The Malaysian Bar’s International Malaysia Law Conference (“IMLC”) 2026 took place from 27 to 30 Oct 2026 at MITEC, Kuala Lumpur.
By Voon Su Huei, IMLC Organising Committee Member
The final plenary session at IMLC 2026 was conducted from 4:00 pm to 5:30 pm on 30 Oct 2026. It was moderated by Anand Raj, President of the Malaysian Bar.
The audience had the opportunity to hear key insights from the following speakers:
- Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli, Former Minister of Economy and Former Member of Parliament, Malaysia;
- Sangeet Kaur Deo, Partner at Karpal Singh & Co; and
- Mala Balakrishnan, Research Fellow, United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network (“SDSN”) Asia Headquarters at Sunway University, Malaysia.
Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli started the session by reflecting on the meaning of reform. “It is not supposed to be a byline to get votes — one must mean it. The big question is, does one rock the boat so much that one loses the power to reform?” He believed that every Prime Minister in the past trusted that staying within the system would allow them to do more in the future, but Datuk Seri Rafizi was of the view that the more one tries to confine disagreements behind closed doors, the more one becomes less of oneself.
Datuk Seri Rafizi reflected on the Westminster principle practised in the Malaysian Parliament where ultimately the Prime Minister would get his way by virtue of collective responsibility. He took the view that if one is elected to cabinet based on one position, and if one no longer represents that position, then one should resign, sharing a hope that people can speak up without fear of being booted. Ultimately, he did not want to be seen as saying one thing and doing another, believing that it will take time before the public can be educated and politicians are motivated to believe that there can be honour in politics.
Sangeet Kaur Deo took to the stage next to share her thoughts on the meaning of democracy and the Government’s slow efforts on reform to date. She noted that principles are easy to declare during elections, but easy to trade at the negotiating table. Every coalition is built on compromise, but it only decides who holds power, not how power is held to account. To her, democracy means whether power can be challenged and whether power answers when it does wrong.
She noted that our present Government has provided reforms including abolishing the mandatory death penalty which has taken decades, as well as decriminalising attempted suicide. Crucially, none of these changes limit the powers of those who govern, posing thought-provoking questions to the audience — can you criticise the Government without fear? Is the Government answerable when it does wrong, and who decides? While article 10 of the Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, assembly and association, the Sedition Act 1948 still hangs over us where the amendment to the Sedition Act has yet to be brought into force today.
On the issue of peaceful assembly, she noted that the Government had promised to amend the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, but this has yet to happen, and a moratorium on venue–owner consent is in place at the time of her speech. She noted that the police had imposed conditions on the Malaysian Bar’s Walk for Judicial Independence 2022 only a day before the march. It was only after around 4 years of litigation that those conditions were found to be invalid by the Courts. She asked — if the Bar must go to Court for the right to walk, what chance does the ordinary citizen have?
On the issue of corruption, the High Court had found a prima facie case against the Deputy Prime Minister on all 47 criminal charges, where he was called to enter a defence. However, prosecution was then discontinued, eventually followed by a discharge not amounting to an acquittal. The Malaysian Bar has challenged that decision by judicial review. The key question is not whether the Attorney-General was right to drop charges; rather, it is a question of whether prosecutorial discretion in respect of the second most powerful man in Parliament can be examined.
She further noted allegations of a corporate mafia working with elements within the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (“MACC”). While the Prime Minister had informed Parliament that a new task force led by the Attorney-General would report on these issues in 3 months, the irony is MACC itself sits on the task force.
Sangeet Kaur went on to note that in 2025, the Chief Justice and President of the Court of Appeal retired within days of each other, but neither was granted an extension. Purported minutes on the Judicial Appointments Commission relating to alleged judicial interference were leaked, in which such allegations have not been independently tested. After the Malaysian Bar’s Walk for Judicial Independence in 2025, the office of the Chief Justice was filled. However, a call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry on possible judicial interference remains unanswered. She concluded by stating that people do not ask for much, save for what was promised. No freedom was ever handed down from above and was instead marched for and imprisoned for. Our loyalty is to the people, not the coalition.
Maha Balakrishnan then shared her thoughts on reform, commenting on what had been shared by the other speakers. She noted that her work in supporting advocacy in Parliament was not viable even 8 years ago, showing that Parliament had in fact opened up. She noted that her work is enabled by the fact that there is greater understanding among wider stakeholder groups. We have seen much progress today, but not much has been concretised. For us to move forward, we ought to focus on real accountability for institutions. Parliament is one pathway, but many of the improvements we see there could end if a different party comes to power.
She noted the issue with how laws are made in the country where the minutiae and actual day-to-day work need to change. For instance, the legal advisor to the Government is the Attorney General’s Chambers (“AGC”) and yet the AGC also advises draftsmen. She believes that there needs to be an independent budget office set up, and our inability to access information must be addressed. While we have a freedom of information bill going through Parliament, there are challenges due to difficulty in shifting mindsets.
Final Concluding Remarks from the Speakers
Datuk Seri Rafizi believes that the way forward is not to shut off competition by banning political parties; rather, it is to out-market them with integrity and competence, while noting the limits of political realism involving factors of race and religion. He does not believe that power should be concentrated in one person; instead, believing in giving independence to law enforcement agencies and protecting them, while allowing people to go through processes to appoint the right person.
Maha Balakrishnan noted the difficulties of moving away from politics of ethnicity as it is so culturally embedded within the society which will require a lot of unwinding. Separately, she believes in having public consultations on matters important to us. She also questioned the advent of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in policymaking. How does one challenge a decision where AI is used? Would principles of judicial review even apply?
Sangeet Kaur echoed Maha’s sentiment in that we must move away from race-based politics. So long as fear-mongering happens at every election, politicians can use race cards to secure votes. Ultimately, the answer is education because we are competing on a world stage where no one is given special privileges because of the community one comes from. She reminded the audience that we may be part of the fight to get the present Government in, but when the Government fails, the vote is in our hands.