Thursday, June 25, 2026

These 21 Johor seats decided two elections — Will they decide a third on July 11?






These 21 Johor seats decided two elections — Will they decide a third on July 11?



Voters show their inked fingers after early voting for the Johor State Election at a polling station in Johor Bahru on March 8, 2022. — Picture by Hari Anggara

Thursday, 25 Jun 2026 7:00 AM MYT


KUALA LUMPUR, June 25 — Of the 56 seats in Johor’s state assembly, 21 changed hands in 2022 alone, a wave that wiped out Pakatan Harapan’s 2018 breakthrough and handed Barisan Nasional a commanding comeback.

Seats once claimed as symbols of that historic upset, including Gambir and Parit Yaani, reverted to BN, while Perikatan Nasional also carved out new territory of its own.

As Johor returns to the polls on July 11, these same 21 constituencies, which sit on the volatile border between BN’s rural strongholds and PH’s urban bases, are shaping up to be the battlegrounds that decide the next government.


Redrawing the map

BN’s path to victory in 2022 relied on reclaiming the ground lost during the 2018 wave. The coalition successfully clawed back constituencies that had become emblematic of the PH breakthrough.

Gambir, once won by Bersatu president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin under the PH banner, reverted to BN. Similarly, Parit Yaani returned to the BN column after unseating Johor PH chairman Aminolhuda Hassan.

In the critical Johor Bahru suburban belt, BN reclaimed Larkin and Permas, both of which had been Bersatu prizes four years earlier.

PN also carved out its own territory. Bukit Kepong, Maharani, and Endau moved into the PN column, while Muda’s Amira Aisya Abdul Aziz made history by securing Puteri Wangsa.

The 21 seats that flipped in 2022:

PH to BN

  • Pemanis (PKR to Umno)
  • Kemelah (Amanah to MIC)
  • Tenang (Bersatu to Umno)
  • Gambir (Bersatu to Umno)
  • Serom (Amanah to Umno)
  • Bukit Naning (PKR to Umno)
  • Semerah (PKR to Umno)
  • Yong Peng (DAP to MCA)
  • Parit Yaani (Amanah to Umno)
  • Senggarang (Amanah to Umno)
  • Permas (Bersatu to Umno)
  • Larkin (Bersatu to Umno)
  • Kempas (Bersatu to Umno)
  • Bukit Permai (Bersatu to Umno)
  • Pulai Sebatang (Amanah to Umno)


PH to PN

  • Maharani (Amanah to PAS)


BN to PN

  • Endau (Umno to Bersatu)


PH (Bersatu) to PN (Bersatu)

  • Bukit Kepong (Retained by Sahruddin Jamal, but shifted from PH to PN following Bersatu’s exit)


The turnout factor

The political shift was inseparable from a collapse in voter participation. Participation didn’t just dip; it cratered from 84.51 per cent in 2018 to 54.92 per cent in 2022.

The timing was a factor: the Omicron variant was still a concern, and many Johoreans working across the Causeway or in other states faced steep logistical hurdles to return home. Deep political fatigue after years of federal instability also kept many away.

The silence was loudest in urban areas. Perling recorded the state’s lowest turnout at 42.2 per cent, nearly half its 2018 level. Skudai and Puteri Wangsa saw similar plunges of over 30 percentage points. While it is impossible to know how those who stayed home would have voted, their absence effectively dismantled the mobilization that powered the 2018 transition.


The road to July 11

The 21 seats that changed hands in 2022 will be the ones to watch next month. These constituencies sit on the volatile border between BN’s rural heartland and PH’s urban bases.

If Johor voters decide to show up in greater numbers this time, these battlegrounds will likely decide the next government.


Silent prayers, cautious banners as Hanoi residents resist Red River mega-project






Silent prayers, cautious banners as Hanoi residents resist Red River mega-project



A man rides a motorcycle past protest banners, which read ‘Our family in the Hong Ha ward recommend maintaining the existing residential area for the sake of social well-being and to stabilise people’s life’, at a neighbourhood in Hanoi June 19, 2026. — AFP pic

Thursday, 25 Jun 2026 7:00 AM MYT


HANOI, June 25 — Silent prayer vigils, cautiously worded protest banners and T-shirts pleading for neighbourhoods to be spared — Hanoi residents are showing rare public opposition to a massive redevelopment scheme that could displace hundreds of thousands.


Authorities in Vietnam’s capital have been on a demolition blitz, knocking down thousands of homes to make way for bridges and other infrastructure projects as part of a 100-year master plan approved last month.


One 11,000-hectare area along the Red River — roughly the size of Paris — is slated to become a warren of high-end residential complexes and parks, with roughly 250,000 residents relocated.

Large-scale protests are rare in Vietnam, where the communist authorities brook little dissent.


But private grumbling has given way to tentative public opposition as residents fight to save their homes.


“We have been living in fear, we don’t know when we will be kicked out of our houses. We want our voice to be heard,” said Hoa.

Her life savings are tied up in a two-storey house in the planned development area, surrounded by ornamental and fruit trees.


Last week, she joined a vigil at a Buddhist temple where residents prayed for peace — a veiled plea for their homes to be spared.

Hundreds of Red River area residents have attended similar vigils, organised anonymously in recent weeks and publicised on social media.

The low-lying region is home to dozens of vibrant communities, some dating back centuries with bustling markets, leafy gardens and traditional burial grounds.

French-style villas stand to be bulldozed, along with modest Hanoi-style “tube” houses and densely packed low-rises.

“May the Buddhas of the ten directions hear our earnest plea,” one anonymous user commented on a Facebook group dedicated to the Red River redevelopment.

“Please help us avoid losing our homes, our land, our ancestral graves.”


Cautious

Not far from Hoa’s home on a nearby street, resident Duc said he and some neighbours hung a banner from the balcony of his four-storey home.

“We urge local authorities to consider people’s aspiration in maintaining the present communities,” it read.

He said the phrasing was deliberately cautious, “avoiding strong words like ‘protest’ or ‘against’”, but that the authorities nonetheless asked him to take it down.

Dozens of similar banners have appeared on nearby houses, with many disappearing after a few days.

Tuong Vu, a Vietnam expert at the University of Oregon, said Hanoi residents had “expressed their disagreement and resentment at losing their lands and houses”.

Duc said he would wait to see what happened in his neighbourhood before making any more attempts to save his home.

“It’s not fair and also a big waste of money,” he said of the plan to relocate so many people.

“We really don’t want to move.”


Compensation

Neither do any of the dozen or so women who gathered over the weekend to stroll along the shores of Hanoi’s West Lake wearing matching red-and-yellow T-shirts.

