MEGAT IQBAL & CO.

06/04/2026

Justice for qaseh aulia

06/04/2026

UNTUK SIARAN SEGERA
KENYATAAN MEDIA TETUAN MEGAT IQBAL & CO: MAHKAMAH JATUHKAN HUKUMAN DALAM KES PENGABAIAN BAYI QASEH AULIA
PETALING JAYA, 6 APRIL 2026 – Mahkamah Sesyen Petaling Jaya hari ini telah menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap tertuduh dalam kes menyayat hati membabitkan bayi berusia dua bulan, Qaseh Aulia Faizul, yang meninggal dunia akibat pengabaian di sebuah taska pada Oktober 2023.
Setelah pihak pembelaan gagal menimbulkan keraguan munasabah, Mahkamah mendapati tertuduh bersalah di bawah Seksyen 31(1)(a) Akta Kanak-Kanak 2001 dan memerintahkan hukuman berikut:
1. Hukuman Penjara: Tempoh pemenjaraan selama lima (5) tahun berkuat kuasa dari tarikh sabitan hari ini.
2. Bon Berkelakuan Baik: Tempoh selama tiga (3) tahun dengan cagaran sebanyak RM5,000 berserta dua orang penjamin warganegara Malaysia.
3. Khidmat Masyarakat: Kewajipan menyempurnakan khidmat masyarakat selama 120 jam dalam tempoh enam bulan selepas tamat tempoh pemenjaraan.
4. Wang Jaminan: Mahkamah memerintahkan agar wang jaminan sedia ada dikembalikan kepada tertuduh.
Kenyataan daripada Tetuan Megat Iqbal & Co (Peguam Pemerhati):

"Keputusan hari ini menandakan berakhirnya satu perjalanan perundangan jenayah yang panjang dan penuh emosi bagi ibu bapa Qaseh Aulia. Hukuman penjara lima tahun yang dijatuhkan oleh Mahkamah mencerminkan keseriusan tanggungjawab dan 'duty of care' yang wajib dipikul oleh setiap pengusaha serta pengasuh kanak-kanak.

Walaupun tiada hukuman yang mampu menggantikan kehilangan seorang cahaya mata, sabitan bersalah dan hukuman yang dijatuhkan hari ini memberikan keadilan yang sewajarnya buat keluarga mangsa. Pihak keluarga juga menegaskan bahawa mereka berhasrat untuk meneruskan segala saluran undang-undang yang ada, termasuk memulakan prosiding sivil terhadap pihak-pihak yang bertanggungjawab bagi memastikan keadilan yang menyeluruh dicapai."

Keluarga Qaseh Aulia ingin merakamkan ucapan setinggi-tinggi penghargaan kepada pasukan pendakwaan, pihak PDRM, JKM, serta seluruh rakyat Malaysia yang memberikan sokongan moral yang tidak berbelah bahagi sepanjang kes ini berlangsung. Pihak keluarga memohon ruang privasi buat masa ini untuk menghadam keputusan yang baru sahaja diumumkan.

30/01/2026

30/01/2026

GISB saga, Breaking Bad, and Ozark: Understanding AMLA Beyond the Pious Veneer

1. The Fallacy of the "Righteous Release"

When the leaders of GISB were recently released from custody, a wave of jubilation swept through their supporters, framed as a vindication of their "innocence." The prevailing narrative among sympathizers was one of religious persecution—that these individuals were targeted simply for their attire and Islamic image.

However, from a legal standpoint, this celebration is fundamentally misplaced. The court did not declare them "holy" or "innocent"; it released them because they pleaded guilty.

2. Conviction by Admission: The Societies Act

It is crucial to clarify the record: the 22 individuals in question were not acquitted. They accepted an alternative charge under Section 43 of the Societies Act 1966, formally admitting that GISB was an unlawful organization.

The "release" was merely a mathematical consequence of the Malaysian legal principle of “time served.” Since their 15-month sentence was already covered by their period in remand, the court considered the penalty fulfilled.

