Sarawak is intensifying its preparations for APRC 2028, a regional platform centred on respiratory health, by fostering stronger collaboration between government, academia and industry.

At a recent high-level engagement in Kuching, stakeholders came together to align efforts in support of the upcoming event, which is expected to spotlight pressing public health challenges, including lung disease and tuberculosis, while strengthening regional cooperation. The session reflects Sarawak’s broader ambition—not only to host a successful APRC 2028, but to leverage it as a catalyst for long-term healthcare capacity building.

Held at the office of Sarawak Deputy Premier, Datuk Amar Dr. Sim Kui Hian, the meeting brought together representatives from medical institutions, higher education bodies and industry partners, highlighting a unified approach to addressing lung disease and tuberculosis through integrated strategies.

Sarawak Aligns Healthcare and Talent Development for APRC 2028

Central to the discussions was the need to strengthen expertise and capabilities in respiratory health, particularly in tackling tuberculosis, which remains a significant public health concern across the region.

Sarawak has been steadily advancing its healthcare ecosystem, with increasing emphasis on training, research and cross-sector collaboration. In the lead-up to APRC 2028, efforts are being made to ensure that healthcare professionals, researchers and support systems are equipped with the knowledge and tools needed to address evolving challenges in lung health.

This includes closer collaboration between universities, training institutions and healthcare providers to develop talent pipelines that are both specialised and responsive to real-world needs.

Human Impact: Strengthening Communities Through Better Care

Beyond institutional collaboration, the focus on lung health and tuberculosis carries a deeply human dimension.

For patients and communities, improved awareness, early detection and better access to care can significantly enhance quality of life and reduce disease burden. Initiatives linked to APRC 2028 are expected to play a role in amplifying public health education, while also encouraging more proactive health-seeking behaviours.

For healthcare practitioners, the platform offers opportunities to exchange knowledge, share best practices and strengthen regional networks—ultimately improving standards of care.

These efforts collectively underscore a people-first approach, where healthcare outcomes are not just measured in statistics, but in lives improved and communities strengthened.

Building a Lasting Public Health Legacy

As Sarawak prepares for APRC 2028, the focus extends beyond hosting responsibilities to building a sustainable and resilient healthcare ecosystem.

The engagement highlights how strategic collaboration can drive meaningful progress—bringing together policy direction, academic expertise and industry innovation to tackle complex health challenges.

By placing lung health and tuberculosis at the centre of its efforts, Sarawak is not only contributing to regional dialogue, but also reinforcing its commitment to public health advancement.

In doing so, APRC 2028 is set to become more than just a regional event—it represents an opportunity to create lasting impact, positioning Sarawak as a leader in collaborative healthcare solutions. – NMH

The post Sarawak Advances APRC 2028 Preparations with Focus on Respiratory Health first appeared on NMH.

Commentary And Analysis . . . The Negeri Sembilan Constitution, under the BFD (Basic Features Doctrine) which permeates the Federal Constitution, cannot be amended on the Four Undang. They, based on Adat as the first law in international law, exist.

Negeri Sembilan’s system exists because Orang Asli luak — autonomous river territories – – needed chiefs, Minangkabau migrants needed legitimacy, and four of those chiefs decided to hire a king in 1773.

The Undang are older than the monarchy.

The monarchy is older than the state constitution.

Emergency

The Orang Asli are older than all of them.

In 2026, all three histories are colliding in one Dewan opening.

Negeri Sembilan …

That’s why the crisis involving the Negeri Sembilan Assembly looks unsolvable: the wiring has three eras in it. Orang Asli territorial adat from 1300, Minangkabau elective kingship from 1773, and British written constitution from 1957. They don’t always agree.

Why This Matters for the 2026 Crisis.

Undang . . .

When the four Undang claimed on 19 April 2026 that they could “depose” Tuanku Muhriz Tuanku Munawir they were invoking the oldest logic in the system: the Undang created the Yamtuan in 1773, so the Undang can uncreate him.

When Menteri Besar (MB) Datuk Seri Aminuddin Harun claimed Undang Mubarak was removed 17 April, he was invoking the modern constitutional logic: only DKU can remove an Undang, and the YDPA Besar chairs the DKU (Dewan Keadilan dan Undang).

Both are pulling on different strands of the same rope. The Minangkabau strand says Undang are kingmakers. The constitutional strand says DKU is supreme. The Orang Asli strand underneath says power comes from the luak, not from the palace or the MB’s office.

March Of History

How Negeri Sembilan’s System Originated — and Why It’s in “Orang Asli Country”.