Ostensibly there to exercise, the women were also carrying a message on their backs — a call to maintain the “existing residential area” along the Red River.

Authorities have pledged to compensate residents for their homes and said they will build up to 85,000 new units to eventually house them on the outskirts of the city.

The principle will be that “the new living conditions are equal to or better than the old ones”, the city has said.

But many residents already displaced as part of Hanoi’s urban renewal drive complain they were paid below-market rates for their homes.

Others question how long the new housing will take to build — and how they will afford rent in the interim.

In the Red River area, part of the anger stems from the perception that private companies will profit from high-end apartments replacing their homes.

A consortium of three developers is undertaking the US$30 billion (RM120 billion) mega-project as part of a public-private partnership.

In 2020, a dispute over land expropriated to build an airport near Hanoi devolved into clashes that left three police officers and one villager dead, with two protesters later sentenced to death and more than two dozen jailed.

Since then, Oregon professor Vu said “there have been fewer acts of public protest and dissent”. — AFP

That controversial religious poster at Upsi — Mustafa K Anuar






That controversial religious poster at Upsi — Mustafa K Anuar


Wednesday, 24 Jun 2026 12:43 PM MYT



JUNE 24 — A poster that went viral online recently caused a stir among many people, including non-Muslim parents of children who are studying at the Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (Upsi).

The poster reportedly gave the impression that it used certain inducement to encourage students to convert to Islam on campus grounds.

According to Malaysiakini, the online poster listed a few “benefits” for Upsi students who registered as converts to Islam.


The poster, added Malaysiakini, bore the logos of the university’s Islamic centre, its student affairs and alumni department, as well as the Malaysia Madani emblem.


The controversial poster issue caught the attention of certain people, particularly Senator Dr RA Lingeshwaran, who called for a thorough investigation into the matter.

In the midst of all this, Upsi publicly disassociated itself from the controversial endeavour, saying that the June 15 poster had never been submitted to its management for consideration or approval.


However, the university’s statement wasn’t clear enough. In fact, it raised more questions.

Did the university disassociate itself from the poster because it disagreed with the religious approach employed by the poster advocates?

Or, did the university oppose the poster being circulated online simply because it didn’t seek the university’s authorisation?

A clear explanation is, therefore, warranted from the university as the content of the poster has serious implications, especially if it is indeed true that there were financial incentives involved.

The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) expressed concern about the use of financial aid as a means to induce students.

Furthermore, if the financial assistance that was promised came from public funds, then it is an issue that needs to be addressed.

The multi-faith group also feared that such monetary incentives could attract students, particularly those who were financially vulnerable and emotionally disturbed.

As a result, a misperception might take shape among some people that the lure to Islam necessarily takes on a material form.



A clear explanation is, therefore, warranted from the university as the content of the poster has serious implications, especially if it is indeed true that there were financial incentives involved. — Picture from UPU application website



As it is, there have already been derogatory reactions on social media that caricatured the perceived poster’s material aid-for-faith approach as a “mid-year sale”.

Detractors (who are Muslims), however, argued that the students were mature enough to make their choice.

To doubt their intellectual capacity to make their religious preference, they added, was to insult their intelligence.

Be that as it may, it is important to appreciate that making a profound change of faith requires a clear conscience, and not be influenced or muddled by such factors as financial stress.

There is no compulsion in religion, as far as Islam is concerned.

Lest I be misunderstood, I’m not opposed to anyone who wishes to embrace my religion Islam on their own volition.

Nor do I downplay the socio-economic significance of helping the poor and the marginalised.

In fact, Islam enjoins its followers to help provide material support to the needy, among whom are some poor converts.

This is obviously not the same as giving material assistance as an inducement to conversion.

To reiterate, giving material help is central to the concept of zakat (almsgiving), which is one of the five pillars of Islam. It illustrates the importance Islam places on social justice by redistributing wealth in society.

That is why stealing zakat money is considered a major sin.

Coming back to the issue of promoting Islam, one should avoid making a misstep that is reminiscent of the saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

It’s worth being mindful that a religion is at times judged by the conduct of its faithful.


Malaysia must stand with Karim Khan — Abbi Kanthasamy






Malaysia must stand with Karim Khan — Abbi Kanthasamy


Wednesday, 24 Jun 2026 9:19 AM MYT



JUNE 24 — “You do not have to blow up a whole building because there is one Hezbollah member in it. There are many innocent people too.”

Donald Trump said that recently of Israel’s bombing in Lebanon. It was an unusually blunt description of the civilian cost of war from a man not usually accused of excessive tenderness towards international law.

But there is another kind of demolition now under way: the demolition of the independence of the International Criminal Court’s prosecutor, Karim Khan.


And Malaysia should not be silent.


Three senior judges, appointed by the ICC’s own governing Bureau, examined the United Nations investigation into allegations against Khan. They reviewed the report and a vast body of underlying material. Their conclusion was unanimous and unambiguous: the factual findings did not establish misconduct or breach of duty under the relevant legal framework.

Not one judge dissented.


That should have been the end of the matter, or at the very least the beginning of a legally proper next step. Instead, the Bureau — a political body made up of state representatives — has chosen to substitute its own view for that of the judges it appointed.

This is the point that must not be lost in the noise.

No one is saying Karim Khan is above scrutiny. No one is saying serious allegations should be ignored, minimised or politicised in his favour. The complainant is entitled to dignity, protection and a fair process. But so is Khan. And when three judges appointed to assess the investigation conclude that the material before them does not establish misconduct, it is not for diplomats in a room to don judicial robes and announce the opposite result.

If the Bureau believed that the legal standard applied by the judges was wrong, then it had a proper path available: send the matter to a competent judicial body, clarify the standard, ensure a transparent process and let law do its work.

What it must not do is discard the finding of judges because the result is inconvenient.

That is not accountability. It is institutional improvisation with a political scent.

The Bureau may technically have the power to proceed. It is made up of governments, after all. But power and legitimacy are not the same thing. A political committee can vote. It can suspend. It can circulate memoranda. What it cannot manufacture is the moral authority of a judicial determination it has chosen to ignore.

That distinction matters enormously.

Karim Khan was elected to do a job few others were willing to do. He pursued Vladimir Putin. He pursued Hamas leaders. And he pursued Israeli leaders over Gaza. In doing so, he crossed the line that the world’s most powerful states insist exists only for everyone else.

The United States sanctioned Khan and other ICC officials after the Court’s action against Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant. The message was plain enough: investigate our adversaries and you are supporting justice; investigate our allies and you become the problem.

Khan has said that, in a 2024 call, US Senator Lindsey Graham told him that the ICC was meant for African leaders and “thugs like Putin”, not for democracies such as Israel and the United States. Whether those were Graham’s exact words or not, the sentiment has been visible in neon lights for years.

