KUALA LUMPUR, 23 August — The BRICS-ASEAN Chamber of Commerce has announced the establishment of an independent commission for trade and economy, with its president Thayalan Nathan describing the initiative as a step towards strengthening economic links between BRICS and ASEAN.

The announcement was made at the BRICS-ASEAN Business Round Table 2026 at Mines Beach Resort today, where business leaders, diplomats and trade representatives discussed opportunities spanning trade, investment, tourism, technology and economic development.

While details of the commission’s structure and mandate were not disclosed at the event, the announcement came against a backdrop of calls for closer commercial links between ASEAN, BRICS and emerging markets.

BRICS and the Opportunity Beyond Tourism

One of the more substantive proposals came from Kapten Mahadzir Tan Sri Mansor, president of the Malaysia International Tourism Development Association (MITDA), who argued that tourism should be viewed not simply as an industry but as an economic engine.

He challenged the conventional focus on tourist arrival numbers, asking instead what economic activity is activated by each visitor.

A tourist does not simply purchase a flight, hotel room or meal, he said. The visitor creates demand across airlines, hotels, restaurants, transport providers, retail, technology companies and other businesses, and may subsequently return, bring family members, recommend a destination or even become a business partner or investor.

“One tourist is not one transaction,” was the central message of his presentation, which argued that each visitor can activate an entire economic ecosystem.

Mahadzir said the economic cycle begins with tourism creating demand, which drives business activity, trade and investment, eventually generating employment and income.

He also highlighted technology as an increasingly important part of that cycle, with modern tourism driven by digital booking, artificial intelligence and data, cybersecurity, digital payments, smart destinations, mobility and digital marketing.

“Tourism connects the physical and digital economy,” he argued.

MITDA Proposes BRICS-ASEAN Tourism Bridge

Against this backdrop, Mahadzir proposed a BRICS-ASEAN Tourism Bridge, describing it as a potential mechanism for connecting the tourism ecosystems of the two groupings.

The concept goes beyond connecting destinations, he said, bringing together people, cultures, businesses, markets, investment, technology and economies.

He also proposed a broader BRICS Tourism Economic Alliance, bringing together government, the tourism industry, businesses, investors, technology companies and SMEs.

Under the model, government provides the enabling environment, industry develops products and experiences, businesses create transactions, while investors build capacity.

Mahadzir said the opportunity was not merely about increasing tourist flows but about asking a more fundamental question: how much economic value does each tourist activate?

He also linked tourism to wider regional cooperation, arguing that when people travel, they meet; when they meet, they develop greater understanding; and when businesses connect, they trade.

The proposed tourism bridge was therefore presented not only as an economic initiative but also as a potential platform for greater people-to-people engagement between BRICS and ASEAN.

Mauritius Sees Malaysia as Gateway to Africa

The broader push for stronger cross-regional economic links was echoed by Mauritius High Commissioner to Malaysia Rabin Gungoo, who positioned Mauritius as a potential gateway for Malaysian businesses, education providers and investors seeking access to Africa.

Gungoo said there were already strong education links between Mauritius and Malaysia, noting that about 3,000 Mauritian students are currently studying in Malaysia.

He called for more Malaysian educational institutions to establish campuses in Mauritius, saying they could serve not only Mauritian students but also students from other African countries, including Madagascar and Seychelles.

The High Commissioner also highlighted Mauritius’ French- and English-speaking environment as an advantage for businesses and students seeking to operate across different markets.

Beyond education, Gungoo encouraged Malaysian investors to use Mauritius as a platform to penetrate the wider African market, pointing to the country’s existing links and trade arrangements with African countries.

He also noted existing Malaysia-Mauritius trade in areas including automotive products, dried fruits and water, suggesting that the relationship could be expanded further.

The remarks provided a practical dimension to the broader BRICS-ASEAN discussion, with Mauritius presenting itself as a bridge through which Malaysian education, trade and investment could reach African markets.

From Tourism to Wider Economic Connectivity

The discussions at the round table pointed towards a broader interpretation of regional economic cooperation — one in which tourism, education, technology, trade and investment are interconnected rather than treated as separate sectors.

For Malaysia, the emerging opportunity lies not only in attracting visitors or promoting destinations, but in using tourism and business connectivity to activate wider economic relationships across ASEAN, BRICS and markets beyond the two blocs.

The BRICS-ASEAN Business Round Table brought together diplomatic representatives, business leaders and trade stakeholders to explore these opportunities, with the day’s programme also featuring networking and business pitching sessions. – NMH

The post BRICS-ASEAN Chamber Unveils Independent Commission To Strengthen Trade and Economic Ties first appeared on NMH.

Dalam prosiding, peguam kanan GK Ganesan, yang mewakili defendan ketujuh Kelvin Tan, memberi tumpuan kepada peranan Shahrol dalam keputusan pelaburan PetroSaudi bernilai AS$1 bilion.

Shahrol mengakui bahawa beliau menerima analisis daripada Kelvin Tan pada 01 Oktober 2009 yang membangkitkan risiko berkaitan pemilikan dan pertikaian Serdar Field, termasuk tuntutan Turkmenistan dan Azerbaijan.

Namun, Shahrol mengakui perkara itu tidak dibawa kepada Lembaga Pengarah 1MDB. Ia juga tidak muncul dalam minit mesyuarat atau surat kepada Lembaga.

Sebaliknya, Shahrol berkata beliau membangkitkan kebimbangannya secara tidak rasmi kepada Jho Low, yang kemudiannya dikatakan akan membawa perkara itu kepada Perdana Menteri ketika itu, Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Ini menimbulkan persoalan besar mengenai peranan CEO.

Mengapa perkara yang dianggap cukup penting untuk dibawa kepada Perdana Menteri tidak dibawa terlebih dahulu kepada Lembaga Pengarah?

Siapa Sebenarnya yang Bertanggungjawab?

Persoalan itu menjadi lebih ketara apabila Ganesan mengingatkan mahkamah bahawa Shahrol memegang tiga peranan — CEO, pengarah urusan dan anggota Lembaga.

Ganesan mencadangkan bahawa dalam kedudukan tersebut, Shahrol mempunyai tanggungjawab untuk memastikan risiko material dibawa kepada Lembaga dan supaya pelaburan ditangguhkan sekiranya isu pemilikan aset belum diselesaikan.

Shahrol bagaimanapun menafikan bahawa beliau cuai atau bahawa kegagalan pengurusan 1MDB menjadi punca kerugian yang dituntut.

Malah, Lembaga sendiri pernah meminta penilaian kedua yang bebas dan menyenaraikan beberapa firma penilai. Namun penilaian kedua itu tidak pernah dilaksanakan.

