Commentary And Analysis . . . Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Aminuddin Harun, in law, probably cannot advise the Yang di-Pertuan Besar (YDPB), Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir, on dissolution of the Negeri Sembilan state assembly amidst public standoff with the 4 Undang. The Undang removed the YDPB and also called for the MB’s exit.

The imminent election in Negeri Sembilan will not end the civilisational crisis in the state. The impasse was jurisprudential.

Other issues arise.

The FPtPS (First Past the Post System), inherited from Britain, fell on undemocratic soil in Singapore and Malaysia. It cannot confer consent of the governed for legitimacy and sovereignty.

The EC (Election Commission) can and should hold runoff where no candidate collects at least 51 per cent of the votes counted on D-Day, assuming that at least 51 per cent of the electorate turned up in seats.

Adat Perpatih was law under Article 160 by institutional codification, but subject as per Article 4.

Negeri Sembilan

The crisis in Negeri Sembilan was probably the permanent feature of legal pluralism in Malaysia. It calls for coexistence of systems, reflecting the dharma (duty) of balancing identity, democracy, and the rule of law.

Civilisational Crisis

Again, the resolution, if any, requires runoff reform + modus vivendi (way of co-existence) between Adat and Constitution. Still, that would not end the Civilisational Crisis.

Cause of Action

There should be Originating Summons (OS), the facts not being in dispute, for Declaration by the High Court that FPtPS without runoff violates the spirit of Article 4 on the principle viz. consent of the governed for legitimacy and sovereignty.

The High Court can grant Order of Mandamus which compels the EC on holding runoff within two weeks in constituencies where winner had less than 51 per cent of the votes counted on D-Day, assuming that at least 51 per cent of the electorate turned up in seats.

There should be Declaration that Adat Perpatih, as recorded by the Lembaga Adat, was written law under Article 160.

There should be Judicial Review if the YDPB was removed without hearing, and Undang was suspended. These are breaches of natural justice and Article 4.

There’s Cause of Action against the Menteri Besar being removed by Undang without amendment of the State Constitution.

We know from Ernest Hemingway’s iceberg theory on writing that only one-eighth of meaning was visible.

The visible text was “polls” and “runoff”.

The invisible seven-eighths was the crisis of legitimacy in the form of lawful authority and supreme power expressed as sovereignty.

The visible issue: the FPtPS.

The hidden issue: consent of the governed for legitimacy and sovereignty.

Johor 2022, in digressing a little from Negeri Sembilan, shows that BN (Barisan Nasional) won 40 seats with less than 51 per cent of votes counted in 17 seats, assuming that at least 51 per cent of the electorate turned up in seats. That’s fait accompli (accomplished fate) by plurality. There was no majority.

The Civilisational Crisis was now twofold: Adat Perpatih vs Constitution in Negeri Sembilan, and no mandate under the FPtPS.

The imminent election in Negeri Sembilan cannot cut this Gordian knot. It’s unsolvable problem as they operate on the same undemocratic soil.

The Chronology of Events follow:

Pre-1895: Adat Perpatih governs luak, the riverine territory, and succession in Negeri Sembilan.

Yang di-Pertuan Besar (YDPB) was elected by 4 Undang, the hereditary chiefs.

There was De facto (in practice) law before codification.

1895-1957: British introduce FPtPS (First Past the Post System) for elections. System designed for two-party Britain, but transplanted in multicultural multi-lingual multi-ethnic Singapore and Malaya. There’s mismatch under weltanschauung (world view).

1957: Federal Constitution enacted.

Article 4 declares supremacy.

Article 119 provides elections by FPtPS. There’s no provision for runoff.

Hence, the consent of the governed for legitimacy and sovereignty was assumed, but not measured.

1959: Negeri Sembilan State Constitution recognises YDPB elected by 4 Undang,but silent on removal.

In law, there’s lacuna (gap). It’s not loophole.

1965: National Land Code Section 10 preserves Adat Perpatih for land, based on customary practices or Adat, in Negeri Sembilan. An example of modus vivendi (way of coexistence).

2005: Kerajaan Malaysia v Sagong Tasi affirms Adat rights survive unless expressly extinguished. There’s Principle on continuity.

12 March 2022: Johor State Election. BN (Barisan Nasional) wins 40/56 seats. In 17 seats, winner had less than 51 per cent of votes counted, assuming at least 51 per cent turnout in seats.

There was no consent of the governed for legitimacy and sovereignty. However, the EC (Election Commission) does not hold runoff.

2018-2026: Negeri Sembilan dispute: 4 Undang claim power on removing YDPB, one Undang was suspended, and demand removal of Menteri Besar (MB).

The state government cites Article 16 on the MB.

Again, Polls if called, cannot resolve the Adat Perpatih vs Constitution question in Negeri Sembilan which was plagued by Civilisational Crisis.

In 2026, two crises converge in Negeri Sembilan:

1) the FPtPS, (First Past the Post System) produces, governments without consent of the governed for legitimacy and sovereignty.

2) Adat Perpatih claims institutional codification under Article 160.

The EC has discretion, based on statute and/or good faith on runoffs, but never uses it.

Negeri Sembilan

There are issues in Conflict Between Parties in Dispute in Negeri Sembilan:

Party A: Advocates of Electoral Reforms and Adat Perpatih.

Adat Perpatih

Whether Adat Perpatih was “written law” under Article 160 without Assembly enactment.

Whether FPtPS violates demos (the people) and dharma (duty) in ensuring the consent of the governed for legitimacy and sovereignty.

Whether EC has discretion on holding runoff under Election Offences Act 1954 for curing mandate problem.

Whether 40 seats in Johor 2022, for example, reflect the general will or mere plurality.

Party B: State Government / EC / BN

Whether Article 4 makes Constitution and FPtPS supreme, precluding runoff unless amended.

Whether Article 160 Adat Perpatih claims breach of Article 71 and State Constitution Article 2.

Whether Menteri Besar can only be removed by vote of no-confidence, not by Undang demand.

Whether runoff was beyond powers of the EC without legislative amendment.

There’s Contradiction and Resolution.

Contradiction: Article 119 mandates FPtPS, but the spirit of the age demands consent of the governed for legitimacy and sovereignty.

Article 160 recognises Adat Perpatih but Article 4 makes Constitution supreme.

Resolution: Harmonious construction can read Constitution and give effect for both viz. including Adat Perpatih.

FPtPS, if constitutional, isn’t sacred.

The EC discretion can be read as including runoff as administrative remedy for legitimacy crisis.