The ICC, in this worldview, is acceptable when it pursues African warlords, Russian presidents and the enemies of the West. But the moment it approaches the military and political leadership of a protected ally, suddenly the Court is an outrage, the prosecutor is suspect, the judges are biased and the entire institution must be tamed.

That is why the treatment of Karim Khan matters beyond Karim Khan.

This is not merely about whether one individual stays or goes. It is about the warning being sent to every future prosecutor, judge, investigator and international civil servant: cross the wrong geopolitical line and the legal process around you may be rewritten by politicians.



Karim Khan was elected to do a job few others were willing to do. He pursued Vladimir Putin. He pursued Hamas leaders. And he pursued Israeli leaders over Gaza. In doing so, he crossed the line that the world’s most powerful states insist exists only for everyone else. — Reuters file pic


Today, it is Karim Khan.

Tomorrow, it may be any prosecutor who dares to investigate a state with powerful friends in Washington, London, Berlin or elsewhere.

The chilling effect will be immense. Prosecutors will understand that some cases are career-ending not because the evidence is weak, but because the accused are too powerful. Judges will understand that their legal reasoning can be treated as optional. Investigators will understand that the rule of law operates under a diplomatic supervision clause.

And the ICC will understand that it is allowed to be brave only in the safe direction.

Malaysia cannot credibly claim to stand for Palestine while remaining mute when the institutional independence of the Court pursuing accountability is placed at risk.

Malaysia joined The Hague Group because it said international law must not become a decoration for speeches while civilians are buried under rubble. Malaysia has repeatedly argued that no state should be above the law. Malaysia has condemned the killing of civilians, collective punishment and the failure of the international community to act with courage.

Those were not merely good lines for press conferences. They were commitments.

This is where those commitments are tested.

Malaysia should publicly call on the Assembly of States Parties to respect the unanimous conclusion of the three judges who were appointed to examine the evidence. It should insist that a political Bureau must not replace a judicial finding with its own preferred conclusion. It should demand that any further process be legally rigorous, transparent and free from external political pressure.

Most importantly, Malaysia should say plainly that the ICC cannot survive as a court if the most powerful states in the world can decide who may investigate them.

That is the real issue.

Malaysia should stand with Karim Khan not because he is beyond scrutiny, but because no prosecutor should be removed for doing his job. If political pressure succeeds where legal process should prevail, the victim will not be Karim Khan.

It will be the independence of international justice itself.

And then the ICC will become exactly what its critics have long feared: a court for Africa and thugs, but never for the powerful.


How USA and the West oppressed Iran



From the FB page of:

Lim Tean ·


reotsSonpd02ffi13aaf3605g9cm057at721itm330i92023a06fhh6f9l72 ·



I’ll be honest — I wrote this article out of frustration.
Every day on social media I encounter people who dismiss Iran as a crazy country ruled by medieval mullahs, whose people chant “Death to America” for no rational reason. 

And from that ignorance flows something truly dangerous — the casual assumption that it is therefore perfectly justifiable for America, Israel, or anyone else to bomb Iran and kill its people.

Before you can have an opinion on Iran, you owe it to yourself to know its history. What Churchill and Britain did with Iranian oil. What MI6 and the CIA did to Mosaddegh in 1953. What the Shah spent at Persepolis while his people went hungry. What America did when Saddam gassed Iranian soldiers.

Read this. Then tell me the anger is irrational.


The Story The West Does Not Want You To Know

I will be honest about why I wrote this article.
Across my social media platforms, I encounter daily a particular brand of ignorance that I find increasingly impossible to ignore. Iran is dismissed as a crazy country ruled by medieval mullahs, its people caricatured as fanatics who chant “Death to America” for no coherent reason. And from that caricature flows a conclusion that should horrify any person of conscience — that it is therefore perfectly justifiable for America, Israel, or any other country to bomb Iran, kill its people, and destroy its infrastructure.

This is not analysis. It is the recycling of propaganda as a substitute for thought. And it has real consequences — because populations that are kept ignorant of history can be mobilised to support atrocities committed in their name.

Iran is not a cartoon. It is one of the world’s oldest and most sophisticated civilisations. And its anger at America is not irrational. It is the entirely rational response of a people to whom history has been profoundly, systematically unjust.

Let me show you why.


The Original Theft

To understand Iran today, you must begin not in 1979, but in 1908.

In that year, on the sun-baked plains of Khuzestan, workers drilling for the Anglo-Persian Oil Company struck black gold at Masjid-i-Suleiman — the first great oil discovery in the Middle East. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which would later become the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and ultimately British Petroleum — the BP that today trades on the London Stock Exchange as a pillar of corporate respectability — had found the resource that would not merely enrich its shareholders, but change the course of world history.

The discovery was not merely commercially significant. It was strategically transformative. Winston Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty, had made the fateful decision to convert the Royal Navy’s warships from coal to oil before the First World War — giving Britain’s fleet superior speed and range, but making it utterly dependent on a secure oil supply. Iranian oil did not merely enrich British shareholders. It powered the British Empire’s ability to wage and win the greatest war in human history. The Iranian people received almost nothing in return.

For decades, Britain extracted Iran’s oil under terms of stunning inequality. Iranian workers toiled in dangerous conditions for poverty wages. Iranian communities near the oilfields lived without electricity, running water, or basic sanitation — while British staff enjoyed swimming pools, clubs, and comfortable salaries. The Iranian government received a pittance in royalties, and was denied even the right to audit the company’s accounts. Iran’s greatest natural treasure was being systematically looted, and the Iranian people knew it.

A man arose who decided to say: enough.


Mosaddegh and the Crime of Democracy

Mohammed Mosaddegh was everything the West claims to want in a Middle Eastern leader. He was democratically elected. He was secular. He was a constitutional lawyer steeped in European liberal tradition, who had studied in Paris and Neuchâtel. He wore suits, not robes. He believed in parliamentary democracy, the separation of powers, and the rule of law.

In 1951, as Prime Minister, he did something unforgivable. He nationalised the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, returning Iran’s oil to its rightful owners — the Iranian people. The Iranian parliament voted for it unanimously. The Iranian street erupted in celebration. For the first time in their modern history, Iranians dared to believe that the wealth beneath their feet might actually benefit them.

Britain was apoplectic. The Americans were alarmed. And so, in August 1953, the CIA and MI6 launched Operation Ajax — one of the most consequential covert operations in modern history. They bribed Iranian generals, hired thugs to create street chaos, spread disinformation, and toppled the democratically elected government of a sovereign nation.