Soalan NMH kepada Shafee

Dalam sidang media selepas prosiding, NMH bertanya kepada Shafee sama ada, berdasarkan pelbagai blunders yang didakwa berlaku sepanjang tempoh Shahrol sebagai CEO, para defendan bercadang mengambil tindakan terhadapnya.

Shafee menjawab:

“Possible.”

Beliau bagaimanapun berkata perkara itu perlu dibincangkan dengan defendan-defendan lain, termasuk Datuk Seri Najib Razak, defendan pertama.

Jawapan itu menarik perhatian kerana ia membuka satu persoalan yang lebih besar mengenai pembahagian tanggungjawab dalam 1MDB.

Jika seorang CEO, pengarah urusan dan anggota Lembaga terlibat secara langsung dalam keputusan bernilai berbilion ringgit, sejauh mana tanggungjawab peribadi beliau terhadap keputusan, nasihat dan maklumat yang disampaikan kepada Lembaga?

Shahrol: Saksi atau Pihak yang Patut Dipertanggungjawabkan?

Persoalan ini bukan bermaksud Shahrol telah diputuskan bersalah oleh mahkamah.

Kes masih berjalan dan mahkamah belum membuat keputusan mengenai liabiliti atau kredibiliti mana-mana pihak.

Namun, keterangan Shahrol sendiri telah membuka ruang kepada persoalan mengenai sejauh mana beliau melaksanakan tanggungjawabnya sebagai CEO, pengarah urusan dan anggota Lembaga.

Jika amaran mengenai risiko bernilai AS$1 bilion sampai kepada CEO tetapi tidak sampai kepada Lembaga, jika penilaian bebas kedua tidak dilaksanakan, dan jika komunikasi dengan Perdana Menteri dibuat melalui individu yang tidak mempunyai jawatan rasmi dalam 1MDB — siapa sebenarnya yang harus bertanggungjawab?

Persoalan itu kini berada di hadapan mahkamah.

Dan ketika Shahrol terus memberi keterangan, tumpuan bukan lagi hanya kepada apa yang berlaku kepada wang 1MDB, tetapi juga kepada siapa yang sepatutnya bertanggungjawab terhadap keputusan yang dibuat ketika beliau menerajui syarikat itu. — NMH

The post Shahrol: Kredibiliti Bekas CEO 1MDB Dipersoal, Shafee Tidak Tolak Kemungkinan Tindakan first appeared on NMH.

KUALA LUMPUR: The 1MDB civil trial has raised a question that goes beyond the individual defendants before the court: What is the responsibility of a CEO when billions are lost under his watch?

The question is particularly pertinent in the case of former 1MDB CEO Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi, who was not merely the company’s chief executive.

As highlighted by senior counsel GK Ganesan during cross-examination, Shahrol held three positions — managing director, CEO and Board member.

Ganesan’s central argument was that, in those roles, Shahrol had a duty to ensure that material risks were placed before the Board and that proper advice was given before major investments proceeded.

Shahrol rejected the suggestion that he had been negligent.

But the evidence raises an important corporate-governance question:

Where does the CEO’s responsibility end when the Board ultimately makes the decision?

The Serdar Field Warning

One of the clearest examples came from the proposed US$1 billion investment involving PetroSaudi International.

Kelvin Tan, who was the Director of Investments for 1MDB had written to the management in October 2009 warning that both Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan claimed rights over the Serdar Field, the asset linked to the proposed investment.

Shahrol agreed that this represented a genuine risk.

Yet the Board was not informed of the issue before the investment proceeded, according to the evidence highlighted by Ganesan.

Ganesan put it to Shahrol that, given his positions, he should have advised the Board to hold off until the ownership dispute was resolved.

That goes to the heart of the CEO’s role.

A Board can only make an informed decision based on the information placed before it.

If management knows of a material risk but the Board is not told, can responsibility simply rest with the Board for approving the transaction?

Or does responsibility also extend to the executive responsible for ensuring that the Board is properly informed?

Why Was Jho Low The Channel?

Another striking part of the testimony concerned Shahrol’s communications with the then Prime Minister.

Asked how he communicated with the Prime Minister, Shahrol said he had “alternative means” — through Jho Low (Low Taek Jho).

Ganesan pointed out that Low held no formal position in 1MDB.

He also raised the requirement for Federal Government approval for an investment of that size. Shahrol said that, to his knowledge, such approval had not been obtained.

The question is therefore not simply why Jho Low was involved.

It is why the CEO of a government-owned company relied on someone with no formal position in 1MDB to communicate with the Prime Minister on matters involving billion-dollar investments.

If a CEO believed that a matter required the Prime Minister’s attention, why was the communication not made through formal corporate and governmental channels?

Vincent Beng’s Defence Line

The same broader question of responsibility has emerged through the defence’s questioning, including that of Nur Syafinaz Vani, counsel for Vincent Beng, former Chief Investment Officer of 1MDB.

The defence has sought to distinguish between individuals who had actual authority over 1MDB’s decisions and those who were merely employees operating within the company’s management structure.

That distinction is particularly relevant to Kelvin Tan.

Ganesan established that Tan was a staff member, did not sit on the Board and was not named in either the Public Accounts Committee or National Audit Department reports.

When Ganesan asked Shahrol whether it was fair to have named Tan as the seventh defendant, Shahrol answered no.

The defence position therefore raises a simple question:

If a staff member without Board authority can be pursued for losses arising from major investment decisions, what level of responsibility should attach to those at the highest levels of management?

What Did The Law Require In 2009?

There is an important legal distinction when considering Shahrol’s responsibilities.

The PetroSaudi transaction took place in 2009. The governing statute at the time was therefore the Companies Act 1965, not the Companies Act 2016.

Under Section 131B of the Companies Act 1965, the business and affairs of a company were managed by, or under the direction of, its Board.

Section 132, as amended in 2007, required directors to exercise their powers for a proper purpose and in good faith in the best interests of the company, as well as to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence. Crucially, the provision’s definition of “director” included the chief executive officer.

That is significant in Shahrol’s case.

He was not merely an employee of 1MDB. He was its CEO and, as highlighted in court, also its managing director and a Board member.

There was, however, another layer specific to 1MDB.

Article 117 of 1MDB’s Memorandum and Articles of Association required the Prime Minister’s prior written approval for specified matters, including investments and major financial commitments.

That did not, by itself, turn the Prime Minister into 1MDB’s Board of Directors. The Board remained responsible for the company’s affairs.

