It began with defeat. It may yet end with a comeback.

There was a time, not very long ago, when Barisan Nasional (BN) looked like a political relic.

GE14 in 2018 was supposed to be the end of BN as Malaysians had known it. After six decades in power, the coalition was swept out by Pakatan Harapan (PH), and the country was suddenly introduced to the intoxicating promise of a “New Malaysia”.

For many, it was supposed to be a new beginning.

For others, it became something very different.

What followed was political upheaval — governments rising and falling, defections, realignments and, after GE15, the unlikely marriage of old rivals in the Unity Government.

But beneath all the manoeuvring, something else was happening.

BN was learning how to survive.

And more importantly, it was learning how to come back.

Today, the signs are no longer subtle.

BN’s stunning performance in Johor in July — winning 48 of 56 state seats and a two-thirds majority — was more than a state election victory. It was a psychological breakthrough.

Three weeks later came Negeri Sembilan, where BN won 18 of 36 seats and returned to power after eight years, forming the state government with PN support.

Two states.

Two confidence-boosting results.

And suddenly, the conversation has changed.

BN is no longer behaving like a coalition fighting merely for survival.

It is beginning to look like one preparing for the next battle.

From “New Malaysia” to Political Fatigue

Perhaps the biggest irony of the post-GE14 story is that the forces that were supposed to bury BN may have contributed to its resurrection.

The collapse of the first PH government, the Sheraton Move and successive changes of administration left many voters exhausted.

And Malays, above all, are loyal to a fault.

For a sizeable section of the Malay electorate, 2018 meant seeing the traditional political establishment dismantled, familiar leaders prosecuted and the country plunged into prolonged political uncertainty.

Najib Razak became the most potent symbol of that rupture.

The former prime minister was convicted in the SRC International case and subsequently faced further convictions in the larger 1MDB proceedings. He remains in prison.

Yet politically, Najib has never disappeared.

For his supporters, he has become a symbol of what they regard as selective justice and political persecution.

And the pressure has not ended with Najib.

More BN-era leaders are finding themselves in court, with cases involving Tabung Haji and Felda among those drawing attention, and more cases potentially to come.

Whether these cases are viewed as accountability or political persecution, their cumulative effect within BN is difficult to ignore.

The more its leaders come under legal pressure, the more the coalition’s members appear to be closing ranks.

And that solidarity extends beyond UMNO. For the component parties, it can reinforce the sense that BN’s survival — and their own political future within it — are intertwined.

The old BN instinct of standing together may be returning.

The Unity Government’s Uncomfortable Contradiction

When BN entered the Unity Government with PH after GE15, it was widely seen as a marriage of necessity.

For Anwar Ibrahim, it provided the numbers and stability needed to govern.

For BN, it provided something equally valuable: time.

Time to regroup. Rebuild its machinery. Reconnect with voters. And remind Malaysians that BN was still there.

The irony is difficult to miss.

The coalition that was supposed to be transformed by the post-GE14 order was given the opportunity to rebuild from within it.

That does not mean BN is about to leave the Unity Government.

But politically, the distance between BN and PH increasingly looks wider than the Cabinet table suggests.

At the UMNO general assembly today, Zahid made the distinction plain: BN is in the Unity Government, but it is not the same thing as being in the “Madani Government”.

It may sound semantic.

Politically, it is anything but.

It is a reminder that BN has its own identity, its own constituency and, increasingly, its own political calculations.

Johor Changed the Mood

If one moment shifted BN’s confidence, it was Johor.

UMNO won 36 seats, MCA eight and MIC four. PH managed eight, while PN and the other parties were shut out.

The message was clear: BN could still win — and win big.

Then came Negeri Sembilan, where its return to power through an arrangement with PN reinforced the momentum.

For Zahid, the results could hardly have come at a better time.

BN’s political stock is rising, even as PH grapples with the difficult task of defending its reform credentials, managing internal contradictions and keeping a sprawling coalition together.

And then there is Najib.

The Najib Question Refuses to go Away

This week, Najib submitted a fresh application for clemency.

The Federal Territories Pardons Board met today, but his application was deferred to a future meeting.

There was no Najib pardon today.

But politically, the issue had already brought the fault line between UMNO and PH into sharp focus.