To cheer this as a "victory of truth" is a paradox—you cannot win a war of truth by admitting you broke the law.

3. Fase Two: From Identity to Finance

If the public believes this saga ended at the prison gates, they are gravely mistaken. We have merely completed the "Identity Phase"—the determination of who they are. We are now entering the far more perilous "Financial Phase."

This is where the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) takes center stage. AMLA is a clinical, cold instrument; it does not care for robes or religious identity. It cares only for the source, the flow, and the destination of the Ringgit.

4. The "Coffee Shop" Logic vs. The Rule of Law

There is a common misconception that "moving money between my own companies" is a private right. This is what we call "coffee shop logic." Under AMLA, the legality of a transfer is predicated on the nature of the funds.

If the prosecution proves the money originated from "unlawful activity"—such as labor exploitation or welfare abuse—then those funds are legally "poisoned."

At that point, any movement of that money, even through a legitimate grocery store or travel agency, becomes a criminal act of money laundering.

5. Ozark, Breaking Bad, and the Art of "Layering"

To understand the 331 AMLA charges currently facing GISB’s leadership, one only needs to look at the cinematic worlds of Ozark or Breaking Bad.

The crime isn't just making "dirty" money; it’s the attempt to make it look "clean." In legal terms, this is Layering. By moving funds through a complex web of accounts—from welfare homes to business entities to personal pockets—without commercial justification or valid invoicing, one creates a financial fog.

The intent is clear: to frustrate the trail of the authorities.

6. The Red Flag of "Commingling"

A critical pillar of the prosecution's case is Commingling. In Malaysia, funds collected under the guise of charity or trust are sacrosanct; they cannot be treated as a corporate slush fund.

When public donations or welfare funds are mixed with private business capital to purchase assets or fund lifestyle expenses, it triggers a massive legal red flag.

Just as Walter White’s car wash couldn't explain the surge in "profit," financial figures that don't align with operational reality invite the full weight of the law.

7. The Silence of Intent and Knowledge

The most lethal element of an AMLA trial is the standard of Knowledge and Intent. The prosecution doesn't need a "smoking gun" email where an accountant admits to money laundering.

They only need to prove that, given their positions, the directors and accountants ought to have known the funds were derived from illegal origins. In our legal system, ignorance is not a defense for those holding the keys to the treasury.

8. The Narrative of the Trail

Ultimately, AMLA views the big picture. A single transaction might look like a mistake; a pattern of 331 transactions totaling RM38.1 million is a narrative.

As we move toward the next mention date on May 5, 2026, the public must realize that while the first phase was about the organization's existence, this phase is about its lifeblood. In the theater of the court, financial trails speak much louder than slogans of persecution.

29/01/2026

In light of the recent High Court ruling involving the Genneva Malaysia gold investment scheme, the boundaries of corporate protection and personal culpability have been dramatically redrawn. For years, the "corporate veil" served as a seemingly impenetrable fortress for directors and agents. However, recent judicial developments,including the landmark judgment involving the estate of the late Mother Mangalam, signal a shift: the era of hiding behind a company name to escape the consequences of fraud is effectively over.

The Fallacy of the "Invincible" Director

The doctrine of separate legal personality, established over a century ago in Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22, remains a cornerstone of company law. It suggests that a company is a distinct "person," and its directors are generally shielded from its liabilities

However, as the High Court recently reaffirmed in the case of Genneva Malaysia Sdn Bhd & Ors, this shield is not an absolute license for deceit. When a company is used as a vehicle for a "systematic fraudulent scheme," the court will not hesitate to pierce the corporate veil. In the Genneva ruling, the court found that the directors knowingly operated an unsustainable "Ponzi-like" model, buying gold back at 20–25% above market price using funds from new investors.

The Legal "Scalpel": Piercing the Veil

Under Malaysian law, piercing the veil is reserved for "special circumstances" where the corporate structure is used as a facade or sham to conceal true facts or evade legal obligations (Takako Sakao v Ng Pek Yuen [2009] 6 MLJ 751).

