The fire that destroyed homes in Sandakan on 19th April 2026  is a devastating tragedy for the communities living in its water villages. Reports indicate that around 1,000 homes were destroyed, affecting more than 9,000 residents, leaving them without shelter overnight. These residents are not temporary occupants—they are natural inhabitants of the sea, with generations of cultural, economic, and social ties rooted in these coastal environments.

I do not wish to speculate on the actual cause of this particular incident or the apparent failure to contain the fire. However, the scale and consequences of the disaster inevitably give rise to a troubling feeling—I cannot help but feel that something is amiss, and there may be unseen or mysterious hands at play. This concern is heightened by the fact that, across Sandakan and other districts, authorities have periodically proposed relocating water village residents to public housing projects and land-based resettlement schemes, often citing fire risk and safety concerns, sanitation and public health, as well as broader urban planning and redevelopment goals without taking into consideration the ancient way of living of these communities.

The convergence of such longstanding relocation pressuresraises difficult questions. While nothing can be asserted without evidence, such incidents can, intentionally or otherwise, be used as an opportunity to justify permanent eviction. This underscores the importance of transparency, accountability, and a firm commitment to protecting the rights of the affected communities.

This disaster must not be used as a justification to permanently displace them from their rightful homes. The government has a responsibility to ensure that affected families are allowed to rebuild in the same location, preserving both their way of life and their connection to the sea. Relocation policies that disregard these ties risk erasing entire communities and traditions.

There is also a broader concern that, in the aftermath of such incidents, redevelopment priorities may shift toward commercial interests, including tourism or resort projects, at the expense of local residents. This has been observed in other cases, and it raises legitimate questions about long-term intentions.

Ultimately, recovery efforts should focus on restoring homes, livelihoods, and dignity, not displacing people from the environments they have long called home.

Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy

Hampir sebulan telah berlalu sejak Mahkamah Agung Amerika Syarikat memutuskan bahawa tarif yang dikenakan oleh Donald Trump adalah tidak berperlembagaan — tarif yang sama yang menjadi asas kepada Perjanjian Perdagangan Timbal Balik Malaysia–Amerika Syarikat yang ditandatangani oleh Anwar Ibrahim pada Oktober lalu.

*Namun begitu, Perdana Menteri masih belum menangani isu ini. Selepas membuat begitu banyak gembar-gembur semasa majlis menandatangani perjanjian itu, Anwar Ibrahim kini secara pengecut mengelak daripada mengambil atau gagal mengambil pendirian yang jelas susulan keputusan Mahkamah Agung Amerika Syarikat. Ketika kamera terpasang, Perdana Menteri begitu lantang bersuara. Namun apabila asas kepada perjanjian tersebut telah dibatalkan oleh mahkamah tertinggi di Amerika Syarikat, beliau memilih untuk terus berdiam diri daripada mempertahankan kepentingan Malaysia dengan jelas dan tegas.*

Rakyat Malaysia berhak mendapat penjelasan mengapa PM Anwar Ibrahim masih berdiam diri, sedangkan asas perundangan kepada perjanjian yang beliau tandatangani itu sudah tidak lagi sah. Perniagaan, pengeksport dan pelabur memerlukan kepastian, tetapi sehingga kini Perdana Menteri masih belum memberikan jawapan yang jelas.

Saya memuji Menteri Pelaburan, Perdagangan dan Industri Johari Ghani atas keterbukaannya mengesahkan bahawa perjanjian tersebut secara berkesan telah terbatal. Tahap kejelasan seperti ini sepatutnya diberikan oleh Perdana Menteri lebih awal.

*Kepimpinan bukan tentang peluang bergambar, pengumuman besar, kemegahan menaiki The Beast secara percuma atau menerima pen percuma dari Rumah Putih. Kepimpinan adalah tentang memikul tanggungjawab apabila keadaan berubah.*

PM Anwar Ibrahim kini perlu bertindak dalam kapasiti beliau sebagai Perdana Menteri. Beliau mesti secara rasmi memaklumkan kepada Donald Trump dan pihak berkuasa Amerika Syarikat yang berkaitan bahawa Malaysia menganggap perjanjian tersebut tidak sah dan tidak boleh dipertahankan berikutan keputusan Mahkamah Agung Amerika Syarikat.
Malaysia tidak boleh terikat kepada perjanjian perdagangan yang dibina atas tarif yang telah diisytiharkan tidak berperlembagaan oleh mahkamah tertinggi di Amerika Syarikat sendiri.
Semakin lama Perdana Menteri berlengah, semakin timbul persoalan: apakah sebenarnya yang beliau takut untuk katakan?

Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy
Presiden 
Malaysia Advancement Party
15.3.2026

Nearly a month has passed since the United States Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump’s tariffs were unconstitutional — the very tariffs that formed the basis of the Malaysia–US Agreement on Reciprocal Trade signed by Anwar Ibrahim last October.

However, the Prime Minister has not addressed this issue.

Malaysians deserve an explanation for the lack of response from Anwar Ibrahim, given that the legal foundation of the agreement he signed is no longer valid. Businesses, exporters, and investors require clarity as the Prime Minister has yet to provide a direct answer.

I commend Investment, Trade and Industry Minister Johari Ghani for his transparency in confirming that the deal is effectively cancelled. This level of clarity should have been provided by the Prime Minister earlier.

Leadership is not about photo opportunities, grand announcements, glory of a free ride in The Beast and a free White House pen. Leadership is about taking responsibility when circumstances change.

