan pentadbiran.

Tetapi bagi ramai orang Melayu, ia menyentuh soal sensitiviti.

Dan apabila sensitiviti tidak diraikan, luka mula tercipta.

Orang Melayu Menilai Cara, Bukan Sekadar Tindakan

Inilah yang ramai ahli strategi politik gagal faham.

Orang Melayu bukan sahaja melihat apa yang dilakukan.

Mereka juga melihat bagaimana ia dilakukan.

Cara seseorang bercakap.

Cara seseorang mengkritik.

Cara seseorang meraikan kemenangan.

Cara seseorang melayan lawan yang telah tewas.

Semuanya diperhatikan.

Kerana dalam budaya Melayu, adab sentiasa mendahului kuasa.

Politik Juga Ada Adab

Apabila kerajaan bertukar pada tahun 2018, ramai penyokong BN masih mengingati bagaimana peralihan kuasa berlaku.

Bagi mereka, ia bukan sekadar pertukaran pentadbiran.

Ia meninggalkan kesan emosi.

Ramai masih mengingati imej-imej yang berlegar ketika itu.

Imej yang bagi mereka menggambarkan sebuah kemenangan yang diraikan tanpa banyak ruang untuk belas ihsan.

Sebab itulah ramai yang tersentuh apabila selepas kemenangan di Negeri Sembilan baru-baru ini, Menteri Besar baharu memilih untuk mengucapkan terima kasih kepada Datuk Seri Aminuddin Harun atas jasa beliau mentadbir negeri.

Tiada sindiran.

Tiada penghinaan.

Hanya penghormatan kepada seorang pemimpin yang telah berkhidmat.

Begitu juga apabila Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi ditanya sama ada Aminuddin perlu segera mengosongkan kediaman rasmi Menteri Besar.

Jawapannya ringkas.

“Berilah beliau sedikit masa. Beliau juga sahabat kita.”

Mungkin bagi sesetengah orang, itu perkara kecil.

Tetapi bagi orang Melayu, perkara seperti itulah yang dipanggil adab.

Hormat Tidak Boleh Bermusim

Orang Melayu menghargai sesiapa sahaja yang menghormati budaya dan agama mereka.

Memakai baju Melayu.

Memakai baju kurung.

Memakai tudung ketika menghadiri majlis.

Mengucapkan salam.

Semuanya dihargai.

Tetapi rasa hormat tidak boleh muncul hanya ketika musim pilihan raya.

Ia perlu diterjemahkan melalui tutur kata.

Melalui tindakan.

Melalui cara menangani perbezaan.

Apabila ada pemimpin yang dilihat memperlekehkan pemimpin Melayu, mempersendakan kebimbangan orang Melayu atau menyentuh perkara-perkara sensitif berkaitan agama, semua itu terkumpul menjadi satu memori politik yang sukar dipadam.

Mungkin setiap insiden berdiri sendiri.

Tetapi dalam fikiran pengundi Melayu, ia membentuk satu corak.

Tabung Haji Bukan Sekadar Institusi

Begitu juga dengan Tabung Haji.

Bagi orang Melayu Islam, Tabung Haji bukan sekadar agensi kerajaan.

Ia adalah tempat menyimpan impian.

Impian untuk menjadi tetamu Allah.

Sebab itu apa sahaja yang melibatkan Tabung Haji sentiasa menyentuh emosi.

Apabila isu-isu berkaitan Tabung Haji kembali dimainkan ketika pilihan raya, ramai mula bertanya.

Mengapa sekarang?

Mengapa bukan dahulu?

Dan persoalan-persoalan itu akhirnya menjadi isu politik.

Masih Bertanding Dengan Najib

Satu lagi persoalan yang sering dibangkitkan oleh pengundi ialah mengapa setiap kali pilihan raya, nama Datuk Seri Najib Razak dan Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor terus dijadikan modal politik.

Sedangkan bagi ramai rakyat, isu yang lebih mendesak ialah kos sara hidup.