Negeri Sembilan’s adat and constitutional system didn’t start with the Minangkabau. It started with the Orang Asli. The four Undang system is a Minangkabau overlay on a much older Orang Asli political order.

Based on historical research, here’s how it happened.

Before Minangkabau . . .

Before the Minangkabau: Orang Asli luak

From roughly 1000–1400 CE, the interior of what’s now Negeri Sembilan was settled by Temuan and Semelai Orang Asli. They didn’t have King. They had luak. Each luak was run by a Batin or Penghulu chosen by custom from senior families. Disputes were settled by muafakat (consensus) in a balai. Land was communal, matrilineal, and passed through women.

These luak covered the valleys of the Linggi, Muar, and Serting rivers. The names survive today: Sungei Ujong, Jelebu, Johol, Rembau. Those four were the largest and most organised Orang Asli luak. They already had chiefs, boundaries, and councils before any outsiders arrived.

After Minangkabau . . .

Minangkabau Migration: 1400s–1600s

Minangkabau from Sumatra began migrating across the Melaka Straits from the 15th century, especially after the fall of Melaka in 1511. They moved inland to escape Portuguese/Johor control and because the interior was good for paddy and tin.

They found Orang Asli already living in organised luak.

Instead of conquest, they did what Minangkabau do: merantau and assimilate.

Minangkabau also practiced matrilineal adat, Adat Perpatih, which matched Orang Asli custom. Marriage between Minangkabau men and Orang Asli women was common. Over two to three generations, the ruling families of the four luak became Minangkabau by culture and language, but their authority derived from the original Orang Asli territorial structure.

That’s why the titles “Undang” are not royal.

They’re territorial chiefs. “Undang” comes from undang-undang viz. the one who upholds the law of the luak. The chief’s power came from the suku in the valley, not from a sultan.

Why Negeri Sembilan Needed a Ruler: 1773 . . .

By the 1700s the four luak kept fighting each other and were being raided by Bugis and Johor. No luak chief could claim supremacy over the others because Adat Perpatih rejects central kingship. But they needed external legitimacy to deal with Johor, Selangor, and the Dutch.

So in 1773 the four Undang sent envoys to Pagaruyung in Minangkabau, Sumatra, and asked for a prince of royal blood to become their Yamtuan. Pagaruyung sent Raja Melewar. He landed at Penajis in Rembau.

The deal was explicit: the Undang elect the Yamtuan, and the Yamtuan rules only with their consent. He could not own land, tax at will, or appoint chiefs. He was a referee and foreign minister, not an absolute monarch. That contract became the basis of Negeri Sembilan’s constitution. It’s still there in 2026.

This is why Negeri Sembilan is the only state with an elective monarchy. The Undang predate the Ruler by 300+ years. The Ruler exists because the Undang created the job.

Orang Asli In The System . . .

After Raja Melewar, the Minangkabau aristocracy slowly marginalised the Orang Asli.

By British times, 1874–1895, the British recognised the four Undang as the “Malay chiefs” and ignored the Orang Asli Batin. The Orang Asli became anak buah — subjects — in their own ancestral luak.

But the structure still carries Orang Asli DNA:
Matrilineal adat: Both Temuan and Minangkabau pass clan and land through women.

That’s why Negeri Sembilan’s Adat Perpatih is matrilineal while the rest of Malaya is patrilineal Adat Temenggung.

Luak boundaries: Sungei Ujong, Jelebu, Johol, Rembau follow the old Orang Asli river territories. The names are pre-Minangkabau.

Election principle: Orang Asli Batin were chosen by mufakat of elders. The Undang are still elected by the Lembaga and Buapak of each luak, not appointed by the Ruler. That’s a direct survival.

No divine kingship: Orang Asli had no daulat.

Minangkabau Adat Perpatih also rejects daulat.

So Negeri Sembilan’s Yamtuan has no daulat — he’s “Yang di-Pertuan Besar,” the one made great by the people, not “Sultan,” the one with power from God.

British Reshaping: 1874–1957 . . .

The British cemented the Undang system because it suited Indirect Rule. The 1898 Jelebu succession dispute went to the British Resident. The 1948 Federation Agreement and 1957 NS Constitution wrote the four Undang + Tunku Besar Tampin + YDPA Besar into law as the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU).

The British also stripped the Orang Asli of political status.

Under the Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954, Batin became welfare officers, not chiefs.

The “Orang Asli country” in Negeri Sembilan has a Malay adat system built on top of it, with the Orang Asli politically underneath. — NMH

The post Negeri Sembilan: Emergency Cannot Remove Four Undang first appeared on NMH.