Adat Perpatih is law if written, but subject as per Article 4 on procedural fairness. Neither side was wrong; they speak different logic.

Analysis on Issues, Rules and Application.

Issue

Whether Negeri Sembilan polls and Johor 2022 results can confer legitimacy and sovereignty when FPtPS produces undemocratic mandates, whether EC can hold runoff without amendment, whether Adat Perpatih was law under Article 160, and whether this resolves the Civilisational Crisis between customary practices and Constitution.

Rules

Article 4 Federal Constitution: Constitution was supreme. Any law inconsistent was void by the extent of inconsistency with superior law.

Article 119 Federal Constitution: Elections by ballot. FPtPS was method, not entrenched.

Parliament can amend law on elections.

Article 160 Federal Constitution: “Law” includes Adat if written and recognised. The maxim on stand by decided cases requires broad interpretation.

Article 71 Federal Constitution: State Constitution (SC) must provide for Ruler. Negeri Sembilan SC Article 2 ties YDPB with 4 Undang.

Election Offences Act 1954: EC has power on regulating election conduct. Discretion exists but untested for runoff.

Several Common Law Principles apply:

Hear the other side.

Where there are rights, there are remedies.

Express mention excludes others.

There’s reason for binding decisions.

Application

For example, there was no legitimacy in Johor 2022: 40 seats won with less than 51 per cent of votes in 17 seats means the government has no consent of the governed for legitimacy and sovereignty.

Johor isn’t isolated case.

The same phenomenon can be witnessed in Negeri Sembilan, Malacca, Perak, Sabah and Sarawak, among others.

This was just façade viz. outward appearance of democracy. There’s no substance.

In short, FPtPS on undemocratic soil produces rule by few. Polls do not cure this.

EC Runoff Discretion: Article 119 does not prohibit runoff. The EC discretion under Election Offences Act can include runoff within two weeks where no candidate gets at least 51 per cent of votes counted, assuming that at least 51 per cent of the electorate turned up in seats on D-Day.

This is essential condition for consent of the governed for legitimacy and sovereignty.

There’s no amendment needed if framed as administrative rule.

Adat as Law: Lembaga Adat records Undang, Constitution, waris lists, and Tanah Adat registers for satisfying Article 160 “written” test as per Adang Kungan 1997 1 MLJ 418.

Adat was law of it’s own kind.

The Removal of YDPB: Lawful if 4 Undang follow Adat procedure + allowed hearing for the other side.

Suspended Undang must be heard or decision would be rendered void.

Removal of Menteri Besar: No jurisdiction.

Again, Article 16 in the State Constitution governs. Express mention excludes others.

Undang demand for MB’s removal was form of political pressure.

Article 4 Check: Any Adat Perpatih rule violating Article 5 liberty or Article 8 equality can be blue-penciled viz. severed by Federal Court.

This preserves Adat Perpatih while protecting rights. — NMH

The post Negeri Sembilan Polls Will Not End Civilisational Crisis On Adat And Law first appeared on NMH.

Commentary And Analysis . . . In Part 2, we will look at Post-5 June Steps, which can be taken as well, after the four Undang declare in the form of Final Say. In Part 1, we saw that the Negeri Sembilan 5 June Meet, by itself, cannot resolve Civilisational Crisis.

The key legal safeguard post-5 June Meet would be ensuring the minutes and resolution are recorded, so any future challenge can test compliance with Article 12 procedure.

Transparency becomes the bridge between Adat authority and constitutional accountability ex facie (on the face of it).

The High Court must be informed on the 5 June Meet.

Two Documents must be Filed.

The draft Notice To Court Of Changed Circumstances follow:

Order 32 Rule 1 Rules of Court 2012 – Notification of Material Change.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SEREMBAN
ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO.: JR-_-05-2026

BETWEEN
Secretary DKU …APPLICANT
AND
DATO’ KLANA PETO’JA’UN & 3 ORS …RESPONDENTS

NOTICE TO COURT OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES

TAKE NOTICE that the Applicant hereby informs this Honourable Court that, following the meeting of the Four Undang convened on 5 June 2026 pursuant to Negeri Sembilan Constitution Article 12 and Adat Perpatih, the matters which formed the basis of the present application have been resolved res gestae (thing done).

The suspended Undang has been reinstated, a new Yang di-Pertuan Besar has been installed, and the Menteri Besar has resigned, thereby restoring constitutional continuity under Federal Constitution Article 71 + 8th Schedule ab initio (from the beginning).

In light of these developments, the dispute was now moot (no live issue) and any prayer for injunction to restrain the 5 June 2026 meeting is academic simpliciter (simplicity).

The Applicant files the Affidavit dated _ June 2026 to place these facts on record ex facie (on the face of it) for the purpose of preserving the status quo ante (state existing before) of constitutional governance and will abide by any direction this Honourable Court deems fit ex debito justitiae (as matter of justice).

Dated this _ day of June 2026

Counsel for Applicant
Messrs [Firm Name]

Ref: [File Ref][Address][Tel]

The following short “Post-5 June Affidavit template” records the resolution for the court file in case the legality of the transition was later questioned:

AFFIDAVIT TO RECORD RESOLUTION OF 5 JUNE 2026

For Court Record / Future Reference – Judicial Review JR-_-05-2026
Rules of Court 2012 Order 41 – Affidavit of Fact

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT SEREMBAN

ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO.: JR-_-05-2026

BETWEEN

Secretary, Dewan Keadilan dan Undang, Negeri Sembilan
…APPLICANT

AND

DATO’ KLANA PETO’JA’UN
DATO’ LEMBAJA’ TUNGGA’
DATO’ SEDIA RAJA
DATO’ JELOKO’
…RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT TO RECORD FACTS POST 5 JUNE 2026

I, XX bin XX NRIC No: _, of [full address], Secretary of Dewan Keadilan dan Undang, Negeri Sembilan, do solemnly and sincerely affirm and say as follows:

INTRODUCTION De Jure (by law)

1.1 I make this Affidavit to place on record the facts and resolutions arising from the meeting of the Four Undang convened on 5 June 2026.

1.2 The facts stated are within my personal knowledge or based on official records produced to me, which I verily believe to be true prima facie (at first face).

FACTS OF 5 JUNE 2026 MEETING Res Gestae (things done)

2.1 On 5 June 2026, the Four Undang convened a meeting in accordance with Negeri Sembilan Constitution Article 12 and Adat Perpatih.