The question, therefore, is not simply whether the Prime Minister had a role in approving major decisions.

It is whether 1MDB’s management and Board properly discharged their own responsibilities in preparing, evaluating and placing those decisions before the Board, and in seeking the required approval through the proper channels.

If the CEO knew of a material risk — such as the ownership dispute surrounding the Serdar Field — what was his responsibility to ensure that the Board knew about it?

And if Prime Ministerial approval was required, what was the proper corporate process for obtaining it?

Those questions go directly to CEO accountability.

Why Is Shahrol A Witness?

That brings us to the uncomfortable question surrounding Shahrol.

He has appeared as a prosecution witness in the 1MDB-Tanore criminal trial and has testified in other proceedings.

Yet he is no longer a defendant in the current US$8 billion 1MDB civil suit.

That does not, by itself, establish that he bears no civil or criminal responsibility. Nor does being a CEO automatically establish liability.

But it does raise a legitimate question:

What distinguishes a CEO who is an important witness to alleged wrongdoing from a CEO who should bear responsibility for decisions made under his management?

The answer lies in the evidence — what he knew, what he advised, what he communicated to the Board and government, what risks he escalated and whether he exercised the standard of care required of his position.

The Bigger Question for Corporate Malaysia

The 1MDB case should not create the impression that CEOs are responsible only when things go well and become mere witnesses when things go disastrously wrong.

A CEO cannot simply be a conduit between political principals, advisers and a Board.

The role carries professional responsibility.

That includes asking difficult questions, challenging questionable assumptions, ensuring that material risks reach the Board and, when necessary, advising that a transaction should not proceed.

The law applicable at the time recognised that responsibility.

The court must now determine what the evidence says about Shahrol’s own conduct.

But there is another question that deserves attention.

If The CEO Is Not Responsible, Then Why Is Najib The First Defendant?

The bigger question is not simply whether Shahrol should be liable.

It is how responsibility is allocated in the first place.

The 2009 legal framework placed management and corporate decision-making within the Board, while 1MDB’s Article 117 imposed an additional requirement for the Prime Minister’s prior written approval on specified matters.

That means the existence of Article 117 does not, by itself, answer the question of who was responsible for preparing, evaluating and placing investment decisions before the Board.

Nor does the fact that the Prime Minister’s approval was required necessarily mean that the CEO and directors ceased to have their own responsibilities.

And this brings the issue back to the civil suit.

If a CEO who was also managing director and Board member is not responsible for decisions made under his watch, then why was former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak named as the first defendant?

Najib was not 1MDB’s CEO.

He was not its managing director.

He was not responsible for its day-to-day management.

But he was Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and chairman of 1MDB’s Board of Advisers, and Article 117 specifically required his prior written approval for certain major matters. Those facts are central to the case and must ultimately be determined in light of the evidence.

The court will have to determine what each person knew, what each was responsible for, what was placed before the Board, what approvals were obtained and whether the conduct alleged caused the losses claimed.

But as Shahrol returns to the witness stand, the question remains:

If the CEO who ran 1MDB, the managing director who managed its affairs and the Board member who participated in its governance is not responsible for the decisions made under his watch, then why is the former prime minister — named as the first defendant — at the front of the civil claim?

That is not a question of guilt.

It is a question of corporate accountability.– NMH

The post If The CEO Is Not Responsible, Then Why Is Najib The First Defendant? first appeared on NMH.

Liquidator Appointed Over 29 Offshore Entities, the 1MDB Civil Trial was told

KUALA LUMPUR, 10 August 2026 – The 1MDB Civil Trial turned to the recovery and tracing of allegedly misappropriated funds today, with offshore asset recovery specialist Angela Barkhouse telling the High Court that she had been appointed liquidator for 29 offshore entities linked to the transactions under investigation.

Barkhouse, managing director of Kroll (Cayman) Ltd, is the third witness in the US$5.64 billion civil suit brought by 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) and its subsidiaries against former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and several other defendants.

She said the various appointments were made between July 2021 and May 2025.

Among the entities identified were Lucetta Investments Ltd, PetroSaudi Oil Services Ltd, TKIL Global Investments Ltd, PetroSaudi International, Aabar International Investments PJS Ltd, Alsen Chance Holdings Ltd, Blackrock Commodities (Global) Ltd and Platinum Global Luxury Services Ltd.

Barkhouse told the court that her analysis enabled her team to trace funds allegedly misappropriated from 1MDB through a complex network of offshore entities associated with parties allegedly involved in the fraud.

She said her investigations remained ongoing, with further information continuing to be obtained and analysed on behalf of the liquidated estates and claims pursued against parties alleged to have facilitated the movement or laundering of the funds.

Findings Based on Retrospective Reconciliation

An important aspect of Barkhouse’s testimony, however, was the nature of her investigation.

Under questioning, she confirmed that her findings were based on a retrospective reconciliation.

The investigation itself was conducted in 2024 and completed in 2025 – several years after the transactions in question and long after earlier investigations into 1MDB had begun.

Barkhouse explained that the figures and information used in the reconciliation had been obtained from staff within her firm, after which the information was brought together and totalled.

The distinction is important because her evidence was not based on firsthand observation of the original transactions. Rather, it involved reconstructing and reconciling information available to her team at a later stage.

Barkhouse also acknowledged that she did not have the final overall figure for the amount recovered.

Although she was involved in recovery work, she could not attest to a final consolidated recovery figure.

That prompted questions over the scope of the reconciliation – including what information was available to the team at the time and whether the exercise was intended to establish the full amount ultimately recovered or to address a more specific aspect of the liquidated estates.

The issue may become significant as the defence continues to examine the relationship between the amounts allegedly misappropriated, funds traced and sums subsequently recovered.

Shafee Puts Jho Low at the Centre of Questioning

During cross-examination, lead defence counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah focused on the role of fugitive financier Low Taek Jho, better known as Jho Low.

Shafee asked Barkhouse whether she had encountered Low’s name during her investigation.

She confirmed that she had.

Shafee then put to her that Jho Low lay at the centre of the controversy surrounding 1MDB and the alleged conspiracy to destroy the sovereign wealth fund.

Barkhouse responded: “Among others, yes.”

When Shafee asked whether she agreed that Jho Low was the main person behind the alleged conspiracy, however, Barkhouse said she was uncertain.

She explained that her focus was on those who had received the allegedly misappropriated funds.

That exchange is significant because it illustrates the distinction between Barkhouse’s role as a liquidator and the wider question of who ultimately bears responsibility for the alleged wrongdoing.