Harga beras.

Peluang pekerjaan.

Kos menunaikan haji.

Beban kehidupan harian.

Apabila rakyat bercakap tentang masa depan tetapi ahli politik masih bercakap tentang masa lalu, jurang itu semakin melebar.

PH Kehilangan Lebih Daripada Undi

Sabah sepatutnya menjadi amaran.

Johor sepatutnya menjadi pengajaran.

Negeri Sembilan sepatutnya membuka mata.

Namun jika jawapan kepada setiap kekalahan masih sama, maka jangan terkejut jika keputusan pilihan raya akan terus mengulangi cerita yang sama.

Kerana orang Melayu bukan menolak hanya dasar.

Kadangkala mereka menolak cara mereka dilayan.

Mereka menolak nada yang dianggap angkuh.

Mereka menolak rasa bahawa suara mereka hanya penting apabila tiba musim mengundi.

Hati Orang Melayu Tidak Boleh Dipaksa

Mungkin PH menyangka orang Melayu sudah lupa.

Tetapi keputusan di Sabah, Johor dan Negeri Sembilan menunjukkan sebaliknya.

Orang Melayu tidak mudah melupakan apa yang mereka rasa.

Kerana bagi orang Melayu, politik bukan sekadar soal kuasa.

Politik juga soal adab.

Cara kita melayan lawan selepas menang.

Cara kita menghormati jasa orang terdahulu.

Cara kita menjaga maruah mereka yang telah tewas.

Semuanya menjadi ukuran.

Kerana kemenangan bukan sekadar mengangkat seorang pemimpin.

Kemenangan juga menguji budi pekerti seorang pemimpin.

Luka mungkin boleh dipendam.

Tetapi luka yang tidak pernah dirawat akan berdarah semula.

Dan dalam politik, apabila hati sudah terluka…

Undi akan berbicara. – NMH

The post Pilihan Raya – Mengapa Hati Orang Melayu Masih Belum Lupa first appeared on NMH.

The Malay Heart Never Forgot 2018

For those Malaysians who voted for change in 2018, the General Election represented hope, reform and a new beginning. For many Malays and Muslims, however, it also marked the beginning of a chapter they have never truly forgotten.

The memories were not shaped by a single event, but by a series of decisions, actions and political narratives that many perceived as dismissive of institutions, livelihoods and religious sensitivities that they held dear.

Eight years later, those memories continue to influence how many Malays vote.

Three elections.

Three defeats.

Sabah.

Johor.

Negeri Sembilan.

Three unmistakable messages from Malay voters.

Still Clueless About The Malays

Yet Pakatan Harapan (PH) still appears no closer to understanding why.

Instead, the familiar explanations surfaced once again. Race. Fear. Playing the race card. Misinformation.

Everything—except honest introspection.

The uncomfortable truth is this: PH did not merely lose seats.

It continues to lose something far more important.

The Malay heart.

Because the Malay heart is not won through elections.

It is won through respect.

Politics Is About More Than Policies

Political analysts often explain elections through demographics, economic indicators and campaign machinery.

Those things matter.

But they are not the whole story.

People do not vote only with their minds.

They also vote with their memories.

And nowhere is this perhaps more evident than within the Malay community.

For many Malays, politics is not merely about manifestos or policy announcements.

It is also about dignity.

It is about gratitude.

It is about humility.

Above all, it is about adab—the values of courtesy, respect and grace that have long shaped Malay society.

That is the conversation PH still appears reluctant to have.

The Wounds Of 2018 Never Fully Healed

When PH assumed power after GE14, many Malays expected reforms.

What they did not expect was what many perceived to be an insensitivity towards Malay-Muslim institutions and livelihoods.

Among the issues frequently raised by critics were the termination of contract workers serving government agencies, concerns over allowances for religious teachers and uncertainty surrounding funding for tahfiz institutions.

Many remember these developments unfolding during Ramadan.

