The High Court’s ruling in the SRC civil case pertaining to SRC International may have settled liability — but it leaves accountability open to question.

Based on points raised by defence counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah in a press conference following the judgment, a central and disquieting issue remains:

At its core, the issue is not simply legal — it is structural.

How does a collective decision ultimately become the liability of a single individual?

A Governance Structure That Recedes

Corporate governance is built on shared responsibility.

Boards deliberate. Management executes. Decisions are recorded, scrutinised, and justified. This architecture exists to prevent both the concentration of unchecked power—and the concentration of unchecked blame.

Yet in the SRC civil case, that structure appears to recede into the background.

A board of directors existed. A management team was in place. Both were entrusted—and compensated—to exercise independent judgment. Yet in the final analysis, accountability appears to have converged on a single individual.

If decisions were made within a corporate framework, where has that framework gone in the assignment of liability?

Anything less risks reducing governance to form rather than function.

Influence, Control — and Responsibility

At the material time, Datuk Seri Najib Razak was Prime Minister and held a position of influence in relation to SRC.

But influence, in corporate law, is not the same as control.

Directors do not cease to be fiduciaries simply because a dominant figure exists. They are not absolved of responsibility by deferring upward. If anything, the law expects them to exercise greater vigilance.

Which leads to a sharper question:

If influence explains the decisions, does it also excuse everyone else who made them?

To accept that a sitting Prime Minister functioned as the sole effective decision-maker within a corporate structure is to raise a deeper concern—not just about power, but about the absence of institutional resistance.

The “Shadow Director” Question

Another point that has drawn attention is the repeated reference during proceedings to Datuk Seri Najib Razak as a “shadow director”, alongside assertions of abuse of power.

In corporate law, the concept of a shadow director is not unfamiliar. However, it carries a specific and demanding threshold—typically requiring clear evidence that a board of directors was accustomed to act in accordance with that individual’s directions or instructions.

This raises an important question: was that threshold sufficiently established, particularly in the absence of direct testimony from board members indicating such control?

The distinction is critical. Influence, even at the highest levels, is not automatically equivalent to control.

If the threshold for such a designation is not clearly demonstrated, its repeated invocation risks blurring the line between influence and legal control.

The Flow of Funds — and the Question of Benefit

Another issue raised relates to the movement of funds through accounts linked to Najib.

As highlighted by the defence, the position taken is that while funds entered the account, they were subsequently transferred out to various third parties. It is further contended that these transactions were handled by an authorised mandate holder—Nik Faisal—who has since left the jurisdiction.

If established, such a characterisation raises a critical distinction:

Was the account functioning as a beneficiary endpoint—or merely as a conduit?

The distinction is not trivial. It goes directly to questions of control, knowledge, and ultimately, liability.

Similarly, references to abuse of power and personal benefit form a significant part of the narrative surrounding the case. Yet where the movement of funds is itself contested, the question of benefit becomes less straightforward than it may first appear.

SRC Civil Case: A Troubling Precedent?

Globally, corporate failures have rarely resulted in liability being isolated so narrowly.

In the Enron scandal, responsibility extended across senior executives and enablers.
In the WorldCom accounting scandal, multiple actors were held to account.
In the UK’s collapse of Carillion, scrutiny has consistently focused on the collective conduct of directors.

These cases reinforce a principle that is both simple and enduring:

Where governance is collective, accountability is rarely singular.

When Boards Become Invisible

One of the more troubling implications of the SRC ruling is what it suggests about the role of boards.

If directors can point upward to explain decisions—but not downward to share responsibility—then the balance of governance begins to break.

A board that makes decisions but bears no consequences is not governance—it is insulation.

If a board exists only to formalise decisions — but not to bear responsibility—then corporate governance risks becoming performative rather than substantive.

And if directors merely endorsed decisions, then they failed in their duty.
If they did not, then their absence from liability demands explanation.

The Unanswered Question

The dismissal of third-party claims may have closed one legal avenue — but it has not resolved the broader issue.

Because at its core, the SRC civil case is no longer just about liability.

It is about consistency.
It is about accountability.
And it is about whether established principles are being applied evenly.

SRC Civil Case – Conclusion

An appeal is expected.

And perhaps more importantly, an opportunity remains—to clarify whether the law intends to follow its own logic.

Because when responsibility is shared but liability is not, the question is no longer merely legal—it is structural.

And until that is addressed, one question will continue to linger:

How does a collective decision ultimately become the liability of a single individual?

If that is so, does it call for a re-examination of how responsibility is assigned to corporate actors in future litigation? – NMH

The post SRC Civil Case: Collective Decisions, But Only One Man Pays? first appeared on NMH.

The Royal Addendum — a written instruction exercising the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s constitutional power of mercy — has been rejected by the courts. Legally, the matter may be closed. Politically and constitutionally, however, the decision widens a dangerous precedent: it signals that even a royal instruction invoking mercy can be dismissed without meaningful engagement with the Rulers themselves.

A Royal Pardon, in this case brought out in the Royal Addendum issued by Malaysia’s 16th King, is not a declaration of innocence. It is not a technical loophole in the justice system. It is an act of mercy — a constitutional safeguard meant to humanise the law when strict procedure may satisfy legality but fail justice.

That is why this is far more than a case about one former prime minister.
It is about the Power of Mercy and the health of Malaysia’s constitutional monarchy.

Royal Addendum – When Mercy Becomes a Paper Tiger

In a constitutional monarchy, the Agong’s powers are not ceremonial. The prerogative of mercy exists as a moral counterbalance to the rigidity of law — a reminder that justice without humanity risks becoming cruelty.

Yet the King’s addendum was rejected largely on procedural grounds, without public engagement with the palace, without transparency on whether legal advice was sought by the Agong, and without reassurance that royal discretion was meaningfully weighed.

If mercy can be so easily constrained today, what happens tomorrow when a case involves another citizen, another monarch, or another constitutional test?

The silence of the Malay Rulers on this matter is deeply troubling. Silence risks normalising a future in which mercy exists only in theory — acknowledged in law, but sidelined in practice.

From Royal Instruction to Political Celebration

Then came the politics.