The court’s message is clear: if you utilize the corporate form to orchestrate a fraud, the court will treat the company and its controllers as one and the same.

Culpability Beyond the Boardroom: Employees and Agents

A common misconception among "middle-management" and sales agents in such schemes is the belief that they are "just following orders" or are protected by their employment status.

House of Lords in Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corp (No 2) [2003] 1 AC 291, the courts have held that:

an individual cannot escape liability for their own fraudulent misrepresentations by claiming they were acting on behalf of a company.

If an agent or employee makes a representation they know to be false—or is reckless as to its truth—to induce an investor to part with their money, they can be held personally liable. Being a "foot soldier" does not grant immunity from the financial ruins left in the wake of the scam.

What This Means for Victims

For the investors—including the estate of the late humanitarian Mother Mangalam, who invested her 2010 Merdeka Award funds—this judicial stance is a beacon of hope. The High Court's order for the defendants to pay RM2.2 million to specific investors demonstrates that:

1. Direct Recourse: Victims are no longer limited to suing a bankrupt "shell" company. They can pursue the personal assets of the directors who masterminded the scheme.

2. Fraudulent Trading: Under Section 540 of the Companies Act 2016, if a business is carried on with the intent to defraud creditors, the court can declare any person who was "knowingly a party" to be personally responsible for the company's liabilities without limit.

3. Restitution over Rigidity: The courts are increasingly prioritizing substantive justice over the rigid application of corporate autonomy when clear dishonesty is proven.

The Genneva saga serves as a somber reminder: the corporate veil is a tool for legitimate commerce, not a cloak for deception. For directors, it underscores the weight of fiduciary duties. For victims, it proves that the law possesses the tools to reach those responsible, no matter how many layers of "Sdn Bhd" they hide behind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP545RVsJBs

This video provides a concise summary of the High Court's recent decision and the specific damages awarded to the investors involved.

High Court says they knowingly operated a systematic fraudulent scheme that deceived the plaintiffs and many other members of the public.Read More:https://ww...

10/11/2025

We act for Mr. Ariz Ramli, also known as Caprice, in the ongoing defamation suit filed by Syed Mohammad Murad Syed Naseem (also known as Murad Zaidi).

We wish to clarify several matters following recent media reports concerning the High Court proceedings on 8 November 2025.

06/11/2025

Beyond Suspicion: Why a Malaysian Court Found the Government Liable in Pastor Raymond Koh’s Enforced Disappearance

On an ordinary morning in February 2017, Pastor Raymond Koh was abducted from a quiet suburban street in Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.

The crime was shocking in its brazenness, but the subsequent years were defined by deafening silence, official denials, and a pervasive shadow of state suspicion.

The government insisted it had no knowledge of Koh’s fate, and police investigations stalled.

That narrative was shattered in an unprecedented ruling in late 2025.

The Malaysian High Court found the government and key police officials liable for the enforced disappearance of Pastor Koh and ordered a massive payment of over RM37 million in damages to his family
The central, dramatic question immediately arises: After years of stonewalling and inconclusive searches, how did a court of law definitively pierce the veil of denial and link the Malaysian state apparatus—the very institutions meant to protect its citizens—to such a grave violation of human rights?

This landmark ruling was not based on a confession, but on a meticulous assembly of circumstantial evidence and the unmistakable signature of state power.

II. The Abduction’s Unmistakable Signature: "Organized Unit"

The bedrock of the court’s finding was the chilling, 40-second CCTV footage of the abduction itself. The judge, in his ruling, effectively dismissed the idea of a random kidnapping, pointing instead to an operation of "military precision."

The evidence showed at least 15 masked men, driving a fleet of professional-looking black SUVs and motorcycles, converging on Koh’s car. The coordination was seamless: a swift blockade, synchronized movements, and the immediate seizure of the victim, all executed in broad daylight.

The judge’s language was deliberate, concluding that the operation was carried out by an "organized unit" with clear "pre-planning and logistical preparation."