PH said those convicted of corruption and abuse of power should serve their full sentences. UMNO pushed back against what it saw as an attempt to prejudge the constitutional powers of the King.

Zahid’s position was more carefully calibrated: leave the matter to the King and the Pardons Board.

But there was little ambiguity about Najib’s emotional significance to UMNO’s grassroots.

At the assembly, Zahid spoke of expecting “good news”.

He also acknowledged another figure deeply woven into the Najib story.

When he asked Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor to stand in the Dewan Merdeka, the gesture was about more than protocol.

It was a public acknowledgement of a woman who remains deeply woven into the history and emotional landscape of UMNO’s grassroots.

For those who believe Najib was treated unfairly, her presence — and Zahid’s decision to recognise her — was significant.

It was a reminder that Najib and Rosmah remain part of the emotional memory of a significant section of UMNO, and that their story is far from over in the hearts and minds of their supporters.

The Quiet Separation

Perhaps that is where BN’s revival becomes most interesting.

There has been no dramatic announcement that BN is leaving the Unity Government.

No grand declaration of war.

No political divorce.

Instead, there appears to be something quieter: a psychological separation.

BN can remain in government while increasingly behaving like a coalition preparing for life beyond it.

Johor gave it confidence.

Negeri Sembilan reinforced it.

The Najib issue has energised its grassroots.

And every disagreement with PH provides another opportunity to remind supporters that BN is not PH.

That distinction is becoming increasingly important.

BN no longer needs to convince its supporters that it can survive.

It needs to convince them that it can win.

And that is a very different political proposition.

The Next Question: Can BN Become More Than UMNO?

For decades, BN’s strength lay in bringing different communities and political traditions under one umbrella.

UMNO was its dominant force, certainly. But MCA, MIC and the other component parties were never merely decorative. They gave BN a genuinely multi-ethnic political machine with roots in different communities.

Johor offered a glimpse of that again.

MCA doubled its representation from four seats to eight. MIC won four.

They were part of the victory.

And now another part of BN’s revival deserves attention: the emergence of a younger generation of leaders.

But this is not necessarily a generation seeking to leave the past behind.

Quite the opposite.

Many grew up during Najib’s years as prime minister. They watched his rise, his fall and his transformation into “Bossku”. For many, he remains a political role model.

His influence also has a remarkable digital dimension.

An ILHAM Centre analysis in May found Najib to be Malaysia’s most followed political figure across six major social-media platforms, with 9.35 million followers, including 4.6 million on Facebook.

For BN’s young Turks, social media is their natural political battleground — and Najib remains one of the most powerful figures occupying that space.

So “young” does not necessarily mean a break with Najib or the old BN.

It may mean something quite different: a younger generation carrying forward a political legacy they still believe in, using the tools and language of a different Malaysia.

That is the story Emma Harith will explore in Part Two — the component parties, new faces and young leaders who may determine whether BN’s resurgence lasts.

Because if BN really is rising again, the story is no longer simply about whether UMNO can regain power.

It is about whether Barisan Nasional can reinvent itself without losing the identity that made its supporters loyal to it in the first place.

For now, one thing is increasingly difficult to deny.

The coalition that was supposed to have died in 2018 is very much alive.

After Johor and Negeri Sembilan, it is no longer merely trying to survive.

It is beginning to believe it can come back.

Perhaps that is the real story of the rise — and rise — of Barisan Nasional. – NMH

The post The Rise And Rise Of Barisan Nasional first appeared on NMH.

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

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

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

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

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

Ini bukan bermakna Rosmah sudah bebas.

Mahkamah juga belum memutuskan bahawa keterangan baharu itu benar.

Tetapi mahkamah memutuskan ia cukup penting untuk didengar dan diuji.

Persoalan Yang Sejak Dulu Mengganggu

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

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

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

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

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

Ini bukan bermakna dakwaan baharu itu sudah terbukti.

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

“Today Justice Has Been Served”

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

“Today justice has been served.”

Beliau juga berkata mengenai keterangan baharu itu:

“We want it to be tested.”

Dan saya rasa di situlah letaknya makna keputusan hari ini.

Rosmah belum menang.

Sabitannya belum diketepikan.

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

Bukan Facebook.
Bukan TikTok.
Bukan netizen.

Mahkamah.

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

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

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

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

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

I find that response disappointing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is governance.

