NewsFeed

‘You just can’t trust Trump’: Canadian premiers fire back in trade war

Provincial premiers have joined Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney, firing back after US President Donald Trump imposed 50% tariffs on about $20bn of Canadian goods. British Columbia Premier David Eby said Trump can’t be trusted.

Published On 23 Aug 202623 Aug 2026

From 900 NUKES to ZERO: How Trump’s Pressure Could Push South Korea to Build Its Own Nuclear Bomb

Saturday, August 22, 2026


From 900 NUKES to ZERO: How Trump’s Pressure Could Push South Korea to Build Its Own Nuclear Bomb

By Sumit Ahlawat



Even as President Donald Trump fights a protracted war in the Middle East to stop Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, his own policies might be pushing South Korea, a close US ally and a signatory to the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) treaty, towards Nukes.

On Sunday, Trump ordered the Pentagon to scale back planned joint military exercises with South Korea, saying it declined to help denuclearize Iran and citing his good relationship with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un.

On Tuesday, Trump said that Seoul should pay Washington US$10 billion annually for the presence of U.S. troops in the country.

Trump is punishing South Korea for its failure to contribute towards denuclearization of Iran; tragically, his own policy might lead to nuclearization of South Korea.

South Korea had been here before. Nearly half a century ago, in the 1970s, Seoul pursued a clandestine nuclear weapons program for over a decade. Ironically, even then, the circumstances were very similar, if not identical.

Over the last seven decades, South Korea had had a complicated relationship with Nukes.

At one point, when North Korea had no nuclear warheads, Seoul hosted over 900 U.S. nuclear warheads. And yet, now that North Korea has nearly 60 nuclear warheads, as per SIPRI data, and has signed a mutual defense treaty with Russia, South Korea has none.


Trump’s decision to scale back joint military drills with South Korea, his pressure tactics to make Seoul pay nearly 10 times what it is currently paying for hosting US troops in the country, and his threats to cut a deal with North Korea might leave South Korea with no other option but to pursue a nuclear program of its own.

South Korea and Nukes

During the Cold War, the United States deployed nuclear weapons in South Korea continuously for 33 years, from 1958 to 1991.


In 1953, the Korean War ended with an armistice, leaving a divided peninsula and a great deal of uncertainty. At that time, North Korea had no nukes of its own; however, it was supported by the Soviet Union, which was already a nuclear power, and by China.

Against that backdrop, Washington looked for a way to deter another invasion from the North without stationing an impossibly large conventional army in Asia.

Washington concluded that the only possible solution was stationing nuclear warheads in South Korea along with as many as 60,000 U.S. soldiers.


The first nuclear weapons arrived in South Korea by 1958.

AI Image. Credits Grok.


The South Korean-based nuclear arsenal peaked at an all-time high of approximately 950 warheads in 1967.

One year later, in 1968, South Korea signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). South Korea was one of the earliest signatories to the NPT treaty.


Ironically, after the U.S. nuclear warheads peaked in South Korea and it signed the NPT, soon after Seoul started a clandestine nuclear program of its own.


Even then, South Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons was triggered by its insecurities that Washington was retreating from its security commitments to Seoul.

Things changed quite significantly around 1969, when President Nixon gave a notorious speech now known as the Nixon Doctrine, in which he asked the US’ allies to do more to defend themselves.

“As far as the problems of internal security are concerned, as far as the problems of military defense…the United States is going to encourage and has a right to expect that this problem will be increasingly handled by, and the responsibility for it taken by, the Asian allies themselves.”

The Nixon Doctrine coincided with the Vietnam War, when suddenly the US had to deploy thousands of soldiers into South Vietnam.

Nixon’s rhetoric became reality when, in July 1970, US officials notified the South Korean government that US forces in the Republic of Korea (ROK) would be reduced.

Furthermore, in the early 1970s, the US reached a détente with China, following which Washington withdrew its forces from Taiwan and also downgraded its relations with Taipei.

The withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam in 1973 and the subsequent failure of the United States to prevent the fall of Saigon in 1975 further cast doubt on the credibility of US security commitments on the Korean peninsula once US troops were removed.

