MEDIA STATEMENT

TRUMP-ANWAR AGREEMENT- Signing First, Justifying Later: A Dangerous Abuse of Power

The Prime Minister has failed in his fundamental duty to safeguard the integrity of Malaysia’s parliamentary democracy, particularly his constitutional obligation under Article 43(3) of the Federal Constitution, which requires that the Cabinet be collectively responsible to Parliament.

What has now emerged from the Prime Minister’s statement in Parliament yesterday is deeply troubling. He has admitted that this agreement still requires “adjustments,” “clarifications,” and even written guarantees before it can be considered final. This admission alone exposes a deeply flawed and constitutionally dangerous process.

The principle is simple and universally understood:
No one signs an agreement first and negotiates its essential terms or seek guarantees later.

In any functioning democracy, negotiations on agreements  affecting the nation come first. Terms are finalised. Safeguards are secured. Only then is an agreement signed. What we are witnessing here is the exact opposite—an inversion of due process that threatens both good governance and constitutional order.

Even more alarming is the suggestion that key issues are only now being brought before the Cabinet for discussion—after the agreement was signed.

Equally disturbing is the Prime Minister’s own admission that guarantees affecting Malaysia’s economic sovereignty were given orally, not in writing. Matters of national sovereignty are not footnotes. They are not negotiable afterthoughts. They are foundational.

A Prime Minister is not merely the head of government. He is the custodian of the Constitution, the protector of institutions, and the trustee of the people’s mandate.

When international agreements are signed without clear Cabinet deliberation, without parliamentary scrutiny, and without written guarantees protecting national interests, what is being eroded is not just policy—but the very foundation of parliamentary democracy.

Ratification is not meant to rescue a defective agreement. It is a formal process that follows the fulfilment of all domestic legal and constitutional requirements. It is not a tool for damage control.

I must also express my sympathy for the newly appointed Trade Minister, Datuk Seri Johari Ghani, who is now being tasked with cleaning up the consequences of decisions made hastily by the Prime Minister and his predecessor. This is not a burden he should have inherited.

Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy

President/Chair

Malaysian Advancement Party

HINDRAF

21.1.26

Ciri paling membimbangkan dalam siasatan insiden tembakan Durian Tunggal ialah: proses “analisis suara” bolehdirekayasa untuk menghasilkan keputusan yang mudahdan menyelamatkan muka kerana polis mengawal input.Polis berkata mereka telah mengambil sampel suara dan menghantar audio kepada Cyber Security Malaysia untukdianalisis, namun orang ramai langsung tidak dimaklumkan—secara terbuka, boleh disahkan, tanpa kekaburan—siapakahpegawai-pegawai polis yang suaranya sedang dipadankan.

Itu bukan butiran kecil. Itu ialah isu teras integriti.

Apabila Jabatan Polis yang sama sedang disyaki turutmengawal rantaian jagaan (chain of custody), persampelan, penghantaran, dan apa yang dibenarkanorang ramai ketahui, rakyat Malaysia tidak bolehdiharapkan untuk percaya bahawa suara yang betul telahdisampel—atau bahawa saluran bukti dikendalikansecara bebas. Ini ialah laluan keluar yang terbina dalam(built in mechanism), direka awal untuk membebaskan:
“suara tidak sepadan,” “audio telah diusik,” “dapatantidak konklusif.”

Dan jika proses ini kekal legap, rakyat Malaysia wajarmenjangkakan keputusan “forensik” akhirnya akan diperalatuntuk “menemui” unsur usikan dan menimbus kes—bukankerana kebenaran tidak jelas, tetapi kerana sistem Polis sedang melindungi dirinya.

Malaysia sekali lagi diseret ke dalam skandal kedaulatanundang-undang yang berbau impuniti. Kes yang diklasifikasikan semula oleh Jabatan Peguam Negara sebagaipembunuhan pada 16 Disember 2025 telah diurus dengankerahsiaan, kelewatan, dan pengurusan naratif yang akandikecam dalam mana-mana demokrasi yang menghormatikeadilan.

Ini merupakan penghinaan secara langsung terhadap Perkara8(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan, yang menjamin bahawasemua orang adalah sama di sisi undang-undang dan berhakmendapat perlindungan undang-undang yang sama rata.