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

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

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

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

Imagine being the next Prime Minister

Imagine being a newly elected Prime Minister.

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

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

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

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

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

The result can be decision paralysis.

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

The safest decision becomes the one nobody makes.

And countries do not become competitive that way.

Investors are looking for predictability

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

They ask whether Malaysia is predictable.

Can a company rely on a government contract?

Will a regulatory decision survive a change in administration?

Are institutions independent?

Are rules applied consistently?

Can legitimate business decisions be defended years later?

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

The competition is not merely about tax rates or incentives.

It is about confidence.

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

But there is another side to the equation.

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

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

Should Prime Ministers have some protection while in office?

Perhaps Malaysia should be prepared to have this difficult conversation.

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

Not blanket immunity.

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

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

The principle should be simple:

Protect the office. Do not protect corruption.

Once the person leaves office, accountability should resume.

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

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

This is not about protecting three men

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

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

You can believe Muhyiddin should face trial.

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

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

Those positions are not contradictory.

This is not about Malays.

It is not about UMNO.

It is not about Bersatu.

It is not even about three former prime ministers.

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

That distinction matters enormously to Corporate Malaysia.

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

And it matters to the next Prime Minister.

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

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

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

That is not weakness.

That is institutional maturity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GK Ganesan Tests the Investigator’s Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warnings And The Documentary Trail

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shafee Challenges The Documentary Record

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions Over The Investigation And Recoveries

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tony Pua’s Evidence Comes Under Scrutiny

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What The First Week Of The 1MDB Civil Trial Reveals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These developments are not isolated.

Strategic Interest in South China Sea

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

There is nothing unusual about that.

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

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

Defending More Than Territory

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

China speaks of historical rights.

The Philippines relies heavily on the 2016 arbitral award.

Vietnam advances its own historical and legal arguments.

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

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

Malaysia should expect nothing less.

But neither should Malaysia simply adopt the narratives of others.

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

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

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

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

The Forgotten Legacy Of The “Malayan Sea”

One aspect of that perspective has received surprisingly little attention.

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

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

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

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

Nevertheless, history matters.

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

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

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

A Malaysian Narrative For A Malaysian Future

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

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

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

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

It is not an act of provocation.

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

Likewise, diplomatic protests should not be viewed as confrontational.

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

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

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

These principles have guided Malaysia for decades.

They should continue to do so.

Speaking With Our Own Voice

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

Malaysia has its own history.

Malaysia has its own legal position.

Malaysia has its own strategic interests.

Most importantly, Malaysia has its own voice.

The Philippines is entitled to pursue Philippine interests.

China is entitled to pursue Chinese interests.

The United States is entitled to pursue American interests.

Vietnam is entitled to pursue Vietnamese interests.

Malaysia must pursue Malaysian interests.

That is neither confrontational nor controversial.

It is the very essence of sovereignty.

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

The next step is equally important.

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

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

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

KUALA LUMPUR, Sunday, 12 July 2026 – With Datuk Onn Hafiz Ghazi now sworn in as Johor Menteri Besar, the election itself has passed into history. What remains, however, is the political message delivered by Johor voters — a message that extends far beyond the state’s borders. This was not merely an election to choose a government. It was a referendum on the leadership, priorities and direction of the Federal Government.

The Johor election was never just about Johor.

It evolved into the clearest referendum yet on the leadership of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and the direction of the Federal Government.

The message from voters was emphatic.

As commentator Sara Petra aptly observed: “2018, rakyat mengundi harapan. 2026, rakyat memberi hukuman.”

Whether one agrees with that sentiment or not, the scale of Barisan Nasional’s victory cannot simply be dismissed as a routine state election result.

Many BN candidates not only retained their seats but significantly increased their winning majorities, with some doubling or even tripling their previous margins. Even MIC, often portrayed as politically weakened in recent years, won all four seats it contested.

These were not marginal victories.

They represented a decisive shift in voter sentiment.

Johor PRN More Than a Political Contest

For months, the national political conversation had been dominated by personalities, court cases and political narratives.

Johor voters appeared to have other priorities.

Across coffee shops, markets and neighbourhoods, conversations were less about political rhetoric and more about daily survival.

The rising cost of food.

Electricity bills.

School expenses.

Housing.

Running a small business.