KUALA LUMPUR, 24 April — Xtep is positioning Malaysia as a key growth engine for its Southeast Asia ambitions, rolling out six new stores to capture rising demand for performance running gear.

The China-based sportswear group has opened outlets across Kuala Lumpur, Penang, Johor Bahru, Kuantan and Shah Alam, marking an early phase of its regional expansion strategy.

The move comes as Malaysia’s running scene gathers pace, supported by government initiatives such as Malaysia Aktif and increased public spending on sports development. The Kuala Lumpur Standard Chartered Marathon alone drew about 42,000 participants in its latest edition, underscoring the scale of growing interest in endurance sports.

Xtep is positioning its outlets as hybrid retail and community spaces, with plans to host group training sessions and running events to deepen engagement with local runners.

The company is also introducing a performance running range designed for Malaysia’s climate and terrain, in line with a broader industry shift towards localised product development.

A 10km run planned in Kuala Lumpur has drawn strong early interest, highlighting growing appetite for structured amateur competition.

Strategic push by Xtep beyond China

Founded in 2001 and listed in Hong Kong, Xtep has evolved from a domestic sportswear player into a performance-focused running brand, sharpening its positioning in recent years.

The group has accelerated its international expansion strategy, with Southeast Asia identified as a key growth region. Malaysia stands out due to its established running community, supportive policy environment and rising consumer interest in fitness and active lifestyles.

Competition heats up

Xtep’s expansion comes amid intensifying competition in Malaysia’s sportswear segment, where global names such as Nike and Adidas, alongside regional players, continue to invest in both retail presence and community-building.

Industry observers say differentiation is increasingly driven by product innovation, localisation and sustained engagement with running communities.

For Xtep, scaling its footprint while embedding itself within Malaysia’s running ecosystem will be critical to building long-term traction in the region.

The six-store rollout signals the start of a broader expansion pipeline as the group deepens its push into Southeast Asia’s growing sports retail market. – NMH

The post Xtep Targets Malaysia As South-East Asia Growth Engine first appeared on NMH.

KOTA KINABALU: The legal fraternity in Sabah may be newly-discovered narrative on work in progress, as subject matter experts, on proof of identity in law issues in Malaysia viz. the plight of the stateless in Sabah.

One lawyer, who remains anonymous on request, was inspired in more ways than one by her late mother.

The lawyer recalls that the old lady breathed her last, after terminal illness, denied the blue MyKad (Malaysia Kad Akuan Diri) even on deathbed.

The mother had only permanent residence as red MyKad holder in the form of MyPR. In any case, let’s not go there too much, on the Family. These are quiet people who believe in neutralising Karma, the law on cause and effect, discovered in ancient times.

In Islam, there’s sunnatullah — God’s law on cause and effect — and Kifarah (karmic retribution) and InsyaAllah (God Willing).

The lawyers were commenting on Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail’s statement in the media on Thurs 16 April on late birth registration.

Stateless In Sabah And Syed Hamid

The lawyers recall, philosophy aside, that Home Minister Tan Sri Syed Hamid Albar said in Kota Kinabalu, before GE14 on 9 May 2018, that “the government can promise proof of identity in law for everyone in Malaysia, but not necessarily Malaysian”.

He lamented that many people in Malaysia, given green MyKad or temporary residence, were not renewing them.

Syed flew into Kota Kinabalu when he learnt from media reports that a lady who had lost blue MyKad refused the red MyKad or MyPR which the National Registration Dept (NRD) had offered as replacement. The NRD discovered that the Orang Asal lady’s father in fact came from China. There was no proof of Malaysian citizenship.

The Home Minister, falling back on prerogative and discretionary powers based on good faith and statute, in the form of the National Registration Act 1959/1963, handed over blue MyKad as the cameras clicked away for posterity and the rule of law.

Yong Lee Hua @ Piang Lin, 78, claimed that the Sabah NRD informed her in all seriousness that senior citizens who lose their MyKad are given MyPR card instead. Yong, as advised by NRD, did apply for citizenship.

Areas of Concern

The lawyers discovered, in taking the cue from Sabah, that there were 13 areas of particular concern which needs addressing, through administration at the National Registration Dept (NRD).

Briefly, the areas:

Category 1 – Mother with hospitalisation record but no birth certificate for child (mother is IMM13 holder, no marriage certificate).

Category 2 – Children born at home, but no police report made.

Category 3 – Minors with birth certificate but no MyKad/MyKid.