This further increased South Korean insecurities.

In response to this shift in US policy, South Korean President Park Chung-hee launched a program of military self-reliance and armed forces modernization. This plan, titled “Yulgok,” sought to import modern defense weapons along the lines of the Israeli national defense system.

US President Donald Trump greets South Korean President Lee Jae Myung as he arrives at the West Wing entrance of the White House in Washington, DC, on August 25, 2025. Trump on Monday suggested that a “purge or revolution” was underway in South Korea, hours before new President Lee Jae Myung was due at the White House. He did not specify to what he was referring but said he would bring it up with Lee. (Photo by Mandel NGAN / AFP)

Also, like Israel’s, this defense reform included the clandestine exploration of nuclear weapons.

Toward this end, South Korea, in 1971, established the Agency for Defense Development and the Weapons Exploitation Committee under whose auspices the South Korean armed forces could secretly develop nuclear weapons.

Although South Korea had begun construction of a light-water reactor in 1970, in 1975 Seoul also contracted to purchase a plutonium reprocessing plant from France and a heavy-water reactor from Canada.

Though U.S. troops remained stationed in South Korea throughout this time, the insecurities triggered in South Korea due to statements by the U.S. President and an impression that Washington might not fulfill its security commitments to Seoul were enough to make it pursue a secret nuclear program.

However, once South Korea’s secret nuclear program became known to the US, Washington pressured Seoul to immediately halt its nuclear program.

It promised to delay the withdrawal of its troops from South Korea for another five years, so that Seoul could modernize its armed forces. Washington also threatened to remove its nuclear warheads placed inside South Korea.

At the same time, the US State Department also pressured France and Canada to cancel their nuclear reactor contracts with Seoul.

The prospect of losing the US nuclear umbrella before the South Koreans could develop an indigenous capability compelled President Park to accede to US demands. In 1975, Park ordered the termination of the nuclear weapons program, and South Korea ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which it had signed in 1968.

However, some analysts warn that South Korea did not fully terminate its nuclear program even in 1975. Instead, a nuclear hide-and-seek game unfolded between Seoul and Washington, in which most South Korean nuclear programs were simply renamed and reorganized.

In fact, in 1976, Seoul restarted its nuclear program as Jimmy Carter, during his presidential campaign, had promised to withdraw U.S. troops from South Korea.

It was the assassination of the South Korean dictator Park in 1979 that ultimately ended its nuclear weapons program.

According to a research paper by the United States Air Force Academy scholar Joseph W. Brown, Park’s successor, Chun Doo Hwan, in need of national legitimacy and US support, ended South Korea’s suspect nuclear activity and committed the country to civilian nuclear development.

Ronald Reagan’s election on a hardline anti-communist platform in 1980 reinforced US commitment to South Korea. As a result, U.S. troops remained in South Korea.

However, the last US nuclear weapons were withdrawn from South Korea in 1991 after the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.

Nevertheless, the US protects South Korea and Japan under a “nuclear umbrella.”

North Korea conducted its first underground nuclear test on October 9, 2006, marking the point when it effectively proved its capability as a nuclear-armed state, further complicating Seoul’s commitment not to pursue nuclear weapons.

However, the presence of nearly 30,000 U.S. troops and the protection of the U.S. “nuclear umbrella” acted as a strong deterrent.

Notably, the number of U.S. troops stationed in South Korea has been decreasing continuously since 2004. In the last two decades, the number of American troops in South Korea has declined from over 41,000 to less than 23,000.

US Troops in South Korea. Credits CSIS.


Now, President Trump’s decision to scale back joint military exercises with South Korea and threats to cut a deal with North Korea are further triggering insecurities in Seoul.

Notably, at this time, North Korea has nearly 60 nuclear warheads, as well as a mutual defense treaty with Russia. Similarly, China is expanding aggressively in the South China Sea.

The question is: will these insecurities revive the South Korean nuclear program the way they did in the 1970s?

As Karl Marx said: “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”

Sumit Ahlawat has over a decade of experience in news media. He has worked with Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee News, Economic Times, and Microsoft News. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Media and Modern History from the University of Sheffield, UK.