The question many ordinary Malaysians asked was remarkably simple:

“How does all this political drama help me pay my bills next month?”

Politics is ultimately won in kitchens, not on social media.

When families struggle with their household budgets, campaign slogans lose their appeal.

Cost of Living Became the Real Campaign

In 2018, Pakatan Harapan successfully convinced Malaysians that change was necessary.

Eight years later, many voters appear to be asking whether that promise has translated into better lives.

Businesses today face increasing compliance obligations, including e-Invoicing implementation, withholding tax issues and additional regulatory requirements. E-hailing drivers have voiced concerns over rising operational costs, while many small and medium enterprises argue that compliance has become increasingly burdensome.

Whether every policy is justified economically is another debate.

Politically, however, perception matters.

Many voters believe government has become more focused on regulations than on reducing the everyday burdens faced by ordinary Malaysians.

That perception proved costly.

Campaign Miscalculations

Another significant factor was the tone adopted during the campaign.

Attempts to portray Onn Hafiz as inexperienced or dismiss him as merely a “budak-budak” appeared to backfire.

Rather than weakening him, such attacks arguably united Johoreans behind their Menteri Besar.

Voters generally dislike what they perceive as arrogance.

Campaigns that underestimate opponents often end up energising their support.

Likewise, repeated attempts to frame the election around Datuk Seri Najib Razak and Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor appeared increasingly disconnected from the immediate concerns of many Johor voters.

Whether supporters or critics of Najib agree, many Malaysians seem ready to move beyond years of political fixation on personalities and court battles.

Their priorities have shifted.

They are asking about inflation.

Jobs.

Economic security.

Public services.

Perceptions of Arrogance

Perhaps the most damaging political perception confronting Pakatan Harapan—and particularly DAP—is the growing belief among many voters that parts of the coalition have become increasingly dismissive of opposing views and overly confident that public support would remain intact.

Politics punishes complacency.

When voters believe their concerns are being dismissed, elections become opportunities to register dissatisfaction.

Johor appears to have become precisely that.

For many BN supporters, the election result also reflected unease over broader national issues, including debates involving the Malay Rulers, matters affecting Malay-Muslim interests and policies perceived as insufficiently sensitive to longstanding cultural and religious concerns.

Whether these perceptions are entirely accurate is less important politically than the fact that they exist.

Successful governments ignore public sentiment at their own peril.

A Lesson Beyond Johor

Johor should not be viewed as an isolated state election.

It is an early political warning.

Governments that fail to address bread-and-butter issues inevitably face electoral consequences.

The ballot box remains the rakyat’s most powerful instrument.

Johor demonstrated that voters are prepared to travel home, queue for hours and cast their ballots when they believe the stakes are high.

Not because they are instructed to do so.

Not because they are rewarded.

But because they want their voices heard.

The Road Ahead

For Barisan Nasional, victory in Johor is encouraging but should not become an excuse for complacency.

For Pakatan Harapan, the result offers an opportunity for honest reflection.

Election victories and defeats are temporary.

Public trust is not.

If Johor’s message is understood, there remains time for course correction.

If it is dismissed as merely another state election, Putrajaya risks discovering that Johor was not an exception—but the beginning of a larger political trend.

In the end, democracies have a simple way of correcting governments that lose touch with the people.

They vote. – NMH

The post Opinion | Johor PRN Verdict: A Warning Putrajaya Can No Longer Ignore first appeared on NMH.

On 12 July 2026, the world will mark ten years since the arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) delivered its award in the case initiated by the Philippines against China. Since then, the ruling has frequently been described as a landmark victory for international law and a decisive rejection of China’s claims in the South China Sea. Supporters of the award often portray it as a settled legal matter whose conclusions should be accepted without reservation.

However, a decade later, significant legal questions remain unresolved.

For Malaysia, these questions are not merely academic. As a claimant state with its own maritime interests, sovereign rights and security concerns in the South China Sea, Malaysia should assess the award through the lens of its own national interests rather than through narratives promoted by other claimant states or external powers.

South China Sea – Jurisdiction

One of the most debated issues concerns jurisdiction.

International arbitration is generally founded upon the principle of state consent. While UNCLOS provides compulsory dispute settlement mechanisms in certain circumstances, it also contains important limitations and exceptions. China rejected the arbitration from the outset and argued that the matters raised by the Philippines fell outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Although the tribunal concluded otherwise, legal scholars continue to debate whether disputes touching upon territorial sovereignty and historic rights can be effectively separated from questions concerning maritime entitlements.