Anwar Ibrahim should now act in his capacity as Prime Minister. He must formally notify Donald Trump and the relevant US authorities that Malaysia considers the agreement unlawful and untenable in light of the US Supreme Court's ruling.

Malaysia cannot be bound to a trade deal built on tariffs that the highest court in the United States itself has declared unconstitutional.

The longer the Prime Minister delays, the more it raises the question: what exactly is he afraid to say?

The  warning by Minister Gobind Singh Deo that police inaction in cases involving religion could threaten national stability should be taken seriously by every Malaysian who values peace and harmony in our multi-racial society.

Yet the conduct of the Home Minister, Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, raises serious and disturbing questions about whether the government itself truly believes in the principles it publicly proclaims.

It is deeply alarming that the Home Minister — the very person responsible for overseeing the police and internal security — has reportedly met with a well-known hate preacher who has been the subject of hundreds of police reports over the years for inflammatory and statements that have repeatedly stirred hostility between Malaysia’s religious and ethnic communities. This individual has long built a reputation for spreading divisive rhetoric and provoking tensions among Malaysians of different faiths, and has been emboldened by the recent “endorsement” by Saifuddin.

For years, Malaysians have been told that provocative statements touching on race and religion will be dealt with firmly under the law. Even the Sultan Perak last year reminded authorities and Malaysians on the need to maintain peaceful co-existence. Yet when it comes to certain individuals, the law appears to move at a glacial pace — if at all.

The question Malaysians are entitled to ask is simple: why does someone with such a long record of incitement and hate speech appear to enjoy protection from prosecutionand a Madani Minister?

The Home Minister’s meeting with such a figure sends an extremely troubling message to the public. Instead of demonstrating zero tolerance toward those who sow hatred and division, the government appears willing to grant them legitimacy and access at the highest levels of authority.

These contradictions expose a glaring hypocrisy within the so-called “Madani” government. While Gobind rightly warn about the dangers of religious extremism and inflammatory rhetoric, the Home Minister, Saifuddin NasutionIsmail, appears willing to meet and legitimise a figure widely known for spreading division and hostility among Malaysia’s communities.

In light of this troubling episode, the leadership of the DAP must demand an immediate explanation from the Home Minister. If the government is truly committed to unity and the rule of law, it cannot appear to extend legitimacy or protection to individuals accused of promoting hatred and division.

Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy

President

Malaysian Advancement Party

12.3.2026

The debate surrounding the future of Azam Baki as head of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission has dominated public discussion. But Malaysians must confront a far more uncomfortable truth.

The real issue is not Azam Baki. The real issue is Anwar the controller of system that produced him.

Replacing one individual while preserving a flawed structure of appointment is not reform. It is merely the illusion of reform.

Even if Azam Baki leaves tomorrow, the structure that allowed the controversy to arise will remain untouched. His successor will still be appointed through the same process — a process where the Anwar Ibrahim’s PKR despite only having 31 seats and is enthroned the position as PM, advises (which must be accepted) the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on who should lead the nation’s most powerful anti-corruption body.

In practical terms, this means that the leadership of the MACC ultimately depends on the decision of the Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim and he is free to appoint anyone who is willing to take “instructions” from him”.

This arrangement should alarm every fair-minded Malaysian.

An anti-corruption agency cannot genuinely act as a watchdog if its leadership is effectively determined by the political authority it may one day need to investigate. A watchdog chosen by the powerful PM will never bite the hand that appoints it.

For years Malaysians have been promised reformasi, transparency, and accountability. These ideals were supposed to transform the nation’s institutions and place them beyond political manipulation. Yet today the country finds itself confronting the same structural weaknesses that have plagued governance for decades.

Instead of meaningful institutional reform, public discourse is increasingly diverted into narratives of conspiracies and external plots. Claims of shadowy forces attempting to destabilise the government circulate widely, often drawing ridicule across social media. These distractions do nothing to address the real issue confronting the nation — the urgent need to strengthen institutional independence.

At the heart of the problem lies a structural flaw embedded within Malaysia’s constitutional framework. The Constitution grants sweeping appointment powers to the Prime Minister across many key institutions that are supposed to operate independently of political influence.

Perhaps such powers seemed reasonable during the early years of independence. When the Constitution was framed, leaders such as Tunku Abdul Rahman were widely trusted to wield authority responsibly for the benefit of a young nation.

But democracies do not survive on trust alone. They survive on checks, balances, and institutions that are stronger than any individual leader.

Today Malaysia faces a political reality very different from that of the early post-independence era. The Prime Minister wields extensive authority over appointments to critical institutions even though his own party lacks actual parliamentary mandate with only 31 seats in Parliament. Yet from this position flows enormous influence over the leadership of agencies meant to uphold the rule of law.

Such concentration of power invites suspicion, weakens institutional credibility, and fuels public cynicism.

This is why the debate must move beyond personalities. Removing Azam Baki without reforming the system that enabled the controversy will simply ensure that the same cycle repeats itself with another name.

Malaysia does not need cosmetic changes.

Malaysia needs structural reform.

Appointments to key institutions such as the MACC must be subjected to transparent procedures, parliamentary oversight, and genuine safeguards against political interference. The fight against corruption cannot depend on the goodwill of political leaders. It must be anchored in institutions that are independent, credible, and accountable to the people.

Ultimately, this is not merely a question of governance. It is a test of Malaysia’s democratic maturity.

Malaysians must decide whether they will continue tolerating institutions shaped by political power, or whether they will insist on a system where no Prime Minister can control the very agencies meant to hold power accountable. Democracies do not reform themselves — citizens force reform upon them.

Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy