The Big Fish are hands behind Albert Tei?

Albert Tei Scandal: Who Is He — Hero, Victim, or the System’s Fall Guy?

Made in Malaysia, November 30 2025 

Introduction: Why the Albert Tei Scandal Won’t Go Away

The Albert Tei scandal has become one of Malaysia’s most closely watched corruption stories of 2025. A businessman from Selangor, previously unknown to most voters, now sits at the centre of a sprawling narrative that stretches from Sabah’s mining licences all the way to the Prime Minister’s Office. 

His story involves alleged bribes to state assemblymen, hidden-camera recordings, a powerful federal political aide, and a legal system that treats him as both whistleblower and accused. 

Some Malaysians see him as a heroic whistleblower who exposed a cosy club of politicians trading licences for cash. Others insist he is a willing bribe-giver who blew the whistle only after his deals collapsed. Many more suspect he is actually a fall guy: useful for politicians when they wanted money, and just as useful now as a scapegoat.

This article takes a deep, structured look at the scandal. It explains:

• Why Sabah’s mineral and coal licences became a magnet for corruption
• How Tei’s money and recordings pulled MACC and top politicians into the spotlight
• What really happened with the promised licences and coal concessions
• Why Malaysia’s whistleblower laws leave people like Tei dangerously exposed
• Whether big names like Anwar Ibrahim or Mahathir Mohamad are truly implicated
• And ultimately: whether Albert Tei is a hero, a villain, or the system’s latest casualty

Throughout, we separate facts from allegations, and evidence from speculation, so you can form your own judgment.

1. Who Is Albert Tei?

Before the scandal broke, Albert Tei Jiann Cheing operated in the spaces where business and politics overlap. He is a businessman based in Selangor who helped investors navigate Sabah’s resource sector, especially mineral and mining projects. Made In Malaysia

He was not a party leader or a cabinet member. Instead, he worked behind the scenes, dealing with:

• Companies that wanted mineral prospecting rights
• State politicians who could smooth or block approvals
• Intermediaries and “connectors” who claimed access to decision makers

For years, this ecosystem functioned quietly. Businesspeople paid “fees”, “donations” or “facilitation charges” that often blurred into outright bribes. Politicians promised to “help” with licences. Everyone understood the code.

Tei lived inside this world. He played by those unwritten rules. Only later, when he felt cheated and cornered, did he decide to drag those rules into public view. At that moment he stopped being just another businessman and became the central character in the Albert Tei scandal.

2. Why Sabah and Mining Licences Are a Corruption Magnet

2.1 A Resource-Rich State With Weak Transparency

Sabah isn’t just rich in biodiversity and tourism potential. Beneath the ground, the state holds coal deposits and other minerals that can be worth hundreds of millions of ringgit over time. Licensing access to these minerals turns political decisions into high-value economic opportunities.

For decades, Sabah’s economy has revolved around:

• Timber and logging concessions
• Land alienation and development projects
• Oil palm and plantation expansions
• Mining and mineral prospecting licences

Every one of these areas relies on some form of government approval. When officials control access to such valuable rights, the temptation to monetize that influence becomes very strong.

2.2 Prospecting Licences as “Golden Tickets”

A mineral prospecting licence does not guarantee a mine. It grants a company the right to explore a specific area. Yet in practice, whoever holds the exploration rights often stands at the front of the queue for any future mining operation.

Because of that, these licences behave like “golden tickets”. If exploration confirms rich deposits, the licence holder can:

• Operate the mine directly
• Sell a stake in the project
• Flip the asset to a larger company

Now combine those incentives with patchy oversight and historically opaque processes. You get a textbook pay-to-play environment. Businesses seeking licences may feel they must “reward” officials. Some politicians, in turn, start to treat licences as chips in a power game, not as public assets.

It is in this environment that the Albert Tei scandal emerged.

3. How the Alleged Bribes Began

3.1 From “Normal Business” to Illicit Payments

According to public reports and court documents, Tei approached several Sabah politicians to help with mineral prospecting licence applications. Formal bureaucratic channels were slow and uncertain, while political channels offered speed — for a price. 

Tei allegedly paid:

• RM200,000 to Sindumin assemblyman Datuk Dr Yusof Yacob
• RM150,000 to Tanjung Batu assemblyman Datuk Andi Muhammad Suryady Bandy

In theory, these sums were supposed to secure political support for mining-related approvals. In reality, they turned into the core of a criminal case. 

Tei later insisted he initially saw these payments as part of how “the system” works. Other contractors, he claimed, did the same. Many Malaysians recognize this pattern: everyone calls it “contribution” or “expenses” until someone gets charged, and suddenly it becomes a bribe.

3.2 The Secret Recordings

At some point, Tei began recording his interactions with Sabah politicians. The videos show them discussing payments, licences, and influence. In several clips, the tone appears casual, as if such conversations were normal. 