This remains a significant issue because UNCLOS was never intended to function as a mechanism for resolving disputes over territorial sovereignty.

The tribunal repeatedly emphasised that it was not adjudicating sovereignty claims. Nevertheless, critics argue that some of its findings inevitably carried implications for broader territorial disputes by determining the status and maritime entitlements of contested features.

Whether this amounted to an indirect encroachment into matters beyond the tribunal’s jurisdiction remains a legitimate legal question.

Principle of Consent

A second issue concerns the principle of consent itself.

The international legal system is built upon respect for sovereign equality among states. While compulsory dispute settlement mechanisms have their place, they must also be balanced against the principle that states cannot ordinarily be compelled to submit sovereignty-related disputes to adjudication without their agreement.

The fact that China neither accepted nor participated in the proceedings continues to raise questions among many observers regarding the extent to which the award can be regarded as politically and legally persuasive beyond those who already support it.

This debate is unlikely to disappear simply because ten years have passed.

Procedural Legitimacy

Another issue concerns procedural legitimacy.

The arbitration proceeded in the absence of one of the principal parties. While international tribunals may continue proceedings where one side declines to participate, the reality remains that many of the legal arguments that might have been advanced by China were never tested through a fully adversarial process.

For supporters of the award, this does not diminish its validity. For critics, however, it remains a factor that affects perceptions of fairness and legitimacy.

The existence of these differing interpretations demonstrates why the award continues to generate debate among international lawyers and policymakers.

Malaysia should also consider the wider implications of adopting another country’s narrative wholesale.

The Philippines has every right to advance arguments that it believes serve its national interests. However, Malaysian interests are not necessarily identical to Philippine interests.

Malaysia possesses its own maritime claims, exclusive economic zones, offshore resources and security considerations. Any legal position adopted by Malaysia should therefore be assessed according to its implications for Malaysia rather than its usefulness to another claimant state.

This is particularly important in a region where legal arguments often intersect with questions of geopolitics, strategic competition and national sovereignty.

South China Sea – Malaysia’s Balanced Approach

Malaysia has consistently pursued a balanced approach towards the South China Sea. We support international law, peaceful dispute resolution and regional stability. At the same time, we must remain vigilant against attempts by any party to frame complex disputes in ways that may not fully reflect Malaysian interests.

The approaching 10th anniversary of the arbitral award presents an opportunity for reflection rather than celebration.

International law is strongest when legal arguments can withstand scrutiny and debate. Revisiting the legal questions surrounding the South China Sea arbitration should not be seen as an attack on international law. Rather, it is an affirmation of the principle that important legal decisions deserve continued examination, especially when they carry significant implications for regional peace, sovereignty and security.

Ten years on, Malaysians should not feel compelled to accept a single narrative about the South China Sea. We should instead approach the issue with the independence, caution and critical thinking that any sovereign nation owes to its own national interests. – NMH

In Part 2, we ask a fundamental question: who should define Malaysia’s position on the South China Sea—foreign capitals or Malaysians themselves? In seeking the answer, we revisit the historical legacy of the “Malayan Sea” and its relevance to contemporary debates over sovereignty, security and national interest.

The post South China Sea Arbitration: 10 Years On, Why Malaysians Should Revisit The Legal Questions 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.

Democratic Action Party (DAP) spent years telling non-Malay voters UMNO was racist, from Mahathir’s era to Anwar’s time as Deputy Prime Minister.

Then DAP joined hands with Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad in 2018. Now with Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim at the helm, the party is silent on the very accusations it levelled at UMNO.

Non-Malays should realise Umno was portrayed as the villain, and ask who the real beneficiaries of race politics have been.

How DAP Built The “UMNO Is Racist” Narrative

From the 1980s right through to 2018, DAP’s core campaign message to non-Malay voters was simple.

Umno was racist. Umno practised ketuanan Melayu. Umno entrenched Bumiputera quotas, NEP (New Economic Policy) targets, and Malay-first policies that excluded non-Malays from opportunity.

That accusation was aimed squarely at the Mahathir-Anwar government of 1993 to 1998.