Category 4 – Adults (>18 years) with birth certificate but no MyKad or MyKAS.

Category 5 – Those with IMM13 but no MyKAS.

Category 6 – Citizens who have children with women with no proof of identity in law (DNA issue).

Category 7 – Muslim couples who have children without marriage certificate.

Category 8 – Bajau Laut children born in Sabah waters, no birth certificate.

Category 9 – Orang Asal (original people) and other Natives (non-Orang Asal) in the interior having no birth certificate.

Article 13 (property rights), Article 5 (right for life) and Article 8 (no discrimination) in the Federal Constitution refer on NCR land.

Category 10 – Children with no birth certificate and not in school.

Category 11 – Religion field in the MyKad.

There’s no need for judicial review on leaving space for religion blank in the MyKad.

Category 12 – Language field in the MyKad.

DNA does not know language or how we look like. In science, how we look like depends on immune system reaction in the habitat based on environmental factors.

Category 13 – Nationality / citizenship status in the MyKad.

The MyKad should not list Malaysian also under other nationalities. This remains aberration in law.

There’s no geographical origin in the Federal Constitution.

The Constitution does not define “Chinese” or “Indian” as Malaysian nationalities.

The pathway on resolving the 13 areas, leading from the NRD, was based purely on exhausting avenues which include the Home Minister, the Cabinet, and the Conference of Rulers. The Sabah and Sarawak governments may be in the picture as well.

In short, there would be no need for intervention by the police, Immigration Dept, and lawmakers.

The lawyers feel that JPN should have detailed CheckList for the 13 areas.

Five Proposals

The lawyers also feel that five proposals for strengthening NRD’s administrative approach in Sabah would makevfor its greater empowerment.

Again, the 13-Point CheckList refers.

Proposal 1 – Internal Circular on Alternative Documents, Citing recent case law on Kamaladevi.

Proposal 2 – 60‑Day Service Standard for MyKAS Issuance with Monthly Transparency.

Proposal 3 – Published 12‑Month MEKAR Schedule with SMS Alerts.

Proposal 4 – Transparency on Article 15A and End to “Maklumat Tidak Diperolehi” Notation.

Proposal 5 – Accept Statutory Declarations of Paternity as Alternative to DNA Testing.

Stateless in Sabah: Gold Collectors

It’s open secret that Malaysia was permeated by the stateless in Sabah. They remain highly vulnerable group of household gold collectors, forced by circumstances, on saving money which won’t be missed. It’s about having something set aside for the proverbial rainy day.

“All the dealings of the stateless people, being denied bank account for having no proof of identity in law, are in cash,” said the lawyers. “There are many issues as well with migrant workers. There should be JPN details on Checklist for migrant workers as well.”

The lawyers feel that there are remedies at hand on proof of identity in law issues, based purely on the rule of law as the basis of the Constitution, for the highly vulnerable people including worldwide as well. – NMH

The post Stateless In Sabah: Lawyers See The Way Forward first appeared on NMH.

KUALA LUMPUR, April 16 — Skyworth PV has formally entered Malaysia, positioning itself to capitalise on a fast-evolving solar landscape reshaped by policy reforms, pricing pressures and growing demand for energy independence.

The China-based solar solutions provider launched its Malaysian expansion with a partner conference in Kuala Lumpur last week, sealing multiple local collaborations as it moves quickly to build on-the-ground capacity.

But beyond the optics of a market entry, Skyworth’s timing reflects a deeper inflection point in Malaysia’s energy transition.

Policy resets are quietly rewriting the solar playbook

Malaysia’s distributed solar sector is undergoing structural change — and not by accident.

Recent regulatory adjustments — including the removal of capacity caps for non-residential solar installations and refinements to self-consumption mechanisms — are shifting the market away from subsidy dependence towards commercially driven adoption.

At the same time, evolving electricity tariffs are making grid power more expensive for high-usage commercial and industrial players, narrowing the cost gap with solar.

The transition from Net Energy Metering (NEM) to newer frameworks such as Solar ATAP is also nudging consumers towards self-consumption models, where energy savings — rather than export incentives — drive returns.

Taken together, these changes are unlocking a segment long seen as underpenetrated: rooftop solar for businesses.

Industry observers note that Malaysia’s solar capacity has historically lagged regional peers despite strong fundamentals, including high solar irradiation and stable grid infrastructure. The current policy trajectory suggests that gap may now close more rapidly.

The Skyworth strategy: scale, partners, and financing — not just panels

Against this backdrop, Skyworth is not entering as a pure equipment vendor.