Her mandate, as described in court, is principally concerned with identifying and pursuing assets and claims connected to the liquidated estates. Determining the overall hierarchy of responsibility for the alleged 1MDB fraud is a broader question for the court.

Tracing Funds Versus Establishing Responsibility

The distinction between tracing funds and establishing responsibility could become an important feature of the next stage of the trial.

Barkhouse’s evidence provides the plaintiffs with a detailed picture of the complex offshore network through which funds were allegedly moved.

But the existence of an offshore entity, a transfer or a recipient does not necessarily, on its own, establish who authorised a transaction, who knew about it or who was ultimately responsible for the alleged misappropriation.

That distinction is likely to be tested further during cross-examination.

It also follows the broader pattern established during the first week of the trial, when defence counsel questioned former investigator Richard Templeman about the methodology and documentary basis of his investigation.

The defence has repeatedly sought to distinguish between evidence showing where money went and evidence establishing who was responsible for sending it there.

The Recovery Question Remains

Barkhouse’s inability to confirm the final overall recovery figure also leaves open an issue that has already featured prominently in the defence’s narrative.

At a press conference last week, Shafee said approximately RM31 billion had been recovered by 1MDB and its subsidiaries – a figure exceeding the approximately RM24 billion being claimed in the civil action.

That figure was not put to Barkhouse as part of this morning’s evidence, and she did not attest to it.

Nevertheless, her testimony that she had been involved in recovery work but did not have the final consolidated recovery figure raises a question that may warrant further examination – how the various recovery exercises, liquidated estates and sums recovered fit together in determining the amount ultimately sought from the defendants.

That is particularly relevant in a civil action where the plaintiffs are seeking to recover billions of ringgit.

A More Complex Picture of the Evidence

Barkhouse’s testimony therefore adds another layer to the 1MDB Civil Trial.

On one level, the court has heard evidence of an extensive tracing exercise involving 29 offshore entities and a network spanning multiple jurisdictions.

On another, the evidence highlights the complexity of reconstructing transactions years after they occurred, with the liquidator relying on information compiled by her team and reconciling figures retrospectively.

Her evidence also stops short of identifying Jho Low as the sole person responsible for the alleged conspiracy, with Barkhouse telling the court that her focus was on recipients of allegedly misappropriated funds.

As the trial continues, the court will have to consider not only the tracing of the funds but also what the evidence establishes about the roles, knowledge and responsibilities of the various defendants.

The hearing continues tomorrow. – NMH

The post 1MDB Civil Trial: The Money Trail and Questions Over Recovery first appeared on NMH.

Bagi Datin Hasnah Abdul Rahman, Jumaat lalu bermula seperti hari biasa sebelum bertukar menjadi antara detik paling mencemaskan dalam hidupnya. Anaknya, Ahmad Ziqri Morshidi, 29, seorang autistik, keluar dari rumah mereka di Hartamas sekitar 11.30 pagi dan tidak pulang seperti kebiasaannya.

Apa yang pada awalnya kelihatan seperti satu lagi kejadian Ziqri keluar bersendirian bertukar menjadi pencarian hampir enam jam yang menggerakkan polis, keluarga, jiran, pihak keselamatan dan orang ramai, sebelum Ziqri akhirnya ditemui dengan selamat di sebuah restoran di Cheras, kira-kira 23 kilometer dari kediamannya — menunjukkan bahawa dalam saat paling mencemaskan, kebaikan manusia boleh menjadi jalan pulang.

Petunjuk Pada Baju-T Membawa Ziqri Pulang

Sepanjang pencarian, Hasnah menghubungi beberapa tempat yang biasa dikunjungi Ziqri, termasuk Kiara 163, Balai Polis Mont Kiara dan bekas sekolahnya, SMK Kiaramas.

Namun Ziqri akhirnya ditemui di sebuah restoran di Cheras.

Seorang guru pendidikan khas yang kebetulan sedang makan bersama keluarganya di restoran berkenaan ternampak tulisan “PPKI SMK Kiaramas” pada baju-T Ziqri.

Tulisan itu menjadi petunjuk penting yang mendorongnya menghubungi rangkaian guru pendidikan khas lain sehingga berita mengenai Ziqri akhirnya sampai kepada keluarganya.

Bagi Hasnah, kebetulan itu sukar untuk dianggap sebagai sekadar kebetulan.

“Bayangkan seorang guru pendidikan khas berada di restoran yang sama, nampak Ziqri dan tahu apa yang perlu dilakukan.”

Dalam masa yang sama, kakitangan restoran menjaga Ziqri, polis membantu pencarian, seorang jiran yang sebelum itu tidak dikenalinya sanggup membantu Hasnah dan anaknya mencari di merata tempat, manakala orang ramai berkongsi rayuan kehilangan itu di media sosial.

“Kadang-kadang malaikat datang tanpa sayap.”

30 Tahun Memahami Ziqri

Hampir tiga dekad bersama Ziqri mengajar Hasnah bahawa autisme tidak mempunyai satu bentuk yang sama. Beliau juga membesarkan seorang lagi anak, Aidel Rahman Morshidi, yang berada dalam spektrum autisme tetapi mempunyai keperibadian, keupayaan dan keperluan yang sangat berbeza daripada Ziqri.

“Ziqri ialah Ziqri. Aidel pula sangat berbeza. Sebab itu kita tidak boleh melihat seseorang hanya berdasarkan diagnosis. Kita perlu mengenali individu itu sendiri.”

Selepas Ziqri ditemui, Hasnah menerima pelbagai cadangan daripada orang ramai tentang cara meningkatkan keselamatannya. Beliau amat menghargai semua cadangan itu, terutama kerana ia lahir daripada keprihatinan.

Namun, pengalaman melihat berita mengenai individu autistik yang keluar atau tersesat dan kemudian ditemui dalam keadaan tragis membuatkan Hasnah semakin sedar bahawa keluarga perlu mencari ikhtiar yang sesuai dengan keperluan masing-masing.

“Sebab itu saya rasa kita memang perlu mencari satu bentuk ikhtiar yang sesuai untuk Ziqri. Saya tidak tahu sama ada ia akan berjaya, tetapi sekurang-kurangnya kita cuba.”

Dan untuk Ziqri, jawapannya bermula dengan perkara yang disukainya.

Dia suka warna biru, perkataan “Autism”, namanya sendiri serta gambar dan video dirinya.

Daripada situlah tercetus idea untuk menghasilkan baju-T keselamatan yang direka khusus untuknya — dengan ilustrasi Ziqri, namanya dan kod QR yang membolehkan sesiapa yang menemuinya menghubungi keluarga, berkongsi lokasi dan mendapatkan panduan ringkas.