2.2 At the meeting, the following resolutions were passed simpliciter (simply).

a. The suspended Undang was reinstated to his office, thereby curing any prior lacuna (gap) in the electoral college.

b. The competing replacement Undang made way voluntarily.

c. The incumbent Yang di-Pertuan Besar stepped down from office.

d. A new Yang di-Pertuan Besar was installed by the Four Undang in accordance with Article 12(1).

e. The Menteri Besar tendered resignation consequent upon the change of YDPB.

PURPOSE OF THIS AFFIDAVIT

3.1 This Affidavit is filed to record the res gestae (thing done) of 5 June 2026 as ratio decidendi (reason for decision) for restoration of constitutional continuity under Federal Constitution Article 71 + 8th Schedule.

3.2 The meeting ended the period of abeyance in the Ruler’s office and restored the status quo ante of (state existing before) constitutional governance ab initio (from the beginning).

3.3 By recording these facts, this Affidavit preserves evidence ex facie (on the face of it) should any future question arise on compliance with Article 12 procedure and natural justice audi alteram partem (hear the other side). — NMH

Related External Link . . .

Negeri Sembilan chieftains suspend council secretary as constitutional crisis deepens

The post Negeri Sembilan, Based On Post-5 June Steps, Resolves Civilisational Crisis first appeared on NMH.

Commentary And Analysis . . . It’s unlikely that anyone would go against the four Undang in Negeri Sembilan on the 5 June Meet. If true, 5 June Meet would resolve the Civilisational Crisis but only if Post-5 June Steps are taken as well, after the four Undang declare in the form of Final Say. This would be covered in Part 2 (Post-5 June Steps).

The key legal safeguard Post-5 June Meet would be ensuring the minutes and resolution are recorded, so any future challenge can test compliance with Article 12 procedure.

Transparency becomes the bridge between Adat authority and constitutional accountability ex facie (on the face of it).

Negeri Sembilan

If the Four Undang resolve the matter on 5 June 2026 in accordance with Article 12 + adat, the act has strong constitutional legitimacy prima facie (on the face of it) in Negeri Sembilan.

The crisis is resolved through internal mechanisms contemplated by the state constitution.

The would likely treat this as political question settled by the designated constitutional actors, absent proven breach of Federal Constitution Article 4(1).

This scenario illustrates raison d’être (reason for being) for the Four Undang institution: to act as constitutional stabiliser during succession disputes.

Civilisational Crisis

The resolution demonstrates how Adat mechanisms can achieve what litigation cannot — rapid restoration of status quo ante (state existing before) without court intervention on Civilisational Crisis.

For public law, it reinforces that Article 71 + 8th Schedule was satisfied not only by judicial orders, but by functioning state institutions.

The Federal Constitution sets the floor; Adat provides the path.

The following matters arise in the Final Say:

Raja Norazli bin Nordin replaced as Secretary of Dewan Keadilan dan Undang.

Datuk Mubarak Thahak, suspended as Undang Sungei Ujong, comes back.

His replacements Muhammad Faris Johari and Abdul Rahman Limat, nominated by rival factions, make way.

The Yang Di Pertuan Besar (YDPB), Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir, steps down.

Tunku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar takes over as the YDPB.

Menteri Besar Aminuddin Harun resigns.

Negeri Sembilan Way Forward

Again, the 5 June 2026 Meet convened by the Four Undang would probably resolve the Civilisational Crisis in Negeri Sembilan.

The resolution reached by the Four Undang through Adat consultation on 5 June 2026 can restore constitutional continuity ab initio (from the beginning), thereby rendering prior disputes res judicata (the matter rests) and moot (no live issue).

The resolution arises from Adat, Law and the Constitution being on the same page, speaking with one voice, and the Federal government staying out on the Civilisational Crisis.

Civilisational Crisis Framework

Federal Constitution Article 71 + 8th Schedule obliges each state to maintain a constitutional Ruler and institutions sine die (without a day).

The Negeri Sembilan Constitution Article 12 governs installation and removal of the YDPB by the Four Undang in accordance with Undang-undang Tubuh and Adat Perpatih.

The Federal Constitution is supreme under Article 4(1).

The court recognised in Sivarasa Rasiah v Badan Peguam Malaysia that state constitutions and Adat form part of the constitutional structure, provided they do not contravene the Federal Constitution.

Issues arise.

5 June Meet producing lawful transfer of sovereignty and executive authority, ending the lacuna (gap) in governance.

Three Principles Apply

Continuity:

Article 71 + 8th Schedule demands no prolonged abeyance of the Ruler’s office.

Adat as source:

Article 12 NS Constitution recognises Four Undang as electors/installers of YDPB according to Adat. Their collective decision is ratio decidendi (reason for decision) for succession.

Judicial deference:

Malaysian courts traditionally show restraint in internal Adat matters unless there’s clear ultra vires (beyond powers) breach of Federal Constitution. See Chng Suan Tze on causa proxima (proximate cause) review, but also non-justiciability of pure Adat process.

Application:

Restoration of Undang:

If the suspended Undang was reinstated by the Four Undang, the prior removal was cured fait accompli (accomplished fate).

The replacements moving out of the way removes competing claimants. This restores the quorum of electors required under Article 12.

YDPB Transition:

A voluntary step-down by the incumbent YDPB followed by installation of a new YDPB by the Four Undang fulfills Article 12(1). The act becomes res gestae (thing done) of constitutional significance.

MB Resignation:

The Menteri Besar holds office during the pleasure of the Ruler under state constitutional convention. Resignation upon change of YDPB is pari passu (on equal footing) with constitutional practice. No audi alteram partem (hear the other side) issue arises as resignation was voluntary.

Effect on litigation:

Any pending judicial review premised on stopping the 5 June Meet loses locus standi (legal standing) because there’s no live controversy. The doctrine of mootness (no live issue) applies ex debito justitiae (as matter of justice). The June 5 Meet becomes the cure, not the cause.

In Part 2, we will look at Post-5 June Steps, which can be taken as well, after the four Undang declare in the form of Final Say. — NMH

Related Internal Link . . .

The post Negeri Sembilan, Based On Post-5 June Steps, Resolves Civilisational Crisis first appeared on NMH.

Commentary And Analysis . . . In Part 1 on Defects, and the Way Forward, we saw analysis on the purported removal of the Negeri Sembilan Yang di-Pertuan Besar (YDPB), the standing of the Undang Luak, and the jurisdictional conflict between Adat, Law and executive power.

Judicial Review arises when government enters the picture.