Apa yang dipertontonkan kepada rakyat Malaysia bukankesamarataan. Ia ialah sistem dua darjat: satu set peraturanuntuk orang biasa, satu lagi untuk polis berseragam.

1) Pembunuhan diklasifikasikan semula oleh AGC—namun tiada tangkapansegera: undang-undang ada dua tingkat

Klasifikasi semula sebagai pembunuhan ialah lensaperundangan paling berat. Namun tiada tangkapan serta-mertaatau reman terhadap pegawai polis yang terlibat.
Itu ialah keistimewaan yang deberikan kepada polis. Iamenghantar mesej beracun: bahawa seragam polis memberikan kekebalan secara praktikal.

2) Wayang kulit oleh Ketua Polis Melaka: propaganda yang mencemarikeseluruhan proses

Orang ramai dipertontonkan wayang kulit apabila Ketua Polis Melaka mempamerkan parang-parang untuk membina naratif“serangan” dan “penggunaan kekerasan yang wajar.” Iniberlaku sebelum bukti teras diuji secara bebas.

Ini ialah propaganda. Ia percubaan kasar untuk menguasainaratif, mendahului penelitian, dan menyuntik “kekebalan” terhadap institusi daripada akauntabiliti. Sekurang-kurangnya, ia menjadikan Ketua Polis kelihatan bersubahat dalam naratifpenutupan berbanding komited kepada kebenaran.

Dalam banyak demokrasi Barat, ketua polis yang berdepanskandal tembakan maut dan menganjurkan teater naratifsebegitu akan dipaksa meletak jawatan atau digugurkansementara menunggu siasatan. Malaysia berhak mendapatstandard yang sama, bukan standard yang lebih rendah.

3) Kelewatan yang merosakkan keadilan: inkues dan forensik sepatutnya segera

Daripada pasukan penyiasatan bebas yang segera dan tindakbalas “forensik dahulu,” orang ramai mendapat perarakanparang dan kelewatan yang menambah kecurigaan.

Jika tindak balas segera yang dipandu inkues dan berasaskanforensik dimulakan, bukti kritikal boleh dipastikan ketika iapaling penting:

Apabila langkah-langkah ini dilewatkan, rakyat Malaysia tidak boleh dipersalahkan jika membuat kesimpulan bahawakelewatan mempunyai satu tujuan: untuk menciptaketidakpastian, supaya pihak berkuasa kemudian bolehmengangkat bahu dan berkata, “Kita tidak dapatmenentukan.”

Kesimpulan yang sedang ditolak ke arah rakyat Malaysia

Malaysia diminta menerima songsangan keadilan: klasifikasisemula sebagai pembunuhan tanpa tangkapan; “siasatan” yang dijalankan secara rahsia; dan proses forensik yang dikawaloleh institusi yang anggotanya mungkin bertanggungjawab. Itu bukan ketelusan—itu ialah budaya penutupan kes secarainstitusi oleh polis.

Keadilan memerlukan tindakan yang jelas dan pantas: buat tangkapan apabila wajar, selamatkan bukti tanpa kelewatan, dan kejar kebenaran tanpa berat sebelah atau pengecualian. Jika gagal, rakyat Malaysia tidak boleh mengharapkanakauntabiliti sebenar.

Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy
Presiden
Malaysian Advancement Party
30.12.25

The single most alarming feature of the Durian Tunggal shooting probe is this: the “voice analysis” process can be engineered to deliver a convenient, face-saving outcome because the police control the inputs. Police say they have taken voice samples and sent the audio to Cyber Security Malaysia for analysis, yet the public is not even told—openly, verifiably, without ambiguity—who the police officers are whose voices are being matched.

That is not a minor detail. That is the core integrity issue.

When the same Police Department under suspicion controls the chain of custody, sampling, submission, and what the public is allowed to know, Malaysians cannot be expected to trust that the right voices were sampled—or that the evidence pipeline was handled independently. This is a built-in escape route, pre-designed for exoneration:
“voices do not match,” “audio was tampered,” “findings inconclusive.”