Mosaddegh was arrested, tried, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. He died in 1967, never having been broken, never having recanted — a man of extraordinary dignity whose only crime was wanting his country’s wealth to belong to his country’s people.
In his place, the West reinstalled Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi — and handed him SAVAK, one of the most feared secret police forces in the world, to keep his people in line.

This is the original sin. This is where the story truly begins.


The Shah’s Gilded Cage

The Shah that America restored and sustained was not a moderniser, whatever his propaganda claimed. He was a man of spectacular vanity and profound disconnect from his own people.

Consider this extraordinary fact: Mohammed Reza Shah held his coronation not once, but effectively twice. He had been on the throne since 1941, but waited until 1967 — twenty-six years — to hold his formal coronation, because he felt the circumstances had never been grand enough for a ceremony befitting his self-image. When he finally crowned himself, in a ceremony of breathtaking opulence, ordinary Iranians watched from a distance that was not merely physical.
But the coronation was merely a rehearsal for the true performance of imperial delusion — the celebrations at Persepolis in October 1971.

To mark the 2,500th anniversary of the Persian Empire, the Shah staged a spectacle that remains one of the most extraordinary acts of self-aggrandisement in modern political history. Heads of state and royalty from across the world were flown in. A tent city of fifty lavish pavilions was constructed in the desert near the ruins of Persepolis, the ancient Achaemenid capital.
The tents themselves — along with virtually everything else — were imported from France. Maxim’s of Paris catered the meals. Guests dined on quail eggs stuffed with caviar, crayfish mousse, and roast lamb, washed down with vintage Bordeaux. Iranian culture was largely absent from a celebration ostensibly honouring Iranian civilisation. The Iranian people were spectators at a party thrown in their name, to which they were not invited.

kt note: Malaysia's Yang Di Pertuan Agong (HRH Sultan Kedah) was also invited

The estimated cost was anywhere between $100 million and $300 million — at a time when millions of Iranians lived in poverty, lacking clean water, adequate healthcare, or basic education.

The Iranian people drew their conclusions.


Khomeini’s Rational Revolution

When Ayatollah Khomeini offered the Iranian people his theory of velayat-e-faqih — the guardianship of the Islamic jurist — and proposed an Islamic Republic as the vessel for a new Iranian order, he was not offering them theology alone. He was offering them dignity. He was offering them the promise that Iran’s sovereignty, Iran’s resources, and Iran’s future would belong to Iranians — not to the Shah’s court, not to Western oil companies, not to American strategic planners in Washington.

The Iranian revolution of 1979 was a mass movement of extraordinary breadth. Secular nationalists, leftists, intellectuals, bazaar merchants, students, and the religious poor all marched together. They had different visions of what would come after — but they were united in what they were marching against. A corrupt, repressive monarchy sustained by American power and serving American interests, which had delivered neither freedom nor prosperity to its own people.

When the American Embassy was seized and diplomats taken hostage, the West erupted in outrage. But behind that act was a simple, searing Iranian fear — that America would do in 1979 what it had done in 1953. That Washington would organise another coup, reinstall the Shah, and extinguish the revolution. The hostage crisis was many things — chaotic, counterproductive, damaging to Iran’s own interests — but it was not irrational. It was the desperate act of a people who had already been betrayed once by American power and were determined not to be betrayed again.


When America Armed the Man Who Gassed Iranian Children

If the 1953 coup was the original sin, the Iran-Iraq war was the confirmation — the moment that removed any remaining doubt in Iranian minds about what American power truly meant for their people.

In September 1980, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq invaded Iran. It was an act of naked aggression against a revolutionary government that was still finding its footing, launched with the tacit encouragement of Washington, which viewed the chaos of revolutionary Iran as an opportunity to be exploited. The war that followed lasted eight years. It consumed perhaps one million lives. It was one of the bloodiest conflicts of the twentieth century’s second half — and it has been almost entirely erased from Western historical memory.

What has been even more comprehensively erased is America’s role in sustaining it.

As the war ground on and Iranian forces began pushing back Iraqi advances, Washington made a decision of breathtaking cynicism. It could not allow Iran to win.

And so America began providing Saddam Hussein with satellite intelligence on Iranian troop positions, military equipment, and — most damningly of all — with the precursor chemicals for the weapons that Saddam would use to commit one of the most documented war crimes of the modern era.

Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iranian forces on a massive scale — mustard gas, tabun, sarin. Thousands of Iranian soldiers died in agonising chemical attacks. And Washington knew. American officials knew that Iraq was using chemical weapons. The intelligence community reported it. And the Reagan administration made a deliberate policy decision to continue supporting Saddam regardless — because an Iranian victory was deemed strategically unacceptable.

The most haunting chapter came not on a battlefield but in a Kurdish village. In March 1988, Iraqi forces attacked Halabja with chemical weapons, killing thousands of Kurdish civilians — men, women, and children — in a single day. It was the largest chemical weapons attack against a civilian population in history. And even then, Washington’s response was muted, carefully calibrated to avoid jeopardising its strategic relationship with Baghdad.

Iranian mothers who lost sons to American-supplied chemical weapons are still alive today. Iranian veterans who survived those attacks carry the physical scars — destroyed lungs, ravaged skin, broken bodies — into old age. Iran has never forgotten. Iran will never forget.

And yet Western commentators express bewilderment at the “Death to America” chant.

Consider for a moment what that chant actually represents, stripped of its theatrical staging. It represents the voice of a mother whose son was gassed with chemicals whose precursors passed through American hands. It represents the voice of a nation that had its democracy stolen in 1953, its resources plundered for decades before that, its revolution encircled and sanctioned, and its sons killed in a war that America prolonged deliberately to prevent Iranian victory.

If any Western nation had suffered a fraction of what Iran has suffered at the hands of a foreign power, that chant would be taught in schools as an anthem of righteous resistance. It would be celebrated in films and memorialised in monuments. Instead, because it is directed at American power, it is presented as evidence of Iranian irrationality. The arrogance required to sustain that position is staggering.


47 Years of Punishment

Since 1979, the United States has imposed on Iran some of the most comprehensive and punishing sanctions ever inflicted on any nation in modern history. Sanctions on oil. Sanctions on banking. Sanctions on technology. Sanctions on medicine. Sanctions that have impoverished ordinary Iranians, denied patients access to life-saving drugs, and strangled an economy of 93 million people.

And surrounding Iran on all sides — in the Gulf, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in the Arabian Peninsula — America has built a vast archipelago of military bases, projecting power and telegraphing threat. Iran has been encircled, economically strangled, and subjected to covert warfare including the assassination of its nuclear scientists on its own streets.

Throughout all of this, Iran has survived. It has adapted. It has built regional influence through patient statecraft, cultivating allies across Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. It has advanced its nuclear programme not out of theological ambition but out of the entirely rational calculation that the only nations America does not attack are those that possess nuclear deterrence.


