Selangor assembly to debate Putra Heights gas blaze, says Speaker
He said the debate would take place after a special briefing to be delivered by Selangor Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Amirudin Shari or his representative, following the tabling of the Selangor State Islamic Religious Administration (Amendment) Enactment Bill 2025 during this sitting.
'There will be (a debate); as I mentioned earlier, after the Menteri Besar meets with all assemblymen to provide a briefing in the afternoon.
'... after that, the assembly will reconvene, and all of us will take part in the debate. The government will provide clarification on the matters raised (in the debate),' he said during the Selangor State Assembly sitting today.
Earlier, Dr Afif Bahardin (PN-Taman Medan) submitted an appeal on behalf of 20 individuals affected by the April 1 blaze and explosion, requesting that the matter be discussed in the current sitting.
Lau then disallowed the matter from being tabled as it was seen to overlap with an application already filed by Amirudin to present the matter during this sitting.
'I wish to stress that the main reason the appeal was disallowed is because there is already an application from the Menteri Besar to discuss this issue under this agenda, which will allow for greater participation from all assemblymen,' he said.
The Selangor State Assembly sitting began today and will run until July 11. — Bernama
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
16 minutes ago
- Malay Mail
Abdul Karim: Only EC, not Sarawak govt, can decide on more parliamentary seats
KUCHING, July 8 — There is currently no agreement on the number of new parliamentary seats for Sarawak, said Minister for Tourism, Creative Industry and Performing Arts Datuk Seri Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah. He clarified that while the state has successfully expanded its State Legislative Assembly (DUN) seats from 82 to 99, any increase in parliamentary representation must be decided by the Election Commission (EC) and approved by the federal government through Parliament. 'There is no agreement yet on the number of parliamentary seats for Sarawak. The state government has no authority to decide this. 'Parliamentary seats fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government and the EC. Any increase would require constitutional amendments and endorsement in Parliament,' he added when speaking at a press conference after the Dewan Undangan Negeri (Composition of Membership) Bill, 2025 was passed during a special sitting of the Sarawak State Legislative Assembly (DUN) yesterday. He also emphasised that the DUN's role was confined to the composition of state seats too. 'We can propose and deliberate state seats, but for parliamentary constituencies, it must be tabled in Parliament and the Federal Constitution has to be amended. That's the proper channel. 'Sarawak's move today was a separate constitutional exercise focused solely on the state level. While the redelineation of the 17 new state constituencies now falls to the EC. 'They will determine where these new seats will be located. We have no influence over that. 'Any accusation of gerrymandering directed at the state government is therefore unfounded and unfair to the EC, which is an independent body appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong after consultation with the Conference of Rulers,' he said. Responding to suggestions that the state seat increase may act as a precursor to parliamentary seat expansion, Abdul Karim agreed it may help pave the way. 'It will be easier for the EC to partition new parliamentary seats from these 17 additional state constituencies in the future. 'If eight or more can be derived, it would help us move closer to the spirit of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63), where Sabah and Sarawak should ideally hold one-third of the seats in Parliament,' he said. He further explained that the decision to increase the DUN seats to 99 was both strategic and symbolic. 'There's no fixed number stated in the Constitution. But 99 is the highest double-digit figure before we encroach into three-digit territory, which is associated with Parliament. And if you notice, our DUN building has 9 pillars, 9 arcs, and 9 floors. So, 99 feels fitting,' he said. Meanwhile when asked about the timeline for the EC to complete its delineation work, Abdul Karim said that responsibility lies entirely with the commission. 'Our job ends with tabling and passing the Bill. It is now up to the EC to carry out their duties,' he said. He also dismissed criticism from Opposition members regarding the cost and timing of the exercise, calling them politically motivated. 'We've done this before, four or five times. It's within our legal rights, and there's nothing improper about it,' he said. Sarawak last increased its state seats in 2015, when 11 new constituencies were added. The current move, which sees an addition of 17, marks the largest expansion of state seats in Sarawak's history. 'The move reflects our commitment to ensure Sarawak is well represented, fairly governed, and prepared for the future. It's a necessary and constitutional evolution,' said Abdul Karim. — The Borneo Post
Malay Mail
20 minutes ago
- Malay Mail
Anwar hails productive Europe, Brazil visits
RIO DE JANEIRO, July 8 — Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said Monday that his official visits to Italy, France and Brazil have successfully met their intended objectives. Besides reinforcing bilateral ties, he said the visits also contributed to efforts to attract investments and boost Malaysia's trade relations. Speaking at a press conference at the conclusion of the three-nation visit which began in Italy on July 1, he said it also raised Malaysia's visibility in its capacity as ASEAN Chair for 2025. He underscored that the mission opened up wider networks for Malaysian companies to expand internationally. The visit to Italy alone generated over RM8 billion in potential investments, while the engagements in France brought in RM4 billion. — Bernama
Malay Mail
31 minutes ago
- Malay Mail
Trump's shifting ever tariff deadlines — Phar Kim Beng
