Ringgit breaks psychological 4.0-level against US dollar

Ringgit strengthens to 3.9990, buoyed by Bank Negara Malaysia’s move to keep the overnight policy rate unchanged at 2.75%.

The ringgit, Asia’s best-performing currency in 2025, is on course to beat its Asian peers for a second straight year in 2026, according to some strategists.

PETALING JAYA:

 The ringgit finally broke past the 4.0 level against the US dollar today, a psychological barrier that it has failed to breach for five long years.

The local currency was trading at 3.9990 this afternoon, buoyed by Bank Negara Malaysia’s (BNM) decision yesterday to keep the benchmark overnight policy rate (OPR) unchanged at 2.75% even as Malaysian government bonds rallied and the US dollar weakened.

Kenanga Research, which describes the 4.00/USD-level as “strong resistance”, said the ringgit drew support from a softer US dollar and BNM’s decision to keep the policy rate unchanged.

It noted the US Dollar Index fell below 99, pressured by spillovers from heightened volatility in Japanese government bonds and concerns that European investors may reduce their holdings of US Treasuries.

The ringgit has also been boosted by the country’s resilient economy, moderate inflation, and crucially, political stability.

Malaysia’s stock index is trading near a seven-year high and the country’s economic growth has surpassed expectations in recent quarters, defying the impact of higher US tariffs.

The economy is projected to have grown 5.7% in the fourth quarter of 2025, according to the statistics department ahead of the release of the actual gross domestic product (GDP) next month.

Annually, Malaysia’s economic growth in 2025 eased to 4.9% from 5.1% in 2024.

Resurgent ringgit

The ringgit has been on a tear over the past year, rising almost 10% against the greenback and ending 2025 as Asia’s best-performing currency.

The ringgit is on course to beat its Asian peers for a second straight year, and some strategists are expecting the outperformance to extend into 2026, according to an earlier Bloomberg report.

The country’s deep linkages to the global tech supply chain, positive growth prospects, and the government’s continued push on fiscal consolidation bode well for the ringgit, the strategists noted.

It said Goldman Sachs Group Inc is forecasting the currency to strengthen to 3.95, which would be the highest in seven years.

“According to our FX valuation models, the ringgit is significantly undervalued,” Goldman Sachs strategists wrote in a note.

The ringgit looks set to extend gains in 2026, underpinned by robust tech exports on surging artificial intelligence (AI) demand and rising foreign direct investment flows, especially into data centres, according to an FX strategist at the Bank of Singapore.

The ringgit’s resurgence is in stark contrast to the dark days of early 2024 when the currency touched 4.80 against the US dollar, its weakest level since January 1998 during the height of the Asian Financial Crisis.

The dire situation then prompted BNM to issue a clarion call to GLCs and government-linked investment companies to repatriate their foreign earnings to ease pressure on the ringgit.

The ringgit’s turnaround from a laggard to a leader since then has been nothing short of remarkable. - FMT

Malaysia’s social media ban for U-16s beginning 2026 runs afoul of UNICEF, Amnesty Int’ warning

 

INTERNATIONAL human rights and child advocacy organisations are raising serious concerns over the growing global trend to ban children under 16 from using social media by warning that such blanket policies may do more harm than good.

UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund) and Amnesty International have cautioned governments against rushing into age-based bans, stressing that restricting access alone does not address the root causes of online harm and could push young users into riskier digital spaces.

UNICEF has been clear in its position that age restrictions are not a silver bullet for protecting children online.

The organisation warns that banning under-16s from mainstream platforms may simply drive them towards unregulated apps and anonymous forums with fewer safety features.

According to UNICEF, children will inevitably find ways around bans whether through shared devices, fake accounts or lesser-known applications that lack proper safeguards.

These platforms often offer limited content moderation, weak reporting tools and minimal user support, exposing children to even greater risks.

Violation of children’s fundamental rights

On the other hand, Amnesty International described blanket bans as an ineffective quick fix, arguing that governments are focusing on surface-level solutions instead of tackling systemic issues within social media platforms.

According to Amnesty, the real problems lie in algorithm-driven systems that promote harmful content, weak data protection standards, insufficient content moderation and business models that prioritise user engagement over safety.

Rather than banning children, Amnesty insists governments should compel technology companies to design safer platforms and take responsibility for online harms.

Both UNICEF and Amnesty further highlighted that blanket bans may violate children’s fundamental rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, including the right to information, freedom of expression and participation in society.

Instead of bans, both organisations advocate a child-centred regulatory approach. They urge governments to strengthen platform accountability, enforce child-safe design standards, improve transparency in algorithms and enhance reporting mechanisms for online abuse.

They also stress the importance of digital literacy education for both parents and children, as well as independent oversight of technology companies. Their message is clear: governments should regulate platforms, not children.

Malaysia’s dilemma

As Malaysia considers stricter controls on social media access for minors, these international warnings come at a critical time.

While protecting children online is a legitimate concern, experts caution against adopting foreign policies without considering local realities.

Malaysia has a young and digitally connected population, and a blanket ban could disproportionately affect students who rely on online learning communities, youth entrepreneurs, content creators and marginalised groups who depend on digital platforms for support.

Instead, Malaysia has an opportunity to take a leadership role in ASEAN by developing balanced regulations that protect children while preserving digital inclusion.

UNICEF and Amnesty agree on one point: children deserve safer digital spaces but not exclusion.

Real protection, they argue, comes from holding tech companies accountable, building digital resilience, educating families and creating safer online environments by design.

As the debate intensifies globally, Malaysia faces a crucial decision – whether to follow the international ban trend or chart its own path based on evidence, rights and long-term impact. –  Focus Malaysia

PMX told to spill the beans who really authorised PETRONAS’ “lawsuit” against Sarawak state gov’t

 

THE question raised in Parliament by Sri Aman MP Datuk Seri Doris Sophia Brodie as to whether Putrajaya sanctioned PETRONAS’ latest legal action against Sarawak is not a minor procedural query.

It is the central issue. Because in Malaysia’s institutional reality, the national oil corporation does not act independently of the federal executive. It answers to one office and one office only: the Prime Minister (PM).

PETRONAS is not a private multinational. It is a creature of statute, established by an Act of Parliament with its board and direction ultimately answerable to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).

There is no corporate firewall between PETRONAS and federal policy. When PETRONAS or its subsidiaries go to court on matters of national strategic interest, it is politically incoherent to pretend this is merely a commercial decision taken in isolation.

Is PMX behind legal action?

This is why the focus on subsidiaries is misleading. Whether the legal action is filed by PETRONAS itself or by five of its subsidiaries is legally cosmetic.

Substantively, they are instruments of the same authority. Their litigation posture reflects federal intent – not corporate autonomy.

To argue otherwise is to suggest that the federal government has lost control of its own national oil company – an argument no administration is prepared to make publicly.

Hence the real question is unavoidable: did PMX (Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim) approve this legal strategy or did it proceed without his knowledge? Both answers are politically damaging.

If the move was sanctioned, then the Federal government has consciously chosen litigation over negotiation despite public commitments to resolve Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63)-related disputes through political dialogue.

It means Putrajaya is prepared to test the limits of the founding constitutional settlement in court while still speaking the language of partnership in Parliament. That is not ambiguity; it is duplicity by design.

‘Still seen as a Federal lawsuit’

If the move was not sanctioned, the implications are even worse. It would mean that a strategic national entity – controlling the country’s most sensitive economic sector – is pursuing constitutional litigation against a state government without federal political oversight.

That would signal a breakdown of executive control over the very instrument created to safeguard national interests.

Either way, the federal government cannot hide behind corporate form. PETRONAS does not have a foreign board, independent shareholders or market discipline. It has one shareholder: the Malaysian state. And that state is represented by one authority: the PM.

 

This is why the King’s warning about actions that divide the nation cuts so sharply. The divisive element is not Sarawak asserting its rights.

It is the centre speaking of honour while authorising – or tolerating – legal strategies that undermine trust and reframe political agreements into judicial contests.

The federal government must answer plainly. Not with statements about “corporate governance” or “legal housekeeping” but with a simple political truth: did Putrajaya instruct or approve this litigation – a yes or no?

Because in a system where PETRONAS answers only to PMX, every lawsuit it files on constitutional matters is, in effect, a federal lawsuit – whether the government chooses to admit it or not. 

Michael Chan is the Sarawak United Peoples’ Party (SUPP) Nangka branch publicity secretary. This opinion editorial is a rehash from his recent Facebook post entitled “Who Really Authorised the Lawsuit?” that appears in the Sarawak Awareness Group Facebook page.

The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of  MMKtT.

- Focus Malaysia.

Borneoans puzzled over incessant push for BM uplifting yet Malay elites school their kids in English

 

LINGUA franca and the attendant issue surrounding vernacular education have been weaponised to suit certain agendas.

This was the pointed observation on Borneo Rights Action Force-BORAF Facebook site which posed a pertinent question – why despite the incessant push by peninsular rightists for Bahasa Malaysia (BM) supremacy, the elite class has failed to lead by example?

It remarked:

“Malay is not God’s chosen language nor is it the most important language in the world.

Strangely, the most powerful people who is forcing the rakyat to “compulsory use Malay” do not even send their children to Malay medium schools.

The children of the Agong, the children of ministers and the political elite are all sent to study abroad in English.

If it is true that the Malay language is a “sign of loyalty”, why didn’t the leader’s own family lead by example?

This is the reality of the country: Language is only used as a political weapon to suppress ordinary folks while the elite class enjoys the best education in the world which unfortunately is not in BM.

Strange, right?

The harsh yet sensible reaction by the Sabah-based NGO is in light of the bombshell announcement by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim that it is mandatory for all local students – regardless of stream or syllabi – to sit for SPM Bahasa Malaysia and History.

This followed the declaration by His Majesty Sultan Ibrahim, King of Malaysia that “if you can’t accept BM, don’t live in Malaysia” during his royal address to open the new parliamentary session.

Editor’s Note: Sabah and Sarawak are not fully exempted from the national language policy but they hold special constitutional rights allowing the continued, official use of English alongside BM.

Under Article 161 of the Federal Constitution and the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), these states can use English for state administration, in the legislative assembly and in native courts.

The post has generated 5.6K likes, 2.6K comments and 639 shares, denoting the issue was indeed trending with the platform providing a unique Sabahan and Sarawakian perspective on the touchy subject.

One commenter agreed vehemently, pointing that the issue was being used to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses.

The consequence was a breed of foolish citizens who will continue supporting these leaders, who in turn continue to suppress them.

There were strong voices opposed to the forced imposition of Peninsular culture, values and yes, language. It was time to forge our own path was the impassioned cry from some secessionist-minded commenters.

One netizen could not hide his disappointment at the change from English to Malay as the medium of instruction in 1982.

He believes this has led to students who lack the necessary linguistic skills to thrive in multi-national conglomerates. He further opined that there shouldn’t be so much focus on BM as many would pick it up automatically as it is the national language.

Quite a few also took umbrage on the insistence on calling the national language “Bahasa Melayu” instead of “Bahasa Malaysia” which would have fostered a greater sense of inclusivity.

Taking a more considered tone, a couple of commenters highlighted the importance of mastering several languages – BM, Mandarin and English, in particular. One even claimed that those who complain the SPM BM paper is tough was just making a “lazy excuse”.

As can be seen from the comments, not all Borneoans are enamoured by the growing imposition of BM in their daily lives.

Such thinking becomes more pronounced when – as the post points out – the elite classes making a big deal out of the issue but don’t subscribe to the idea themselves. –  Focus Malaysia