Negeri Sembilan Way Forward

The Way Forward in Negeri Sembilan lies, among others, on the status of Mubarak Thahak under Adat.

Umno Deputy President Tok Mat differs.

Adat And Law

We will know more if the meeting, scheduled for Friday 29 May 2026, was called on future date.

There’s breaking news on the meeting.

Originating Summons (OS) or judicial review can help seek declaration on whether the 17 April 2026 removal of Datuk Mubarak Thahak complied with Article 16 and Clause 14(3) of the State Constitution and Adat. OS, for those unfamiliar, involves facts not in dispute. If there are facts in dispute, the court can, may and will substitute OS with Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim.

This determination was threshold issue.

If the removal was invalid, all four Undang had standing but the Article 10(1) process remains defective. If valid, the 19 April declaration fails on composition alone.

Negeri Sembilan Judicial Review

Judicial Review can help quash the declaration of 19 April 2026 on the grounds of jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice, and non-compliance with Article 10(1) and Adat. The court can provide declaratory relief which allows Tuanku Muhriz as YDPB under Article 7(2).

The court, in preserving the the status quo, can provide interim relief for restraining any person from acting as YDPB or from exercising the functions of that office pending determination.

This avoids irreversible acts that would complicate remedy.

If the parties wish, they can resolve the matter within customary structures viz. Adat. They can initiate fresh enquiry under Article 10(1) conducted by the validly appointed Undang only.

The enquiry must be conducted in accordance with audi alteram partem (hear the other side) and produce written reasons. This preserves the role of Adat while satisfying constitutional requirements.

All parties must avoid actions that invite federal intervention under Article 153.

Any challenge via federal involvement should be framed as a question of state autonomy under Article 71(4), and be raised in the same judicial review proceedings if necessary.

If Mubarak’s removal was upheld, the shortest route for lawful resolution was fresh sitting of the three remaining Undang, or the appointment of a replacement Undang followed by a four-person sitting.

Any attempt on proceeding with the 19 April declaration will likely be struck down for jurisdictional error.

If the removal of Mubarak was set aside, the parties return as four Undang, but must still comply with Article 10(1) procedurally.

The current declaration cannot be salvaged by ratification, as quod ab initio vitiosum est non potest tractu temporis convalescere (that which was defective from the beginning cannot be made valid by lapse of time).

The Way Forward must conform with the written Constitution, observe natural justice, and respect the division of powers between adat, statute, and the courts. Until that occurs, Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir continues as YDPB under Article 7(2) of the State Constitution.

Issues in Conflict follow:

Validity of the 19 April 2026 declaration under Article 10(1).

Lawfulness of Mubarak Thahak’s removal and alleged backdating.

Capacity of three Undang for acting without the fourth.

Jurisdiction of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang over Undang Luak.

Scope of civil court jurisdiction under Article 121(1A).

Limits of federal intervention under Article 71(4); and

Legal status of Tunku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar’s appointment.

Chronology of Facts follow.

17 April 2026: The Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (Council of Justice and Law) resolved on removing Datuk Mubarak Thahak as Undang of Sungai Ujong for 33 alleged breaches of adat. The resolution purportedly takes effect on 13 May 2025.

19 April 2026: The four Undang Luak, including Mubarak Thahak, announced the removal of Tuanku Muhriz and the appointment of Tunku Nadzaruddin Tuanku Ja’afar. No reasons or enquiry were disclosed.

The declaration of 19 April 2026 purportedly removing Tuanku Muhriz as YDPB remains void ab initio (void from the beginning) for want of jurisdiction ratione personae (by reason of the person) and breach of natural justice [naturalis iustitia].

20 April 2026: Menteri Besar Aminuddin Harun declared the announcement invalid, citing Mubarak’s removal.

22 April 2026: The state legislative assembly proceeded with Tuanku Muhriz officiating. The Undang were absent.

23 May 2026: A letter was circulated for a special sitting on 29 May 2026 in Tampin, inviting the Attorney-General and Chief Secretary as witnesses.

Jurisdictional Defect

Article 10(1) vests the power for removing the YDPB in the Undang Yang Empat (Four Ruling Chiefs).

The principle of nemo dat quod non habet (no one gives what he does not have) applies.

A person removed from office cannot exercise the powers of that office.

If Mubarak’s removal was valid on 17 April 2026, his participation on 19 April 2026 was nullity.

The act was then performed by three persons, which does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of four. The declaration was therefore ultra vires (beyond powers) and void.

Breach Of Natural Justice

Even assuming proper composition, the process failed on observing audi alteram partem (hear the other side).

The ruler was not given notice of the allegations, particulars of misconduct, nor an opportunity for responding.

The absence of reasons violates the requirement of a reasoned decision under administrative law and constitutional custom.

Such breach renders the decision susceptible. It can be set aside.

Any lawful resolution requires fresh process under Article 10(1) of the Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan 1959 involving only the validly appointed Undang Luak, and observance of audi alteram partem (hear the other side).

Justiciability And Jurisdiction

Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution excludes civil court jurisdiction over matters of Islamic law and Malay custom.

However, where the issue was compliance with the written State Constitution, the High Court retains supervisory jurisdiction through judicial review.

The question was on constitutional interpretation, not adat per se. Authority exists for this distinction in Potong v Public Prosecutor 4 MLJ 502.

Executive And Federalism

The Menteri Besar’s refusal on recognising the declaration was political. It does not determine legal validity.

Any attempt by federal actors for directing the state legislative assembly’s confidence motion must be examined against Article 71(4) of the Federal Constitution, which protects state constitutional autonomy. If there’s no public order basis, under Article 153, such intervention risks being ultra vires.

Successor Appointment

The appointment of Tunku Nadzaruddin was contingent on a lawful vacancy. Since no lawful vacancy exists, the appointment was also void. The principle ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing comes nothing) applies. — NMH

The post Negeri Sembilan: Way Forward Lies In Compliance On Adat And Law first appeared on NMH.

Commentary And Analysis . . . The Way Forward on Adat in Negeri Sembilan, out of constitutional crisis, probably involves convening a sitting of the validly appointed Undang Luak only, after Datuk Mubarak Thahak’s status was determined by the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang.

The clash between adat and law arises, on curing defects, provided there’s right forum for resolution viz. one with jurisdiction (power).

There must be enquiry that satisfies audi alteram partem (hear the other side) and Article 10(1), with written reasons.

If the dispute persists, an Originating Summons (OS) for judicial review can help determine constitutional compliance. OS, for those unfamiliar, involves facts not in dispute. If there are facts in dispute, the court can, may and will substitute OS with Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim.