Perhaps each decision had its administrative justification.

Perhaps each was made in good faith.

But politics is not only about intentions.

It is also about timing.

And it is about perception.

For many Malays, the perception that emerged was one of insensitivity during one of the holiest periods of the Islamic calendar.

Those impressions have never completely faded.

Justice And Perception

The investigations into former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and numerous UMNO leaders were presented as efforts to uphold accountability.

Many Malaysians supported them.

Others experienced those events very differently.

The highly publicised raids on Najib’s residences during Ramadan became one of the defining images of that period.

Businesses previously involved in government projects also found themselves under investigation, with some companies saying frozen bank accounts left them struggling for months or even years while inquiries continued.

Whether those investigations were legally justified is a matter for the courts.

But politically, many Malays concluded that an entire ecosystem associated with the previous administration had come under siege.

Politics is rarely decided in courtrooms.

It is decided in the hearts of voters.

Malays Judge Conduct As Much As Policy

Perhaps this is where many political strategists misunderstand the Malay electorate.

Malay voters do not judge politics solely by outcomes.

They also judge it by conduct.

How victors treat those who have lost.

How leaders speak about their opponents.

Whether gratitude is shown to predecessors.

Whether power is exercised with humility or triumphalism.

In Malay culture, victory is not only measured by the ability to govern.

It is also measured by the grace with which power is exercised.

That is why seemingly small gestures often carry enormous political weight.

When Negeri Sembilan’s newly sworn-in Menteri Besar publicly thanked his predecessor, Datuk Seri Aminuddin Harun, for his service to the state, many saw more than a customary courtesy.

They saw respect.

Likewise, when asked whether the outgoing Menteri Besar should immediately vacate the official residence, UMNO President Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s response—that he should be given time because “he is also our friend” — was interpreted by supporters as an example of compassion in victory.

To some observers, these may appear to be small matters.

To many Malays, they speak volumes about character.

Respect Cannot Be Seasonal

Many Malays appreciate politicians from every party who make genuine efforts to understand Malay customs, traditions and religious sensitivities.

Wearing a baju kurung or a tudung at community events, offering greetings in Malay or attending religious functions can all be positive gestures of engagement.

But symbolic gestures alone are not enough.

Respect cannot appear only during election campaigns.

It must also be reflected in words, attitudes and conduct.

When remarks are perceived as belittling Malay leaders or dismissing concerns rooted in religion and culture, those symbolic gestures quickly lose their meaning.

Likewise, controversies involving Islamic institutions or religious sensitivities may be viewed individually by political insiders.

Many Malay voters, however, see them collectively.

Politics is often shaped less by one incident than by the accumulation of impressions over time.

Tabung Haji Is More Than An Institution

PH may have expected the Tabung Haji Royal Commission of Inquiry to become an election issue in its favour.

Instead, many Malays asked a different question.

Why release the report during an election campaign if it had already been completed years earlier?

To many voters, it looked less like transparency than political timing.

More importantly, it reminded Malays that Tabung Haji is not merely another government institution.

It represents decades of sacrifice and savings.

It represents the dream of performing the haj.

Any issue involving Tabung Haji inevitably becomes deeply personal.

Politics cannot separate policy from emotion.

Still Campaigning Against Najib

Perhaps the greatest irony of the Johor and Negeri Sembilan elections was PH’s continued reliance on Datuk Seri Najib Razak and Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor as campaign targets.

Years after leaving office, they remain central figures in election rhetoric.

Yet many voters are asking different questions.

Why is rice more expensive?

Why are subsidies shrinking?

Why has performing the haj become increasingly costly?

How will families cope with rising living expenses?

When politicians continue speaking about yesterday while voters worry about tomorrow, a disconnect inevitably emerges.

As the saying goes, you cannot drive into the future by staring into the rear-view mirror.

The Lesson PH Still Refuses To Learn

Former minister Khairy Jamaluddin recently observed that PH had failed to win the hearts and minds of Malay voters.