Di situ tertera satu mesej:

“Your kindness will bring me safely home.”

Hasnah mengakui ia bukan penyelesaian untuk semua individu autistik.

“Mungkin ia sesuai untuk Ziqri tetapi tidak sesuai untuk individu lain. Sebab itu kita perlu kenali individu tersebut terlebih dahulu.”

Daripada Kesedaran Kepada Pemahaman

Pengalaman itu juga membuatkan Hasnah melihat semula sebuah poster yang pernah dihasilkannya untuk Ziqri beberapa tahun lalu:

“I DID NOT ASK TO BE BORN THIS WAY.”

Jika dahulu mesej itu lahir daripada keinginan untuk masyarakat memahami dan menerima autisme, Jumaat lalu memberikan Hasnah satu lagi perspektif.

Ramai yang tidak mengenali Ziqri memilih untuk membantu.

Seorang guru mengenali petunjuk pada baju-Tnya. Kakitangan restoran menjaganya. Polis mencari. Seorang jiran sanggup membantu keluarga mencarinya. Dan orang ramai berkongsi rayuan mereka.

“Pada hari itu, saya nampak begitu ramai orang yang tidak mengenali Ziqri tetapi memilih untuk membantu.”

Sebagai Presiden Pertubuhan Rentak, Irama, Seni & Ekspresi (R.I.S.E.), Hasnah sudah lama memperjuangkan keperluan golongan neurodivers.

Namun ketika Ziqri hilang, semua gelaran itu tidak penting.

“Saya bukan Presiden R.I.S.E. pada ketika itu. Saya hanya seorang ibu yang mahu anaknya pulang.”

Dan mungkin itulah pengajaran terbesar daripada pengalaman tersebut.

Teknologi boleh membantu mencari. Tetapi pada hari Ziqri hilang, manusia yang membawanya pulang.

Bagi Hasnah, masyarakat yang inklusif bukan sekadar masyarakat yang tahu tentang autisme, tetapi masyarakat yang sanggup memahami manusia di sebalik diagnosis itu.

Kerana kadangkala, jalan pulang bukan ditunjukkan oleh teknologi. Ia dibuka oleh kemanusiaan. – NMH

The post Ziqri Pulang Dengan Selamat: Akhirnya, Kemanusiaan Yang Membawanya Pulang 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.

When her autistic son disappeared for several agonising hours, New Malaysia Herald Editor-in-Chief Datin Hasnah Abdul Rahman was reminded that there are no simple solutions when caring for autistic adults. In this personal reflection, she shares why well-intentioned advice often falls short and why Malaysia must move beyond awareness towards genuine understanding, compassion and inclusion.

For several agonising hours this Friday, my family searched desperately for my third son, Ahmad Ziqri, who is an autistic adult. Those were among the longest hours of my life.

Thankfully, our story ended well.

A special education teacher recognised him at a restaurant in Cheras. Her quick thinking, together with the kindness of her husband, restaurant staff, dedicated police officers, security personnel, the nearby Mall staff, residence and community groups, an extraordinary neighbour who helped us search, and countless Malaysians who shared our appeal on social media, brought Ziqri safely home.

As a mother, I will remain forever grateful.

But once the relief subsided, one thought kept returning to me: what an irony life can be.

As President of Pertubuhan Rentak, Irama, Seni & Ekspresi (R.I.S.E.), a registered non-governmental organisation (NGO), I spend much of my time advocating for neurodiverse young adults and their families. Our public initiative, R.I.S.E. – Rhythm Interactive Special Needs Enabler, was established to help build pathways beyond school and beyond awareness.

Yet during those long hours, none of those titles mattered.

I was not an advocate.

I was simply a mother searching for her son. And this was not the first time it happened, perhaps, not the last.

When Advice Doesn’t Fit Reality

Almost immediately after Ziqri was found, messages of support began pouring in, together with many well-intentioned suggestions.

“Get him an AirTag.” | “Buy him a GPS tracker.” | “Make him wear an identification bracelet.” | “Print your phone number on his T-shirt.”

Every suggestion came from a place of genuine concern.

The reality, however, is that autism is never one-size-fits-all.

We have already tried AirTags.

We have tried identification bracelets.

Neither worked.

Like many autistic adults, Ziqri has strong sensory preferences. If he dislikes wearing something, he simply removes it.

Sometimes he tears up clothes he no longer wants to wear.

Sometimes he throws them into the rubbish bin.

Not only his own clothes, but occasionally those belonging to his brothers as well.

Another suggestion was to print my phone number on his T-shirts.

Again, I understand the reasoning.

But as a mother, another fear immediately crossed my mind.

What if someone with bad intentions uses that information?

What if they realise he is vulnerable?

What if they decide to exploit that vulnerability?

Parents of autistic adults constantly find themselves balancing independence with protection.

There are rarely perfect answers.

When Misunderstanding Becomes The Bigger Challenge

This was not the first time Ziqri had been misunderstood.

Five years ago, what should have been his 25th birthday ended with him spending the night in a police lock-up following an incident in which he was very much misunderstood.

It was heartbreaking for our family.

A few days later, however, something extraordinary happened.

William Cheah and Yi-Lyn Chan, together with the Kembara Kitchen team and many kind-hearted friends and supporters, organised a special birthday celebration for Ziqri at a restaurant. Guests paid to attend, while my family and I were invited to join him so he could finally celebrate the birthday he had missed.

What began as one of the saddest birthdays of his life became one of his happiest.

That evening reminded me of something I have never forgotten.

Misunderstanding can wound. But kindness has an extraordinary ability to heal.

This week, as strangers once again stepped forward to help bring Ziqri home safely, I was reminded of that same lesson.

Beyond Awareness

For almost 30 years, I have watched Ziqri grow from an autistic child into an autistic adult.

Along the way, I have learned that while autism may not change, society’s understanding of it can — and must.

Many people know about autism.

Far fewer understand autistic adults.

When school ends, life does not suddenly become easier.

For many parents, the greatest challenge begins not when their child is diagnosed, but when the structured support of childhood ends and adulthood begins.

That is one of the reasons Pertubuhan Rentak, Irama, Seni & Ekspresi (R.I.S.E.) was established by my amazing committee and team members.

Through R.I.S.E. – Rhythm Interactive Special Needs Enabler, we hope to create pathways for neurodiverse young adults to continue learning, developing their talents, finding meaningful opportunities and living with greater independence.

But organisations alone cannot build an inclusive society.

Teachers build it.

Police officers build it.

Restaurant staff build it.

Neighbours build it.

Strangers build it.

