## 1 Introduction
The Malay Basin is part of PMO under the PCSB operation. The history of offshore hydrocarbon exploration for the Malay Basin was elaborated by [PERSON] (1985) [8]. The Malay Basin is considered shallow water; the water depth is less than 200 m.  
Seismicity in the Malay Basin was highlighted by previous researchers where the existence of folds and faults in the Malay Basin were highlighted in [6; 7; 8; 10; 11; 12]. The existence of inactive old faults cannot be ignored as they have the potential to be active again due to the pull and push activities of the plates that can build more stresses beneath the surface, which sometimes need to be released. Offshore facilities in the Malay Basin might be in danger if it happens. Furthermore, concerns about the existence of aging platforms in the Malay Basin have also been highlighted by previous researchers [13; 14; 15]. The development of the Malay Basin before hydrocarbon resources is an ongoing process where maintenance and new development will be carried out. Thus, the Malay Basin is the area of interest in this study. Seismicity can normally be assessed by a seismic hazard map (produced based on natural or geotechnical hazards). Natural hazards in seismic hazard maps represent the kind of hazards that affect the site itself, for example, ground motion and liquefaction. Geotechnical hazards represent the influence of natural hazards on engineering objects at certain locations. Some examples of geotechnical hazards involve the effects of liquefaction, slope stability, and ground motion on engineering structures [16]. A seismic hazard map for ground motion can be produced based on a macrozonation or microzonation map. Pleasenote that macrozonation here is about presenting the dynamic parameters, such as peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration on the bedrock in the seismic hazard map, while microzonation is the addition of local soil conditions to macrozonation where the influence on the surface can be obtained and presented in the seismic hazard map [16]. In microzonation, the effect of soil layers beneath the surface is also included. [PERSON] et al. (2004) [17], dealing with the existence of seismic hazards, highlighted that the estimation of the site-specific dynamic response of a layered soil deposit must be executed. [PERSON] et al. (2017) [18] claimed that in any seismic soil structure study, the site response analysis will normally be the first step. The site response analysis or ground response analysis (GRa) helps engineers to calculate the natural period for a site, assess amplification of ground motion, and determine various parameters, such as response spectra, which will be used in designing and evaluating structure safety [17]. Methods to analyze GRa can be broadly grouped into linear analysis, equivalent linear analysis, and nonlinear analysis. Linear analysis is the most common method used for GRa due to its simplicity [17]. In linear analysis, the soil is considered a uniform layer with either constant or varying soil stiffness over depth. Thus, it can be expressed by a simple mathematical function. However, in reality, material properties of soil will change in space, and soil does not have elastic behavior. Hence, finite difference and finite elements, which are in the numerical method, must be used. Equivalent linear analysis was discussed by [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2016). In equivalent linear analysis, equivalent linear properties, such as shear modulus, are used in the approximation of a non-linear hysteric stress-strain behavior of soil under cyclic loading. Normally, the effective shear strain value for GRa is set at 65% of the peak shear strain of an earthquake motion. The nonlinear analysis involves analyzing soil layers or deposits by implementing numerical integration of the time domain in small steps. Any nonlinear stress-strain model developed according to Masing and non-Masing rules can be incorporated during the integration process.