In any case, what must be avoided was political intervention—read Federal—that may undermine Article 71(4).

Adat And Law

If true, the proposed sitting on 29 May 2026 provides forum for political accommodation viz. out of court settlement which may or may not be recorded by the High Court.

However, politics cannot cure jurisdictional defect rooted in constitutional procedure. The clash between Adat And Law, at some point, needs resolution.

Yang Di Pertuan Besar

The facts available show that the declaration of 19 April 2026 was legally defective and does not affect the tenure of Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir, as Yang Di Pertuan Besar (YDPB), under Article 7(2) of the Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan 1959.

Defect

The Defect arises from two independent grounds:

First, the composition of the body that made the declaration failed on satisfying Article 10(1).

If the removal of Datuk Mubarak Thahak by the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang on 17 April 2026 was valid, he ceased as Undang Luak and could not exercise the powers of that office.

A decision made by three persons does not meet the constitutional requirement of the Undang Yang Empat.

This renders the act void ab initio (void from the beginning) for want of jurisdiction ratione personae (by reason of the person).

Second, even if the four Undang had standing, the process did not comply with natural justice.

Article 10(1) implies a determination based on a full and complete enquiry with notice and an opportunity for being heard.

“Misconduct”

The public announcement cited “Misconduct, without particulars, and without affording the ruler audi alteram partem (hear the other side).

This constitutes breach of natural justice [naturalis iustitia] and renders the decision susceptible. It can be set aside.

The High Court retains supervisory jurisdiction for determining whether there was compliance with the written State Constitution, notwithstanding Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution. The court may not review the merits of adat, but it may review whether the procedure prescribed by the written Constitution was followed.

Federal intervention in the state political process does not cure the constitutional defect. If there was no public order justification, under Article 153, any Federal intervention risks being ultra vires under Article 71(4).

In Part 2, we will look at threshold issues like the removal of Datuk Mubarak Thahak as Undang. — NMH

Also read:

Negeri Sembilan: Emergency Cannot Remove Four Undang

The post Adat and Law in Clash of Civilisations in Negeri Sembilan first appeared on NMH.

Commentary And Analysis . . . In Part 2, we saw Locus Standi, Motive, and the Burden of Proof [Onus Probandi]. Deputy Prime Minister and Umno President Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s DNAA (discharge not amounting for acquittal) in greater depth.

The 11 Grounds for DNAA, Contradiction, and Doctrinal Consistency arise in this part.

VI. The Eleven Grounds: A Critique Without Its Object.

Zahid

On 4 September 2023, the Deputy Public Prosecutor advanced 11 Grounds for the Zahid DNAA: new MACC inquiries, representations by the accused, new documentary evidence, issues with Inland Revenue witnesses, the need for further investigation, and defective charges, among others.

Judicial review asks whether the decision-maker considered irrelevant factors, ignored relevant ones, acted in bad faith, or reached a conclusion no reasonable authority could reach (Wednesbury unreasonableness).

11 Grounds

The 11 Grounds are the very material that must be tested.

The article does not engage them.

It critiques the review without examining the record under review.

That’s critique by caricature [distorted representation].

Najib Reference

VII. The Najib Reference: A Performative Contradiction [Contradictio in Adjecto].

The article closes by invoking the “shenanigans” of a former Chief Justice in the Najib Razak trial and warns that the Bar’s challenge risks further damaging the judicial image.

That’s self-defeating.

The article condemns “two-tiered justice” politicised by association, yet it uses a prior political case and prejudices the present one.

It deploys political taint for arguing against political taint.

This remains contradiction in terms [contradictio in adjecto].

Courts decide cases on evidence, not on the shadow of other cases.

Republic Of Laws

VIII. Doctrine Before Deformation.

The Republic Of Laws demands doctrinal consistency.

If the Attorney General’s motive was irrelevant on the validity of his act, then the challenger’s perceived motive was equally irrelevant on standing.

The test remains on legality, not disinterest.

The article’s force derives from prudential, non-doctrinal appeals: institutional legitimacy, political optics, and floodgates.

Malaysian law already contains filters, for example Repco’s bad faith/irrationality test and the high bar for certiorari.

Those filters, not the exclusion of challengers, protect prosecutorial independence.

The perilous precipice was not the Bar’s application.

It was the argument that scrutiny of power must be disinterested for being lawful.

The Constitution requires lawful decisions, not pure challengers.

That distinction was the measure of fidelity on the structure the article invokes but does not follow.

GRKumar’s Response

Rejoinder Postscript: GRKumar’s Response and a Jurist’s Reply.

In social media dialogue, the author clarified that his concern was normative, not jurisdictional: whether the Bar, given its history, should act as oversight though it lawfully may.

He defends the Najib reference as institutional prudence, not politicisation.

The reply was candid, but it confirms the category shift.

Standing was a legal door; legitimacy was political floor.

Courts police the door.

Bar’s Membership

The floor was the Bar’s Membership, Parliament, and public debate.

In asking that the courts close the door because of what lies beyond was asking them on enforcing prudence as law.

Malaysian public law does not do that.

In Malaysian Bar v Govt of Malaysia, the Bar may sue for upholding the Constitution.

Section 254A remains uninvoked in Zahid’s case, true.

But its existence rebuts the article’s claim that a quashed DNAA equals forced prosecution.

The statutory scheme contains its own escape valve [échappatoire].

On the eleven grounds: reasons are not self-validating.

Their existence invites review; it does not preclude it.

Saying “the Bar alleges insufficiency” was precisely why a court, not an article, must test them.

Institutional Legitimacy

On Najib: Institutional Legitimacy is precious.

It is preserved by consistent application of law, not by abstention from hard cases.

As Sri Lempah reminds, the court’s duty was on declaring the law, come what may [fiat justitia ruat caelum].

The reader now has both submissions.

The law was neither rhetoric nor rebuttal.

It’s the reasoned judgment of the courts, for which this matter was remitted.

Briefly, based on the 11 reasons, the AG accepted Zahid’s letter of representation and recommended DNAA. The court granted DNAA and can substitute with DNA (discharged and acquitted) if the case isn’t brought back within reasonable period of time. The case can only be brought back if there’s new evidence. — NMH

The post Zahid Critics Disregard 11 Grounds For DNAA first appeared on NMH.

Commentary And Analysis . . . In Part 1, we saw The Perilous Precipice Reconsidered In Deputy Prime Minister and Umno President Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid’ Hamidi’s Case. Prosecutorial Discretion, Judicial Review, Law and the Primacy of Doctrine arise!