Every act of understanding becomes another step towards a more compassionate Malaysia.

A Mother’s Hope

As I watched Ziqri sleeping peacefully after finally returning home — exhausted from an adventure only he truly understands — I realised that perhaps this was never just our family’s story.

It is the story of thousands of Malaysian families raising autistic adults who continue to navigate a world that often is not designed for them.

If our experience encourages even one person to pause before judging someone who behaves differently…

If it inspires one stranger to offer help instead of looking away…

If it reminds us that kindness can make all the difference…

… then perhaps some good has already come from one of the longest days of my life.

Autism does not end at childhood. Neither should our understanding.

For one day, every autistic child will become an autistic adult. Perhaps it is time we started preparing not just them for society, but society for them. – NMH

The post Autistic Adults: A Mother’s Story, A Missing Son and Why Understanding Matters first appeared on NMH.

Empat bulan selepas pelancarannya, Kementerian Digital kini memulakan kerja sebenar: menunaikan janji Malaysia Digital 2030 (MD2030).

Pelan 5 tahun itu mensasarkan ekonomi digital menyumbang 30% kepada KDNK, mewujudkan 500,000 pekerjaan baharu, dan menjadikan 95% perkhidmatan kerajaan boleh diakses sepenuhnya atas talian menjelang 2030. Dan Ogos 2026 menandakan permulaan fasa pelaksanaan yang paling sibuk setakat ini.

Kementerian Digital Gerakkan RM5.9 Bilion Untuk Infrastruktur & Bakat

Di bawah Belanjawan 2026, kerajaan memperuntukkan sumber besar kepada kementerian: RM2 bilion untuk Awan AI Berdaulat, RM2 bilion untuk kabel bawah laut SALAM sepanjang 3,190km, RM780 juta untuk Fasa 2 JENDELA, dan RM5.9 bilion untuk R&D&C&I.

Tujuannya jelas: bina asas supaya Malaysia tidak hanya guna teknologi, tetapi cipta teknologi.

Bagi memastikan penyampaian lancar, Kementerian Digital telah melantik GovTech Malaysia sebagai penyelaras tunggal perkhidmatan awam digital. Platform “single window” menerusi aplikasi MyGov dan portal http://malaysia.gov.my akan dilancarkan secara berperingkat, dengan akses eksklusif melalui MyDigital ID.

Setakat Ogos, 7 juta rakyat telah mendaftar MyDigital ID. Kementerian menyasarkan 15 juta menjelang akhir tahun.

Menjawab persoalan mengenai keupayaan penyampaian, Kementerian Digital berkata mereka mengambil pendekatan realistik dan berfasa.

“MD2030 adalah pelan yang berani kerana kita mahu Malaysia bergerak lebih cepat. Kita sedar cabaran bakat dan infrastruktur wujud, sebab itu kita wujudkan GovTech Malaysia dan laburkan RM5.9 bilion untuk R&D dan latihan semula. Dengan kerjasama 7 agensi utama termasuk NAIO, MDEC dan CyberSecurity Malaysia, kita yakin boleh capai sasaran 2030 dan pada masa sama pastikan tiada rakyat ketinggalan,” kata jurucakap rasmi kementerian kepada New Malaysia Herald.

ASEAN AI Summit: Pentas Tunjuk Keupayaan Malaysia

Momentum itu telah diuji tahun lepas apabila Kementerian Digital menjadi tuan rumah ASEAN AI Summit 12-13 Ogos di Kuala Lumpur.

Acara itu menarik pelabur, syarikat teknologi dan penggubal dasar serantau. Tahun lepas sahaja, Malaysia merekodkan RM163.6 bilion pelaburan digital yang diluluskan — isyarat keyakinan pelabur terhadap hala tuju negara.

Selain itu, MYCentre4IR akan melancarkan operasi penuh ASEAN AI SAFE, rangkaian keselamatan AI serantau pertama seumpamanya.

“Ini peluang kita tunjuk Malaysia bukan sekadar destinasi data center, tetapi peneraju dasar AI yang bertanggungjawab di ASEAN,” kata sumber kementerian.

Dari Putrajaya ke Padawan: Fokus Inklusiviti

Sementara pelaburan besar tertumpu di bandar, Kementerian Digital turut menggerakkan agenda Rakyat Digital.

Pada Februari, projek rintis “AI-Powered Classroom” dilancarkan di SK St James Quop, Sarawak bersama Microsoft, Intel dan Dell. Ia menguji bagaimana AI boleh membantu guru di sekolah luar bandar dan menutup jurang digital.

Di peringkat komuniti, RM350 juta diperuntukkan untuk memperkasakan 1,099 pusat Nadi sebagai hab latihan dan keusahawanan. Kementerian juga sedang membangunkan Indeks Keterangkuman Digital Malaysia (MyIKD) bersama UNDP untuk mengukur dan menangani jurang akses.

Data MDEC menunjukkan masih ada 23% isi rumah B40 tanpa internet tetap. Justeru JENDELA 2 akan menyasarkan 2,700 lokasi luar bandar tambahan menjelang 2027.

“Kita mahu pastikan budak di Quop ada peluang sama seperti budak di Cyberjaya. Itu teras Rakyat Digital,” kata pegawai kementerian yang terlibat.

Apa Seterusnya: Daripada Dasar Kepada Impak

Dengan tujuh tonggak MD2030, fokus Kementerian Digital untuk baki 2026 ialah 3 perkara:
1.⁠ ⁠Lancarkan GovTech: Pastikan urusan kerajaan 5 minit siap di telefon
2.⁠ ⁠Hasilkan Bakat: Percepat program upskilling AI untuk capai 500,000 pekerjaan
3.⁠ ⁠Jaga Kepercayaan: Operasikan Suruhanjaya Data Nasional dan Strategi Keselamatan 2026-2030

Visi MD2030 ialah menjadikan Malaysia “negara AI progresif” di mana data jadi aset strategik dan rakyat berkembang bersama teknologi.

Bagi Kementerian Digital, 2026 bukan tahun untuk umum dasar baharu. Ia tahun untuk membuktikan dasar itu berfungsi — di pejabat kerajaan, di bilik darjah, dan di kampung. – NMH

The post Kementerian Digital Sasar 30% KDNK, 500k Kerja Digital Dalam 4 Tahun first appeared on NMH.

Dalam tempoh hanya beberapa hari, beberapa kes penyeludupan dadah berprofil tinggi yang melibatkan warga Malaysia di tiga negara jiran telah mencetuskan kebimbangan baharu mengenai kedudukan negara dalam rangkaian jenayah rentas sempadan.

