Kuching: I am deeply concerned by the fact that Amy Tnay attended the 2026 World Mayors Dialogue in Huangshan, China, under the designation of “Board Member of Kuching Water Board”, despite the fact that Kuching Water Board had already been restructured and formally dissolved in September 2025.
Based on publicly available information, the functions of Kuching Water Board have since been taken over by the new Sarawak Water Sdn Bhd, and the former board positions ceased to exist upon the dissolution of the statutory body. Furthermore, Amy Tnay does not appear to be listed among the current directors of the new entity.
This raises a serious question: on what basis was Amy Tnay representing herself as a Board Member of Kuching Water Board at an international forum, and was the organiser provided with accurate information regarding her position?
After reviewing information published on the official website of the 2026 World Mayors Dialogue in Huangshan, I noted that Amy Tnay was identified as a representative of the Mayor of Kuching, rather than as a private participant.
However, when questioned by the public, she responded that she attended the event because she had been invited and argued that “participants do not necessarily have to be mayors.” Such a response does not address the central issue being raised.
The question has never been whether only mayors can attend the dialogue. The real issue is under what authority Amy Tnay represented Kuching at the event and whether she was officially authorised to do so.
If she attended in her personal capacity, why did the organiser identify her as a representative of the Mayor of Kuching? Conversely, if she attended as an official representative of Kuching, who granted her the authority to represent the city?
As the capital city of Sarawak, any individual representing Kuching on an international platform should possess a clear and legitimate mandate. The people of Kuching deserve to know who is representing them and on what basis.
I believe that Amy Tnay’s responses thus far have failed to adequately address the legitimate concerns raised by the public. As a public figure, she should uphold the principles of transparency and accountability by providing a clear explanation of the facts rather than diverting attention from the key issues.
Therefore, I call upon Amy Tnay to publicly answer the following questions:
1. Was the invitation extended to an official representative of Kuching, or was it extended to Amy Tnay in her personal capacity?
2. If she attended as a private invitee, why was she identified in official event materials as a representative of the Mayor of Kuching?
3. Is the designation “Board Member of Kuching Water Board” still valid, and if so, what is the basis for such a claim?
4. If she represented Kuching, was she authorised by Kuching South City Council Mayor Dato Wee Hong Seng or Kuching North City Hall Mayor Dato Hilmy Othman?
5. Are there any official appointment letters, authorisation documents, or other records supporting her status as Kuching’s representative?
I wish to emphasise that the people of Kuching have every right to know who is representing them on the international stage and the authority under which such representation is made.
This is not about opposing international engagement or participation in global dialogues. Rather, it is about ensuring transparency, accountability, and respect for the public’s right to know. Kuching should not be represented without a clear and proper explanation to its citizens.
I therefore urge Amy Tnay to provide a full and transparent account of these matters in order to uphold public confidence and the integrity of public representation.
George Lam Li Kang
DAPSY Sarawak Secretary
9 June 2026