DAP’s Yeo Bee Yin posted: “Another reason to celebrate this year end.”

Separately, Raja Sara Petra Kamarudin summarised the outcome starkly:

The King’s addendum rejected.
House arrest denied.
Three years remain in Kajang.

Both statements are legally accurate. Only one is celebratory. And that distinction matters.

Yeo Bee Yin’s post caused more damage than the courts themselves — not because Najib Razak is innocent, but because it confirmed what many within UMNO have long suspected: this was never solely about law or justice. It was also about humiliation.

Justice demands restraint.
Mercy demands humility.
Celebration demands neither — and has no place when constitutional prerogatives are at stake.

UMNO’s Silence Is the Real Test Of The Addendum

This is where the focus shifts from Najib to UMNO.

UMNO sits in government. UMNO provides parliamentary stability. UMNO bears the political and emotional cost of a unity government — repeatedly.

Yet when a senior figure from within the same government publicly celebrates Najib’s continued incarceration, UMNO is cornered.

This is no longer just a legal or moral matter.
It is a political insult.

Will UMNO remain silent yet again?
Will it issue another carefully worded statement about “respecting the courts” while its dignity is publicly eroded?

Every time Najib is mocked by political allies, it is not Najib alone who is diminished. It is UMNO’s bargaining power, its relevance, and its standing within the coalition.

A unity government cannot survive on asymmetry — where one partner absorbs the blows while another pops the champagne.

Also read: BLACK DAY FOR JUSTICE FOR MALAYSIA AS NAJIB BEGINS SENTENCE

The Precedent That Remains

Najib Razak will continue serving his sentence.
The courts have spoken.

But the precedent remains.

A royal instruction invoking mercy can be dismissed without the Rulers’ voice.
Political allies can celebrate a partner’s humiliation without consequence.
And the constitutional meaning of the Royal Pardon can be quietly narrowed.

The King’s addendum may be rejected.
But the erosion of mercy has been recorded.

Now we wait — not for the courts, but for the Rulers to reflect, and for UMNO to decide whether it still understands the power it claims to defend.

Because when mercy is weakened, justice itself becomes smaller. – NMH

The post Royal Addendum: When The Power Of Mercy Is Being Quietly Eroded first appeared on NMH.

Keputusan semakan kehakiman Datuk Seri Najib Razak mengenai Titah Adendum akan menjadi detik penting dalam sejarah negara. Apa yang dipohon oleh Najib bukan perkara baharu, bukan permintaan luar biasa — tetapi satu usaha untuk memastikan titah Yang di-Pertuan Agong ke-16 benar-benar dihormati dan dilaksanakan.

Ramai tertanya-tanya:
Bolehkah mahkamah atau mana-mana pihak “menilai semula” titah seorang Raja?
Dalam sistem negara kita, jawapannya amat jelas: tidak boleh.

1. Kuasa Pengampunan di Bawah Perlembagaan Adalah Hak Mutlak Raja

Perkara 42 Perlembagaan Persekutuan menyatakan kuasa pengampunan adalah hak Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

Apabila Baginda menurunkan titah, termasuk Adendum yang mengandungi syarat atau arahan tambahan, ia bukan cadangan, bukan permintaan — tetapi kehendak Diraja yang mesti dipatuhi.

Dalam kes Najib, Adendum itu difahamkan mengandungi arahan jelas mengenai hukuman baki beliau boleh dijalani sebagai tahanan rumah. Jika benar, ia bukan isu politik. Ia isu perlembagaan: titah mesti dilaksanakan.

2. Semakan Kehakiman Ini Bukan Untuk Mempertikai Raja — Tetapi Untuk Memastikan Arahan Baginda Tidak Dilanggar

Penting untuk difahami: Najib tidak memohon mahkamah “menilai” atau “membatalkan” titah.
Apa yang beliau mahu ialah pihak kerajaan mengemukakan pengesahan mengenai kewujudan Addendum dan melaksanakan titah tersebut.

Ini selaras dengan prinsip kedaulatan undang-undang — apabila titah sudah dikeluarkan, pihak pentadbiran wajib melaksanakannya, bukan memilih mana yang hendak dipatuhi.

3. Jika Adendum Disahkan, Ia Perlu Dipatuhi Segera

Jika dokumen itu benar — seperti disokong melalui affidavit anak Najib dan surat daripada Istana Pahang — maka kerajaan mesti:

• mengesahkan Adendum tersebut; dan
• melaksanakan arahan untuk memindahkan Najib ke kediamannya bagi menjalani baki hukuman di bawah tahanan rumah.

Ini bukan keistimewaan individu.
Ini mengenai menghormati institusi Raja Berperlembagaan.

4. Malaysia Tidak Boleh Sampai ke Tahap Di Mana Titah Raja Diragui atau “Dinilai” oleh Pihak Politik

Jika titah Diraja boleh diabaikan atau dilengah-lengahkan, ia membuka ruang kepada:

• kekeliruan institusi,
• ketidakpatuhan pentadbiran,
• dan akhirnya, melemahkan kedudukan Raja itu sendiri.

Sebab itu ramai merasakan kes ini jauh lebih besar daripada politik.
Ia soal kedaulatan Raja, kepastian undang-undang, dan keutuhan sistem pengampunan negara.

5. Titah Adendum: Apa yang Dipertahankan Dalam Kes Ini Adalah Prinsip, Bukan Individu

Penyokong Najib menyokong kerana prinsip:
Jika Raja sudah titah, kita sebagai rakyat dan pentadbiran wajib patuh.

Semua mata kini tertumpu kepada mahkamah untuk menentukan sama ada arahan Diraja ini telah dilaksanakan seperti mana sepatutnya. Keputusannya akan memberi kesan besar kepada masa depan hubungan antara:

• Raja,
• mahkamah,
• dan kerajaan.

Apa pun natijahnya esok, satu perkara kekal jelas:
Titah Adendum adalah titah Diraja — dan titah itu wajar dihormati. – NMH

The post Titah Adendum: Mengapa Arahan Pengampunan Najib Wajar Dihormati first appeared on NMH.