DAP argued that UMNO’s racial policies were the reason non-Malays faced university quotas, limited government contracts, and unequal access to business licences.

The message worked. DAP won overwhelming support from Chinese and Indian voters by presenting Umno as the bogeyman blocking equality.

Every general election, DAP told non-Malays that removing Umno was the only way to dismantle race-based politics.

DAP’s Tone Changed When It Joined Mahathir

Then came 2018. the party entered government as part of Pakatan Harapan (PH) with Mahathir as Prime Minister.

The same Mahathir who, with Anwar as his Deputy and Finance Minister from 1993 to 1998, enforced the peak of NEP quotas, privatisation guidelines, and GLC expansion.

The same Mahathir whose administration DAP had spent 20 years attacking as the source of Malay dominance.

DAP’s tone shifted overnight. The attacks on Mahathir’s racial policies stopped.

Party leaders like Lim Kit Siang who once called the NEP unjust now defended “continuity” and “political stability”.

The party that built its brand on dismantling UMNO’s race policies was now sharing power with the man who designed them.

Non-Malay voters were told to accept it as “the bigger picture”.

Silence Now With Anwar In Charge

Fast forward to 2022. DAP is back in government, this time with Anwar as Prime Minister.

The same Anwar who, as Finance Minister from 1993 to 1997, tabled budgets that maintained the 30% Bumiputera equity target, public university quotas, 7% housing discounts, and Approved Permit allocations.

Budget 1997 allocated RM2.1 billion to MARA and RM1.8 billion to FELDA.

The Universities and University Colleges Act was amended in 1996 under his watch to tighten ministerial control.

These are the very policies DAP condemned for years as racist and discriminatory.

Yet since 2022, DAP has been silent. Budget 2023 and Budget 2024 continued Bumiputera equity guidelines for IPOs.

MARA funding and housing discounts remain. Public university quotas are untouched.

The Securities Commission still enforces the 30% Bumiputera equity rule.

No legislation has been tabled to dismantle a single structural pillar. No parliamentary debate has been pushed by DAP to repeal quotas.

The party that built its political capital by calling Umno racist now governs without changing what it called unjust.

That silence tells non-Malay voters everything they need to know.

Umno As The Bogeyman, But Not The Only Actor

This is where non-Malays must be honest with themselves.

UMNO was portrayed as the sole villain for decades because it was politically convenient.

UMNO, founded in 1946, did defend Malay interests and did drive race-based policy after 1969. That is fact, and it can be debated.

But DAP’s own actions show UMNO was not the only architect.

The peak enforcement period was Mahathir-Anwar, 1993 to 1998.

Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, better known as Pak Lah, from 2003 to 2009 introduced PPSMI (Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik dalam Bahasa Inggeris, or Teaching and Learning of Science and Mathematics in English) and expanded private colleges, giving non-Malay students more options.

Datuk Seri Najib Razak from 2009 to 2018 introduced BR1M cash aid that was race-neutral, increased funding for SJKC and SJKT to RM100 million in Budget 2013, and liberalised 27 services sectors by removing Bumiputera equity rules.

Pak Lah and Najib both expanded Islamic institutions, and JAKIM’s budget grew under Najib from about RM800 million to over RM1 billion. So the Islam agenda continued under Umno.

But economically, UMNO under Pak Lah and Najib also introduced race-neutral programmes that DAP’s partners have not matched.

So Who Is The Real Villain In UMNO?

If we are talking about villains within UMNO, then we must look at leadership, not the party as a whole.

The NEP was designed under Tun Razak in 1971. It was expanded most aggressively under Mahathir from 1981 to 2003.

Anwar, as his Deputy and Finance Minister, administered it.

Those are the names tied to the peak of race-based enforcement.

But UMNO today is not led by Mahathir or Anwar.

The current UMNO leadership under Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has repeatedly stated support for reviewing race-based policies and moving toward needs-based assistance.

UMNO in the unity government is now the one being pressured by DAP to maintain quotas, while DAP itself says nothing.

The bogeyman narrative falls apart when the party accused of racism is more open to reform than the party that built its brand attacking it.

Consistency Over Slogans

DAP told non-Malays for years that Umno was the obstacle to equality.

Then it joined Mahathir and stayed silent.

Now the party sits with Anwar and stays silent again.

The policies DAP called racist are still in place, but the blame is no longer on Umno.