Prof. Jason Arday - When scrutiny becomes spectacle

Prof. Jason Arday - When scrutiny becomes spectacle


The silent majority must find its voice

Updated 1 day ago · Published on 22 Aug 2026 8:03AM

The silent majority must find its voice - August 22, 2026




by Vinod Sekhar




I DID not know Professor Jason Arday personally.

But two people I know and respect deeply — my friends Lord Simon Woolley and Dawn Butler — have spoken with enormous emotion about what happened to him.

In fact, it was just a week before his death that Simon spoke to me about his worry for Jason.

And having spent time reading about Jason, reading the allegations, reading his responses, reading the journalism and then reading the commentary about the journalism, I find myself deeply disturbed.

Not because questions were asked. Questions must be asked.

Universities must maintain academic standards. Professors must be accountable for their work.

Public figures cannot demand immunity from scrutiny because scrutiny is uncomfortable.

And journalists must be free to investigate institutions and individuals.

I believe all of that.

But there is an enormous difference between scrutiny and spectacle. And somewhere along the way, we seem to have forgotten it.

Professor Jason Arday became Cambridge University’s youngest Black professor. His journey was extraordinary and inspirational to many people, including me.

Then serious questions were raised about aspects of his academic work and biography.

Those questions deserved examination.

What they did not require was the transformation of a human being into a form of public entertainment.

Hundreds of articles appeared within weeks.

Think about that for a moment. Not about a war. Not about corruption involving billions.

Not about the collapse of a government or the destruction of thousands of lives.

About one academic. At what point does legitimate public interest become something else?

At what point does investigation become obsession? At what point does scrutiny become humiliation?

And perhaps most importantly: At what point do we remember a human is standing underneath the avalanche?

My friend Simon Woolley knew Jason.

Lord Woolley has described what happened in the strongest possible language.

Shortly before Jason died, Simon says Jason told him he felt he was being hounded and could no longer see a way out.

Dawn Butler has been equally forthright. She has asked Britain’s press regulator to investigate the coverage and, speaking after Jason’s death, said something painfully simple:

We let him down. I think those four words should make all of us uncomfortable.

Because this is bigger than Jason Arday.

It is bigger than race, although it would be foolish to pretend race has nothing to do with the discussion.

It is bigger than Cambridge. And it is certainly bigger than politics.

It is about something happening across the world. We are slowly dehumanising public discourse.

And the most worrying part is that it is no longer confined to the darker corners of social media.

Major newspapers do it. Television does it.

Respected journalists sometimes do it. Politicians certainly do it.

Because everyone is now competing in the same attention economy. Clicks. Views. Shares. Engagement. Outrage.

The headline increasingly has to be more dramatic than the story because another headline is waiting half a centimetre below it on your telephone.

Journalism used to compete primarily for credibility. Increasingly, journalism competes for attention.

And attention has become a commodity. That creates a very dangerous incentive.

Nuance doesn’t travel as quickly as outrage.

“Questions remain about an academic’s work” is journalism.

“Fraud! Scandal! Disgrace!” gets clicks.

And once somebody becomes the villain of the week, something very ugly happens.

We stop discussing what they may have done. We begin discussing who they are.

Then their appearance becomes relevant. Their family becomes relevant.

Their childhood becomes relevant. Old photographs become relevant.

Every sentence they have ever uttered becomes another piece of content.

And suddenly a human being has become a product. I have lived long enough in public life to understand criticism.

I have been praised extravagantly and attacked viciously. Sometimes the criticism has been justified. Sometimes it has been complete nonsense.

That comes with public life. But I have also learnt something else.

There is always a person on the other side of the headline.

A husband. A wife. A father. A mother. A son. A daughter. A friend.

A frightened human being sitting alone somewhere reading thousands of strangers discussing whether he deserves to be destroyed.

Accountability requires evidence, justice requires proportionality and civilisation requires humanity.

We seem increasingly willing to sacrifice the last two in pursuit of the first.

And there is another uncomfortable dimension to Jason Arday’s story.

Race.

We should be capable of holding two thoughts in our heads simultaneously.