Justice Delayed

When analysts speak of America’s strategic defeat in its confrontation with Iran, they reach for the language of geopolitics and military balance. But there is another language that must be spoken — the language of history.

For 47 years, a people of ancient civilisation, extraordinary intellectual depth, and justified grievance have been punished for the crime of reclaiming their own sovereignty. They were punished for Mosaddegh’s ghost. They were punished for daring to say no to a superpower that had grown accustomed to treating the Middle East as its private strategic estate.

The “Death to America” chant that so offends Western sensibilities did not emerge from the Quran. It emerged from Operation Ajax. It emerged from SAVAK’s torture chambers. It emerged from Persepolis while children went hungry. It emerged from sanctions that killed patients who could not obtain medicine. It emerged from chemical weapons whose precursors passed through American hands. It emerged from a history that the West has studiously refused to confront — because confronting it would require acknowledging that the rage it provokes is not irrational.

It is the entirely rational response of a people to whom history has been profoundly, systematically unjust.
Understanding this does not require endorsing every act of the Islamic Republic. It requires only honesty — the willingness to read history as it actually happened, rather than as Western convenience has chosen to remember it.

Iran is not a cartoon. It is a civilisation. And civilisations have long memories.

Much of the historical foundation of this piece draws on two remarkable books that I commend to every serious reader: Michael Axworthy’s Revolutionary Iran — Axworthy served as Head of the Iran Section at the British Foreign Office before becoming one of the foremost academic authorities on modern Iran — and Scott Anderson’s Shah of Shahs. They changed how I understand this civilisation. They may change how you understand it too.




The picture below is of Mohammed Mosaddegh, August 1953- at the moment of his arrest in a coup plotted by MI6 and the CIA.


Mohammed Mosaddegh

Education minister files police report over AI-generated video, calling it malicious and defamatory





Education minister files police report over AI-generated video, calling it malicious and defamatory



Education minister and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) Wanita chief Fadhlina Sidek has filed a police report over the circulation of an AI-generated video spreading false allegations against her. — Bernama pic

Wednesday, 24 Jun 2026 7:43 PM MYT


KUALA LUMPUR, June 24 — Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) Wanita chief Fadhlina Sidek has filed a police report over the circulation of an AI-generated video spreading false allegations against her.

Fadhlina, who also serves as Education Minister, expressed regret in a statement today over the video’s content, which she described as malicious.

“The dissemination of the video is malicious in nature and an attempt to tarnish my reputation and destroy my character.

“A police report has been made and I urge the police to carry out an investigation and take action in line with the law,” she said.

She also called on all parties to adopt a firm position on issues of slander, character assassination and sexual harassment targeting women politicians. — Bernama


Two Singaporeans detained under ISA after self-radicalisation linked to Gaza war





Two Singaporeans detained under ISA after self-radicalisation linked to Gaza war



Singapore’s Internal Security Department said two self-radicalised Singaporeans were issued ISA orders after being influenced by narratives linked to the Israel-Gaza conflict. — Reuters pic

Wednesday, 24 Jun 2026 7:35 PM MYT


SINGAPORE, June 24 — Two self-radicalised Singaporeans became the latest individuals to be served with an Order of Detention (OD) and a Restriction Order (RO) under the Internal Security Act (ISA).

The Internal Security Department (ISD) in a statement today said both orders were issued in March this year.

Tarmizi Mohd Taha, a 30-year-old customer service officer, was issued the OD, while Cyrus Dzulqarnain Al-Shahriar, a 19-year-old student, received the RO.

“While their cases are not related, both individuals’ radicalisation was triggered by the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” it said, adding that the two individuals were the seventh and eighth Singaporeans dealt with under the ISA whose radicalisation was due to the conflict.

ISD said Cyrus’ case also underscored the growing diversity of violent extremist ideologies fuelling the domestic self-radicalisation threat, especially among youths.

The department stressed that it will take firm action against any individual in Singapore who supports, promotes, undertakes or makes preparations for armed violence, regardless of the ideological justification offered or where such activities are carried out.

“While Singaporeans remain deeply concerned about the humanitarian cost of the conflict, it is critical that we do not allow extremist narratives that capitalise on foreign conflicts to take root in our society,” it said. — Bernama


OPINION | “Pasar Malam Politics...?!” – Will Non-Malays Fall For Hamzah's New Political Party…?!!!



Malaysia's #1 Content Aggregator



OPINION | “Pasar Malam Politics...?!” – Will Non-Malays Fall For Hamzah's New Political Party…?!!!


24 Jun 2026 • 11:30 AM MYT



Is Wawasan Negara the first party ever to be officially “launched” by PAS? Credit Image: Hamzah Zainudin Facebook / Malay Mail (BERNAMA pic) / Hamzah Zainudin Facebook.


With a lineup that includes several “retired” politicians from Dr Mahathir’s “Proton Saga era”, can Hamzah Zainudin's new political party actually come up with a fresh vision to restore a deeply divided nation?



Recently, political journeyman Saifuddin Abdullah boldly proclaimed that Hamzah Zainudin's new political outfit, Wawasan Negara—of which he is now a part—has been branded a "Malaysian party" to reflect the country's diverse society. He further underlined that it will be anchored to the country's Constitution and Rukun Negara.



Yet, somewhat curiously, just a day earlier, the Indera Mahkota MP had stressed that “reuniting” a fractured Malay community still remains a cornerstone for the party.


Screenshot of headline and image from Malaysiakini.


So, what is Wawasan's vision mainly about then: To bring all Malaysians under a single roof—or to place Malay unity and interests above all else?


The truth is, non-Malay voters are already exhausted. They feel deeply let down by Anwar Ibrahim's multiracial Madani government, with many having already made up their mind to boycott the ballot boxes the next time around.



So, what makes Hamzah and company think that their new outfit can offer voters something genuinely different from Pakatan Harapan?


Indeed, if Wawasan is truly a "Malaysian party," why can't it just focus on uniting all Malaysians?


Moreover, aren't there already a bucketful of Malay-based parties in this country, all vowing to do the same thing—unite the Malays—but ending up dividing them more?


Ironically, even Dr. Mahathir, the so-called “messiah” of Malay unity, seemed to have thrown in the towel after failing to achieve that elusive dream—falling short just like he did with his own Wawasan 2020 goal.



But what exactly is "Malay unity" anyway?


Just another cryptic political mantra invoked by politicians to spook the Malay-Muslim community into thinking they are under siege in their own land—just to get them to rally under a “chosen” leader?


Or perhaps it is some kind of "political nirvana" that certain Malay leaders invoke whenever they want to regain their lost power while trying to keep the Ketuanan (racial supremacy) narrative alive.