Crucially, the subsequent events—or lack thereof—spoke volumes. Unlike typical criminal abductions, there were no ransom demands, no calls, and no trace of Pastor Koh ever emerged.

This pointed the court toward a motive and operative structure far removed from common criminality, strongly suggesting the involvement of a specialized, state-level intelligence operation.

III. The Suhakam Inquiry: A Precedent of State Involvement

The path to judicial accountability was significantly paved by an earlier, independent investigation. In 2019, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam)—the nation's premier human rights body—concluded its own public inquiry into several enforced disappearances, including Koh's.

Suhakam’s findings were powerful: they determined that both Pastor Koh and social activist Amri Che Mat were victims of enforced disappearances carried out by the Special Branch (SB), the intelligence division of the Royal Malaysia Police.

While Suhakam’s report was not legally binding on the courts, its detailed evidence, robust witness testimonies, and independent statutory authority provided a credible, foundational precedent that could not be easily ignored by the High Court.

IV. The "Striking Similarities": Connecting Koh to Amri Che Mat

A key pillar of the court’s reasoning was the parallel case of Amri Che Mat, who disappeared months before Koh under virtually identical circumstances.

The judge specifically emphasized the "striking similarities" in the modus operandi: the use of coordinated, multiple vehicles to block and corner the target, followed by a swift and professional seizure. This near-perfect resemblance strongly suggested a common perpetrator or a shared playbook—a standard operating procedure known only to a specific, trained body.

Furthermore, the investigation into Amri’s case (documented in the Suhakam report) had already established a tangible link to state agents.

A vehicle identified at Amri's abduction scene was reportedly registered to a Special Branch officer. By linking the modus operandi in the two cases, the court was able to use the established state link in the Amri case to buttress the finding of government liability in the Koh disappearance.

V. The Cover-Up: Police Inaction and Misfeasance

The High Court's findings of liability went beyond the act of abduction itself. The ruling also condemned the government for the systemic failure of its post-abduction investigation.

The court found that the police investigation was deliberately inadequate, lacking in diligence, and calculated to obstruct justice. This was not mere negligence; the judicial language was strong, citing "suppression of evidence and investigative misdirection."

The implied knowledge of the perpetrators’ identity by those conducting the search was central to this finding.

Ultimately, the court determined that the police officers responsible for the investigation had exercised their public power "in bad faith with an intention to harm" Pastor Koh and his family.

This finding of misfeasance in public office—the deliberate abuse of power to cause harm—was a devastating legal condemnation of state conduct.

VI. Conclusion: A Step Towards Accountability

The ruling in the case of Pastor Raymond Koh is a landmark moment for accountability and the rule of law in Malaysia.

It represents a powerful judicial validation of years of searching, fear, and human rights advocacy, officially acknowledging that enforced disappearance is a reality orchestrated by state agents.

While the government has indicated its intention to appeal the ruling, signifying that the battle for final justice is not yet over, the High Court’s definitive judgment stands as a potent symbol.

It sends a clear message that institutions built on public trust, such as the Special Branch and the Royal Malaysia Police, will be subject to fierce judicial scrutiny when their actions violate fundamental human rights.

The decision marks a significant step toward stripping away the opacity of unchecked state power, forcing the nation to confront the shadows that still linger over its human rights record.

31/10/2025

The High Bar of Parental Responsibility: Analyzing the Zayn Rayyan Neglect Conviction

1. The Central Legal Conflict and the Court's Finding.

The conviction of Ismanira Abdul Manaf, mother of the late Zayn Rayyan Abdul Matiin, for neglect under the Child Act 2001 (Act 611) underscores a critical distinction in criminal law: the difference between a parent's criminal omission (neglect) and the unforeseen criminal act of a third party (murder).

While the public consciousness focused on the tragic discovery of the child's body and the suspected act of strangulation, the court's judgment delivered on October 31, 2025, concentrated exclusively on the mother's failure in her fundamental duty of care.