JULY 8 — On April 9, 2025, President Donald Trump stunned the global economy by announcing a sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariff regime — slapping a 10 per cent baseline tariff on all imports into the United States, and threatening even higher reciprocal tariffs on countries that, in his view, failed to treat American trade fairly. At the time, the world was given 90 days to comply, reflect, or negotiate. That deadline was supposed to expire on July 9. Yet, on July 8 — just a day before the clock ran out — the Trump Administration did something unexpected but characteristically disruptive. Instead of activating the promised tariffs the next morning, the White House sent tailored letters to seven countries, including Malaysia, Japan, and South Korea, warning them that they now face 25 per cent tariffs effective August 1. For Malaysia, a country that had hoped its close diplomatic ties and economic complementarities with the US might earn some tariff exemptions, the move came as a shock. For Japan and South Korea, the timing was even more puzzling. Talks had been ongoing, and neither had expected the White House to preemptively tighten the noose — especially before the July 9 deadline even arrived. Why the sudden shift? And why is Trump repeatedly changing the tariff deadlines that he himself set? The answer lies in a core aspect of Trump's negotiating doctrine: manufactured unpredictability. Deadline diplomacy as weaponized leverage Deadlines are not timelines in Trump's world; they are instruments of leverage. From trade to arms deals to foreign policy, Trump has always treated deadlines not as fixed events but as threat vectors. They are not meant to culminate in action per se, but to force reactions from others — preferably capitulation. Take the original 90-day pause that Trump granted to the world on April 9. It was framed as a diplomatic reprieve, a window for countries to cut bilateral deals before the wrath of American tariffs was unleashed. But it was also a trapdoor — leading to either compliance or penalty. Then came the early July surprise. Instead of waiting until the original July 9 deadline, Trump preemptively issued tariff notices to Malaysia, Japan, and South Korea, effectively shortening the negotiation window. And yet, paradoxically, he also gave them a new window: August 1. The new date is arbitrary, yet precise enough to pressure decision-making within foreign capitals. In this sense, Trump's shifting of tariff deadlines is not incoherent. It is a calibrated tactic. By constantly moving the goalposts, he keeps countries off-balance, keeps negotiators guessing, and keeps markets on edge — but not yet panicked. It is a playbook based on calculated chaos. Country-specific pressure campaigns The July 8 letters to Malaysia, Japan, and South Korea were not broad communiqués. They were country-specific documents — almost identical in tone and language — announcing a flat 25 per cent tariff, but allowing just under four weeks for a negotiated escape route. For Malaysia, the letter reportedly referenced "unbalanced market access" and urged greater openness to US agricultural products and high-tech imports. For Japan and South Korea, the letters revived old Trumpian grievances: defense cost-sharing, trade imbalances, and currency policy. In short, these letters serve two purposes. First, they recast old grievances in a new light, justifying steep tariffs under the pretense of economic fairness. Second, they buy Trump more time to demand tailored concessions — while still appearing tough to his domestic political base. Manufactured urgency Critics call it erratic. Supporters call it strategic. But Trump's ever-changing tariff timeline undeniably creates a sense of manufactured urgency. Countries cannot plan or negotiate on their own schedule; they must do so on Washington's. The August 1 deadline is a textbook example. By moving the date forward from July 9 and then delaying real enforcement to August 1, Trump creates two pressure points instead of one. Each shift generates headlines. Each announcement causes markets to twitch. And each deadline becomes a point of diplomatic extraction. Moreover, these shifts signal to US voters that the President is not softening. By keeping the threat alive but extending the fuse, Trump feeds a steady narrative of 'America First' without igniting an all-out global trade war — yet. The Asia Shock: Malaysia, Japan, South Korea caught in the crosshairs For Southeast Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific, the implications are profound. Malaysia had just concluded high-level economic talks with France and Italy. Japan is preparing for Upper House elections later this month. South Korea's economy is already on the brink of recession, with GDP growth forecast slashed to below 1 per cent. In this climate, Trump's tariff threats feel less like policy and more like economic coercion. The threat of 25 per cent tariffs on Malaysia is particularly puzzling, given its relatively balanced trade profile and longstanding ties with the US If this is how allies are treated, what hope do adversaries have? Yet, therein lies Trump's logic. His trade doctrine is not about punishing enemies and rewarding friends. It's about extracting maximum advantage from everyone, especially those who've taken the US market for granted, in his view. A 3D-printed figure of US President Donald Trump, a US flag and a "tariffs" label are seen in this illustration taken April 10, 2025. — Reuters pic Conclusion: Strategy in the shifting sands Why does Trump keep moving the goalposts? Because in doing so, he retains total narrative control. Every extension feels like a reprieve. Every shortening feels like a warning. It is diplomacy by way of disruption, and economic policy dressed up as theater. But make no mistake — beneath the chaos lies a cold calculation. Trump's shifting deadlines are not a sign of indecision, but of strategic opportunism. Whether or not countries like Malaysia, Japan, and South Korea will bow to this timeline remains to be seen. What is clear is that in Trump's world, time itself is a tariff — measured not in days, but in leverage. * Phar Kim Beng is the Director of the Institute of Internationalization and Asean Studies (IINTAS) and Professor of Asean Studies in International Islamic University of Malaysia. He writes frequently on regional trade, diplomacy, and international strategy. ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