Instead, the company is pushing a bundled model — combining solar modules, hybrid inverters, and battery storage with financing, system design and operational support.

This reflects a broader shift in the industry, where execution capability and access to capital are becoming as critical as technology.

Skyworth said its localisation strategy will focus on enabling Malaysian partners to scale quickly through a “one-stop” ecosystem spanning supply chain, branding, digital tools and project delivery.

Such models are increasingly relevant in Malaysia, where fragmented market structures and upfront capital costs remain barriers to wider adoption.

Energy storage, in particular, is emerging as a key battleground. As tariff structures evolve and peak pricing becomes more pronounced, the ability to store and optimise solar energy could significantly improve project economics.

A crowded field — and rising stakes

Skyworth’s entry comes as competition in Malaysia’s solar sector intensifies.

Local engineering firms, regional developers and global manufacturers are all vying for position in a market that is transitioning from policy-led growth to commercial viability.

The next phase of expansion is expected to favour players that can deliver not just hardware, but integrated solutions — including financing models, performance guarantees and long-term asset management.

For foreign entrants like Skyworth, success will likely hinge on how effectively they can localise — navigating regulatory nuances, building trusted partnerships and competing on margins in an increasingly price-sensitive environment.

Race towards 2050 — opportunity and execution risk

Malaysia has set an ambitious target of achieving 70 per cent renewable energy capacity by 2050, placing solar at the centre of its transition strategy.

Yet execution remains uneven.

Grid constraints, policy consistency and financing accessibility continue to shape the pace of adoption. While recent reforms signal stronger intent, the market’s trajectory will depend on how these policies translate into bankable, scalable projects.

Skyworth’s bet is that Malaysia is entering a tipping point — where solar is no longer a policy experiment, but a core component of the country’s energy mix.

Whether that bet pays off will depend less on technology — and more on who can scale fastest, finance smartest, and execute reliably in a market that is finally waking up. – NMH

The post Skyworth PV Enters Malaysia Solar Market as Policy Changes Drive Growth first appeared on NMH.

With fuel prices rising sharply, geopolitical tensions lingering and global aviation markets becoming increasingly unpredictable, the Group is entering a phase that demands not just operational strength but clarity in leadership and discipline in decision-making. But AirAsia X is doing something rare: turning challenge into opportunity.

The appointment of Tan Sri Jamaludin Ibrahim as Independent Non-Executive Chairman signals exactly that shift. His leadership brings independent oversight and a long-term perspective that is critical as AirAsia X consolidates its seven airlines into a unified, cohesive group. The move reflects a broader emphasis on disciplined growth, resilience, and operational excellence.

Staying Grounded While Moving Forward

Despite the volatility, AirAsia X is not retreating. Instead, it is choosing to stay anchored to what it understands best, its Asean network.

At the recent media briefing happened in Red Q, CEO of Air Asia X, Bo Lingam has insisted that the regional demand remains resilient, and Kuala Lumpur continues to serve as the Group’s core hub, not just operationally, but strategically. It provides stability in a landscape where long-haul travel patterns can shift quickly.

At the same time, the airline is keeping its eyes firmly on long-term ambitions. AirAsia X Founder and Advisor, Tony Fernandes reaffirmed the Group’s unwavering commitment to developing the Bahrain hub, despite current uncertainties. The Bahrain hub represents a broader strategic vision to seamlessly connect Asia with the Middle East and Europe, an expansion that underscores confidence in the airline’s growth trajectory, even as the Group remains prudent about near-term market challenges.

Steering Through Volatility

Global jet fuel prices have surged to more than double 2025 levels, putting immediate pressure on the airline industry. While many carriers rely heavily on hedging strategies, AirAsia X is taking a more agile approach. Instead of locking in fuel prices, the Group is focusing on real-time operational decisions: reallocating capacity to stronger-performing routes, implementing a one-off fuel surcharge to manage costs, and leveraging Fly-Thru connectivity via Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok to capture demand efficiently.

AirAsia X CEO Bo Lingam confirmed that fuel supply from Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas) is secured until June, with additional procurement underway for the following months. While global concerns over fuel shortages and rising prices remain, the airline is optimistic that continued fuel availability will allow operations to remain stable.

This combination of operational flexibility and proactive planning allows AirAsia X to respond dynamically to shifting markets rather than being locked into rigid financial positions. It reflects a broader shift in aviation leadership philosophy: in uncertain environments, adaptability and speed often outperform traditional hedging strategies.