Law states. It does not state opinion. The iceberg, based on Ernest Hemingway’s theory on writing, shows the tip. We focus on the tip; the readers explore the rest of the iceberg.

III. Locus Standi, Motive, and the Burden of Proof [Onus Probandi].

The article’s core assault was on legal standing. It questions whether the Bar’s judicial review makes it “sufficiently aggrieved” and pairs that with a lengthy account of the Bar’s past criticism of Umno, implying a bias [parti pris] that defeats legitimacy.

Law

In law, this collapses two distinct inquiries:

A. Threshold of Standing

Judicial review Malaysian law permits representative bodies to file judicial review on public interest grounds. The Bar Council was a statutory body under the Legal Profession Act 1976, charged with upholding the rule of law.

In Malaysian Trade Union Congress v Menteri Sumber Manusia and QSR Brands v Suruhanjaya Syarikat, legal standing was recognised where the constitutional order was engaged.

The Bar meets the threshold.

The article cites no contrary authority. [Rechtsstaat or rule of law].

B. Merits and Motive

In law, judicial review examines the decision, not the challenger.

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service establishes that review turns on illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety, not on the applicant’s politics or past speech.

By demanding that the Bar prove its disinterestedness, the article inverts the burden of proof [onus probandi].

The Attorney General’s DNAA recommendation was on trial; the Bar was not.

Impugning named lawyers as “self-proclaimed” with “a political axe for grinding” was argument ad hominem [argument against the person].

Arguments stand or fall apart from their author.

Category Error

The article thus applies a legal test for the Attorney General and a political purity test for the Bar.

That’s not symmetry; it’s category error.

IV. The DNAA Regime: Section 254 and the Omitted Section 254A.

The article discusses Section 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Public Prosecutor’s power on withdrawing charges, resulting in a discharge but not amounting to acquittal.

It omits Section 254A, under which the court may grant a discharge amounting to acquittal in defined circumstances.

The omission matters.

If Section 254 DNAA was quashed on review, the court cannot compel prosecution.

As held in PP v Karpal Singh and Long bin Samat v PP, courts do not direct the Public Prosecutor on instituting proceedings.

The likeliest remedy would be for remitting the matter, leaving the trial court considering its powers under Section 254A or the Public Prosecutor may reconsider.

By ignoring Section 254A, the article overstates the consequence of review and inflates its “assault on prerogative” claim.

V. Comparative Law: Rarity Was Not Prohibition.

The article observes that the English Bar “does not routinely insert itself” and that Australian law “confines standing”.

True as description, irrelevant as prescription.

In R v DPP, ex parte Kebilene, prosecutorial decisions are reviewable, albeit rarely disturbed.

In Likiardopoulos v The Queen, Australian courts affirm jurisdiction while applying a high threshold.

Both jurisdictions apply a Wednesbury/irrationality test, the same test applied in Repco Holdings v PP. Institutional reticence was not a jurisdictional bar.

The article substitutes practice for principle.

In Part 3 we will look at the 11 grounds for Zahid’s DNAA (discharge not amounting for acquital) — NMH

The post Law In Malaysia Permits Judicial Review On Public Interest Grounds first appeared on NMH.

Commentary And Analysis . . . Indeed, it has been alleged that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, after becoming Deputy President of Umno in 1993, Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi — then Umno Youth chief— for launching blistering attacks on Mahathir, whom he (Anwar) wanted removed. Mahathir, based on loyalty, had been Prime Minister since 1981.

The incumbent Deputy President, Tun Ghaffar Baba, withdrew, Mahathir having probably remained neutral. What followed was a matter of historical record [res gestae].

Sodomy I happened.

The government, based on Anwar’s own words during fiery briefing in 1998 before the media, was depicted as being composed of “spineless creatures.”

Loyalty

Apparently, based on loyalty not being shown, Mahathir advised the police that the report lodged by Anwar’s secretary against a political writer should no longer be kept in view or marked for no further action. The writer listed, in a book, 50 reasons why Anwar should not be Prime Minister.

Betrayal

Anwar’s betrayal could not be forgotten, and was probably never forgiven.

Again, Sodomy I happened.

There was also Sodomy II.

It has been alleged that Mahathir prevailed upon Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak — read Sodomy 2 — for keeping Anwar out of the way. Najib was loyal.

House Arrest

Najib’s house arrest, decreed by the Agong on 29 January 2024, did not happen.

Najib was denied the house arrest. The responsibility lies with Anwar alone.

Of course, by his own admission, Najib did not declare the RM42m in political donation from SRC International, nor other political donation.

The court, taking the line of least resistance, jailed Najib on 23 August 2022, even though he was unrepresented.

Therein the matter stands.

Najib further faces the prospect of additional imprisonment—fifteen years, running concurrently, on 25 charges dubbed 1MDB —after completing jail for the SRC case.

Najib, having been denied remission on the halving of his sentence mentioned in the Pardons Board letter dated 29 January 2024, remains incarcerated.

There was light at the end of the tunnel when Najib obtained stay of execution on the RM1.8b claimed by SRC International.

Habeas Corpus

Habeas corpus arises as one form of remedy.

The Najib family could have filed habeas corpus application on the halving and the discharge and acquittal granted by Federal Court Review Panel Head, Judge Tan Sri Abdul Rahman, on the SRC case.

Neither step was taken.

Alternatively, Najib could have filed an application for judicial review on the remission after halving.

That too did not occur.

Instead, he filed judicial review on house arrest, which he recently withdrew, the matter having been rendered redundant when he was not released on 23 August 2024, based on remission.

There should be focus on securing fugitive Jho Low’s presence through extradition or mutual legal assistance, and on ensuring that any US clemency was conditioned on cooperation that remedies the procedural deficit, not merely on money returned.

All these place the issues in perspective for the commentary and analysis that follow.

Jurisprudential Replique

II. Jurisprudential Reply – Bar Council’s Challenge on the Zahid DNAA.

A. Introduction: Framing a Constitutional Controversy.

GRKumar’s “The Perilous Precipice” defends the Attorney General’s power under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution for discontinuing prosecutions [nolle prosequi].

It characterises the Malaysian Bar Council’s application for judicial review of the discharge not amounting to an acquittal, as an institutional encroachment, a trespass by professional body with alleged bias [parti pris] upon executive terrain.

We can test that thesis by doctrine alone [ratio decidendi].

We take no position on political wisdom or personal culpability.