Those recordings served two purposes:

• They gave him leverage in case the politicians failed to deliver.
• They created evidence that could later blow the scandal wide open.

When the licences did not come through, Tei turned to the second option. He released the clips to media outlets and on social platforms. Overnight, Sabah’s mining deals moved from private rooms into the national conversation.

4. Legal Actions So Far: The First Round of Charges

4.1 June 2025: Three Men in Court

On 30 June 2025, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) charged Tei and the two assemblymen at the Special Corruption Court in Kota Kinabalu. The Star+1

The charges allege that:

• Yusof and Andi received a total of RM350,000
• Tei offered and paid those bribes in connection with mineral prospecting licences

Prosecutors invoked Section 16(a)(A) of the MACC Act (for the recipients) and Section 16(b)(A) (for the giver). All three pleaded not guilty and obtained bail.

This first court appearance confirmed something crucial:

The state now officially recognizes that money moved between Tei and these assemblymen in relation to licence applications.

However, the case still only covered a small slice of what Tei claimed.

4.2 What the First Charges Did Not Touch

The June charges did not address:

• The full list of politicians Tei allegedly paid
• The larger web of agreements around coal concessions
• Any alleged role of federal-level actors

In effect, the law treated the case as a limited “businessman ↔ two assemblymen” transaction. It had not yet become the sprawling Albert Tei scandal that would later dominate national media.

5. From Mining Case to Political Earthquake

5.1 Tei Goes Public — Again

By late 2025, Tei resurfaced with even more explosive claims. He now alleged that:

• The scandal involved up to 14 or 15 politicians, not just two
• Other leaders, including senior Sabah figures, had received large sums
• A powerful federal political aide had accepted hundreds of thousands of ringgit from him

That aide was Datuk Seri Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin, then Senior Political Secretary to the Prime Minister. 

Tei claimed that Shamsul convinced him to spend around RM629,000 on items such as:

• Renovations on Shamsul’s property
• Premium cigars
• Bespoke suits and lifestyle expenses 

In exchange, Shamsul allegedly promised to help recover funds that Tei had already paid to Sabah assemblymen. In other words, Tei now wanted his money back and sought help from someone near the centre of power in Putrajaya.

5.2 The “Anwar Said to Do It” Clip

The scandal intensified when another video emerged. In this clip, a woman believed to be Shamsul’s associate tells Tei that the idea to record Sabah politicians came from the Prime Minister’s Office. She reportedly adds that “Anwar said to do it.” 

If true, this statement links the recordings — and potentially the wider operation — directly to the top of government. It raises uncomfortable questions:

• Was the PM’s office trying to expose corruption?
• Or was it trying to control or pressure Sabah politicians by holding recordings over them?
• Did intermediaries misuse Anwar’s name to reassure or manipulate Tei?

At this stage, those questions remain unanswered. Anwar has denied any wrongdoing and insisted MACC is free to investigate anyone, including his former aide. Bernama+1

5.3 Arrests on the Eve of Sabah’s Election

The timing made the scandal even more political. On 28 November 2025, just one day before Sabah’s state election, MACC officers detained both Shamsul and Tei over the bribery allegations. A woman believed to be Shamsul’s proxy had been arrested the night before. 

By 29 November, a magistrates’ court granted MACC’s application to remand Shamsul and Tei for six days while investigators gathered more evidence. The Star+1

Because these moves came right before polling, many Malaysians wondered whether:

• MACC raced to show seriousness,
• some political actors used the scandal to shift voter sentiment, or
• both institutional and political motives overlapped.

Whatever the deeper motives, the Albert Tei scandal had now evolved into a full-scale national political crisis.

6. What Happened to the Actual Mining Contracts?

6.1 The Mystery of the Missing Concessions

With so much attention on the bribes and arrests, one key question often gets overlooked:

“Did any of these mining licences actually get issued?”

Reports mention discussions about a large coal concession of around 70,000 hectares, allegedly linked to a company associated with a former federal aide. That company, however, has publicly denied receiving such a licence. Sabah’s mineral authorities also say no such concession appears in official records. 

Therefore, at least in official terms:

• No public record confirms that a major coal licence linked to Tei’s network was granted.
• Several deals appear to have stayed at the “promise and discussion” stage.

6.2 Money Paid, Licence Not Delivered

Tei and some analysts insist that he never obtained the licences he sought, despite the payments he made. His own lawyer and sympathetic commentators frame this as proof that he acted in good faith at first and only later realised that he had become a victim of fraud and political exploitation. 

From that perspective, the scandal looks less like a successful corrupt operation and more like a series of failed hustles:

• Politicians took money but could not or would not deliver.
• Intermediaries overpromised their influence.
• Businessmen believed they were buying access but received nothing.