AirAsia X – Balancing Discipline with Boldness

Group CEO Bo Lingam explains it clearly: “We are optimising our network, reallocating capacity to stronger-performing routes, and negotiating with partners to contain costs. As we reactivate our full fleet, unit costs improve, and strengthening Asean currencies act as a natural buffer.”

In conclusion, AirAsia X is turning challenges into opportunities. Strong demand across Asean shows the resilience of its network and the growing appetite for regional travel.

By strengthening Kuala Lumpur as a key hub, using Fly-Thru connectivity and reallocating capacity to top-performing routes, the airline is combining strategic planning with operational flexibility. Targeted fare adjustments, cost management and fleet optimisation show a leadership approach that is disciplined and forward-looking.

With stronger Asean currencies as a natural buffer and a focus on long-term growth, AirAsia X is not just navigating turbulence. It is positioning itself to grow stronger and connect Asia with the world. – NMH

The post How AirAsia X Is Navigating Cost Pressures and Uncertainty first appeared on NMH.

KUALA LUMPUR (April 7): ARC Group returns to Kuala Lumpur for its Capital Markets & M&A Forum 2026, set to take place on May 7 at EQ, Equatorial Plaza, as corporates and investors navigate a more volatile global environment.

The forum comes as companies — particularly in the mid-market segment — reassess capital-raising strategies amid tighter liquidity, evolving interest rate expectations and uneven global growth prospects.

Against this backdrop, ARC Group is positioning this year’s forum around capital formation strategies, cross-border mergers and acquisitions, and international expansion — themes that are gaining urgency as firms seek alternative pathways for growth beyond domestic markets.

ARC Group builds momentum from 2025

Last year’s Kuala Lumpur edition drew more than 500 participants, including senior executives, institutional investors, legal advisors and financial professionals, underscoring the forum’s growing relevance as a regional meeting point for dealmakers.

The 2026 edition is expected to surpass that turnout, reflecting sustained interest in cross-border opportunities as companies explore listings and fundraising avenues beyond local exchanges.

Unlike traditional conferences, the forum is structured as a curated platform for founders, C-suite executives and investors, with a focus on closed-door discussions and high-level networking aimed at facilitating transactions and partnerships.

Nasdaq participation signals global push

A key highlight this year is the participation of Nasdaq, with its ASEAN capital markets lead Hiren Krishnani expected to provide insights into IPO readiness, investor engagement and access to global capital markets.

The inclusion of a major US exchange operator reflects a broader trend of Southeast Asian companies — particularly from the mid-market segment — exploring overseas listings in search of deeper liquidity, stronger valuations and a more diversified investor base.

For Malaysian companies, this comes at a time when domestic capital markets remain active but face increasing competition from international exchanges offering scale and visibility.

Malaysia’s positioning in a shifting landscape

Malaysia has in recent years positioned itself as a relatively stable financial hub within Southeast Asia, supported by a mature regulatory framework and steady institutional participation.

However, the current environment — characterised by external headwinds, currency pressures and cautious investor sentiment — is prompting some companies to look beyond local markets for growth and capital access.

At the same time, cross-border M&A activity in the region has picked up, driven by supply chain realignments, digital transformation and strategic consolidation across sectors.

In this context, platforms such as ARC Group’s forum are increasingly seen as conduits connecting regional companies with global capital and advisory networks.

A platform for cross-border dealmaking

Founded more than a decade ago, ARC Group operates as a global investment banking and advisory firm focused on cross-border transactions, capital markets and corporate strategy.

With a presence spanning Asia, the United States, Europe and the Middle East, the firm supports companies in navigating international fundraising, mergers and acquisitions, and market entry strategies.

Its Kuala Lumpur forum is part of a broader series held across major financial centres, aimed at bringing together investors, corporates and advisors to exchange insights and originate deals.

As global markets continue to recalibrate, ARC Group’s continued focus on Southeast Asia highlights the region’s growing role in cross-border capital flows — even as companies adopt a more outward-looking approach in response to evolving economic conditions. – NMH

The post ARC Group Brings Capital Markets Forum Back to KL first appeared on NMH.

The decision in the 1MDB-Tanore case involving former prime minister Najib Razak was delivered in open court on 26 December 2025. More than three months on, the full written grounds of judgment have yet to be issued.

This is not, in itself, unprecedented. Delays in the preparation of written grounds have occurred in other complex and high-profile cases, particularly where the record is voluminous and the issues are intricate. But the present situation provides a timely case study — not of any individual judge, but of a broader procedural question.

What happens to the rights of an accused person when the reasoning of the court is not made available in time?