As Malaysia awaits the Federal Court’s decision on Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s judicial review, one issue stands above the political noise: the constitutional sanctity of the Royal Addendum issued by the 16th Yang di-Pertuan Agong. This matter is not about guilt, innocence, or relitigating past cases. It is about the foundational architecture of our constitutional monarchy — and whether an order by the King, made in His Majesty’s sole and exclusive domain, can be set aside, downgraded or ignored by administrative discretion.

At the heart of this judicial review is a simple question: Did the Pardons Board faithfully implement what the King had decreed? Far from challenging the court or asking it to evaluate royal intent, Najib’s application seeks clarification and enforcement of the King’s own words, documented and witnessed, including by a cabinet minister and legal officers present at the January 29 meeting. This alone makes his bid unprecedented — not in controversy, but in constitutional importance.

Royal Addendum: The King’s Powers Are Exclusive, Not Advisory

Under the Federal Constitution, clemency powers under Article 42 belong to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. The Pardons Board assists, but the final decision is the King’s alone. Malaysian courts have consistently recognised that while the process may be reviewed for procedural fairness, the substance of royal discretion is not open to judicial reinterpretation.

This is why the Royal Addendum matters. If a monarch has expressly ordered that rehabilitation, extensions of imprisonment, or home detention be included as part of clemency, those directives must be executed faithfully. They are not optional, subject to editing, or contingent on political preferences of whichever administration is in office.

What Najib Seeks Is Not Extraordinary

Opponents have attempted to frame this judicial review as an attempt to “override” or “pressure” the courts. This is inaccurate. Najib is not asking the judiciary to create new rights, overturn convictions, or substitute its own judgment for the executive’s. He only seeks confirmation that the King’s directive — constitutionally binding and superior to all ministerial decisions — was implemented as given.

In fact, ignoring a royal directive raises a far more serious concern: If the King’s clemency order can be diluted once, what prevents it from being diluted again? That is not a Najib issue. It is a constitutional issue that affects every Malaysian, every future monarch, and every future pardons application.

Political Noise Cannot Blur Constitutional Lines

Since February, various voices have tried to politicise the matter — suggesting conflicts, motives, or political calculations. But the stability of Malaysia’s system depends on one principle: The monarchy must remain above politics. The Royal Addendum is not a political concession. It is an exercise of constitutional authority.

Judicial review, therefore, becomes the proper mechanism to ensure the administrative arm — in this case, the Pardons Board secretariat and the government machinery involved — complied with that authority. Courts do not interfere with royal wisdom; they step in only when there is a question of whether the executive faithfully implemented it.

A Decision That Will Define More Than One Man’s Fate

Tomorrow’s decision will not just affect Najib Razak. It will set a defining precedent for how Malaysia understands and respects the powers of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. If a King’s written directive — witnessed, recorded, and conveyed — can be ignored, Malaysia risks undermining the very balance that protects its democracy from excessive political control.

Whatever the court decides, one truth must remain clear: the King’s clemency power is not symbolic. It is sovereign, constitutional, and — above all — binding.

And no institution, political interest, or administrative body should stand above that. – NMH

The post Najib’s Royal Addendum: Why You Cannot Review a King — And Why Clemency Order Must Be Respected first appeared on NMH.

The final stretch of the defence’s submissions in former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) trial has put the spotlight back where it belongs — on the integrity of Malaysia’s justice system. After years of political theatre and selective outrage, the defence has laid out a case that raises the simplest yet most damning question: where is the proof?

Over several days, the defence team meticulously argued that the prosecution’s narrative is not built on evidence, but on hearsay, contradictions and convenient amnesia. And in doing so, they exposed a judicial imbalance that has allowed the truly culpable to escape scrutiny while the former prime minister faces the full weight of blame.

Prosecution’s House of Cards: Built on Hearsay and Denial

Throughout the week, the defence pointed to the prosecution’s heavy reliance on hearsay and double hearsay — with witnesses like Shahrol Azral, the former 1MDB CEO, and others making sweeping claims unsupported by documents or direct evidence.

Even the judge, Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah, had previously cautioned that findings at the prima facie stage are not conclusive. The law demands that all evidence — both prosecution and defence — be re-evaluated before guilt can be determined beyond reasonable doubt. Yet, the prosecution’s final push has been emotional rather than evidential, focusing on rhetoric instead of facts.

It is an uncomfortable truth that the prosecution has failed to meet the burden of proof required in any credible criminal proceeding. Instead, the case appears driven by an obsession to convict, not to clarify.

The Saudi Donation: Verified Then, Denied Now

Perhaps the most striking revelation in the defence’s submission is how the prosecution continues to deny the authenticity of the Saudi donation — even though it had previously been verified.

The facts are clear. Representatives from the Attorney General’s Chambers, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), and other relevant government authorities travelled to Saudi Arabia years ago. They interviewed Saudi officials and verified that donations had indeed been promised to Najib by King Abdullah.

Najib’s belief that the funds in his personal account were Saudi donations for CSR and election purposes was not only reasonable — it was reinforced by Malaysia’s own investigative authorities.

He even went further: when it became clear that a portion of the funds was unused, Najib returned the balance — amounting to USD620 million — to the Saudi government.
As the defence rightly asked, what kind of thief returns the stolen goods?

The Real Culprits Walk Free While Najib Is Still Behind Bars

If there is one glaring injustice in this entire saga, it is how the real masterminds behind the 1MDB transactions — Jho Low and Jasmine Loo — have escaped accountability.

Both individuals were central to 1MDB’s financial dealings. Both were responsible for structuring and moving the funds. And both fled when the scandal broke. Jho Low remains a fugitive, while Jasmine Loo — once a key figure in the financial flows — has been rewarded with witness status after returning assets and properties linked to 1MDB.

Equally troubling is the treatment of Shahrol Azrai, the former CEO of 1MDB, whose mismanagement, omissions and questionable decisions formed the backbone of the scandal. Despite his direct role, he was not charged, but instead turned into a prosecution witness — conveniently shielded while Najib, who sat on an advisory board without executive powers, faces criminal liability.

In any functioning legal system, this inversion of justice would have caused the entire case to collapse.