Di Thailand, pihak berkuasa dilaporkan merampas kira-kira 87 kilogram syabu bernilai jutaan ringgit yang dikaitkan dengan suspek warga Malaysia. Di Singapura pula, lebih 10 kilogram dadah dirampas di pusat pemeriksaan Woodlands melibatkan seorang rakyat Malaysia. Dalam masa yang sama, Indonesia turut menahan seorang lagi rakyat Malaysia atas dakwaan berkaitan penyeludupan dadah.

Lebih mengejutkan, beberapa hari sebelum itu seorang juruterbang warga Malaysia ditahan di Indonesia selepas disyaki cuba membawa masuk dadah. Kes ini bukan sahaja mencalarkan nama individu terbabit, malah berpotensi memberi kesan kepada imej profesional industri penerbangan Malaysia di mata dunia.

Malaysia Destinasi atau Pusat Pengedaran Dadah?

Jika suatu ketika dahulu Malaysia lebih dikenali sebagai negara transit bagi kemasukan dadah dari kawasan Segi Tiga Emas, perkembangan mutakhir ini menimbulkan persoalan yang jauh lebih serius.

Adakah Malaysia kini bukan sekadar menjadi pasaran pengguna, malah telah dijadikan lokasi penyimpanan, pengedaran dan titik pelepasan dadah ke negara-negara jiran?

Soalan ini tidak boleh dipandang ringan. Ia memerlukan jawapan yang jelas daripada kerajaan serta tindakan yang benar-benar berkesan daripada agensi penguat kuasa.

Dalam negara sendiri pula, penyalahgunaan dadah semakin membimbangkan. Kes individu khayal selepas mengambil “juice”, menghisap “piu-piu”, serta penyalahgunaan ketamin dan syabu semakin kerap dilaporkan. Kes overdos pula bukan lagi cerita terpencil, malah semakin menghampiri kehidupan masyarakat biasa.

Kesan Kepada Industri Penerbangan Negara

Kes membabitkan juruterbang Malaysia bukan sekadar isu jenayah individu. Ia berpotensi memberi kesan kepada keseluruhan ekosistem penerbangan negara.

Seorang rakyat Malaysia yang menaiki penerbangan D7 303 dari Hangzhou ke Kuala Lumpur pada 4 Ogos berkongsi bahawa penerbangannya mengalami kelewatan hampir dua jam selepas kru dan penerbangan melalui pemeriksaan tambahan oleh pihak berkuasa China. Penerbangan yang dijadualkan berlepas pada jam 2.25 petang hanya berlepas sekitar 3.30 petang.

Sama ada kelewatan tersebut berkait secara langsung dengan kes tangkapan juruterbang Malaysia di Indonesia masih belum dapat dipastikan. Namun, persepsi bahawa kru penerbangan Malaysia mungkin berdepan pemeriksaan lebih ketat sudah cukup untuk menimbulkan kebimbangan dalam kalangan pemain industri.

Dalam sektor penerbangan antarabangsa, reputasi adalah aset yang amat bernilai. Apabila keyakinan pihak berkuasa asing terhadap kru sesebuah negara terjejas, implikasinya boleh dirasai oleh syarikat penerbangan, anak kapal dan juga penumpang.

Di Mana Peranan Kementerian Pengangkutan?

Di sinilah timbul persoalan yang lebih besar.

Apakah tindakan Kementerian Pengangkutan bagi memastikan insiden yang melibatkan seorang individu tidak menjejaskan keseluruhan industri penerbangan Malaysia?

Adakah kementerian telah berhubung dengan pihak berkuasa penerbangan negara-negara berkaitan untuk mendapatkan penjelasan sekiranya wujud pemeriksaan tambahan terhadap kru atau pesawat Malaysia?

Adakah syarikat penerbangan tempatan telah diberikan panduan atau sokongan bagi menangani sebarang implikasi operasi di luar negara?

Rakyat berhak mengetahui sama ada kerajaan sedang mengambil langkah proaktif atau sekadar menunggu keadaan reda dengan sendirinya.

Kementerian Pengangkutan bukan sekadar mengurus jadual penerbangan dan pembangunan infrastruktur. Ia juga bertanggungjawab mempertahankan kredibiliti industri penerbangan negara di peringkat antarabangsa. Apabila timbul isu yang berpotensi menjejaskan reputasi tersebut, kementerian tidak boleh berdiam diri.

Sekiranya benar terdapat peningkatan pemeriksaan terhadap kru atau pesawat Malaysia akibat persepsi yang timbul daripada kes ini, Kementerian Pengangkutan perlu segera tampil memberikan penjelasan, berunding dengan pihak berkuasa luar dan memulihkan keyakinan terhadap profesionalisme industri penerbangan negara.

Kerajaan Tidak Boleh Bersikap Reaktif

Isu dadah hari ini bukan lagi sekadar masalah jenayah. Ia telah menjadi isu keselamatan negara, imej antarabangsa, ekonomi dan keyakinan terhadap institusi negara.

Kerajaan perlu menunjukkan bahawa Malaysia masih mampu mengawal sempadannya, membanteras sindiket dadah dan mempertahankan nama baik negara di mata dunia.

Dalam isu yang menyentuh industri penerbangan pula, Kementerian Pengangkutan perlu memimpin, bukannya sekadar memberi reaksi selepas timbul kontroversi. Kepimpinan yang berkesan bukan hanya diukur ketika keadaan berjalan lancar, tetapi ketika negara berdepan krisis yang boleh menjejaskan reputasi dan kepentingan nasional.

Rakyat tidak mengharapkan alasan. Rakyat mengharapkan tindakan. – NMH

The post Dadah Rentas Sempadan: Di Mana Tanggungjawab Kementerian Pengangkutan? first appeared on NMH.

Pilihan Raya Negeri (PRN) Negeri Sembilan Ke-16 telah mencipta sejarah baharu dalam landskap politik negara. Keputusan rasmi yang menyaksikan Barisan Nasional (BN) memenangi 18 kerusi, Pakatan Harapan (PH) 11 kerusi dan Perikatan Nasional (PN) tujuh kerusi bukan sahaja mengubah komposisi Dewan Undangan Negeri, malah membuka lembaran baharu mengenai hala tuju politik negeri dan negara.

Apa yang paling menarik perhatian ialah kejayaan BN dan PN menguasai 25 daripada 36 kerusi DUN, sekali gus memperoleh majoriti dua pertiga. Walaupun kedua-dua gabungan tidak bertanding sebagai satu gabungan rasmi di seluruh negeri, keputusan ini memperlihatkan bahawa sokongan kepada kedua-duanya telah menghasilkan satu blok politik yang lebih besar daripada PH.

