It’s not for PAS to decide on opposition parties, says Ramasamy

 The Urimai chairman takes issue with a PAS leader's view on which parties may contest under the Perikatan Nasional banner.

Urimai chairman P Ramasamy said his party was ‘not desperate’ to get into Perikatan Nasional’s fold.

PETALING JAYA:

PAS cannot unilaterally decide on the direction the opposition parties could take, Urimai chairman P Ramasamy said today after the Islamic party declared that only the parties in Perikatan Nasional may contest in elections under the coalition’s banner.

Urimai is part of Ikatan Prihatin Rakyat, a loose coalition chaired by Bersatu president Muhyiddin Yassin.

Ramasamy said he did not think that Muhyiddin would have proclaimed “without any basis” that IPR members could stand in the coming Melaka election on the PN ticket.

He said that although IPR component parties are not PN members, they are closely tied to Bersatu.

“PAS should not think and act as though it alone can determine the trajectory of the opposition in the country,” Ramasamy said in a Facebook post in response to a statement by PAS deputy president Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man.

Tuan Ibrahim had said since IPR component parties are not part of PN, the coalition could not allow them to contest under its banner.

He also said no decision was ever made to allow parties in IPR to contest under the PN banner.

PN is currently chaired by PAS vice-president Ahmad Samsuri Mokhtar.

Yesterday, Muhyiddin said that parties in IPR could negotiate with a “PN-level committee” on which seats in Melaka they are keen on contesting.

However, Tuan Ibrahim, who is also PN deputy chairman, denied that such a committee exists.

Ramasamy said PAS’s refusal to recognise IPR suggested that the party has an ulterior political motive in sidelining Bersatu.

“While I cannot collectively speak on behalf of IPR, I can certainly say that Urimai is not desperate to get into PN’s fold,” he said. - FMT

Telcos must buck up or face action

 They should stop making 5G promises if they cannot provide basic connectivity.

From Ashraf Abdullah

The search and rescue operation for a hiker at Gunung Batu Putih in Perak has once again exposed a longstanding problem that Malaysians have been complaining about for years – poor telecommunications coverage and unreliable mobile connectivity.

According to an FMT report, communication difficulties hampered coordination among search and rescue personnel involved in the operation.

In emergency situations, communication is not a luxury, it is a necessity.

Every delayed message, every dropped call, and every failed data connection can affect response times and potentially place lives at risk.

While many may dismiss the incident by arguing that Gunung Batu Putih is located in a remote area, the uncomfortable truth is that poor telecommunications coverage is not confined to forests, mountains, or rural villages.

The same frustrations are being experienced daily in urban centres such as Subang Jaya, Shah Alam, and other parts of the Klang Valley.

It is difficult to understand how residents living in some of Malaysia’s most developed urban areas continue to face situations where their phones struggle to receive even a single bar of signal.

There are locations in housing areas, commercial centres, and even along major roads where calls suddenly drop, internet speeds crawl, and mobile applications become unusable.

My family and I experience connectivity problems when we go to a restaurant at the Boulevard in Denai Alam, Shah Alam, or when visiting relatives in USJ, Subang Jaya. How is this possible? These are urban areas, and this is 2026.

This is happening despite years of promises, endless advertising campaigns, and claims that billions of ringgit have been invested in telecommunications infrastructure.

Malaysians are constantly bombarded with advertisements promoting ultra-fast 5G services, seamless connectivity, and world-class digital infrastructure. The marketing message suggests that Malaysia is rapidly becoming a leading digital nation. Yet, the actual experience on the ground often tells a different story.

Many consumers are asking a simple question: where exactly is this much-publicised 5G experience?

The reality is that many users continue to struggle with weak coverage, unstable connections, and inconsistent service quality despite paying increasingly expensive monthly subscriptions. Consumers are paying premium prices but receiving mediocre service.

What makes the situation even more frustrating is that this is not a new problem.

For years, telecommunications companies have been repeatedly warned by the government and the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) about poor service quality and weak coverage.