Bank Negara’s Role and the Selective Blame Game

The defence also highlighted another inconvenient truth: Bank Negara Malaysia had been fully aware of the fund inflows and even advised the then Prime Minister to use his personal account for the Saudi donations.

Given the central bank’s oversight of large financial movements, there was no way billions could have entered Malaysia’s banking system without triggering alerts or scrutiny. Yet, rather than investigating its own procedural failures, the system turned its guns on Najib — the one individual who had acted transparently based on the advice of the very institutions now distancing themselves.

This selective amnesia is not merely troubling; it erodes public confidence in the rule of law.

A Trial That Wouldn’t Stand Elsewhere

In many jurisdictions, a case so riddled with contradictions, hearsay and compromised witnesses would have been dismissed long ago.

The defence has demonstrated that the prosecution’s claims rest on speculation, assumptions and documents that are missing or unverified.

The defence team was led by Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah and assisted by Datuk Tania Scivetti, Wan Azwan Aiman Wan Fakhruddin, Wan Mohammad Arfan Wan Othman, Hartrisha Kaur Sandhu and Naresh Mayachandran.

The prosecution, meanwhile, was initially led by former Federal Court judge Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram until his death in January 2023.

Subsequently, it was handled by deputy public prosecutors Datuk Ahmad Akram Gharib and Datuk Kamal Baharin Omar, assisted by DPPs Mohamad Mustaffa P Kunyalam, Deepa Nair Thevarahan, Nadia Mohd Izhar, Najwa Bistamam, Hazmida Harris Lee and Siti Aina Rodhiah Shikh Md Saud.

As the court prepares to hear the final winding-up submissions on Tuesday, 4 November, and deliver its judgment on 26 December, the question now lingers: will the Malaysian justice system uphold the principles of fairness and reasonable doubt, or will political convenience once again overshadow truth?

Because justice, as the defence has reminded the court, is not about appeasing headlines — it is about evidence, accountability and equal treatment under the law. – NMH

The post Najib Razak’s Defence Counsel Tears Apart 1MDB Prosecution’s Case first appeared on NMH.

When Empathy Becomes More Than a Word

In the aftermath of the school bullying incidents that shook the nation — the brutal gang rape in Melaka, the killing in Bandar Utama, and the stabbing of a schoolchild by her classmate — Malaysia’s grief and anger are still raw. But grief alone isn’t enough.

The scale of the crisis cannot be overlooked. According to the Education Ministry’s Student Discipline System, reported bullying cases jumped from 3,883 in 2022 to 6,528 in 2023, and then to 7,681 in 2024 — a rise of over 17 per cent.

According to the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2023, Malaysia ranks among the top four countries worldwide where students report being bullied at school. The study, which surveys both academic performance and student wellbeing, highlights how pervasive bullying has become — extending far beyond isolated cases and into the daily lives of children nationwide.

A Movement Rooted in Empathy

At the recent Mental Health Awareness Session organised by UNITAR International University in partnership with the Jabatan Pendidikan Negeri (JPN), more than 120 educators gathered not merely to talk about problems but to rediscover the human pulse behind education — the “HEART” model championed by Dr Brendan J. Gomez: Honed Observations, Established Psychological Safety, Acting with Compassion, Rallying the Community, and Tending to One’s Own Wellbeing.

Dr Gomez’s approach focuses on one deceptively simple but transformative goal: teaching empathy as a life skill.

“Until we walk in the shoes of another, we find it hard to truly understand how someone is feeling — especially when they are hurting or struggling with a life challenge,” he said.

Through storytelling, drawing, and even dancing, teachers learned to re-humanise their classrooms — to listen actively, to see beyond grades, and to notice the child who grows quieter each day.

“Empathy is a key part of Social Emotional Learning (SEL),” Dr Gomez explained, “and it’s critical for young people to master — to help them cope better with mental-health issues and in building resilience.”

For many of the counsellors present, it was the first time they had space to reflect, to speak openly, and to connect their exhaustion with purpose.

When Teachers Are Left to Heal Alone

Among the participants was a teacher from a government school in Kuala Lumpur — a Sabahan who carries two invisible scars. One of her students once took her own life, jumping from a nearby flat. Days earlier, the teacher had spoken to the girl, who said her stepfather had struck her. The man, who had raised her since she was three, insisted it was a single act of discipline, not cruelty.

A few days later, tragedy struck.

The teacher later stopped another student from taking the same path — this time saving a life. Yet when asked whether the Education Department had sent her for counselling after such trauma, her answer was painfully simple:

“No. They just wanted my report.”

The silence that follows such tragedies isn’t just administrative — it’s moral. It mirrors a system where teachers are expected to absorb every shock, yet given no outlet to heal.

When Parents Speak, the Nation Must Listen

For parents like Mazuin Murtadza, the tragedy of school violence hits painfully close.

“I am still shocked that Ayman knows what kerambit is,” she said, referring to one of the weapons allegedly used by the 17-year-old boy accused of murdering his schoolmate. “Ayman is only 10 years old, and in their Roblox world, they need Robux to buy such virtual weapons. Of course I am to blame — I allowed him to play, even gave money to buy Robux,” she confessed, her voice trembling with guilt.

Her unease runs deeper than the game. Ayman had been bullied two years earlier — “a girl used to call him stupid, ugly and dumb; she stole his pencils and erasers” — but he was fortunate to have classmates who defended him.

“The one who stood up for him was the smallest kid of them all,” she said, half-smiling through the ache.

Mazuin’s hope is simple yet profound:

“It will be a safe place if all kids would snitch and not just be bystanders. Protect each other when they see something not right. See and hear.”

Anne Subashini: Turning School Bullying Outrage into Outreach

For Anne Subashini, founder of the Inclusive Outdoor Classroom (IOC) and mother of two, the recent spate of violence has reignited an old fight — to bring inclusion and empathy back to the centre of learning.

“These acts of violence — the stabbing and the gang rape — are heartbreaking reminders of how deeply our society is hurting,” she said. “We must confront not only the crimes but also the silence, fear, and moral decay that allow such cruelty to happen. Justice must be swift, but healing must be collective.”