The thing is, it is still possible to unite a small community. But with Malay-Muslims forming the largest ethnic bloc in the country, isn't it foolhardy to even think of achieving such an unrealistic goal?



The harsh reality is that, even within the Malay-centric Perikatan Nasional, this so-called unity didn't last long. Look at how PAS literally dumped Muhyiddin Yassin's Bersatu, leaving its own Malay-Muslim brothers completely in the lurch!


Moreover, aren't the Malays in this country already “united” under their common religion, Islam?


Whatever it is, pitching Wawasan Negara as an inclusive political option to a deeply frustrated non-Malay community is never going to be a walk in the park.


To compound matters, Hamzah had openly acknowledged at an earlier “Reset” convention that even the party's very name was the brainchild of PAS President Abdul Hadi Awang.



And since it has been proudly packaged and marketed as “PAS-certified,” won't it in all likelihood end up complementing the latter's broader agenda?


Now, for most non-Malay voters, wouldn't that be the ultimate put-off?


It is also bound to spark another question: is the new party merely a tactical ploy to fish for some non-Malay votes on behalf of the Islamist party—while at the same time acting as political spoilers to split the vote?


One notable feature that wouldn't have escaped the scrutiny of keen observers is the composition of this newly-minted party, with vocal former Federal Minister Rais Yatim and ex-Melaka Chief Minister Abdul Rahim Thamby Chik reportedly holding top positions in the new outfit.



Check out the roll of honour below:Screenshot from The Star Online TV.


Meanwhile, others holding important positions in the party are Wan Saiful Wan Jan and Wan Ahmad Fayhsal—both controversial younger figures who are often associated with PN’s trademark fiery, ethno-nationalist rhetoric.


Crucially, didn't some of the old faces here also feature in the notorious 2020 “Sheraton Move” that led to the collapse of the democratically elected multiracial Pakatan Harapan government?


The thing is, non-Malays have already been bitten too many times before and have had enough of the fake charm offensives by slick, conniving politicians.



Hamzah and company may pitch their "Malaysian party" brand like any ambitious trader setting up a new stall in a pasar malam. But will non-Malays buy it, when they have already tasted, and been badly burned by, the same product before?


Finally, given all the recent hype over the Reset movement, there may have been a genuine glimmer of hope among many neutrals that perhaps Hamzah would bring something fresh to the table, something along the lines of Rafizi's Bersama party.


Instead, what critics will question now is: Can a “proxy party” for PAS—with aging politicians from another era—be counted on to come up with a brand new wawasan (vision) for the nation's future generations?


Wednesday, June 24, 2026

Ten years on, Brexit's economic impact is becoming clearer





Ten years on, Brexit's economic impact is becoming clearer


15 hours ago



Faisal Islam
Economics editor


BBC


Not long after the UK left the EU in 2020, a Bristol-based firm called Eskimo started selling a new kind of high-fashion and energy-efficient electric radiator, based on new technology developed by academics in the city.

They planned to send them around Europe using the Channel Tunnel.

It was a timely product given Europe's green ambitions, and with orders flowing, its Birmingham factory was being kept busy.

The boss Phil Ward tells me his start-up has continued to grow, but that in his view it could have been so much more without what he calls "the Long Brexit effect": in 2020, 40% of his exports went to the European Union, and by 2025 it was just 5%.

The post-Brexit deal agreed with the EU by then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson in December 2020 guaranteed zero tariffs on exports to the EU, but Ward says that despite this, red tape and paperwork not directly related to tariffs were enough to create delays, costs and the expectation of hassle for prospective customers.

Eskimo did manage to export some goods to agents in France but it stopped selling directly to European consumers entirely. A planned expansion to Germany floundered.

And as Eskimo discovered when it attempted to export towel rails to Australia and New Zealand, both countries abide by international safety standards that are heavily influenced by the EU's CE mark.

This matters because one theoretical potential Brexit benefit was that it would allow UK regulators to not follow the EU's safety regulations and take a more pro-innovation, less regulatory approach for high-tech inventions.

Eskimo's experience is one example of a broader trend reflected in export figures. The UK Trade Policy Observatory at Sussex University calculated a rapid 26% reduction in the different types of UK exports by 2023, while a new study from Aston University Business School using five years of more detailed trade data concludes a loss of 53.8% of the type of exports and 31.5% for imports.

These figures for "trade varieties" are falls in the number of products sent to different EU countries.

A decade ago, many economists argued the UK would sustain longer-term economic damage by leaving the EU and many believe that damage has come to pass.

But to make that call you have to compare what did happen with what might otherwise have happened were it not for Brexit and doing that is a matter of method and statistical judgement.

And that judgement has to account for the fact that the period since Brexit has been a time of huge global flux. The pandemic that struck in the spring of 2020, the war in Ukraine that began two years later and, more recently, the energy price shock sparked by the conflict in Iran all have to be accounted for.

So too does the question of whether a Brexit-free UK would have really kept up with the Silicon Valley tech boom in recent years to the extent Brexit Britain has.

The clear consensus of economists making the calculations say they have factored in the global turmoil when assessing Brexit's impact. Others question their methods and the extent of Brexit's impact.

Some of the most negative predictions back in 2016, including those that said the UK could experience a Great Depression‑style hit, proved unduly pessimistic. Whatever economic hit there was, it was not sudden enough to cause an instant recession.

But those who believe the UK did sustain longer-term economic damage by leaving the EU say the hit was no less profound.


AFP via Getty Images
Many economists argued the UK would sustain longer-term economic damage by leaving the EU


"Among economists there is not much debate, but there still is among policy folks. The experts were right. It was, if anything, worse than we thought, but it's taken longer to get there," says Nick Bloom, a British Stanford University professor and author of one of the most prominent recent major studies using Bank of England data.

His work sits among dozens of academic economics papers that have analysed vast amounts of data to try to assess what effect Brexit had on the UK's economy.
UK trade with Europe

UK trade with Europe had been on an upward trend before 2016. But official figures show that compared to 2019, 2025 UK exports to the EU were 14% down and imports were down 10%.

And they've been getting worse. Last year, 2025, was the worst year for UK goods export volumes to the EU this century, apart from one year in the depths of the financial crisis.





Think tank Niesr calculates exports were 16.9% lower and imports 16.1% less than what could have been expected based on positive pre-2016 trends. The Centre for European Reform uses a different method, trying to take account of what could have happened if the UK had not been excluded from a more recent surge in intra-EU trade, leading to a goods trade hit of 16% to exports and 14% to imports. It's all in the same ballpark and there is other research from European countries that suggest similar drops in their trade with the UK. Again, these calculations rely on selecting a method and statistical judgment.