On Feb 7, 2023, the communications and digital ministry (as it was then known) publicly warned telecommunications companies that they had until June 2023 to resolve service quality issues faced by consumers. The minister, Fahmi Fadzil, made it clear that service quality complaints had become a serious concern and that telcos were expected to address them promptly. Yet three years later, consumers are still making the same complaints.

The warnings did not stop there.

On March 8, 2024, New Straits Times reported that telecommunications companies could face higher fines for poor service delivery. Fahmi acknowledged that authorities had received numerous complaints about delays in service delivery and poor customer experience. The report highlighted the government’s growing frustration with recurring service issues affecting consumers.

More recently, on April 13, 2025, The Star reported that Fahmi had given telecommunications companies until 5pm on the same day to submit solutions to widespread internet access problems or face stern action. In unusually strong remarks, the minister criticised telcos for being quick to pursue unpaid bills while taking months to respond to customer complaints about poor coverage.

On the same day, Sinar Harian quoted Fahmi as saying he had been patient for long enough, and warned that MCMC would begin enforcement action if comprehensive solutions were not presented.

Just two days later, FMT reported that telcos had been instructed to prepare monthly task lists to resolve internet connectivity issues, following continued complaints from the public.

The question Malaysians should be asking is simple: after all these warnings, deadlines, and threats of enforcement, what has actually changed?

Evidence suggests that the problem remains widespread.

In August 2025, deputy communications minister Teo Nie Ching revealed in Parliament that MCMC had detected more than 1,600 service quality non-compliance issues involving telecommunications providers across the country within just seven months.

The findings were based on nationwide quality audits conducted by MCMC. A total of 1,684 non-compliance issues involving 815 locations were identified.

Even more concerning was the revelation that MCMC had previously issued hundreds of directives to telecommunications companies for failing to comply with mandatory service quality standards. Yet, many cases remained unresolved because infrastructure upgrades and network improvements were still pending.

This raises serious questions about accountability.

• How many warnings must be issued before meaningful action is taken?
• How many more enforcement notices must be sent before consumers see actual improvements?
• And how many more years must Malaysians continue paying premium rates for services that often fail to meet basic expectations?

Telecommunications services today are as important as electricity and water. Businesses depend on them. Students depend on them. Emergency responders depend on them. Families depend on them.

The government cannot continue to rely solely on coverage statistics and corporate presentations submitted by telecommunications providers. What matters is not what appears on a coverage map but what consumers experience in real life.

MCMC should conduct more aggressive independent testing in urban centres, publish detailed performance rankings for each telecommunications provider, and impose meaningful financial penalties on companies that repeatedly fail to meet mandatory service standards.

Consumers deserve transparency. They deserve accountability. Most importantly, they deserve the level of service they are paying for.

Malaysia cannot aspire to become a digital powerhouse while basic telecommunications services remain unreliable.

The time for warnings has passed.

It is time to crack the whip. - FMT

Ashraf Abdullah is former Group Managing Editor, Television Networks, Media Prima Bhd.

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

Asean in a quandary over Myanmar

 Malaysia’s delicate diplomatic effort to get the various factions in the former Union of Burma to the table is a reflection of the regional grouping’s deepening dilemma.

Myanmar remains the single greatest strategic and moral challenge confronting Asean.

More than five years after the military coup of February 2021, the country has descended into a prolonged and fragmented conflict involving the Tatmadaw, ethnic armed organisations and newly formed resistance groups that emerged after the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi.

What initially appeared to some observers as a temporary military intervention has instead evolved into a nationwide struggle that threatens not only Myanmar’s territorial cohesion but also Asean’s credibility as the organisation representing Southeast Asia.

Against this backdrop, Malaysian foreign minister Mohamad Hasan’s recent visit to Naypyidaw after the “bare boned” Asean Summit on May 6-8 in Cebu, carries significance far beyond routine diplomacy.

Coming immediately after the Asean Summit, Mohammad’s visit reflected Malaysia’s attempt to navigate one of the most difficult diplomatic equations in contemporary Southeast Asia.

How to engage Myanmar without legitimising the continued failure of the junta to comply with Asean’s Five-Point Consensus.