Anne believes that empathy cannot be left to chance or personality — it must be taught and practised, like math or language. Her work through IOC has shown that when children play, communicate, and problem-solve together — regardless of background or ability — they begin to understand difference not as division but as connection.

The Open Letter and a Nation’s Breaking Point

As public frustration peaks, an Open Letter to the Prime Minister has gone viral, demanding urgent reforms and the resignation of the Education Minister. The letter, signed “Concerned Citizens of Malaysia,” calls for stronger disciplinary measures and moral leadership in schools.

While some of its demands may invite debate — from reinstating caning to restoring old examinations — its raw urgency reflects a society desperate for order, accountability, and the return of moral courage.

Beyond Outrage: Building the HEART of Healing

If Part 1 revealed the cracks, Part 2 points to the light coming through them.

From Dr Brendan Gomez’s “HEART” model to the voices of parents, teachers, and counsellors, one truth stands out: healing begins where empathy is taught, practised, and protecte

As I sat through the workshop, I couldn’t help but think — why isn’t this part of every school’s curriculum? When a new school year or class begins, we spend time on orientation, icebreakers, and sometimes even ragging, but never on learning about each other’s hearts. A module like this should be made compulsory: one that teaches students to understand their classmates, recognise distress, and support one another from day one.

One of the closing activities was a simple but profound exercise: everyone at my table wrote something positive about each person in the group. There were eight of us — some I’d known for years, others I’d just met four hours earlier. Each note carried words of warmth and affirmation.

At 66, I felt touched and unexpectedly uplifted. If such positive reinforcement could make me feel more confident and seen, imagine what wonders it could do for our students — especially those who walk into classrooms feeling invisible or unworthy.

Because when schools become places where children feel seen, heard, and safe — that’s when learning begins.

And that’s when the nation begins to heal. – NMH

The post School Bullying: In the HEART of Healing and Action first appeared on NMH.

A Nation in Grief

Yesterday, I couldn’t finish reading the news. Another schoolchild dead — stabbed by her schoolmate. A 16-year-old killed in a place that should have been her second home. Although this is not the general school bullying case we have been reading about in the news lately, this is a reflection that all is not well in our institutions of learning.

As a mother of four sons, two of whom are neurodiverse, I am shattered. I can’t imagine what her parents must be going through — because like so many other mothers, I’ve lived through my own quiet fears, the kind that start with whispers of bullying, bruised self-esteem, and a system that looks away until it’s too late.

These past few weeks, Malaysia has been shaken again and again — one story after another of cruelty among children. A Form 3 girl gang raped by her seniors in Melaka. A student stabbed to death in Bandar Utama. A Year 3 child molested by a school security guard. A sports day that ended in tragedy when a septic tank cover gave way.

How did we get here?
How did schools — meant to nurture, protect and inspire — become places of fear and trauma?

School Bullying and a Generation Without Fear

Raja Sara Petra, in a piece that went viral, asked a painful but necessary question: “What happened to our sense of fear and respect?”

She wrote, “When fear disappears, respect dies. And when respect dies, chaos takes over.”

Maybe that’s part of it. Maybe in trying to be progressive, we have stripped away the healthy boundaries that once kept our children anchored.

We tell teachers, “Don’t scold.”
We tell parents, “Don’t rotan.”
And then we watch in horror when empathy fades and cruelty becomes entertainment on TikTok.

But discipline alone isn’t the full story.

Dr Ahmad Fadhzil Mohamad from Perlis wrote in his heartbreaking essay, “Bila Sekolah Dah Hilang Jiwa dan Adab,” that our education system has lost its soul.

He said, “Kita tengah lahirkan pelajar yang pandai atas kertas, tapi kosong dalam jiwa.”

We’ve built exam factories, not communities of conscience.
We glorify results, not resilience; compliance, not compassion.

When Teachers Break

And then there are our teachers — standing at the frontlines, yet increasingly powerless.

One former teaching intern wrote about how parental overprotection has crushed educators’ spirits: “These four months (as a teaching intern) have worn down my passion for education … I no longer have the courage to say: I want to be a teacher.”

Teachers are expected to perform miracles — teach, nurture, discipline, manage paperwork, and now, act as counsellors and social workers. But when something goes wrong, they are the first to be blamed, vilified, or viral-ed, as in the case of the two male discipline teachers who were handcuffed with the possibility of having to serve jail time for caning a student who misbehaved.

As writer Danny Liew pointed out, teachers are now “the de facto government welfare officers.” They drive students to events, collect welfare data, and yet face the wrath of parents and the public.

We can’t talk about student mental health without talking about teacher burnout.

A Ministry in Denial

And what about the Ministry of Education?

When the Melaka gang-rape case broke, Chew Sir Boon wrote an open letter to the Education Minister: “Rogol berkumpulan ialah satu jenayah kejam — ia bukan kesilapan kecil.” (A gang rape is a heinous crime, not a mere lapse in judgement.”)

He reminded her — and all of us — that education without moral clarity is empty.
If the system cannot tell the difference between justice and procedure, how can our children learn empathy and accountability?

A Mother’s Cry

As a mother, I can’t help but go back to my own sons.
All four of them have, at some point, been bullied. Two of them, being on the spectrum, were easy targets. I’ve been the tiger mum storming into schools, demanding answers, making police reports when I had to — not because I wanted to make a scene, but because I refused to let silence normalise cruelty.

I once wrote, “We cannot make bullying and ragging part of our culture — it breeds an unhappy society.” I stand by that even more today.

My youngest, Aidel, who has Asperger’s, once said during a workshop I attended with him, “At that time (when I was bullied) I felt like dying.”

Aidel is 24 now. He still sometimes faces bullying in the workplace; the trauma of school does not stay confined to the past. His words are a brutal reminder that bullying’s damage is often lifelong: it can scar mental health, erode self-worth and make trust difficult to rebuild.

Every act of bullying is a signal — that a child somewhere has lost connection, compassion, or control. And every adult who looks away becomes part of the problem.

What This Says About Us

Bullying is not merely a student problem; it is a societal mirror. When we glorify dominance, mock vulnerability, and reward aggression in adults, we normalise cruelty among the young.