A Black academic must be subject to the same standards of academic integrity as anybody else.

And a Black academic must not be subjected to a different standard of public scrutiny because of who he is or what his success represents.

Those statements do not contradict each other.

They reinforce each other. Equality cannot mean immunity from scrutiny.

But equality also cannot mean allowing somebody to become the symbolic battlefield for every argument society wants to have about diversity, race, meritocracy and “wokeness”.

Jason Arday stopped being just Professor Jason Arday. He became a proxy war.

That is profoundly dangerous. And this brings me to something I have worried about for years.

Where is the silent majority?

Most people I meet are decent. They are not extremists. They do not wake up wanting to hate another race, religion, nationality or political tribe.

They want their children educated. They want their families safe. They want opportunity. They want dignity.

They want to laugh, work, love and live.

Yet public conversation increasingly sounds as though societies are populated entirely by people screaming at each other.

Why? Because reasonable people are quiet while unreasonable people are extraordinarily loud.

Algorithms reward anger. Politics exploits division.

And media monetises conflict. So the extremes dominate the conversation while the enormous middle watches silently.

That silence is becoming dangerous.

We have seen it with race. We see it with religion. We see it with immigration. We see it with Gaza and Israel. We see it in America. We see it across Europe.

We see it throughout Asia, and even here in Malaysia.

Every complicated human question is being reduced to two angry camps demanding that everyone choose a side. But leaving out the most critical side:

The human side. The side that says we can demand accountability without cruelty.

We can disagree without hatred. We can investigate without humiliating.

We can criticise without destroying. We can pursue truth without forgetting compassion.

And we can defend freedom of the press while demanding responsibility from those powerful enough to shape public opinion.

Freedom without responsibility eventually becomes licence. Power without humanity eventually becomes abuse.

That applies to governments. It applies to corporations. It applies to billionaires.

And yes, it applies to journalists too.

The press rightly demands accountability from everybody else.

It cannot exempt itself from the same principle.

Jason Arday’s death should therefore not become another weapon in the culture wars.

That would simply repeat the mistake. It should become a mirror.

A mirror for universities. A mirror for journalism.

A mirror for social media. And a mirror for every one of us who has ever forwarded something cruel because it was entertaining.

There are no longer legitimate questions to be answered about Jason Arday - because we as a society allowed his death. We have lost any right to ask any questions of him now. What we can do is ask ourselves questions about who and what we are.

And respect and mourn the loss of a very bright, young and inspiring man.

But there is another question that deserves answering too:

What kind of society are we becoming when the destruction of another human being becomes content?

Lord Simon Woolley is right to demand that we confront what happened.

Dawn Butler is right to demand accountability.

And the rest of us cannot simply shake our heads, express sadness and move on to tomorrow’s outrage.

The silent majority has been silent for too long. Being moderate does not mean being weak.

Being compassionate does not mean abandoning standards.

And demanding decency does not mean opposing free speech. Quite the opposite.

It means defending the kind of society in which truth can survive without humanity having to die alongside it.

Perhaps Jason Arday’s legacy can be something larger than the controversy that consumed his final weeks.

Perhaps it can remind us that behind every headline is a human being.

Behind every argument there is a family.

Behind every click are consequences.

And perhaps it can remind millions of decent people around the world that silence is itself becoming a choice.

It is time for the reasonable majority to become unreasonable about one thing: our refusal to accept the dehumanisation of each other.

We can do better. We must do better.

And perhaps the first step is simply finding the courage to say:

Enough.

 - August 22, 2026

Datuk Dr Vinod Sekhar is the publisher of The Vibes and Chairman of the Petra Group

Series of explosions, fires hit three southern Thai provinces

Series of explosions, fires hit three southern Thai provinces


A series of explosions and other attacks struck at least 12 locations across Thailand’s southern provinces of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat overnight

Updated 1 hour ago · Published on 23 Aug 2026 8:53AM


Thailand’s security forces tighten controls and temporarily close several areas with a 6am curfew imposed in Narathiwat following the attacks (Photo from Khaosodenglish) - August 23, 2026



A SERIES of explosions and other attacks rocked Thailand’s southern provinces of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat overnight, with at least 12 locations reportedly affected.