That consensus, agreed upon by Senior General Min Aung Hlaing himself, now President of Myanmar, during the special Asean summit in Jakarta in April 2021, called for an immediate cessation of violence, constructive dialogue among all parties, humanitarian assistance and mediation through a special Asean envoy.

Yet five years later, little of substance has materialised.

Instead, violence has intensified. Airstrikes, armed clashes and humanitarian displacement have become deeply entrenched realities across large parts of Myanmar.

The military regime continues to face coordinated resistance from both longstanding ethnic armed organisations and newer people’s defence forces aligned with the broader anti-coup movement.

This explains why Myanmar’s military leadership remains barred from high-level Asean meetings.

Asean’s refusal to invite junta leaders is not merely symbolic punishment. It is an attempt by the regional bloc to preserve a minimum level of institutional credibility.

If Asean were to abandon its own five-point consensus without any measurable implementation, it would undermine the organisation’s standing and weaken its long-held principle that agreements among member states must carry political weight.

At the same time, however, Asean also understands that completely isolating Myanmar may worsen the crisis.

Malaysia’s diplomatic outreach therefore reflects a deeper Asean calculation: engagement must continue even amid frustration. Diplomacy cannot simply cease because progress is slow or inconsistent.

This is particularly true because Myanmar’s instability increasingly threatens the wider region.

The prolonged conflict has generated refugee flows, cross-border crime, arms trafficking and growing humanitarian pressures affecting neighbouring states such as Thailand and Bangladesh.

It has also heightened the risk that Myanmar could become an arena for intensified strategic competition among external powers.

For Asean, this is deeply worrying. The organisation was established in 1967 precisely to prevent Southeast Asia from becoming consumed by proxy wars, ideological confrontation and chronic regional fragmentation.

Asean’s success over nearly six decades has rested on its ability to cushion tensions, maintain dialogue and prevent intra-regional crises from spiralling beyond control.

Myanmar now tests all those assumptions simultaneously.

The regime’s recent criticism of Asean for maintaining the diplomatic snub demonstrates how strained relations have become.

Yet Asean itself is also internally divided over how firmly to pressure Naypyidaw.

Some member states favour stronger isolation measures. Others prefer quiet engagement and pragmatic dialogue.

Countries sharing borders with Myanmar naturally prioritise stability and refugee management over rhetorical confrontation alone. Thailand cannot be blamed for trying to engage Myanmar.

Malaysia, meanwhile, occupies an increasingly important pivotal position in this debate.

Under Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and foreign minister Mohamad, Malaysia has attempted to preserve Asean’s normative position while still recognising geopolitical realities.

The reality is that the likes of China, India and Russia may want to burrow in Myanmar.

Kuala Lumpur understands that no sustainable solution can emerge purely through coercion or diplomatic ostracism. Malaysia has to engage Myanmar too.

But Malaysia has also been careful not to endorse the junta’s political roadmap uncritically.

Elections conducted amid widespread violence, mass displacement and the exclusion of key political actors risk deepening Myanmar’s fragmentation rather than resolving it.

The deeper tragedy is that Myanmar’s crisis no longer resembles a conventional political impasse alone. It increasingly reflects the collapse of national trust across multiple levels of society.

The junta continues to tolerate the existence of scammers in its midst for instance despite claims of massive crackdown.

This makes Asean mediation extraordinarily difficult.

Nevertheless, abandoning diplomacy altogether would be even more dangerous.

Asean therefore requires greater strategic patience, stronger humanitarian coordination and more innovative forms of quiet diplomacy.

Engagement should not only involve the military authorities but also broader stakeholders capable of contributing to eventual national reconciliation.

The longer the conflict continues, the more difficult Myanmar’s reconstruction will become.

For Asean, the stakes extend beyond one member state.

The regional organisation’s long-term relevance increasingly depends on whether it can demonstrate an ability to manage severe internal crises without descending into paralysis.

Malaysia’s engagement with Naypyidaw thus reflects not weakness, but recognition of a painful reality.

That Asean cannot save Myanmar overnight, but neither can it afford to lose Myanmar completely.

The future credibility and stability of Southeast Asia may depend on sustaining that delicate balance. - FMT

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