The court found that her act of allowing the vulnerable, autistic child to wander "without proper supervision" was the direct, causal precursor that led to his disappearance and subsequent exposure to danger.

2. The Statutory Threshold: Section 31(1)(a) of the Child Act 2001.

The legal foundation for the conviction rests on Section 31(1)(a) of Act 611, which prohibits a person having the care of a child from neglecting or exposing that child to danger "so as to cause him/her physical or emotional injury." Crucially, the threshold for this criminal offence is not the occurrence of the most severe harm, but the foreseeability of risk.

The law does not mandate that the caregiver must have predicted the horrific outcome (murder); it only requires the prosecution to prove that the failure to supervise was committed in a manner "likely to cause him physical or emotional injury."

The very act of leaving an autistic child, known for a tendency to wander, unsupervised in a high-risk environment meets this threshold, as it introduces a palpable and immediate risk of accident, injury, or abduction.

3. Defining the Duty of the "Reasonable and Responsible Caregiver."

The ruling definitively establishes a high, contextual standard for the duty of reasonable and responsible care in Malaysia. This duty is not static; it is proportional to two primary factors: the vulnerability of the child and the risk level of the environment.

As Zayn Rayyan was a six-year-old child with Autism Spectrum Disorder, the law imposes an enhanced duty of vigilance on his caregiver, recognizing his increased need for secure, focused supervision. The court concluded that the failure to maintain visual contact and control, thereby allowing the child to become separated and wander, constituted a gross and criminal breach of this enhanced duty.

The neglect was not the murder itself, but the creation of the window of opportunity for the eventual harm.

4. The Nuance of Causation and Aggravation.

The judgment carefully navigates the issue of causation. The mother's act of neglect was determined to be the proximate cause of the child being left in harm's way, leading to his disappearance from a safe environment.

While the subsequent act of strangulation was an intervening, highly criminal event committed by a third party, it is viewed as an aggravating
consequence that flowed directly from the initial act of criminal neglect.

The conviction, and the resulting sentence of five years in prison, is therefore the legal consequence of the mother failing her most fundamental statutory duty to protect her child from foreseeable dangers, a failure that tragically culminated in his death.

The law, in this instance, holds the caregiver accountable for the foreseeable risk created by their omission.

30/10/2025

📰 PRESS RELEASE / SIARAN MEDIA

Issued by: Megat Iqbal & Co. (Watching Brief Lawyers for the Parents of Baby Qaseh Aulia)

Date: 24 October 2025

⸻

ENGLISH VERSION

COURT FINDS PRIMA FACIE CASE AGAINST DAYCARE OWNER IN BABY QASEH AULIA’S DEATH

PETALING JAYA, 24 October 2025 – The Magistrates’ Court in Petaling Jaya today ruled that the prosecution has successfully established a prima facie case against Noor Shafira binti Noor Rashid, the owner of Taska Juara Kota Damansara, in connection with the death of two-month-old baby Qaseh Aulia on 10 October 2023.

The accused faces multiple charges, including:

1. Employing a non-citizen without a valid work pass under Section 55B(1) of the Immigration Act 1959/63; and

2. Failing to comply with childcare regulations under Regulation 14(2)(a) of the Child Care Centre Regulations 2012, punishable under Section 34 of the Child Care Centre Act 1984 (Act 308).

The prosecution argued that the accused had illegally employed an Indonesian national, Mulyati binti Kalim, as a caregiver — in violation of JKM’s strict requirement that only Malaysian citizens may work as childcarers in registered childcare centres.

After hearing submissions from both parties, Magistrate Nur Natasya binti Mohtarudin held that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a defence, and directed the accused to enter her defence on both charges.
The accused chose to testify under oath, and the defence hearing has been fixed for 29 and 30 December 2025.

Earlier, on 10 April 2025, Noor Shafira had pleaded guilty to two separate offences under Regulation 5(1) and Section 34 of the Child Care Centre Act 1984 for operating a childcare centre without valid registration, and was fined RM 1,000 for each offence.