Whether one agrees with his assessment entirely or not, the election results in Sabah, Johor and Negeri Sembilan suggest that this is now a question PH can no longer afford to ignore.

Perhaps PH’s greatest mistake has been believing that Malay voters have short memories.

Every election since 2018 has been fought as though reminding voters about 1MDB would erase what many Malays themselves remember—their own experiences, their own anxieties and the feeling that their concerns were too often dismissed whenever they spoke up.

Elections are not won by telling voters what they should remember.

They are won by understanding what voters themselves refuse to forget.

When The Heart Remembers, So Does The Ballot Box

Perhaps PH believed Malay voters would eventually forget.

Sabah suggested otherwise.

Johor reinforced the message.

Negeri Sembilan confirmed it.

Old wounds can be buried.

But wounds that are never acknowledged have a way of reopening.

Because for many Malays, politics is not merely about winning power.

It is about honour.

It is about dignity.

It is about respect.

And when the heart has been wounded…

The ballot box remembers. – NMH

The post The Malay Heart Is Not Won Through Elections, But Through Respect first appeared on NMH.

In Part 1 of this series, we argued that Malaysians should revisit the legal questions surrounding the 2016 South China Sea arbitral award through the lens of Malaysia’s own national interests.

Barely weeks later, regional developments have reinforced why that discussion matters.

Recent reports highlighted the Philippines’ confidence that its strengthened defence posture has deterred the use of force in the South China Sea. Around the same time, Malaysia announced plans to install a new air defence radar on Pulau Layang-Layang while reaffirming its determination to defend the nation’s sovereignty whenever competing maritime claims arise.

These developments are not isolated.

Strategic Interest in South China Sea

They illustrate a simple reality: every nation involved in the South China Sea is actively advancing and defending its own interests.

There is nothing unusual about that.

Every sovereign nation has both the right and the responsibility to articulate a narrative that supports its strategic objectives, protects its sovereignty and safeguards its future.

The more important question is whether Malaysia has done enough to define its own.

Defending More Than Territory

Every country involved in the South China Sea dispute has developed a narrative to support its national position.

China speaks of historical rights.

The Philippines relies heavily on the 2016 arbitral award.

Vietnam advances its own historical and legal arguments.

The United States frames its involvement in terms of freedom of navigation and the rules-based international order.

Each of these narratives reflects the national interests of those advancing them.

Malaysia should expect nothing less.

But neither should Malaysia simply adopt the narratives of others.

Our position must be based on our own history, our own legal rights and our own strategic priorities.

The South China Sea is not merely an international legal issue for Malaysia.

It is where our sovereignty, maritime resources, national security and economic future converge.

Protecting those interests requires clarity of purpose and confidence in articulating Malaysia’s own perspective.

The Forgotten Legacy Of The “Malayan Sea”

One aspect of that perspective has received surprisingly little attention.

Long before the term “South China Sea” became widely used, historical records referred to parts of these waters as the “Malayan Sea” or “Sea of Malayu”.

Arab traders writing more than a thousand years ago referred to the maritime route through the Malay world as the Sea of Malayu. Portuguese cartographer Manuel Godinho de Erédia recorded similar references in the early seventeenth century. British navigational charts and geographical publications of the nineteenth century also used the term “Malayan Sea” in describing these waters.

These historical references are not advanced as proof of modern sovereignty.

International boundaries and maritime rights are determined by contemporary international law, not by historical place names.

Nevertheless, history matters.

It reminds Malaysians that our connection with these waters did not begin with the 2016 arbitral award, nor with the emergence of present-day geopolitical rivalries.

For centuries, these seas formed part of the maritime world that connected the Malay Peninsula, Borneo and the wider Nusantara region through trade, culture and civilisation.

That heritage deserves to be remembered whenever Malaysia’s interests in the South China Sea are discussed.