Lebih signifikan lagi ialah keputusan undi popular yang memberikan gambaran lebih jelas mengenai sentimen sebenar pengundi Negeri Sembilan.

Berdasarkan data rasmi Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR), daripada kira-kira 638,377 undi sah dengan kadar keluar mengundi 72.64 peratus atau 646,084 pengundi daripada 889,490 pengundi berdaftar, PH memperoleh 252,446 undi (39.55%), BN 227,067 undi (35.57%), manakala PN meraih 130,407 undi (20.43%).

Apabila undi BN dan PN digabungkan, kedua-dua gabungan memperoleh kira-kira 357,474 undi, bersamaan hampir 56 peratus undi popular. Angka ini bukan sahaja diterjemahkan kepada kemenangan 25 kerusi, malah memberi gambaran bahawa majoriti pengundi memilih calon daripada BN dan PN.

Kekuatan UMNO Kekal Menjadi Teras

Daripada keputusan mengikut parti komponen, UMNO terus membuktikan kekuatannya apabila memperoleh 168,798 undi atau 26.44 peratus daripada keseluruhan undi sah dan berjaya memenangi 16 daripada 16 kerusi yang ditandinginya.

MCA pula memenangi dua kerusi dengan 44,432 undi, manakala MIC gagal memenangi kerusi walaupun memperoleh lebih 13,800 undi.

Di pihak PN, PAS memperoleh 75,160 undi dan memenangi empat kerusi, manakala Parti Wawasan Negeri memperoleh tiga kerusi dengan 40,170 undi. Walaupun Gerakan dan MIPP tidak memenangi sebarang kerusi, sumbangan undi mereka turut memperkukuhkan jumlah keseluruhan PN.

PH pula masih bergantung kepada kekuatan DAP yang memperoleh 132,304 undi dan memenangi sembilan kerusi. PKR hanya memenangi dua kerusi, manakala Amanah gagal memenangi sebarang kerusi walaupun bertanding di sembilan kawasan.

Politik Baharu Selepas Kerajaan Perpaduan

PRN Negeri Sembilan turut menjadi referendum kecil terhadap perubahan landskap politik negara selepas pembentukan Kerajaan Perpaduan di Putrajaya.

Sejak Pilihan Raya Umum Ke-15, BN memilih untuk bekerjasama dengan PH bagi membentuk Kerajaan Persekutuan. Kerjasama itu berjaya memberikan kestabilan politik selepas tiada gabungan memperoleh majoriti mudah di Parlimen.

Namun, keputusan PRN Negeri Sembilan memperlihatkan satu perkembangan yang berbeza di peringkat negeri. Sebahagian pengundi dilihat memberikan sokongan yang lebih besar kepada BN dan PN berbanding PH.

Perkara ini membuka ruang kepada perbincangan politik mengenai kemungkinan bentuk kerjasama yang boleh berlaku pada masa hadapan. Walaupun sehingga kini BN dan PN kekal sebagai gabungan yang berasingan dengan pendirian masing-masing, keputusan pilihan raya menunjukkan bahawa penyokong kedua-dua gabungan mempunyai kekuatan yang mampu mengubah keseimbangan politik jika terdapat persefahaman yang lebih erat.

Sentimen Pengundi Melayu di Negeri Sembilan

Jika dibandingkan dengan PRN Negeri Sembilan 2023, berlaku perubahan yang ketara. Pada ketika itu PH memperoleh kira-kira 37.3 peratus undi popular, BN sekitar 21.9 peratus, manakala PN 36.3 peratus.

PRN 2026 menyaksikan peningkatan sokongan kepada BN, manakala PN terus mengekalkan pengaruh yang signifikan. Secara keseluruhannya, gabungan undi kedua-dua parti memperlihatkan kecenderungan sebahagian besar pengundi Melayu untuk memberikan mandat kepada BN dan PN.

Walaupun faktor tempatan seperti calon, isu kawasan dan prestasi wakil rakyat terus memainkan peranan, pola pengundian ini menunjukkan bahawa sentimen berkaitan kos sara hidup, ekonomi, peluang pekerjaan serta kestabilan politik masih menjadi pertimbangan utama pengundi.

Politik Tidak Lagi Bersifat Hitam Putih

Politik Malaysia hari ini tidak lagi boleh dilihat melalui lensa lama yang membahagikan parti kepada kawan dan lawan secara mutlak.

Kerjasama BN dan PH di peringkat Persekutuan membuktikan bahawa parti-parti politik boleh mencari titik persamaan apabila keadaan memerlukan. Pada masa yang sama, keputusan PRN Negeri Sembilan menunjukkan bahawa BN dan PN pula memiliki kekuatan sokongan yang besar dalam kalangan pengundi negeri ini.

Apa jua bentuk kerjasama politik pada masa hadapan, ia akhirnya akan dinilai berdasarkan kemampuan gabungan tersebut mentadbir dengan baik, mengurus ekonomi, menjaga kebajikan rakyat dan memastikan kestabilan politik.

Masa Depan Politik Negeri Sembilan

PRN Negeri Sembilan Ke-16 memberikan mesej yang jelas bahawa rakyat mahukan politik yang lebih matang dan berorientasikan penyelesaian.

Keputusan ini bukan sekadar mengenai siapa yang menang atau kalah, tetapi mengenai perubahan corak sokongan rakyat. Dengan gabungan BN dan PN meraih sekitar 56 peratus undi popular dan menguasai 25 daripada 36 kerusi DUN, keputusan ini sudah pasti akan menjadi rujukan penting dalam merangka strategi politik menjelang pilihan raya akan datang.

Pada masa yang sama, hubungan BN dengan PH dalam Kerajaan Perpaduan di peringkat Persekutuan kekal menjadi realiti politik semasa.

Keadaan ini memperlihatkan bahawa politik Malaysia semakin kompleks, dengan corak kerjasama yang boleh berbeza antara peringkat negeri dan Persekutuan.

Pengundi telah membuat pilihan melalui sistem First-Past-The-Post, di mana kemenangan ditentukan berdasarkan majoriti di setiap kerusi, bukannya undi popular keseluruhan. Namun begitu, gabungan keputusan kerusi dan undi popular dalam PRN Negeri Sembilan 2026 memberikan gambaran yang menarik tentang perubahan sentimen politik negeri dan menjadi petunjuk penting terhadap arah aliran politik Malaysia pada masa hadapan. – NMH

The post PRN Negeri Sembilan 2026: Isyarat Baharu Politik? first appeared on NMH.