Megat Iqbal & Co. appears on a watching brief for the complainant parents, Faizul Ali Adam and Maisarah Rosli, who continue to seek accountability and reform in childcare safety standards across Malaysia.

“This ruling is an important step. It affirms that employers and daycare operators must be held accountable when basic safety and legal requirements are ignored — especially where a child’s life has been lost,” said Megat Iqbal, counsel for the complainant parents.

The firm will continue to monitor both the criminal proceedings and related administrative actions by the Department of Social Welfare (JKM) and Immigration Department, and will advise the family on their next steps, including possible civil action against the operator and the company, Taska Juara Sdn Bhd.

VERSI BAHASA MELAYU

MAHKAMAH DAPATI KES PRIMA FACIE TERHADAP PENGUSAHA TASKA BERKAITAN KEMATIAN BAYI QASEH AULIA

PETALING JAYA, 24 Oktober 2025 – Mahkamah Majistret Petaling Jaya hari ini memutuskan bahawa pihak pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap Noor Shafira binti Noor Rashid, pengusaha Taska Juara Kota Damansara, berhubung kematian bayi berusia dua bulan Qaseh Aulia pada 10 Oktober 2023.

Tertuduh menghadapi beberapa pertuduhan, antaranya:

1. Menggaji bukan warganegara tanpa pas kerja yang sah di bawah Seksyen 55B(1) Akta Imigresen 1959/63; dan

2. Gagal mematuhi peraturan keselamatan taska di bawah Peraturan 14(2)(a) Peraturan-Peraturan Taman Asuhan Kanak-Kanak 2012, yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 34 Akta Taman Asuhan Kanak-Kanak 1984 (Akta 308).

Pendakwaan berhujah bahawa tertuduh telah menggaji seorang warga Indonesia, Mulyati binti Kalim, sebagai pengasuh tanpa kelayakan yang sah, sekali gus melanggar peraturan Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat (JKM) yang menetapkan bahawa hanya warganegara Malaysia dibenarkan menjadi pengasuh di taska berdaftar.

Selepas mendengar hujahan kedua-dua pihak, Majistret Nur Natasya binti Mohtarudin memutuskan bahawa terdapat bukti yang mencukupi bagi pihak pembelaan dipanggil membela diri atas kedua-dua pertuduhan tersebut.

Tertuduh memilih untuk memberi keterangan bersumpah, dan tarikh perbicaraan pembelaan telah ditetapkan pada 29 dan 30 Disember 2025.

Terdahulu, pada 10 April 2025, Noor Shafira telah mengaku bersalah terhadap dua pertuduhan berasingan di bawah Peraturan 5(1) dan Seksyen 34 Akta Taman Asuhan Kanak-Kanak 1984 kerana mengendalikan taska tanpa pendaftaran sah, dan telah dihukum denda sebanyak RM 1,000 bagi setiap kesalahan.

Firma guaman Megat Iqbal & Co. hadir sebagai peguam pemerhati bagi pihak ibu bapa mangsa, Faizul Ali Adam dan Maisarah Rosli, yang terus menuntut keadilan dan penambahbaikan terhadap piawaian keselamatan di pusat asuhan kanak-kanak di seluruh Malaysia.

“Keputusan hari ini amat penting. Ia menunjukkan bahawa pengusaha taska mesti dipertanggungjawabkan apabila mereka mengabaikan keperluan undang-undang dan keselamatan asas, lebih-lebih lagi apabila nyawa seorang bayi terkorban,” kata Megat Iqbal, peguam bagi ibu bapa Qaseh Aulia.

Firma ini akan terus memantau perkembangan prosiding jenayah dan tindakan pentadbiran oleh JKM serta Jabatan Imigresen, serta menasihati keluarga mengenai langkah seterusnya termasuk tindakan sivil terhadap pengusaha dan syarikat Taska Juara Sdn Bhd.