A Malaysian Narrative For A Malaysian Future

Malaysia’s strength has always been its ability to pursue a balanced and independent foreign policy.

We have consistently supported peaceful dialogue, adherence to international law and ASEAN-centred solutions to regional disputes.

At the same time, Malaysia has never hesitated to defend its sovereignty whenever necessary.

The recent decision to enhance surveillance at Pulau Layang-Layang reflects that approach.

It is not an act of provocation.

It is an exercise of responsibility by a sovereign nation protecting its legitimate interests.

Likewise, diplomatic protests should not be viewed as confrontational.

They are a normal instrument of international relations, serving to place on record a state’s position whenever its rights or interests are challenged. By lodging such protests, Malaysia demonstrates that it will neither remain silent nor allow competing claims to go unanswered.

This balanced approach should also define Malaysia’s public narrative on the South China Sea.

Rather than framing the issue as a contest between major powers or rival claimant states, Malaysia should consistently emphasise four principles: sovereignty, peaceful dispute resolution, respect for international law and the protection of our national interests.

These principles have guided Malaysia for decades.

They should continue to do so.

Speaking With Our Own Voice

The debate over the South China Sea should never become a choice between competing foreign narratives.

Malaysia has its own history.

Malaysia has its own legal position.

Malaysia has its own strategic interests.

Most importantly, Malaysia has its own voice.

The Philippines is entitled to pursue Philippine interests.

China is entitled to pursue Chinese interests.

The United States is entitled to pursue American interests.

Vietnam is entitled to pursue Vietnamese interests.

Malaysia must pursue Malaysian interests.

That is neither confrontational nor controversial.

It is the very essence of sovereignty.

The installation of a radar system on Pulau Layang-Layang demonstrates that Malaysia understands the importance of defending its physical presence in the South China Sea.

The next step is equally important.

Malaysia must continue to articulate and defend its own legal, historical and strategic narrative with the same confidence.

Only then will Malaysia truly speak with its own voice in one of the world’s most consequential maritime regions. – NMH

The post South China Sea: Putting Malaysia’s Interests First first appeared on NMH.

SEREMBAN — Come Saturday, 1 August, 889,490 voters in Negeri Sembilan will decide who governs the state for the next five years.

But this election is increasingly about something much bigger than Negeri Sembilan

Less than three weeks after Pakatan Harapan (PH) suffered a bruising defeat in Johor, the contest for Negeri Sembilan has become another test of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s political coalition — and, perhaps more significantly, of the arrangement that has kept former rivals PH and Barisan Nasional (BN) together in Putrajaya since the hung Parliament of 2022.

The numbers alone make Saturday worth watching.

PH is contesting all 36 seats. BN is fielding candidates in 25, while Perikatan Nasional (PN) is contesting the remaining 11 under an electoral understanding designed to avoid clashes between the two.

Bersatu, following its rupture with its former allies, is fighting separately.

It is a dramatically different political landscape from 2023, when PH and BN went into the state election as partners and together won 31 of the 36 seats — PH taking 17 and BN 14.

Three years later, they are rivals in Negeri Sembilan even as their leaders continue sitting around the same Cabinet table in Putrajaya.

And BN has found another partner.

Negeri Sembilan Tests a New BN-PN Alliance

The significance of the BN-PN understanding goes beyond seat allocations.

For the first time since the formation of the Unity Government, Negeri Sembilan offers a real-world test of what happens when BN competes alongside PN rather than PH.

Former Bangi MP and political analyst Ong Kian Ming has argued that the arrangement makes a BN-PN state government highly likely, estimating that their combined Malay support could exceed 70 per cent if vote transfers work as expected.

Bersatu could complicate that equation by splitting votes in some constituencies, while turnout — particularly among non-Malay voters and those working in the Klang Valley — could prove decisive.

Nothing, therefore, is guaranteed.

But politically, the experiment matters even before the result is known.

For nearly four years, the central assumption behind the Unity Government has been that PH and BN, despite decades of rivalry, need each other to provide the parliamentary numbers and political breadth required to govern.