Most studies conclude similarly, but using raw trade figures, so not accounting for significant inflationary spikes, you see a 4% rise in cash terms since 2019 of UK goods exports to the EU, which some analysts have used to argue there has been minimal impact.
Services trade boom

One area that has performed more strongly since 2016 is services, which make up over 80% of total UK economic output. Services sector exports from the UK to the EU are up 57% over the last decade, driven by a category that includes accountancy, legal services and consultancy. Non-EU services exports are up 49%. Imports from the EU are up 35% in the same time, and up 60% from outside the EU.

It is also true that there has been a service boom across the advanced world and some argue Britain might have done even better without Brexit. But either way, financial services clearly remained in healthier shape than the worst projections during the referendum.


Business investment

Investment by businesses was significantly lower than what might have continued after Brexit, according to two studies. Former Bank of England independent economist Jonathan Haskel calculates a £29bn or 1.3% reduction in the size of the economy from lower investment than would have been expected since 2016.






Business investment flattened in real terms immediately after 2016, and notably underperformed various measures of UK long term-trends and comparisons with other countries. Professor Haskel's latest calculation is a shortfall of 13% against the pre referendum trend from 1997-2016.

Using different methods, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and the top US economic research body the NBER find that UK business investment is down 12-13% against where it would have been, compared to a representative basket of advanced economies.

Much of these findings predate the energy shock in 2022, and attribute the hit to uncertainty in the first years after Brexit. The latest analyses show the UK still behind most of the G7 but having overtaken Germany after the hit to its economy from the 2022 energy crisis.


The currency

The most visible sign of economic shock was the fall in the value of the pound in the minutes and then years after the referendum. This makes imports and travel more expensive, and makes UK assets worth less in the world.

Pre-referendum, the pound had reached new highs against major currencies. It then fell sharply after the referendum and has since traded lower, particularly against the dollar and the euro. It fell again further at various points of post-Brexit uncertainty and then too during the mini-budget in 2022 when Liz Truss was prime minister. Since then, sterling has broadly strengthened and taken advantage of a weaker dollar and is currently near the top of its post-Brexit range.

The impact of an overall weaker pound has raised prices for imported goods, from fresh foods to manufactured goods. But it has also helped cushion disruption for exporters by making their goods cheaper in international markets. In turn, some food prices have been helped a little by lower tariffs on international imports not produced in the UK.
The new trade deals

One potential Brexit benefit was the UK's ability to sign its own trade deals outside the EU. The UK-India deal stands out as an example of where the UK broke ground well beyond what might have happened within the EU.

The UK also signed the first "deal" to alleviate the impact of President Trump's tariffs. The Government itself calculates that the trade deals Britain has signed will only slightly boost economic growth, by fractions of a percentage point over decades.

It is worth noting that even former Prime Minister Tony Blair, an avowed Remainer who was previously a backer of a second referendum, recently suggested the UK had enjoyed some benefit from being able to have its own AI regulations and that this would have implications for any attempt to rejoin the EU or single market in the future.


Getty Images
We have now had a decade since the referendum and six years outside the EU and its economic structures


But it is also the case that it is not all one way. The EU has signed a deal with South America, the Mercosur deal, which gives access to EU car exporters to Brazil, the world's sixth biggest market, at zero tariffs, versus 35% for the UK.

And while Britain also achieved the first and best deal to alleviate President Trump's tariffs, the EU has since received many of the same benefits. The rate at 10% is better for the UK than the EU at 15%, but there is no quota for EU car exports to the US, and there is one of 100,000 for the UK.

It could be that the quiet competition between London and Brussels prompted by Brexit has motivated dealmaking that might have otherwise taken years.


The overall hit

There is a place that is as central to the UK's relations with the EU as the Strait of Hormuz is to global energy markets: the Channel Tunnel. When Britain was in the EU, the tunnel was the living embodiment of frictionless goods trade.

Back in 2016, 1.64m trucks went through the tunnel. Last year, post Brexit, there were 1.16m. So there are almost half a million missing lorry journeys a year - nearly 30% of this economically critical, high-value cross-Channel traffic has been lost.

Exactly how many trucks there would have been were it not for Brexit is impossible to say, but the hit from the pandemic, for example, would have subsided by now.

An industry participant describes the pattern as "pure Brexit" with small exporters leaving, unable to afford to invest in systems and surviving business models changing from "just in time" to increased stock-holding. HMRC trade data analysed by LSE also pointed to 16,400 firms - 14% of EU exporters - stopping exporting to the EU between 2019 and 2023 altogether, and that falls in exporting were concentrated among smaller firms.

What has happened in the Channel Tunnel tallies with the academic consensus that the UK economy is smaller now than it would have been based on the trajectory it was on in 2016.

The numbers range from about 3% to 8%. "The fact that it is harder to trade with the EU is about half the hit, in line with previous forecasts," says lead author of the NBER research, Nick Bloom.

He attributes the rest to the consequences of what at times felt like near-nightly political meltdown during the Brexit negotiations. "The other half is the uncertainty from the fact the Brexit process itself was such an enormous mess… We can never get that second 4% back."

These calculations are based on modelling how a UK still within the EU could have been expected to perform economically had it still experienced the pandemic and the 2022 energy shock but not Brexit.

The most recent study by the NBER takes account of population growth, and says the UK lost 6-8% of per capita output.

Bloom says he has used a variety of approaches including accounting for distance, economic gravity, the size of the economy and selectively omitting potential outliers.

There are, however, other figures. The authors, including Bank of England economists, also used a special survey of thousands of firms, accounting for a tenth of private employment, that was created by the Bank in 2016 to track Brexit reaction. The first Brexit analysis based on this survey was only published this year and updated on Friday and it shows how prolonged Brexit uncertainty hit commercial decision-making.

This entirely different firm-level method also leads to a conclusion of an economy about 6% smaller than without Brexit. That means an economy that would have otherwise grown about two thirds of a percentage point faster every year over the past decade.


Next ten years of Brexit

The world that post-Brexit Britain entered in 2016 has changed beyond any recognition.

Back in 2016, Brexiteers talked up the prospects of a free trade deal with the US when the reality in 2026 is a US that has put up higher trade barriers and weaponised tariffs. A decade ago, the idea was floated that the EU could collapse - it hasn't, and has introduced protections for its manufacturers. And China is now increasingly assertive.

The questions the above raise about UK global economic strategy are almost entirely different questions to those posed a decade ago.

It's possible an economically independent UK is well placed to deal with this volatile world. It's also possible that the opposite is true and that UK exporters would benefit from rejoining the EU single market.