An Unusual Timeline

The 1MDB-Tanore decision was delivered on 26 December 2025, during what is typically a year-end holiday period.

Proceedings began in the morning and continued for much of the day, with the court reading extensively from prepared notes in delivering its decision, right until 8.30 that evening.

In the course of proceedings, Judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah also indicated — upon application by counsel for the accused — that the written grounds would be made available in due course, noting that the material would need to be compiled and arranged in a more methodical form.

These observations are not unusual in themselves. Judges often prepare detailed notes ahead of delivery, particularly in complex cases, and may subsequently refine and organise their written grounds.

However, they do underscore a central point: that substantive reasoning has already been articulated, even if the final written form remains pending.

The question, therefore, is not whether reasons exist — but when they will be made fully accessible.

The Eight-Week Expectation

In Malaysia, the preparation of written grounds of judgment is guided by long-standing judicial practice. Pekeliling Ketua Pendaftar Bil. 1/2002 sets an expectation that such grounds be prepared within eight weeks from the filing of a notice of appeal, with reasons to be recorded if that timeline is not met.

This expectation was reaffirmed in a 2025 communication from the Chief Judge of Malaya, underscoring the continued importance of timeliness within the system.

These are not rigid statutory deadlines. Judges must grapple with complex evidence, detailed submissions, and the need to produce decisions that can withstand appellate scrutiny. Time, in such cases, is not a luxury but a necessity.

Yet the existence of an established timeframe suggests that timeliness is not incidental — it is integral.

When Delay Meets the Right of Appeal

The issue, therefore, is not whether delay can occur, but when delay begins to carry consequences.

The right of appeal is a cornerstone of the criminal justice process. But it must be a meaningful right. Appeals are built on reasoning: on understanding how and why a decision was reached, what findings were made, and how the law was applied.

Without full written grounds, the defence is placed in a constrained position. Strategic decisions must be made without complete visibility. Grounds of appeal may be framed without the benefit of the court’s full reasoning.

In practical terms, the process risks becoming reactive rather than considered.

Lessons from Past Cases

Malaysian appellate courts have, on occasion, acknowledged the importance of timely and complete written grounds in facilitating effective appeals.

In Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Public Prosecutor, issues relating to the timing and availability of written grounds were raised in the broader context of appellate preparation, highlighting the importance of full reasoning in enabling effective appeals.

Similarly, in Public Prosecutor v Mohd Radhi bin Yaakob, the courts underscored that appellate review depends fundamentally on the trial judge’s reasoning — reinforcing that written grounds are not a mere formality, but an essential component of justice.

These cases do not suggest that delay invalidates a decision. But they illustrate a consistent principle: appellate justice depends on timely and complete reasoning.

Beyond Administrative Delay

None of this suggests impropriety, nor does it diminish the complexity of cases before the courts.

But where established timelines are exceeded by a significant margin, the question shifts. It is no longer about administrative delay alone, but about its impact on the fairness of subsequent proceedings.

Justice is not only about outcomes, but about process. And process includes the timely articulation of reasons.

A judgment delivered without its full written grounds leaves a gap — one that the appellate process is expected to bridge. The longer that gap persists, the more difficult that task becomes.

The 1MDB-Tanore Delay: A Question Worth Asking

At what point, then, does delay cease to be a matter of practicality and begin to affect the fairness of the process itself?

Justice delayed in its reasoning may not overturn a decision — but it can shape the fairness of what comes next. – NMH

The post 1MDB-Tanore – Delay in Written Grounds Raises Questions of Fairness first appeared on NMH.

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.

KUALA LUMPUR, 31 Mac 2026 – Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi dalam kes sivil SRC International mungkin telah menetapkan liabiliti dari sudut undang-undang — namun dari sudut logik dan akauntabiliti, persoalan yang timbul jauh lebih besar daripada jawapan yang diberikan.

Dalam satu sidang media selepas keputusan tersebut, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, peguambela mantan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, membangkitkan beberapa isu utama yang menurutnya wajar diberi perhatian.

Ini bukan sekadar soal siapa kalah atau menang.
Ini soal siapa sebenarnya dipertanggungjawabkan — dan siapa yang terlepas.

Seorang Menanggung, Yang Lain Hilang?

Fakta asasnya tidak rumit.

SRC mempunyai lembaga pengarah dan pasukan pengurusan yang dibayar lumayan untuk membuat keputusan, menilai risiko dan menjaga kepentingan syarikat.