Negeri Sembilan poses an uncomfortable alternative.

What if BN has another option?

If BN and PN can avoid fighting each other, transfer votes effectively and form a government together, Saturday’s election may provide more than a new administration for Negeri Sembilan.

It could provide a template.

Johor Was the Warning

The timing could hardly be more consequential for PH.

On 11 July, BN swept Johor, winning 48 of the 56 state seats. PH was reduced from 12 seats to eight, while PN lost all three seats it previously held.

The result did not threaten Anwar’s parliamentary majority. State elections do not change the numbers in the Dewan Rakyat.

Politically, however, Johor demonstrated something important: BN could win overwhelmingly while fighting its federal partner.

BN chairman Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi celebrated the result by expressing hope that the victory would trigger a “blue wave” across other states.

Three weeks later, that wave arrives at Negeri Sembilan’s doorstep.

But the equation here is different.

In Johor, BN showed it could beat PH.

In Negeri Sembilan, it may show it can replace PH — with PN beside it.

That distinction could prove far more important to Putrajaya.

Two Strikes for Anwar?

If PH retains Negeri Sembilan, Anwar will have an argument that Johor was exactly what BN said it was: a state-specific contest fought on BN’s strongest terrain.

If PH loses, that argument becomes harder to sustain.

Two major defeats within weeks — particularly if the second delivers power to an electoral combination involving BN and PN — would inevitably raise questions about the political direction of the country ahead of the 16th General Election.

The question would no longer simply be whether PH and BN can remain together in Putrajaya.

It would be whether they still want to.

For BN, a victory on Saturday could strengthen the argument that the coalition has recovered enough ground to negotiate the next phase of Malaysian politics from a position of greater strength.

For PN, cooperation with BN offers a possible route into government that does not depend on defeating UMNO for dominance of the Malay electorate.

And for PH, the danger is more fundamental.

If its federal partner can defeat it in one state and potentially form a government with its federal opponent in another, what exactly does the Unity Government represent once the country enters full election mode?

The arrangement created after GE15 delivered something Malaysia badly needed after years of political instability: a functioning government and a degree of continuity.

But political arrangements built from necessity are tested when that necessity begins to disappear.

Saturday may tell us whether that moment is approaching.

And Then There Is the Palace

Yet even if voters deliver a clear majority, Negeri Sembilan faces another question altogether.

Who appoints and swears in the next Menteri Besar?

The state enters polling day amid an unprecedented royal dispute following the April declaration by the Undang Yang Empat that Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir had been removed as Yang di-Pertuan Besar and that Tunku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar had been chosen in his place.

Tuanku Muhriz, however, has continued to perform royal functions. It was with his consent that the State Legislative Assembly was dissolved on 5 June, paving the way for Saturday’s election.

The dispute is rooted in Negeri Sembilan’s unique constitutional monarchy and Adat Perpatih, under which the Yang di-Pertuan Besar is elected by the four Undang rather than inheriting the throne through straightforward primogeniture.

But what began as a royal and constitutional confrontation has already crossed into electoral politics.

UMNO’s 14 assemblymen withdrew their support for then-Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Aminuddin Harun amid the fallout from the royal confrontation, setting in motion the political crisis that eventually led to the early dissolution of an assembly whose term was not due to expire until 2028.

Now the election may settle the political numbers without settling the constitutional dispute.

The Negeri Sembilan Constitution provides for the appointment of a Menteri Besar who commands the confidence of the majority in the State Legislative Assembly.

Under ordinary circumstances, what follows polling day is clear.

The results establish a majority. A leader emerges. The ruler appoints the Menteri Besar, who takes the oath of office.

Not Ordinary

But these are anything but ordinary circumstances.

If PH wins a majority, who formally appoints Aminuddin — assuming he remains its choice for Menteri Besar?

If BN-PN wins, before whom does its nominee present himself?