And if this process remains opaque, Malaysians will reasonably expect the final “forensic” outcome to be weaponised to “discover” tampering and bury the case—not because the truth is unclear, but because the system is protecting itself.

Malaysia is once again being dragged into a rule-of-law scandal that reeks of impunity. A case that the Attorney-General’s Chambers reclassified as murder on 16 December 2025 has been handled with secrecy, delay, and narrative management that would be condemned in any democracy that respects justice.

This is a direct affront to Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

What Malaysians are being shown is not equality. It is a two-tier system: one set of rules for ordinary people, another for those police in uniform.

1) Murder reclassified by the AGC—yet no immediate arrests: the law has two tiers

A murder reclassification is the gravest legal lens available. Yet there were no immediate arrests or remand of the police officers involved.
That is privilege. It broadcasts a poisonous message: that the police uniform confers practical immunity.

2) Wayang kulit by the Melaka CPO: propaganda that stains the entire process

The public was subjected to wayang kulit when the Melaka CPO paraded parangs to frame a story of “attack” and “justified force.” This happened before central evidence was independently tested.

This was propaganda. It was a crude attempt to seize the narrative, pre-empt scrutiny, and inoculate the institution against accountability. At minimum, it makes the CPO seem complicit in a cover narrative rather than committed to the truth.

In many Western democracies, a police chief facing a fatal shooting scandal and staging narrative theatre would be forced to resign or be removed pending investigation. Malaysia deserves that same standard, not a lower one.

3) Delay that undermines justice: an inquest and forensics should have been immediate

Instead of an immediate, independent investigation task force and a forensic-first response, the public got a parang parade and delays that deepened suspicion.

Had an immediate inquest-driven, forensic-first response been initiated, critical evidence could have been secured when it mattered most:

When these steps are delayed, Malaysians cannot be blamed for concluding that delay serves one purpose: to manufacture uncertainty, so that later authorities can shrug and say, “We cannot determine.”

The conclusion Malaysians are being pushed toward

Malaysia is being asked to accept an inversion of justice: a murder reclassification without arrests; an “investigation” conducted in secrecy; and forensic processes controlled by the very institution whose members may be responsible. That is not transparency—it is an institutional cover-up culture by the police.

Justice requires clear, prompt actions: make arrests when warranted, secure evidence without delay, and pursue truth without bias or exceptions. Failing this, Malaysians cannot expect real accountability.

Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy
President

Malaysian Advancement Party

30.12.25

Tiga individu ditembak mati oleh polis pada jarak dekat. Rakaman audio kemudiannya muncul dan secara jelas bercanggah dengan naratif rasmi polis. Namun, Ketua Polis Melaka tetap bertegas bahawa mangsa telah menyerang pihak polis. Apabila kemarahan awam memuncak selepas rakaman audio itu didedahkan, Ketua Polis tersebut tidak menjawab isu pembunuhan berkenaan.

Sebaliknya, beliau menyerang kredibiliti wanita yang merakam audio itu — mempersoalkan identitinya, mendakwa beliau mempunyai rekod jenayah, malah menyeret nama bapanya ke dalam kancah ini. Ini jelas satu cubaan terancang untuk mengalihkan perhatian daripada pembunuhan tersebut dan menjatuhkan kredibiliti seorang saksi utama.

*Inilah bolehland, di mana putar belit menggantikan kebenaran, maklumat palsu dijadikan senjata, mangsa difitnah, keluarga ditraumatiskan, siasatan bebas dinafikan, dan pemimpin politik lebih cenderung menenangkan pihak polis daripada menuntut pertanggungjawaban.*

Perdana Menteri Anwar Ibrahim pula tergesa-gesa mempertahankan tindakan polis sambil berjanji bahawa “siasatan telus” akan dijalankan. Kata-kata ini kosong maknanya. Ketelusan mustahil wujud apabila pegawai polis yang terlibat tidak ditangkap atau digantung tugas, membolehkan mereka bebas mengganggu bukti, menyelaraskan cerita, dan mengelak daripada pertanggungjawaban. Jika inilah piawaian keadilan di bawah PMX, maka dakwaannya sebagai reformis dan juara kedaulatan undang-undang amat tercalar.