According to local Thai media reports, the incidents occurred almost simultaneously at several locations from about 8.15pm yesterday.

The incidents involved a series of disturbances, including bomb explosions, tyre burnings, vehicle fires and attacks targeting public facilities and business premises.

Narathiwat was reported to have recorded the highest number of explosions, followed by Yala and Pattani.

Following the incidents, Thai security forces stepped up security measures and closed several areas to facilitate inspections and investigations.

In Narathiwat, security personnel reportedly ordered the temporary closure of selected areas, including Sungai Kolok and Tak Bai, with entry and exit restrictions imposed in designated locations.

The authorities have yet to confirm the full extent of the damage or whether there were any casualties.

Investigations are under way to establish the circumstances surrounding the incidents, assess the overall damage and identify those responsible.

Meanwhile, the Bangkok Post reported that Narathiwat authorities had imposed a curfew until 6am following the attacks.

The latest incidents come amid longstanding security concerns in Thailand’s southernmost provinces, which have experienced periodic violence linked to a decades-old insurgency. - August 23, 2026

One more temple falls: The destruction of Malaysia’s soul?

One more temple falls: The destruction of Malaysia’s soul?


Arguments over ownership of places that existed long before Malaysia’s borders were drawn are lame excuses for cultural erasure

Updated 1 hour ago · Published on 23 Aug 2026 8:05AM

Temples, cave monasteries, and archaeological remnants are not mere “illegal structures.” - August 23, 2026



By Murray Hunter


THE recent demolition of the Sri Maha Veera Kaliamman Temple in Bukit Lagi, Kangar, is not an isolated bureaucratic act.

It is another deliberate strike against Malaysia’s layered cultural heritage, one that long predates the modern nation-state and its rigid land titles.

Authorities insist the temple stood on state land without a permit. Engagements were held, alternatives suggested, and the law applied.

Yet this legalistic defence rings hollow when applied to spiritual sites that have served communities for generations.

Arguments over ownership of places that existed long before Malaysia’s borders were drawn are lame excuses for cultural erasure.

The same logic has threatened the century-old Sakyamuni Caves Monastery at Gunung Kanthan in Perak, where quarrying interests and eviction orders hang over a living Buddhist sanctuary nestled in limestone caves of immense geological and spiritual value.

Across the peninsula, ancient sites linked to the Srivijaya era, once part of a vast maritime cultural sphere, have been neglected, damaged, or lost to development and indifference over the decades.

All governments since federation have deeply neglected this aspect of the nation’s heritage.

Malaysia’s soul was never monocultural. It was forged through Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms, Arab and Chinese traders, Indian labourers, indigenous communities, and Islamic sultanates.

Temples, cave monasteries, and archaeological remnants are not mere “illegal structures.”

They are tangible threads of continuity in a multi-civilisational land.

When they are reduced to rubble under the banner of land compliance, what remains is a thinner, more brittle national identity.

The pattern is very clear. The selective enforcement that prioritises administrative convenience and majoritarian sensitivities over historical depth.

Each demolition chips away at the shared memory that could bind a diverse society.

It is sad to watch a nation, in the name of order, culturally dismantle itself.

Heritage is not an inconvenience to be cleared. It is the very foundation of belonging.

Once gone, no new permit can restore it. Malaysia risks destroying its own cultural heritage, which is its soul. – August 23, 2026

Plans underway to set up financial hub on Pulau Jerejak

Plans underway to set up financial hub on Pulau Jerejak


The financial hub can complement the surrounding Bayan Lepas and the Batu Kawan Free Industrial Zones, besides helping the services sector in tourism, Sim told a media briefing

Updated 1 hour ago · Published on 23 Aug 2026 8:48AM

Sim said the development would also be subject to restrictions on building height and density. - August 23, 2026



by Ian McIntyre



DEPUTY Minister of Investment, Trade and Industry (MITI) Sim Tze Tzin is envisioning a financial hub to be set up at Pulau Jerejak following plans by the developer to construct a connecting bridge to Penang.