20/09/2025

PRESS STATEMENT

For Immediate Release

Clarification on Misreporting by Buletin Utama, 18 September 2025

We act for Mr. Ariz bin Ramli (Caprice), the Defendant in the civil suit Muhammad Asyraf bin Khalid v. Ariz bin Ramli (WA-23CY-25-08/2025), currently pending before the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

It has come to our attention that the Buletin Utama news report broadcast and published on 18 September 2025 contained several serious inaccuracies concerning the case:

1.The report stated that the “decision of the defamation suit would be known on 18 September 2025.

This is factually wrong. The proceeding on 18 September 2025 was only a case management for an interlocutory injunction. There was no decision on the suit itself. The Court in fact directed the Defendant to file his Statement of Defence by 2 October 2025.

2.The report suggested that Caprice had used the word “pedophilia” in his social media posts.

This is completely false and misleading. The Defendant has never described or labelled the Plaintiff as a “pedophile”. That term was only raised in the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim as part of his own pleaded interpretation. To broadcast otherwise is a serious misrepresentation that unjustly damages the Defendant’s reputation.

These inaccuracies have created a false public perception of the case and risk prejudicing the fair administration of justice.

We have formally written to Buletin Utama and Media Prima demanding an immediate correction. Our client reserves all rights to take further action to the fullest extent of the law should no corrective steps be taken.

Our client wishes to emphasise that he has full confidence in the Malaysian judicial process, and will continue to defend himself in Court where the facts will be properly determined.

Issued by:
Megat Iqbal & Co.
Solicitors for Ariz bin Ramli (Caprice)
Date: 19 September 2025

12/09/2025

A Lawyer's Dilemma in Kampung Bharu: The True Cost of Unrealistic Expectations

My family's roots in Kampung Bharu run deep, and for years, I've had the honor and the heavy burden of representing them and other landowners in the community.

As a lawyer, I was tasked with a simple yet impossible mission: to secure a good price for our ancestral land.

What I've found, however, is that the greatest enemies to a fair resolution are not the developers or the government, but the ghosts of unrealistic expectations and the cynical promises of opportunistic politicians.

The air in Kampung Bharu is thick with history and sentiment. It’s also thick with dreams of becoming an "instant millionaire." For years, politicians have exploited this hope, whispering promises of sky-high land valuations that have no basis in reality.

They filibuster with grand pronouncements, creating a narrative where our land is worth multiple times what any developer or government body will ever legally pay. It’s an intoxicating dream, and my clients—my own family—have clung to it, refusing to accept anything less.

The Unpopular Truth: Facts vs. Dreams

My job was to provide a reality check. I've spent countless hours trying to explain that the legal and factual basis for land value is the JPPH valuation, which for our area hovers around RM450 to RM500 per square foot.

I've argued that holding out for a mythical RM1,000+ per square foot—a figure plucked from the air by political rhetoric—is not a strategy.

It's a fantasy that would only lead to a stalemate. I’ve shown them the figures, presented the legal precedents, and laid out the cold, hard facts of the Land Acquisition Act.

In return, I’ve been accused of being a "perompak" (thief) or a developer "shill." My clients, blinded by the promise of untold riches, saw my realistic advice as a betrayal.

They couldn’t comprehend that my sole concern was to protect them and ensure they received a fair and achievable settlement. I was not there to sell their dreams but to provide a sound legal strategy based on facts, not fiction.

The tragic irony of the Kampung Sungai Baru dispute is that those who fought the hardest and endured the most public scrutiny have lost the most. They rejected a generous initial offer, gambling on the political promises, only to be left with a court-mandated cash payout that is a fraction of what they could have had.

Their brave stand against the developers and government has resulted in a financial loss and, ultimately, a violent and undignified eviction.

To me, the true tragedy of Kampung Bharu is not the development itself, but the way a community was turned against itself, torn between an impossible dream and a harsh reality.

The greatest enemies were never the bulldozers; they were the unrealistic expectations that led to a financial and emotional loss, and the politicians who used our heritage as ammunition for their own gain.