If empathy is absent at home, and compassion is not modelled by adults in authority, we cannot expect it to blossom in classrooms.

Where Do We Go From Here?

We can debate discipline, policies, and parenting styles, but none of that matters if our schools lose their humanity.

We need to bring back Empathy — not as a buzzword, but as a living practice.
Empathy must be embedded in how teachers teach, how students interact, and how policies are written.

Last week, I attended a workshop at UNITAR International University on Addressing Bullying and Depression, led by Dr Brendan J. Gomez. It reminded me that empathy can be taught, cultivated, and lived — not through slogans, but through daily practice. A timely event held in conjunction with Mental Health Awareness Month.

When Our Children Stop Feeling Safe, The Nation Stops Breathing

The stories of Zara, of the Melaka girl, of every child who cried in silence, are not statistics. They are warnings.

Until we restore safety and compassion in our schools, every tragedy will remain a reflection of a nation in distress — and of parents like me, who wonder if tomorrow’s headline will bear another child’s name.

In Part 2 of this series, we’ll explore the insights shared by Dr Gomez and the participants — including a teacher who once lost a student to suicide, and later she almost lost another, but managed to save the poor child in time. Their reflections are painful, but they also offer hope — that even in the darkest corners of our schools, compassion can still take root. – NMH

The post School Bullying: When Our Children Stop Feeling Safe, A Nation in Social Distress first appeared on NMH.

Turun Anwar —The Protest That Shouldn’t Be Dismissed

The street protest held last Saturday under the banner of Turun Anwar was not about toppling a legally elected Prime Minister through mob rule. Malaysians are well aware that a Prime Minister can only be removed constitutionally—either through a successful vote of no confidence in Parliament (which is currently in session) or via a Royal decree in the interest of national stability. Both are mechanisms rooted in law, and both have precedent in Malaysia’s turbulent political history.

Yet, this demonstration—however small or symbolic—was never just about numbers. It was a clear and deliberate message: Pakatan Harapan, especially Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, is fast losing the trust of the people, even those who once stood by him.

What The Protest Was Really About

As Raja Sara Petra succinctly argued in her Facebook post, the protest was about accountability. It was a culmination of frustration over the rising cost of living, tone-deaf economic policies, and an increasing sense that this government is out of touch with the rakyat. The protesters weren’t trying to burn down the institutions of democracy—they were demanding that those institutions begin to work for the people again.

And Then There’s Mahathir…

Of course, no Malaysian protest is complete without controversy. And this time, that came in the form of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

The presence of the nonagenarian ex-premier triggered mixed reactions, even among those sympathetic to the protest. Yes, Mahathir still commands respect in some quarters, but let’s not forget—his two stints as Prime Minister left behind a legacy of racial tension, entrenched cronyism, and shattered political promises. As pointed out in a widely-shared post, Mahathir’s re-emergence only taints what could have been a purer protest movement driven by the people, not personalities.

DAP’s Misstep: The Trash Talk

In what seems like a comically predictable DAP move, Nga Kor Ming’s biggest takeaway from the rally was… litter. The Minister chose to focus on trash left by the demonstrators, lamenting in Sinar Harian that the protesters had “thrown rubbish everywhere.”

It’s hard to imagine a more tone-deaf response. When people are taking to the streets to demand change, reducing their actions to a cleanliness issue is not only petty—it reeks of arrogance. And for DAP, which has long struggled with its public image among the Malay majority, this kind of rhetoric only deepens the divide.

Ironically, a PAS member was seen cleaning up after the protest—a moment that resonated more powerfully than any ministerial statement.

Najib’s Supporters: A Quiet Strength

Datuk Seri Thanenthiran, president of the Malaysia Makkal Sakti Party and a staunch supporter of former Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, summed it up best: Najib’s silence is not a sign of weakness. In fact, it is a symbol of patience, dignity, and strategic wisdom.

Najib has long maintained that his fight for justice should take place in the courtroom, not on the streets. Yet, Thanenthiran noted that the government’s handling of the Royal Decree on Najib’s proposed house arrest has been nothing short of disgraceful. He didn’t attend the rally, but like many others, he supported its message.

There is a belief among Najib’s supporters that had he even hinted at mobilizing his base, the Turun Anwar rally could have eclipsed ICERD, Bersih, and every other protest movement in Malaysia’s modern political history.

The Elephant In The Room: The Economy

From a communications standpoint, the government is floundering. Joshua Phua, a communications consultant, pointed out that the rising cost of living, coupled with contradictory messaging around subsidies and economic assistance, has exposed a gaping disconnect between Anwar’s administration and the rakyat.

Announcements like the SARA 100 aid and fuel subsidy reforms are not landing well. They appear more like knee-jerk reactions than cohesive policy. The rakyat’s suffering is real, and the government seems clueless.

Phua also took aim at DAP’s elitism, warning that their arrogance is sowing dangerous seeds—pushing the Malays toward unity, not out of strength, but desperation. And if there’s one thing history teaches us, it’s that a cornered majority can be a powerful, unpredictable force.

UMNO’s Silence Speaks Volumes

One interesting omission in the Turun Anwar post-mortem is the silence of UMNO. No statements condemning the rally. No public support either. Just quiet observation.

And why wouldn’t they stay quiet? If Anwar falls and Parliament is not dissolved, the most likely successor would be Deputy Prime Minister and UMNO President, Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi. For many of Anwar supporters, that would be a nightmare scenario. For Zahid, it would be vindication.

Zahid, to his credit, seized the opportunity to give a strong assurance to Najib and UMNO supporters that the Royal Addendum on house detention will be implemented as soon as possible — a move that not only calms the base, but reasserts his political relevance within the Unity Government.

A Moment of Reckoning

The Turun Anwar rally may not bring the government down, but it delivered a message loud and clear: the rakyat are watching, they are suffering, and they are no longer afraid to speak up. PH may have been the reformist darling once—but power has clearly eroded their humility.

For Anwar and his coalition, this should be a ‘serves you right’ moment. A time for reflection. A warning shot before the next general election. Or worse, before the rakyat decides that street power is the only voice left that matters. – NMH

The post Turun Anwar – A Serves You Right Moment For PH Folks first appeared on NMH.