The financial hub can complement the surrounding Bayan Lepas and the Batu Kawan Free Industrial Zones, besides helping the services sector in tourism, Sim told a media briefing.

He has proposed that the mooted Penang Financial Centre be within the 32ha development site by the Tropical Island Resort, which plans to complete the construction of hotels, condominiums and recreational areas.

"It can be the right ecosystem to power the next growth level for Penang. It can attract investors to support the industrial, property and tourism sectors."

Sim said that the proposed financial centre could complement the manufacturing sector by bringing investors closer to engineers and young entrepreneurs.

“Penang needs venture capitalists, private equity funds, bankers and technology investors to set up offices in one location so that they can interact with technology companies and potentially channel funding into new ventures.

“We have about 20,000 integrated circuit design engineers. Many do not have funders to help them start their own start-ups," said Sim.

Investors can set up offices anywhere, but the better choice is to place them together, he said.

The example is the concept of clustering financial and technology companies in Silicon Valley, a California enclave in the United States.

Sim, who had worked in Silicon Valley for six years, believed a similar ecosystem could stimulate Penang technology's growth.

“The industrial area will have a lot of engineers and young entrepreneurs. They must create that kind of symbiosis.

“They must be able to meet each other every day, talk to each other and exchange new ideas.”

Sim said the development would also be subject to restrictions on building height and density.

The construction of the 1km elevated bridge, with two lanes in each direction as well as pedestrian and cycling lanes, would kick off with road widening works next month.

Works will involve widening Persiaran Bayan Indah near Queens Waterfront, and building a connecting road from the Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu Expressway to the bridge to Jerejak.

The construction will take three years, with completion expected by 2029.

It will connect the area near Queensbay Mall to Jerejak, providing direct road access to the island which currently relies on boat services.

Sim said he had urged the developer to make the bridge an iconic structure.

“They have accepted my ideas and will hire one local and two international architects to design it.”

He said the bridge would improve access to Jerejak, making the island a more attractive destination for tourists.

Sim said the state government had requested the developer restore several heritage sites on the island.

He stressed that as 85% of Jerejak was gazetted as forest reserve, those would remain untouched.

Jerejak, which encompasses about 360ha, was previously a quarantine centre in the 1940s, and there was a treatment centre for those suffering from leprosy. - August 23, 2026.

***

Don't build just ONE bridge - have another, a 'spare' or 'emergency' alternative

Analysts split over DAP’s ‘stay for now’ strategy

Analysts split over DAP’s ‘stay for now’ strategy


3 hours ago
Ameer Fakhri Shafiq


Syaza Shukri says DAP can rebuild trust by using its Cabinet position to push reforms, but Oh Ei Sun believes remaining in government will further erode its core support

DAP delegates want their leaders to remain as ministers, but how much they can achieve by staying in government is still a big question.

PETALING JAYA: The decision by DAP to remain in the Cabinet has drawn contrasting reactions from political pundits.

Of the two who spoke to FMT, Syaza Shukri of the International Islamic University Malaysia says the party still has room to rebuild trust if it uses its position in government to exert pressure to realise promised reforms.

On the other hand, Oh Ei Sun of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs believes there is “almost nothing” DAP can do now from within the Cabinet to regain its core support.


Delegates who attended a special congress on Aug 16 to determine the party’s future in the government voted overwhelmingly to keep their leaders in the Cabinet until the end of the current government’s term.

A delegate from Kuala Lumpur, Sangeet Kaur Deo, summed up the delegates’ sentiments succinctly with her comment that the party should “stay for now” despite the growing dissatisfaction among supporters.


However, Sangeet, a committee member of Kuala Lumpur DAP, said the party must reassess its relationship with Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and regain its voice. She said the many compromises the party has made had made it look muted.

The special congress followed the party’s wipeout in the Sabah election, and Pakatan Harapan’s heavy defeats in Johor and Negeri Sembilan.

Not too late

Syaza said DAP could still justify its position in the Cabinet if it pushed harder for reforms and held its partners in the unity government accountable.


She said the party needed to show that progress had been made in realising promised reforms only because DAP was in government.