The sole question was whether the article’s reasoning survives scrutiny under Malaysian public law [jus publicum].

It does not.

Category Errors

The thesis rests on category errors, misreadings of precedent, and an inversion of the burden of proof [onus probandi] in judicial review.

Most acutely, it asks that the court ignore the Attorney General’s motives while inviting the imputation of motives to the challenger, a contradiction in terms [contradictio in adjecto] fatal in any constitutional review.

B. The Nature of Article 145(3): Executive Power, Not Quasi‑Judicial Office.

The article begins by calling the Attorney General’s power a “quasi‑judicial authority” and a “cornerstone of the separation of powers.”

The labels misstate the law.

Character of the Power.

The Federal Court in Public Prosecutor v Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim held that Article 145(3) confers an executive power, not a quasi‑judicial function.

The distinction was not merely academic.

A quasi‑judicial power implies duty on hearing the other side [audi alteram partem] and giving reasons [ratio decidendi].

Executive power, by contrast, was reviewable only for illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.

The Wednesbury standard, adopted in Rama Chandran v Industrial Court and applied in prosecutorial discretion in Repco Holdings Bhd v Public Prosecutor, governs review.

The article’s mischaracterisation inflates the shield around the Attorney General and narrows the court’s supervisory role beyond what precedent permits.

Separation Of Powers

The article treats the separation of powers as a wall against review.

In truth, the separation was the very reason for judicial review.

As the Federal Court affirmed in Pengarah Tanah dan Galian, Wilayah Persekutuan v Sri Lempah Enterprise Sdn Bhd, the courts are the final arbiters of legality [ultima ratio legis].

When the Bar invokes the supervisory jurisdiction, it does not usurp executive power; it merely requests that the judiciary test whether that power was lawfully exercised.

The Bar initiates, the court decides.

This is the architecture of Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution, not its breach.

Part 2 will treat Locus Standi, Motive, and the Burden of Proof [Onus Probandi] in greater depth. — NMH

The post Loyalty And Trust Permeate The Zahid-Anwar Relationship first appeared on NMH.

Commentary And Analysis . . . Sabah needs new labour package, in October 2026, tabled in Parliament. It can be law by Q3 2027, with the pilot running from January 2028.

The distance between the new labour package and existing law was no longer conceptual. It takes perhaps 40 pages of drafting by the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) and the Sabah Attorney‑General (SAG), plus a political deal at the Prime Minister-Chief Minister level.

The legal carpentry was 95 per cent done.

The remaining 5 per cent was the drafting and the negotiation.

The alternative isn’t a different system.

The alternative was the same system wearing a different name, presided over by the same people, extracting the same fees, and leaving stateless families keeping savings in gold until the next rainy day and they head for the pawnshop.

Let the drafting begin on the new labour package. Let the negotiations begin. One without the other fails.

New Labour Package Story

This remains the complete story on the new labour package for Sabah. There are no gaps. There’s nothing left out. Let the work begin.

Malaysia, on May Day in 2026, still has no direct‑hire platform for migrant workers.

The proposed Universal Recruitment Advanced Platform (Turap) remains under evaluation. There has been no final decision.

The existing Foreign Workers Centralised Management System (FWCMS), operated by Bestinet, continues. Ironically, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) found that it operated for six years without a signed contract. It had 24 unauthorised super‑admin users.

The policy vacuum wasn’t a problem for Sabah.

It’s an opportunity for designing a legally coherent, territory-led reform that addresses two distinct population:

Migrant Worker And The Stateless

Population A: Cross‑border migrant workers, holding national passports, enter Sabah via the Calling Visa process.

They are not seeking citizenship.

They are seeking fair recruitment, freedom from debt bondage, and compliance with ILO Convention 97 (Migration for Employment) and ILO Convention 29 (Forced Labour), both of which are binding on Malaysia.

Population B: Stateless residents in the form of IMM13 holders, Kad Burung‑Burung and Census Certificate holders, Bajau Laut, and stateless children.

They have no passport, no country for returning and no legal identity.

They are not foreign workers.

They are already here.

They need work document, bank account, birth certificate for their children, and pathway to citizenship for those children having resided 18 years or more in Sabah.

The conflation of these two population has paralysed policy in Sabah and Malaysia since 16 September 1963.

The complete story separates them, respects the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), and provides a legislative blueprint that distinguishes between foreign workers (who need fair recruitment, not citizenship) and stateless residents (who need legal identity, not voting rights).

It also answers the sovereignty objection head‑on: foreign workers are not seeking citizenship; stateless persons are not foreign workers; granting legal identity for people who have no other home isn’t loss of sovereignty.

It’s the exercise of sovereignty.

Non-Sabahan

Under MA63, Sabah retains control over entry and residence of non‑Sabahans. Section 65 of the Immigration Act 1959/63 provides that no person shall enter Sabah without the consent of the Sabah Government.

The Delegation of Powers (Immigration) Order 2016 (P.U.(A) 309) vests the Sabah Immigration Director with specific powers viz. issue passes and regulate entry.

The Federal Court affirmed in State of Sabah v Government of Malaysia [2 MLJ 114] that this division was constitutionally entrenched.

However, the issuance of work passes was governed by the federal Immigration Regulations 1963, Regulation 11.

Sabah cannot unilaterally invent a new pass class; it must be gazetted by the federal Minister.

The correct formula: Sabah approves the person; Putrajaya creates the pass. Any reform must be joint. Neither level of government can act alone.

Debt Bondage

Population A migrant workers are currently funnelled through FWCMS/Bestinet.

Bestinet, under FWCMS, receives RM537 million annually.

ILO Convention 97 requires equal treatment with nationals; ILO Convention 29 prohibits debt bondage and forced labour.

The current system – with documented debt bondage, fees extracted from workers before arrival, and lack of a signed contract – prima facie violates both conventions.

Twilight Zone

Population B, stateless residents in the twilight zone, fall into several categories:

IMM13 holders have visit pass under Regulation 11(2). It does not authorise employment (Immigration Circular IM.101/HQ‑G/429/1 Vol.4 2021). There are an estimated 100,000‑200,000 IMM13 holders in Sabah.

Kad Burung‑Burung and Census Certificate holders. These, having older documentation, are also stateless. Many are elderly. A deeming provision would ensure that they receive MyKAS or green MyKad (temporary residence).

Bajau Laut. The ESSCOM (Eastern Sabah Security Command) crnsus recorded about 29,000 Bajau Laut, including 6,000 citizens.

There’s biometric data on approximately 27,000 individuals.