Tei then flipped the script by using recordings and public exposure as his last leverage against a system that, in his words, treated him like “ikan bilis” while the “sharks” swam free. Malay Mail

7. Why MACC Didn’t Charge Everyone — and Why Many Are Unhappy

7.1 Only Two Assemblymen (So Far)

Tei claims he paid or dealt with many more politicians. Social media posts and interviews mention double-digit numbers. Yet, as of now, only two assemblymen and Tei himself have been formally charged in court for the earlier mining-licence bribes. 

Several factors may explain this gap:

Evidence strength:

Not every recorded conversation contains clear references to cash or quid-pro-quo promises.

Legal burden:

Prosecutors must prove beyond reasonable doubt that each payment was a bribe, not a loan, donation, or consultancy fee.

Paper trails:

Many dealings use cash or intermediaries, leaving little documentation.

Political sensitivity:

Charging a long list of sitting politicians can trigger claims of political persecution.

Because of these challenges, MACC appears to focus first on cases where the evidence looks strongest: clear sums, clear links to licence applications, and identifiable individuals.

7.2 Complaints About Selective Justice

Tei and his lawyers argue that this approach creates selective justice. They point out that:

• The businessman who exposed the network now faces charges.
• The list of politicians who allegedly collected money remains largely untouched.

Civil society groups echo this frustration. They warn that if Malaysia prosecutes only the easily replaceable players, while leaving more powerful figures alone, the public will view MACC as a tool of controlled accountability, not genuine reform. 

8. Whistleblower Protection: Why Tei Is Exposed

8.1 The Law’s Current Limits

Malaysia’s Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 sounds strong on paper, yet it includes important caveats. To qualify for protection, a person must:

• Make a disclosure through approved channels, and
• Avoid participating in the offence they report

Tei clearly fails the second test. He admits giving money and now faces charges for bribery. As a result, MACC treats him not as a protected whistleblower but as a co-accused. Wikipedia+1

8.2 The Chilling Effect on Future Whistleblowers

This legal structure creates a serious deterrent. In real corruption networks, insiders often participate at first and only later decide to talk. If the law punishes them alongside the people they expose, very few will step forward.

In Tei’s case, the message is harsh:

• He brought recordings into the light.
• He implicated powerful actors.
• He is now remanded, charged, and publicly attacked.

Activists and legal experts argue that such treatment undermines the public-interest function of whistleblowing. In their view, the law should allow some form of immunity, reduced penalties, or plea arrangements when insiders help uncover larger wrongdoing. 

Without such mechanisms, Malaysia risks silence from those who hold the most valuable information: the people who have seen corruption from the inside.

9. Are Senior Figures Really Involved?

9.1 The Anwar Question

The statement “Anwar said to do it” sits at the centre of many online debates. It appears in one clip, spoken by an alleged proxy. That single line has been repeated in headlines and opposition speeches.

However, several important points remain:

• No court has yet examined that clip in full context.
• No documentary evidence has surfaced showing written orders from the PM’s office.

Anwar publicly insists that MACC is free to investigate his former aide and that video clips alone cannot justify charges. 

Because of this, any claim that the Prime Minister personally orchestrated or benefited from the scandal remains unproven. It is fair to say his office now sits under political and moral pressure, but it is not accurate to state as fact that he is legally implicated.

9.2 The Mahathir Speculation

As with many Malaysian controversies, some commentators have tried to link Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad to the saga, pointing to his long history, past Sabah disputes, or shared public events. Yet so far:

• No charge, investigation, or leaked document names him in relation to this mining case.
• The connections appear mainly in opinion pieces and social media, not in official proceedings.

From an EEAT standpoint, it is important to distinguish structural critique (that previous governments entrenched patronage) from specific accusation (that Mahathir is part of Tei’s network). The second claim currently lacks evidence.

9.3 Other Names in the Shadows

The scandal has also thrown up other high-profile names:

• Former aides with alleged links to coal licence companies
• Senior Sabah leaders mentioned in Tei’s broader allegations
• Business figures described as “hidden hands” behind licence negotiations 

So far, most of these remain in the realm of allegation and political reading, not formal indictment. Whether MACC’s investigation will expand to cover them depends on what evidence it finds — and how much institutional courage it chooses to show.

10. What We Know vs What We Still Don’t

Because the Albert Tei scandal is still unfolding, the line between known fact and open question matters a lot.

10.1 What Is Established

Based on court filings and official statements, we can state that:

Tei, Yusof, and Andi have been charged over RM350,000 in alleged bribes tied to mineral prospecting licences. 

Tei recorded multiple meetings with Sabah politicians discussing money and mining rights. 

MACC has arrested and remanded Shamsul Iskandar and Tei over allegations that Tei gave funds to Shamsul to recover money paid to Sabah assemblymen. 