This, she added, was better than merely highlighting the performance of its ministers while blaming Anwar or other partners when reforms stalled.

Syaza Shukri.


“DAP cannot simply say, ‘we have good ministers, but it is the fault of the prime minister or others that certain reforms are unsuccessful’,” she said.

Syaza pointed out that as far as the people are concerned, the government is one entity, not a collection of several parts with separate responsibilities.


She said institutional reforms offered DAP the best opportunity to demonstrate its influence, as such measures were less likely to become caught up in racial politics.

“What DAP needs to show is that the government is pushing ahead with institutional reforms because DAP is there to help navigate and ensure promises are fulfilled,” she said.

Syaza said declining electoral support alone should not be a reason to withdraw, as that could make the party appear to be avoiding responsibility for the government’s failure.

Oh, who offered a contrarian view, said government decisions that are viewed as regressive by non-Malay voters could further erode DAP’s support because its ministers were bound by collective Cabinet responsibility.

He cited the “kuil haram” or “illegal temples” issue as one of many thorny issues.

He said Anwar’s order to local councils in February to take action against those behind the construction of Hindu temples without proper approval would only alienate non-Malay voters.

In July Anwar apologised for using the term “kuil haram” when discussing the issue, acknowledging that it was a mistake.

For that alone, Oh said, it is better for DAP to quit the Cabinet but continue to back the government in the Dewan Rakyat.

Oh Ei Sun.


“That way, it registers its protest over a decision that it does not support without bringing down the government,” Oh told FMT.

He said the party would open itself to even greater risk by remaining in the Cabinet while failing to deliver the changes expected by its core supporters.

“The party needs to consolidate its core non-Malay support. Otherwise, it will not just fail to win the Malay support it craves but will even lose its traditional non-Malay base. That way, it ends up like Gerakan,” he added.

 

PAS clamour on gambling punctured by Tabung Haji silence

PAS clamour on gambling punctured by Tabung Haji silence

23-Aug-2026, 09:00

Letter to the Editor

For all its noise on a gambling ban, the Islamic party failed to do so when it was part of the federal government led by Muhyiddin Yassin.

From Clement Stanley

PAS ulama council information chief Nor Hamzah wants Muslim voters to help the Islamic party form the next federal government so it can abolish gambling once and for all.

His call follows the failure of the PAS-led Kedah government to overturn a court ruling that barred it from refusing to renew local council business licences of pool betting and lottery operators.

This rallying call is funny for one reason. PAS was part of the federal government led by Muhyiddin Yassin. Did it try to ban gambling then? Not at all.

In fact, in 2021, the government of the day gave gaming companies permission to hold 22 “special draws” for 4D numbers, on top of the usual thrice-weekly draws. Muhyiddin, according to news reports, justified the move to beef up government coffers during the Covid-19 pandemic.

But when Anwar Ibrahim came to power his government allowed gaming companies to hold only eight “special draws” a year from 2023 onwards. Anwar appears to have done more to reduce gambling than a religious party like PAS.

Voters should maybe ask themselves these questions: if PAS could not abolish gambling then, could it do so if it forms the government? And second, if Anwar managed to reduce the number of special draws, wouldn’t it be better to bet on him instead?

The focus on lotteries is misplaced, especially when gaming companies, along with brewery and tobacco companies, financially assist vernacular schools, providing some respite for the government.

PAS should instead focus on the Tabung Haji fiasco which affects Muslims nationwide. The party should have done so, and could have, except that its MPs decided to walk out during the special Dewan Rakyat sitting on the royal commission of inquiry report on Tabung Haji.

For all its chest-thumping about wanting to protect Muslim interests, PAS has committed one unforgivable sin in the eyes of supporters and voters — the party chose to remain silent on the Tabung Haji fiasco.

But you know who from the opposition remained in the lower house? Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman. Unlike PAS, the Muar MP doesn’t go around town harping on religious issues but when it mattered, at least he showed up.

Maybe voters should ask themselves two other questions:

One, if PAS could not bring itself to speak up about serious issues affecting the Muslim community, would it and could it do so if it is in the government? Second, since Syed Saddiq took part in the debate on TH – despite not putting up a holier-than-thou image – wouldn’t it be better to invest in him?