Stateless children, born in Sabah, cannot obtain birth certificates without marriage certificates or police reports. They have no legal identity.

Track 1 . . .

Track 1 for Population A requires federal legislative action with Sabah’s consent.

Track 2 . . .

Track 2 applies for Population B. It isn’t about recruitment, it’s about regularising persons already present, many born in Sabah. — NMH

Related internal links . . .

The post New Labour Package For Sabah From Parliament . . . first appeared on NMH.

Commentary And Analysis . . . The media has reported that the government intends “cutting out agents” through a Government‑to‑Government (G2G) model involving employers’ associations, with no private agents for migrant worker recruitment. In Part 1, we saw that subject matter experts were in consensus that there can be no law against direct migrant worker employment by employers and workers.

That policy, if implemented, requires several legal changes.

Direct Migrant Worker

The Immigration Regulations 1963 must be amended for direct migrant worker recruitment, thereby allowing direct Calling Visa applications by employers, without routing through FWCMS.

The existing MoUs with source countries must be terminated or renegotiated; for example, the Malaysia–Indonesia Memorandum of Understanding that mandates the One Channel System would need replacement.

The FWCMS contract held by Bestinet must be terminated or expire – the contract currently runs runs 2028 or 2031; breaking it requires negotiation or compensation, which has fiscal implications.

The Private Employment Agencies Act 1981 does not mandate agents, but the administrative policies that treat agents as the sole channel must be rescinded.

Until these steps are completed, direct hiring for PLKS categories remains illegal. An employer who reads the consensus in the earlier part and acts on it immediately would be committing an offence under section 55B of the Immigration Act.

Consensus Correct

The consensus was correct as a matter of policy but incomplete as a matter of law.

If the government amends the regulations and allows association‑led recruitment, that model would be lawful.

However, the involvement of associations still requires a legal framework: does the employer contract directly with the worker?

Does the association perform the vetting and referral functions of the former agent?

Is the association licensed under any statute?

In Germany’s Triple Win project, a dedicated implementing agency (GIZ) coordinates the process.

Exemption

Malaysia would need issuing a specific exemption under the Private Employment Agencies Act or gazette a new regulation permitting association‑led recruitment.

There should be no law against direct employment by employers and workers.

However, under current Malaysian law – specifically Immigration Regulations 1963 Regulation 11, the mandatory FWCMS system operated by Bestinet, and existing bilateral MoUs with source countries – direct hiring of general foreign workers was effectively illegal and may result in criminal penalties under section 55B of the Immigration Act 1959/63.

Again, for direct hiring, the government must amend the Immigration Regulations, terminate or renegotiate the relevant MoUs, and replace the FWCMS monopoly with a G2G or association‑led system.

Foreign workers must not enter on tourist passes to seek employment; that remains an offence under section 39(b).

A lawful alternative was a G2G system where employers apply directly for Calling Visas, with vetting by employers’ associations and trade unions in both countries.

This model was permitted under ILO Convention 97 and the Trade Unions Act 1959, but would require new regulations for authorising association‑led recruitment without licensed private agents.

Questions

When analysing any consensus on migration or labour law, we must ask:

Does the consensus describe what those involved wishes the law to be, or what the law actually was?

Is there subsidiary legislation, administrative policy, or an international agreement operating beneath the primary statute?

Is source‑country law a limiting factor that cannot be waived by Malaysia alone?

By distinguishing between moral claims (what should be) and positive law (what is), the consensus will be both principled and useful for policymakers and practitioners.

Good law reform advocacy insists on accurate diagnosis before prescription.

The present foreign worker system was nothing but corruption. The workers lose out.

Others Benefit

The consensus was essentially correct as a description of how the system functions in practice.

However, for complete subject matter expert analysis, three important nuances must be added: who the “others” are, what the evidence shows, and how the system became this way.

The consensus was not hyperbole.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) found that the Home Ministry issued Bestinet a letter of acceptance before finalising procurement terms, forcing the government to negotiate a fee increase from RM100 to RM215 per worker – a 115 per cent hike.

Bestinet now receives RM537 million per year or RM3.2 billion over six years.

The system operated for six years without a signed contract.

Meanwhile, the Malaysian Anti‑Corruption Commission (MACC) exposed a “counter setting” scam where a senior Immigration officer controlled approximately 50 officers and agents, with corrupt officers grossing millions annually. MACC seized RM800,000 from just two junior immigration officers’ homes.

The consensus was correct but incomplete.

Others

Bestinet: Founded by a Bangladeshi national granted Malaysian permanent residency, who, according to Bloomberg, selected the 10 Bangladeshi agencies from over 1,000, while political handlers managed the politics.

Bangladeshi agents: At least one worker paid US$4,400; UN experts report fees exceeding official rates by over five times; workers pay up to RM25,000 through debt, often for jobs that do not exist.

Cartel partners: A UN experts report notes “a small number of recruitment agencies operate as a closed syndicate sustained by corruption”.

Rogue employers: Issued quotas for non‑existent jobs, leaving stranded workers “jobless, unpaid, homeless, and at constant risk of arrest”.

Documentation

How “workers lose out” was documented.

Over 100,646 PLKS holders in construction alone became “untraceable” after a legalisation programme.

Eight Bangladeshis were coerced into forced labour in Gua Musang for up to seven months.

One worker, Shofiqul Islam, borrowed $4,400 for a construction job, his employer vanished, and he later died in a derelict building outside Kuala Lumpur.

Global Slavery

The Global Slavery Index ranks Malaysia 12th highest in the Asia‑Pacific for modern slavery, with 6.3 affected per 1,000 people – up from 4.2 in 2016.

The US State Department’s Trafficking in Persons Report maintains Malaysia at Tier 2, acknowledging that root causes “such as exploitative recruitment systems, debt bondage, and weak monitoring” remain unaddressed.

The present foreign worker system was structured for extracting maximum value from workers through systemic corruption that enriches a cartel of politically connected vendors, recruitment agents, and complicit officials at every level – while workers enter deeper into debt bondage, face widespread exploitation, and have no meaningful recourse.

The UN experts summarise it well: “We are deeply troubled that fraudulent recruitment and the exploitation of migrants remain widespread and systematic in Malaysia.”

The National Action Plan on Forced Labour nears its end with limited progress; “by some measures, the problem has worsened”.

The consensus was not an exaggeration. It is a concise description of a system that has been formally documented as broken. — NMH

The post Direct Migrant Worker Recruitment: Malaysia Needs Specific Exemption Under Act first appeared on NMH.