Frankly, I don’t care one way or another about the US presidential elections, especially the now concluding contest between ex-President Donald Trump and the current vice-president Kamala Harris. But I should.

What happens in the US reverberates across the globe (or platform, for the flat earth believers). It affects all of us. For one, the winner’s mug that’s going to appear day in day out on newspapers and media portals online, and I would have preferred someone better looking, a gal especially. Too bad, Harris.

So, we are back at seeing the infamous Republican candidate Donald Trump’s bloated face and the roadkill hair for another 1460 days (that’s four years, by the way; stop scratching your head). What does this say about the US of A?

Since many of us do not follow these sort of news – our source of news usually comes from phone screens through social media shares (when our friends and family are not preaching on moral values). The only representation of the US for most of us are the celebrities, sport folks and fast food.

Speaking of celebrities, folks from these damned screen trade and music business have traditionally been leftist, big fans of the Democrats. Watch how they cosy up with the candidates, and we saw how ex-president Obama was too comfortable with Hollywood, even appearing in Saturday Night Live, a show notorious for its political satires that had often relentlessly poked more fun at the Republicans than the others. And now, it looks like Alec Baldwin has a new set of work cut out for him. Famous for satirising Trump through his performance on SNL, he himself had thrown his support towards Harris’ direction.

Tinseltown Endorsement

I mean, look at the overwhelming endorsement from Tinseltown and the recording industry, backing Harris. You will see big names on that link. And surprise…surprise! Even Trump’s fellow party member, Arnold Schwarzenegger (Conan the Republican, as the media used to label him), said good stuff about Harris and slammed Trump for some “unpatriotic” stuff the latter has resorted to or has remarked about. Yes, the Austrian born knows a lot about patriotism, which he can regale in Austrian accent.

It was almost a no-brainer that, at that point of time, everyone thought that Kamala Harris is going to have the cake and eat it too, and Trump is the loser goofball with unpopular policies such as the immigration issue that smacked of racism, as some criticised.

But whaddya know? At the time of this writing, with two states left to be called, Trump has 295 electoral votes, while Harris has 226. Indeed, Harris has already conceded the 2024 presidential election to President-elect Donald Trump.

Interestingly, the analysts are unfazed by Trump’s lead. Some of them are very certain indeed, having noted what had failed the last four years. “Donald Trump has been elected president again because the future of American democracy was not on the ballot in 2024. What was on the ballot was the record of a failed administration led by President Joe Biden and Democratic candidate Vice President Kamala Harris,” says Jonathan Tobin, the editor-in-chief of JNS.org, from an analysis piece in the Newsweek magazine. 

“As it turned out,” he continued, “a majority of Americans didn’t buy the smear that Trump was an authoritarian or a Nazi or that the only thing mattered in determining our future as a nation was a Capitol riot that was falsely inflated into an ‘insurrection’.”

Muslims for Trump

It’s no secret that the Muslim community too played an important factor in Trump’s win, with the latter having had already warming up to them, despite his earlier stance before he was the President for the first time.

In my own personal observation for the last one year at least, there is the rise of conservatism in that country, especially in the media, such as podcasters and commentators from conservative front like Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Candace Owens, and a host of others. Even the provocative, wildly popular podcaster Joe Rogan lent his last-minute support to Trump, something that the latter kept bragging about during his campaign rounds. 

One thing I suspect that may have taken place is the backlash against the rise of the woke culture that has been permeating the US, no thanks to those very celebrities mentioned earlier. Not to mention, overtly, the trans rights issue that sort of crosses the boundaries, irking even more detached disinterested blokes like me. 

All these contributed to the rise of conservatism, not only in the US but all over the world. It’s not surprising to find more folks returning to their religious roots, with Islam being the most popular one now and no matter which faith—the conservative route is the way the majority of the world population is taking on currently as religious nationalism is definitely on the rise.

Assassination Attempt

Let us also not forget the assassination attempt, where, though the assassin was not within the earshot, still got Trump’s ear shot (thank you) that created waves of sympathy for the old man (surprised to note that no one brought up conspiracy theory that it was staged for publicity except these two women, I suppose)

There have also been complaints that Trump is going to be the first president with criminal charges hovering over him like a death drone—currently standing at four criminal indictments in four different cities as he reclaims the White House, totaling in 91 felony counts among others.

The US, which prides itself on being modern, open-minded, so on and so forth, is a nation of murderers and lots of other horrible stuff that I have covered before in pursuing the argument that it is not a great nation. Hence, this time, it deserves the comic relief leader it has chosen. It’s going to be a great time for stand up comics, and the comedy circle in general.

Look, the current guy, Biden, who’s going to hand over the baton is basically a zombie and will not be missed. Obama may be good, but he is boring—he is just a nice guy, a supposedly virtuous family man, and, again, dull as dishwater.

Trump, with his criminal cases, his penchant to stick his feet in the mouth, and being inappropriate, rude, and dumb—incredibly all three at the same time—makes for great content, traditional or social media. I, for one, am really looking forward to his years as the president of the most decadent country in the world at the moment. Come on, for being the greatest nation in the world 18% of US adults (approximately 57.4 million people) are illiterates.

I am glad that Kamal Harris didn’t win. Gosh, if only she did, the amount of bragging by the Indian community world over, as if she is directly related to and have cooked Biriyani for them, would be unbearable. Welcome back, Donald Trump; and boy, are we in for great fun or what. – NMH

Aside: Talking about colour, what’s with the orange hues? Here are some possibilities!

Exclusive: Why is Donald Trump so orange? Make-up artist solves mystery after wild theories

Fake news or fake tan? Photo of ‘orange face Trump’ goes viral

The post The Trump Card: Why The Americans Want The Orange Dude Back first appeared on NMH.

Mohandas Karamchand Ghandhi once said, “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.”. Let’s turn it around, and we get, “A nation’s awfulness is measured by how much its own citizen wants to kill its president.” We are looking at you, USA.