Namun dalam tindakan sivil ini, sebahagian besar daripada mereka telah dikeluarkan daripada saman— meninggalkan Datuk Seri Najib Razak hampir bersendirian menanggung liabiliti.

Persoalannya mudah tetapi tidak selesa:
Bagaimana sebuah syarikat membuat keputusan kolektif — tetapi liabiliti akhirnya menjadi tanggungan individu tunggal?

Jika ini bukan jurang dalam akauntabiliti, maka apakah ia?

Perdana Menteri — Atau “Operator Tunggal”?

Pada waktu kejadian, Najib adalah Perdana Menteri Malaysia.

Adakah munasabah untuk menerima bahawa seorang Perdana Menteri, dengan pelbagai tanggungjawab nasional, bertindak seolah-olah mengurus operasi harian sebuah syarikat — tanpa semak dan imbang daripada lembaga pengarah dan pengurusan?

Jika benar beliau begitu berpengaruh sehingga semua keputusan mengikut kehendaknya, maka persoalan yang lebih membimbangkan timbul:

Adakah lembaga pengarah SRC sekadar “yes men”?

Jika ya, mengapa mereka tidak turut dipertanggungjawabkan atas kegagalan menjalankan tugas fidusiari?

Jika tidak, mengapa liabiliti tidak dikongsi?

Jika benar pengaruh begitu kuat sehingga semua keputusan mengikut kehendaknya, maka persoalan lebih besar timbul — adakah lembaga pengarah sekadar ‘yes men’?

“Shadow Director” Tanpa Bayang Bukti?

Penemuan bahawa Najib bertindak sebagai “shadow director” membawa implikasi besar.

Namun, seperti dihujahkan pihak pembelaan, tiada keterangan saksi yang menunjukkan arahan beliau adalah wajib dipatuhi oleh lembaga pengarah.

Tiada pengarah tampil menyatakan mereka dikawal.
Tiada bukti langsung arahan yang mengikat.

Pengaruh tidak semestinya kawalan.
Dan tanpa garis pemisah yang jelas, konsep “shadow director” berisiko diperluaskan secara berbahaya.

Lembaga Pengarah: Tanggungjawab Atau Sekadar Formaliti?

Prinsip undang-undang korporat adalah jelas:
Lembaga pengarah bertanggungjawab kepada syarikat — bukan kepada pemegang saham, walau sebesar mana pengaruh mereka.

Jika lembaga boleh berlindung di sebalik alasan “mengikut arahan”, maka fungsi semak dan imbang runtuh sepenuhnya.

Lebih membimbangkan, ia mewujudkan satu preseden:
keputusan boleh dibuat secara kolektif, tetapi liabiliti boleh dipilih secara selektif.

Tuntutan Pihak Ketiga Ditolak — Isyarat Apa?

Cubaan untuk membawa semula pengarah lain melalui tuntutan pihak ketiga telah gagal.

Namun kegagalan ini tidak menjawab persoalan asas — ia hanya menutup pintu kepada perbahasan lanjut mengenai peranan sebenar mereka.

Dalam konteks ini, penolakan tersebut dilihat bukan sebagai penyelesaian, tetapi sebagai satu lagi lapisan persoalan yang belum terjawab.

Angka Besar, Penjelasan Kecil

Komponen kewangan penghakiman — USD 1.1 bilion dan USD 120 juta — juga menimbulkan tanda tanya dari segi struktur dan kejelasan.

Dalam kes berprofil tinggi seperti ini, ketepatan bukan sekadar keperluan teknikal.
Ia adalah asas kepada keyakinan terhadap keadilan itu sendiri.

Keputusan Kes Sivil SRC Belum Penamat

Rayuan akan difailkan.

Dan dengan isu-isu yang dibangkitkan, ia bukan sahaja wajar—malah perlu.

Kerana kes sivil SRC ini kini melangkaui individu.
Ia menyentuh asas yang lebih besar:

• Siapa sebenarnya bertanggungjawab dalam sesebuah syarikat?
• Adakah lembaga pengarah benar-benar dipertanggungjawabkan?
• Atau adakah liabiliti akhirnya bergantung kepada siapa yang paling mudah dipersalahkan?

Selagi persoalan ini belum dijawab, keputusan ini akan terus diperdebatkan—bukan sahaja di mahkamah, tetapi juga dalam ruang awam dan profesional. Bagaimana keputusan kolektif akhirnya menjadi liabiliti individu — dan hanya kepada seorang? – NMH

The post Kes Sivil SRC: Keputusan Menimbulkan Persoalan Serius first appeared on NMH.