Non-Malay voters should realise this. UMNO was made the bogeyman because it was politically useful.

The real architects of the system were Mahathir and Anwar.

The real silence today comes from DAP.

If reform is DAP’s goal, then the demand must be placed on the leaders who designed the system and the party that now governs with them.

Malaysians deserve leaders who apply the same standard to everyone.

Not a DAP that changes its principles depending on who holds power.

Only then can we move beyond the bogeyman politics of the past. – NMH

The writer is Vice-President of Parti Cinta Malaysia and a commentator on governance and public policy. The views expressed are his own.

The post DAP Silence Exposes the Truth: UMNO was Always the Bogeyman first appeared on NMH.

The Department of Statistics says Malaysia’s unemployment rate held steady at 2.9% in March 2026 for the fourth consecutive month.

Yet in Selangor and Kuala Lumpur, the situation tells a different story.

A large share of retrenchments in the first quarter of this year happened right here in the Klang Valley.

For the families behind those figures, stability on paper does not translate into security at home.

Unemployment – The Gap Between Policy and Reality

Consider a 40-year-old father recently retrenched from a manufacturing plant in Shah Alam.

He has a wife at home, two children in school, and a mortgage to service.

Telling him to enrol in a training course sounds sensible in principle but in practice, attending full-time classes is not an option when rent is due and savings are thin.

He needs income now, not in several months’ time.

On the other side, employers in manufacturing and tech are restructuring to stay competitive against automation and global supply chain shifts.

Many are reluctant to rehire older workers because of higher wage expectations, retraining costs, and uncertainty over business orders.

Why The Headline Figures Mislead

The national picture hides what is happening at regional level.

According to data released by the Ministry of Human Resources, Malaysia recorded 5,900 cases of job losses in March 2026, a 21.3% decrease compared to February.

The situation worsened in April, with 7,057 job losses — a 21% increase month-on-month.

But the ministry also said it is “paying close attention to the concentration of job losses in the Klang Valley, particularly Selangor and Kuala Lumpur.

PERKESO data analysed by Hong Leong Investment Bank and reported by SAYS in April 2026 showed that Selangor accounted for 29.3% of total layoffs in March, while Kuala Lumpur made up 25.6%.

That means the Klang Valley contributed more than half of all retrenchments nationwide for that month.

Even with about 107,000 job vacancies recorded in March, the mismatch is clear.

Many roles require different skills, unsociable hours, or a pay cut that families simply cannot absorb.

The vulnerability is compounded by low household buffers.

In an analysis posted on LinkedIn in April 2026, Farid Affandi cited Bank Negara Malaysia findings that only around one third of Malaysians can sustain more than 3 months of expenses if income is disrupted.

For the 40-year-old father in Shah Alam, even a short gap between jobs becomes a crisis.

A Win Path Forward

The solution is not to choose between protecting workers or helping business.

Both can move together if the government designs support that reduces risk on both sides:-

1. For workers and families

Extend income support for retrenched workers with dependants and offer a one-off household stabilisation payment.

Make upskilling compatible with working life through night classes and training allowances so families do not have to choose between learning and eating.

2. For employers

Introduce targeted wage subsidies for companies that rehire retrenched Malaysians over 35 into roles matching their experience.

Provide tax relief for firms that partner with government reskilling programmes and guarantee interviews or placements.

Simplify the process so small and medium enterprises can access these schemes without excessive bureaucracy.

3. For both

Set up a rapid response job matching taskforce for the Klang Valley.

This unit should work directly with employers to understand hiring needs and match retrenched workers in real time.

When employers see a pipeline of ready, supported candidates, they are more likely to hire. When workers see real jobs at the end of training, they are more likely to commit.

What Must Happen Next

Until the retrenched father in Shah Alam can see a path forward that does not mean choosing between feeding his children and retraining for the future, our labour market will not be truly resilient.

For employers, until they see that rehiring local talent comes with manageable risk and real support, those jobs will stay empty.

Policy that connects the two will turn a fragile balance into a recovery that works for families and for business. – NMH

The writer is Vice-President of Parti Cinta Malaysia and a commentator on governance and public policy. The views expressed are his own.

The post Sleepless in Unemployment – Klang Valley Saw 7,000 Jobs Lost in a Month first appeared on NMH.