Hanya selepas tekanan awam yang berterusan barulah Peguam Negara mengarahkan pihak polis mengklasifikasikan semula kes ini sebagai kes bunuh.

Namun sehingga hari ini, tiada tangkapan. Tiada reman. Tiada akibat. Jika orang awam terlibat, mereka pasti telah ditahan serta-merta. Dwi-standard yang ketara ini mendedahkan sebuah sistem yang melindungi mereka berseragam, sambil menafikan keadilan kepada rakyat biasa.

Mengapa masih tiada siasatan bebas?

Bagaimana pihak polis boleh dipercayai untuk menyiasat dakwaan pembunuhan yang dilakukan oleh anggota mereka sendiri — lebih-lebih lagi apabila kebenaran hanya terbongkar selepas rakaman audio tersebar kepada umum? Ini bukan keadilan; ini adalah perlindungan institusi terhadap diri sendiri.

Keadaan menjadi lebih membimbangkan apabila Timbalan Menteri Undang-Undang, K. Kulasegaran, dilihat berdiri bersama keluarga mangsa di luar Bukit Aman menuntut keadilan. Di manakah Menteri Undang-Undang? Mengapa tanggungjawab ini diserahkan kepada timbalannya?

Kesunyian daripada mereka yang berkuasa berbicara dengan jelas. Seseorang sedang dilindungi — dan ia bukan mangsa.

Persoalan yang kini mesti ditanya oleh rakyat Malaysia adalah mudah tetapi mendesak:

*Adakah keadilan benar-benar wujud di negara ini?*

*Adakah kedaulatan undang-undang terpakai kepada semua — atau hanya kepada mereka yang tidak mempunyai kuasa dan seragam?*

Jika kerajaan benar-benar serius tentang reformasi, hanya satu jalan yang wajar diambil: gantung tugas pegawai-pegawai yang terlibat, tangkap dan reman mereka seperti mana-mana suspek lain, dan lantik satu siasatan yang benar-benar bebas. Apa-apa yang kurang daripada itu adalah pengkhianatan terhadap keadilan.

*Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy*

*17.12.2025*

Three individuals were shot dead by the police at point-blank range. Audio evidence later emerged that directly contradicts the official police narrative. Yet the Melaka Chief Police Officer insisted the victims had attacked the police. When public outrage intensified after the audio was made public, the CPO did not address the killings. Instead, he attacked the credibility of the woman who recorded the audio, questioning her identity, alleging she had a criminal record, and dragging her father into the mud. This was a deliberate attempt to divert attention from the killings and discredit a key witness.

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim rushed to defend the police, promising “transparent investigations.” These words ring hollow. Transparency is impossible when the officers involved were neither arrested nor suspended, leaving them free to tamper with evidence, coordinate their stories, and evade accountability. If this is the standard of justice under PMX, his claim to be a reformist and champion of the rule of law is deeply compromised.

Only after sustained public pressure did the Attorney General instruct the police to reclassify the case as murder.

Yet even now, the officers involved remain untouched. No arrests. No remand. No consequences. Had civilians been involved, they would have been detained immediately. This glaring double standard exposes a system that protects those in uniform while denying justice to ordinary citizens.

Why is there still no independent investigation? How can the police be trusted to investigate an alleged murder committed by their own officers, especially when the truth only surfaced because audio evidence leaked into the public domain? This is not justice; this is institutional self-preservation.

The situation becomes even more disturbing when the Deputy Law Minister, K. Kulasegaran, was seen standing with the victims’ families outside Bukit Aman demanding justice. Where was the Law Minister? Why was the responsibility pushed onto her deputy? Silence from those in power speaks volumes. Someone is being protected, and it is certainly not the victims.

This is bolehland, where spin replaces truth, misinformation is weaponised, victims are smeared, families are traumatised, independent investigations are denied, and political leaders appease the police instead of holding them accountable.

The question Malaysians must now ask is simple and urgent:

Is there real justice in this country?

Does the rule of law apply to everyone—or only to those without power and uniforms?

If the government is serious about reform, there is only one path forward: suspend the officers involved, arrest and remand them like any other suspect, and appoint a truly independent investigation. Anything less is a betrayal of justice.

Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy

17.12.2025