Investigators are working under Section 16 of the MACC Act and have been ordered to complete their probe within a short timeframe. 

The scandal has become a central issue ahead of the Sabah state election, with clear impact on political narratives. 

10.2 What Remains Unclear

Several crucial areas still lack clarity:

Full list of alleged recipients:

Tei’s wider claims about the number of politicians paid have not translated into an equivalent number of court cases.

Final status of major licences:

No clear public record confirms the issue of large coal concessions tied to this network, despite extensive talk.

Authenticity and full context of some videos:

Clips circulating online may be edited; courts will need uncut versions and verified metadata.

Degree of federal-level involvement:

Outside Shamsul and his alleged proxy, no senior federal figure faces formal investigation in this case.

Until courts rule and MACC publishes more findings, the story will continue to evolve. Any hard conclusion about guilt at the highest levels remains premature.

11. What This Means for Governance and Reform

11.1 A Stress Test for MACC

This scandal functions as a stress test for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission. If MACC:

• Follows the evidence upwards
• Charges powerful figures where justified
• Acts transparently and respects due process

then it can strengthen public faith in the idea that no one sits above the law.

If, however, only “ikan bilis” like mid-level assemblymen and one businessman end up in the dock, while bigger players escape scrutiny, MACC will look like a tool for managing public anger rather than truly reforming the system.

11.2 A Warning About Whistleblower Laws

The Albert Tei scandal also exposes a dangerous gap in Malaysia’s whistleblower framework. When the person who exposes wrongdoing:

• Faces the same or worse legal risk as those he exposed
• Experiences arrest tactics criticised as “high-handed”
• Receives no special protection despite obvious public interest

then others watching will draw their own lesson. They will likely decide that staying quiet is safer than speaking up.

For any meaningful anti-corruption culture to develop, Malaysia will need:

• Stronger legal protection for whistleblowers who admit to limited involvement
• Independent channels for reporting high-level corruption

Clear guidelines for offering immunity or reduced punishment when insiders help dismantle bigger networks

11.3 Resource Governance and Sabah’s Future

Beyond personalities, this scandal highlights deeper questions:

• Who truly controls Sabah’s natural resources?
• How transparent are the processes for awarding licences?
• Do ordinary Sabahans benefit, or do politically connected circles capture most of the value?

If the scandal leads to reforms — such as public registers of licences, clear tender processes, and disclosure of beneficial ownership — then something good may yet emerge from the chaos. If nothing changes, many will conclude that Sabah’s resources remain a prize for political patronage, not a shared asset for citizens.

12. So, Who Is Albert Tei Really?

After all this, we return to the question in your title.

12.1 Case for “Heroic Whistleblower”

From one angle, Tei looks like a reluctant hero:

• He recorded and exposed politicians discussing money for licences.
• He accepted personal risk to reveal what many only whisper about.
• His actions forced MACC and the public to confront uncomfortable truths about resource governance.

Without his recordings and media disclosures, much of this network would likely have stayed hidden.

12.2 Case for “Corrupt Player”

From another angle, he appears as a willing participant in corruption:

• He paid money in hopes of a valuable concession.
• He operated within the pay-to-play system until it turned against him.
• He began talking publicly only after his own interests were harmed.

Under this view, his whistleblowing serves mainly as self-defence, not public service.

12.3 Case for “System’s Fall Guy”

There is also a third perspective:

• Politicians and intermediaries took his money and failed to deliver.
• Enforcement agencies have charged him promptly, while others still walk free.
• Public narratives now revolve around his name, not the full cast of actors.

Seen this way, Tei becomes the system’s fall guy — useful at the beginning as a source of cash, and useful now as a symbol that “someone” has been punished, even if the deeper structures remain intact.

In reality, all three images probably carry some truth. The Albert Tei scandal shows a man who is at once bribe giver, whistleblower, and victim of a larger machine.

Conclusion: A Mirror Held Up to Malaysia

Ultimately, this story is bigger than any single businessman. The Albert Tei scandal acts as a mirror, reflecting back some uncomfortable realities about Malaysia’s political economy:

• Valuable public resources can become private bargaining chips.
• Anti-corruption laws still struggle with high-level networks.
• Whistleblowers face enormous personal risk, even when they reveal major wrongdoing.

Whether Malaysians remember Tei as a hero, a villain, or a fall guy will depend on how this saga ends — and on what reforms follow. If the scandal drives stronger institutions, tougher transparency rules, and better whistleblower protections, he may be remembered as the flawed insider whose actions triggered change.

If, on the other hand, only a few individuals are punished and the system returns to business as usual, this case will join a long list of scandals where “small fish are fried while the sharks keep swimming.”

For now, one thing is certain: the Albert Tei scandal has forced Malaysia to confront — once again — how power, money, and natural resources intertwine, and whether the country is truly ready to break that pattern.