And what happens if competing claims to the throne produce competing assertions of constitutional authority?

These are questions the ballot box cannot answer.

Saturday may determine who has the democratic mandate to govern Negeri Sembilan.

It may not determine how that mandate is constitutionally translated into government.

Melaka Is Already Waiting

Whatever happens in Negeri Sembilan, the political calendar does not stop on 1 August.

Melaka is next in the conversation.

PH confirmed earlier this month that it was withdrawing from the BN-led Melaka state administration following disagreement over constitutional amendments allowing the appointment of nominated assemblymen.

Its five assemblymen withdrew from the state government, while PH representatives in local councils and village committees were instructed to vacate their posts effective 31 July — one day before Negeri Sembilan votes.

The symbolism is difficult to miss.

At federal level, PH and BN govern together.

In Johor, they fought each other.

In Negeri Sembilan, BN is cooperating electorally with PN against PH.

In Melaka, PH has walked out of a BN-led state administration.

The Unity Government remains intact in Putrajaya, but outside Putrajaya its component parties increasingly look like competitors preparing for an election.

That raises a question Anwar may soon have to confront.

Why wait?

Is GE16 Moving Closer?

The next general election is not required until 2028, but speculation over an earlier contest has been building for months.

Anwar himself said in May that an early election could be considered if tensions within the governing alliance continued to widen.

Johor has since delivered BN a landslide.

Negeri Sembilan could hand BN-PN another victory.

Melaka is moving towards its own state election, while Sarawak must also return to the polls.

Individually, none of these developments requires GE16 to be called.

Together, however, they could change the calculation.

A government considering an early election has to ask two questions: whether waiting improves its prospects, and whether events are beginning to move beyond its control.

For PH, a victory in Negeri Sembilan could halt the narrative created by Johor and allow Anwar to argue that the coalition remains competitive beyond its urban strongholds.

A defeat would do the opposite.

It could embolden BN, encourage further cooperation between BN and PN, deepen questions within PH about the value of its federal arrangement, and turn the coming Melaka and Sarawak elections into further tests of Anwar’s national standing.

It could also revive discussion over whether some of those contests should be brought into a broader election window, potentially alongside GE16.

Synchronising elections is not simply a matter of political convenience. Different state assemblies operate according to their own constitutional timelines, and dissolution ultimately involves their respective heads of state.

Sarawak, too, operates within its own distinct political ecosystem, and there is no certainty that its leadership would see advantage in aligning its election with contests in the peninsula.

But politically, the question is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

Malaysia has spent much of 2026 moving from one political contest to another.

At some point, the temptation may be to settle the larger question.

Beyond Negeri Sembilan

That is why Saturday matters.

Negeri Sembilan’s 889,490 voters are not voting on Anwar Ibrahim’s premiership. They are choosing 36 state assemblymen.

Nor would a BN-PN victory automatically bring down the Federal Government.

Anwar’s government stands or falls according to confidence in the Dewan Rakyat, not the outcome of a state election.

But elections create political momentum long before they alter parliamentary arithmetic.

Johor demonstrated BN’s strength.

Negeri Sembilan could test whether that strength can be combined with PN’s support base to create an alternative political arrangement.

Melaka may then test whether PH and BN can continue their federal partnership while increasingly competing against each other at state level.

And somewhere beyond all three lies GE16.

On Saturday night, Malaysians may know who has won Negeri Sembilan.

They may even have a clearer idea of where Malaysian politics is heading next.

But the state itself could wake up on Sunday to an extraordinary constitutional question that the election has not resolved: who has the authority to appoint and swear in the next Menteri Besar?

While Negeri Sembilan must still decide who has the constitutional authority to appoint the government its voters have chosen, the irony is hard to miss: the country’s second-smallest state may yet have a very big say in what happens next in Putrajaya. – NMH

The post Negeri Sembilan Poll: The Vote That Could Shake Putrajaya first appeared on NMH.