No matter how much anyone claims that safeguarding Muslim interests remains the priority in this country, nothing beats walking the talk.

 

Over 100 ex-diplomats urge France, UK to sanction Israel over Palestine

An open letter demands a ban on arms transfers and a freeze on EU-Israel and UK-Israel trade agreements.

Save

Share

Palestinians inspect destroyed buildings in central Gaza Strip, amid Israel's continuing genocidal war [File: Abdel Kareem Hana/AP]

By Al Jazeera Staff and AFP

Published On 22 Aug 202622 Aug 2026

A coalition of 102 former French and British diplomats is calling on their countries to jointly sanction Israel, warning in an open letter that Israeli policy in occupied Palestinian territory threatens to permanently erase the possibility of a Palestinian state.

France and the United Kingdom “must act together to uphold international law in Palestine”, said the letter published on Saturday by French outlet Le Monde. It urged the two governments to push for “equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians”.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 items

• list 1 of 3Why Israeli tenders for illegal E1 West Bank settlement prompted outrage
• list 2 of 3Palestinian victims of Israeli settler attacks face battle for justice
• list 3 of 3‘Shameful’: Western allies slam Israel ending probe on aid worker killings

end of list

The signatories include former British ambassadors to the United Nations, Jeremy Greenstock and Emyr Jones Parry, and former French Middle East directors, Yves Aubin de la Messuziere and Denis Bauchard, drawing on decades of diplomatic postings across the region.

“Palestinian house demolitions and rampant settler violence – with the connivance of the Israeli army and police – amount to ethnic cleansing,” said the letter. “The world no longer sees Israel as a genuine democracy,” it added.

Such language, said Nicholas Hopton, a former UK ambassador to Iran, Qatar and Yemen and one of the signatories, was not invented by the diplomats themselves.

“The words are not our own,” he told Al Jazeera. “They are taken from the international legal bodies, the UN, those who have been observing from a neutral position and with expertise.”

The letter arrives against the backdrop of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, which has killed more than 72,000 Palestinians since October 2023. Despite a ceasefire that took effect in October 2025, Israeli attacks have continued, killing at least 1,285 Palestinians since, according to Gaza’s Ministry of Health.

For Hopton, the more immediate trigger was Israel’s renewed push to expand settlements in the occupied West Bank.

“There is a move by the Israeli government to allow settlements to be created in the West Bank in a way that would almost realistically prevent a future Palestinian state being able to be created there,” he said.

France and the UK recognised a Palestinian state in 2025, a step the letter argues now needs to be “made real by urgent action.” The signatories trace their countries’ responsibility back to the mandates the UK and France held over Palestine, Syria and Lebanon after World War I, which shaped the region’s modern borders.

“Our two nations believe that those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity must be held to account,” the letter states. “Only then can our governments rebut the accusation of double standards.”

What the diplomats demand

The letter lays out specific measures for France and the UK to adopt jointly: suspending EU-Israel and UK-Israel trade agreements and halting arms transfers and military cooperation with Israel.

It also calls for a ban on trade with Israeli settlements, a ban on citizens purchasing property on occupied Palestinian land, and guaranteed humanitarian access to Gaza through UNRWA and other UN agencies, with protected access for journalists, diplomats and parliamentarians.

“These actions, imposing penalties for law-breaking, safeguard the rule of law and show that there is an alternative to violence,” the letter states.

The letter, however, is not directed solely at Israel; it also calls on Palestinian leadership, which it describes as “unrepresentative and dysfunctional”, to ensure the internationally recognised state remains “democratic and law-abiding”, pointing to elections scheduled for November as an opportunity for renewal.

For Hopton, though, the real test lies with governments willing to act rather than simply condemn, and he singled out the United States as the most consequential actor.

“The United States … has the most influence over the actions of the Israeli government,” he told Al Jazeera, warning that continued inaction “will create a longer-term, irreconcilable problem and store up future violence and future tragedies”.

27:30

What could stop Israeli settler attacks on Palestinians? | Inside Story