AFP via Getty Images
Brexit, and its impacts on the economy, remain very much with us


What's clear from the data is that many UK goods exporters, especially smaller ones, have not become used to Brexit and that in certain sectors it's not getting any better.

Does the UK align itself with the US and its focus on lightly-regulated tech and in particular AI? Can a closer UK-EU relationship be squared with that? The EU has responded to the new economic nationalism with "Made in Europe" legislation that may require a certain percentage of parts to be made in Europe - it's unclear if the UK is included or not. An early test will be steel next month, and then a deal to avoid UK-EU electricity car tariffs at the end of the year.

UK officials recently suggested establishing a single market for goods trade with the EU as part of the next phase of a Brexit reset, something the EU says is incompatible with current government red lines around freedom of movement.

Unions have shifted position from wanting to rejoin the customs union, to looking for a Swiss-style deal in the European Economic Area.

In recent weeks government ministers have begun to quietly say that these red lines are specifically for this Parliament and will be looked at again. What path Sir Keir Starmer's replacement as prime minister decides to go down, we don't yet know.

Next month's UK-EU summit has now been postponed. Sir Keir had wanted to seal a deal to row back many of the post-Brexit frictions on food and farm trade that have impacted the cross-Channel trade flows. Other political parties have vowed to rip up the government's EU reset or even try to row back on elements of the post-Brexit deal.

Put bluntly, the status quo will not hold. Ten years on, Brexit, and its impacts on the economy, remain very much with us, and the policy debates may be about to return.


Mamdani-backed candidates sweep New York City Democratic primaries



Mamdani-backed candidates sweep New York City Democratic primaries

Democratic socialist candidates backed by New York City mayor win key primaries, ousting two sitting congressmen.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s slate of progressives has swept establishment-backed Democrats in New York’s closely watched congressional primaries, ousting two sitting congressmen in a show of force for the democratic socialist leader of the United States’s largest city.

On Tuesday, Adriano Espaillat, who leads the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and is in his fifth term, was defeated by Mamdani’s most polarising pick, Darializa Avila Chevalier, a democratic socialist who once helped organise pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Dan Goldman, a two-term incumbent, was beaten by the Mamdani-backed former city comptroller Brad Lander, a fixture among New York progressives who has often shown sympathy to the democratic socialist movement. And another Mamdani ally, democratic socialist state Assembly Member Claire Valdez, defeated Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso, the handpicked successor of retiring US Representative Nydia Velazquez.

New York’s primary will determine which challengers the party nominates to run in the midterm elections in November. That vote will, in turn, decide which party controls Congress, giving its lawmakers the power to aid or impede US President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda for his final two years in office.

Most congressional districts in New York City are solidly left-wing bastions, meaning the winners of those races are all but assured to skate to victory in November.

Tuesday’s primaries represented a major political gamble for the 34-year-old mayor, whose strength is surging, and a potential headache for Democratic leaders, who fear that Mamdani and his loyalists may push the party too far left ahead of November’s midterm elections.

The sweep also sends an undeniable message to establishment Democrats in Washington, including House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who campaigned against Mamdani’s candidates and lost. Mamdani and his slate were openly fighting for dramatic change on key issues, with Israel’s genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza and affordability chief among them.

The mayor ping-ponged across the city to celebrate his allies’ victories, declaring that his election had helped ignite a new era.

“A year ago, it was not the end of a political movement. It was the beginning,” a smiling Mamdani charged at Valdez’s celebration party in Brooklyn, reflecting on his mayoral victory last year, as the crowd chanted, “DSA! DSA!”

Later, at Avila Chevalier’s celebration in Manhattan, he added: “We are showing there is a new path for politics in our city and in our country.”

In Washington, Jeffries downplayed the influence of the Mamdani-backed candidates.

“We have agreed to strongly disagree,” Jeffries said of Mamdani on Capitol Hill. “There are 215 members of the House Democratic caucus. A handful of primaries that go in one direction or the other, in a given state or two, aren’t going to reshape who we are as House Democrats.”

Meanwhile, Democrat Jack Schlossberg, the 33-year-old grandson of former President John F. Kennedy, failed in his bid to write his own chapter in Camelot lore as he competed in a crowded field for a seat being vacated by retiring US Representative Jerry Nadler. Mamdani made no endorsement in that hotly contested race.

Establishment Democrats celebrated the victory of state Assembly Member Micah Lasher, a longtime government hand backed by Democratic leaders, who prevailed in a field that also included anti-Trump activist George Conway and Assembly Member Alex Bores, whose proposals to regulate artificial intelligence triggered tech industry blowback.

Mamdani, whose first six months in office have drawn praise from establishment Democrats and even Trump, had made a big push to promote the three congressional candidates who challenged Democrats supported by the party’s leadership.

MRCB stadium suit: Abdul Razak silenced, Hunter faces trial in absentia






The Shah Alam High Court has entered a consent judgment against activist Abdul Razak Ismail in Malaysian Resources Corporation Bhd’s (MRCB) conspiracy suit over social media postings on the Shah Alam Stadium redevelopment. - Pexels pic, June 24, 2026


MRCB stadium suit: Abdul Razak silenced, Hunter faces trial in absentia


Activist Abdul Razak bound by consent judgment in MRCB’s stadium redevelopment suit, permanently restrained from repeating allegations, while blogger Murray Hunter faces trial in absentia with judgment set for July 17


Scoop Reporters
Updated 1 minute ago
24 June, 2026
5:14 PM MYT


KUALA LUMPUR — The Shah Alam High Court has entered a consent judgment against activist Abdul Razak Ismail in Malaysian Resources Corporation Bhd’s (MRCB) conspiracy suit over social media postings on the Shah Alam Stadium redevelopment.

Judicial Commissioner Shoba Rajah recorded the terms on June 22, after Abdul Razak agreed to a permanent injunction restraining him from publishing or republishing the impugned allegations.

He must also remove all relevant postings within 72 hours and undertake not to conspire with blogger Murray Hunter or any other parties in relation to similar claims.

MRCB’s counsel Datuk Selva Mookiah confirmed that proceedings against Hunter, believed to be in Thailand, will continue in absentia. The court has fixed July 10 for plaintiff submissions, with judgment scheduled for July 17.

This is not Abdul Razak’s first entanglement with MRCB. In 2023, he was forced to retract remarks and apologize in court in another consent judgment settlement over defamatory statements concerning the same stadium project, as reported by Malay Mail.

MRCB initiated the suit against Abdul Razak and Hunter, alleging that their online publications amounted to economic sabotage, damaging the company’s reputation and undermining the stadium redevelopment project.

Selva told reporters after the proceedings that the company views the allegations as serious attempts to derail public confidence in the project.

Abdul Razak was represented by Rajesh Nagarajan. – June 24, 2026


***