With the recent assassination attempt against former US president Donald Trump, we can surmise one thing: the United States of America is not the greatest nation, as it always beats its bullet-riddled chest and proclaims. I agree that it had the world’s greatest screen actor (one; the rest are from England and other parts of Europe), most gorgeous actresses (classic), and the greatest range of ice cream flavours (or flavors). That’s it.

Measuring the Greatness of USA

They are so enmeshed with dope that the co-founder of Pay Pal, Peter Thiel (an American, duh!), proposed Enhanced Games. What is it? Well, this one is the Olympics for athletes who use performance-enhancing drugs. How about that?

Of course, there are other ways of measuring the USA’s greatness, like its performances in sports, for example. But there is more mess there than you can shake your baseball bat at. Check these guys out, for instance. Known as the 1919 Black Sox Scandal, eight players from the Chicago White Sox team conspired to throw the World Series for money (the World here consists of the USA and Canada, by the way). Then, there are doping scandals, especially in the swimming category—occurrences as regular as pickles in their hamburgers—with swimmers failing the tests again and again at international events. And you thought they were bright.

Coming back to Trump, let’s face the facts; no country has blood thirst against the head of state (or former) like this country does. Allow the facts and figures to speak for themselves.

According to this report (dated 2009, so you hafta add the Donald in on your own; don’t be lazy): Direct assaults against presidents, presidents-elect, and candidates have occurred on 15 separate occasions, with five resulting in death. Ten incumbents (about 23% of the 43 individuals to serve in the office), including four of the seven most recent presidents, have been victims or targets. Four of the 10 (and one candidate) died as a result of the attacks.

If you look at that site, you will notice that one of the assassins is a gal, looking like a 1950s TV housewife straight out of a washing machine commercial. Talk about equal opportunity.

Now, look at this chronology chart, courtesy of Al Jazeera:

Gosh, they really hate their presidents, whom they voted democratically for. Sure, it has become—ever since the country’s inception in 1777—a breeding ground for president killers, but while underground, it distils chambers filled with serial killers.

Here, just take a look at the difference between the first entry and the second on the nation with the highest number of serial killers taken from Data Panda.

Based on that I asked Chatgpt as to why USA is holding the flag to having most number of the worst human beings on earth. The response:

The prevalence of serial killers in the USA can be attributed to several factors. While it’s a complex issue, here are some contributing factors:

1. Population Size: The U.S. has a large population, which naturally increases the likelihood of having more criminals, including serial killers.
2. Media Influence: American culture places significant emphasis on crime and violence. Movies, TV shows, and news coverage often sensationalize serial killers, creating a sort of “infamy” that may attract disturbed individuals.
3. Mobility and Urbanization: The U.S. has a highly mobile population, with people moving across states and cities. This mobility makes it easier for serial killers to operate without detection.
4. Access to Weapons: The availability of firearms and other weapons makes it easier for individuals to commit violent acts.
5. Historical Context: The U.S. has a history of notorious serial killers, such as Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and John Wayne Gacy. These cases have left a lasting impact on public consciousness.
6. Cultural Anonymity: In large cities, people can remain relatively anonymous, allowing serial killers to blend in and avoid suspicion.

Remember, though, that this is a multifaceted issue, and no single explanation can fully account for the phenomenon.

Yeah, in the last line, basically, the AI is throwing its artificial hands up.

Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the US has also been frequently rated as the worst country to live in. According to this report, safety is the biggest concern. …About 69 percent of expats reported feeling safe in the U.S., but that number is far less than the 81 percent average worldwide.”

Even Forbes says that the country is uninhabitable.

Point four is especially the most off-putting factor. You have an organisation like the National Riffle Association that is still fighting for gun rights despite the frequency of school shootings that killed many innocent kids.

Just to give you an idea of where this so-called advanced, developed nation stands, check out these 2024 statistics on gun violence by the World Population Review site.

The higher number of suicides compared to homicide surely lets us non-Americans know that we do not have to hate that country; there’s enough self-loathing. Speaking of which, it has often been recorded that more soldiers in that country died of suicide than in actual combat, with the rate going up to 127 per day. Dig this chart taken from its veteran affairs site. 

Then there’s the friendly fire—yeah, accidentally shooting your own team members. According to the report here (I couldn’t get the latest) during the Gulf War (part one, not the sequel), 35 Americans and nine British soldiers lost their lives due to friendly fire, accounting for nearly one-quarter of the total 148 combat deaths.

Now, leave all that aside. If you can live there dodging bullets and blindsiding, you have to face another bigger obstacle: racism.

Right now, forget about the African Americans there; they are destined to experience racism in that country for the rest of its existence. It’s the Muslims who are the new blacks. The PEW research in 2021 found out that ever since the 9/11 incident (or tragedy) and with the increase in the population in the country, “Muslims have reported encountering more discrimination. In 2017, during the first few months of the Trump administration, about half of Muslim American adults (48%) said they had personally experienced some form of discrimination because of their religion in the previous year. This included a range of experiences, from people acting suspicious of them to being physically threatened or attacked. In 2011, by comparison, 43% of Muslim adults said they had at least one of these experiences, and 40% said this in 2007.

Let’s face it, the Americans and United States of America are in a mess. They voted in an orange guy with a gift for foot-in-mouth disease and then a zombie as their presidents. The orange is poising for a comeback (the walking dead’s ain’t gonna return, as mentioned in the same story in the link). It must be the beaming Trump and that sunny glare from the follicular creature on top of his head that had the assassin missed the aorta and gave Trump free ear piercing.

You gotta admit, America is ailing. The sad truth is, with trash piling up in its own gutter, it wanted to clean other homes, sometimes out of the neighbourhood. I am reminded of the rock band Led Zeppelin’s song lines: “If it keeps on rainin’, the levee’s goin’ to break; when the levee breaks, I’ll have no place to stay.”.

Who wants to stay in the USA, anyway? – NMH

Other articles by the writer:

The Rise of Hinduism: A Worrying Trend to Be Wary About

Blackrock And Malaysia: The Fourth Round Of Colonisation?

Influencers. How Influential Are They?

The post Step Down, USA. You Ain’t The Greatest Nation In The World No More first appeared on NMH.