Sunday, September 20, 2026

Najib and the RM50 million question



Malaysia's #1 Content Aggregator



Najib and the RM50 million question


20 Sep 2026 • 2:00 PM MYT



The Vibes


I AM going to say something that may surprise some people.

My principal objection to what has happened with Datuk Seri Najib Razak is not the King exercising the constitutional power of mercy.

We have a Constitution. Article 42 provides for pardons, reprieves and respites. The Pardons Board has its constitutional role. The King has his.

We cannot claim to believe in the Constitution only when its processes produce decisions we like.

Najib has now been granted a conditional pardon allowing him to serve the remainder of his initial sentence under house arrest, subject to conditions including payment of a RM50 million fine.

Some Malaysians will agree with it. Many will be furious about it.

But that is not what troubles me most.

The RM50 million is.

UMNO's leadership has now launched a fund asking its members, supporters and ordinary Malaysians to contribute towards Najib’s RM50 million fine.

Think about that for a moment.

And perhaps we should call the party by its historically accurate name when discussing its lineage: UMNO Baru.

The original UMNO—the UMNO of independence, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Dr Ismail, and Tun Hussein Onn—no longer exists. It was struck off in 1988. Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and his allies subsequently registered UMNO Baru. The word Baru was later dropped.

History matters.

And so do ordinary UMNO members.

Most of them are exactly like the rest of us.

They wake up every morning and work. They pay mortgages. They worry about school fees. They look after ageing parents. They calculate what groceries cost. They save for their children’s futures.

They love Malaysia.

We may disagree politically, but I know we share the same patriotism and love of country.

And the overwhelming majority of ordinary UMNO members have never received the privileges of the political elite - which specifically includes the ones embroiled currently in multiple corruption cases, including accusations of stealing from the Pilgrimage Fund Board - essentially stealing from amongst the poorest. These same "leaders" are asking ordinary Malaysians to help the former Prime Minister financially.

A man who spent his entire adult working life in politics and had no other career or job.

A man whose SRC conviction went all the way to the Federal Court.

A man who was subsequently convicted by the High Court in another case involving some RM2.3 billion connected with 1MDB.

And let us remember something else.





When police raided six premises linked to Najib in 2018, they reported seizing cash, jewellery, luxury handbags, watches and other valuables eventually valued at as much as RM1.1 billion.

RM1.1 billion. Let that sink in. RM 1.1 billion in his homes.

And now someone earning RM2,500 or RM3,000 a month is being asked to give cash into a fund to help pay RM50 million so that Najib can serve the remainder of his first sentence in the luxury of his Taman Duta estate, or perhaps one of the many condominiums available to him?

That is the part I cannot understand.

Not constitutionally.

Morally.

The King exercised a constitutional power. Whatever one’s personal feelings about that decision, constitutional government means respecting constitutional institutions and processes.

But nobody’s Constitution requires ordinary Malaysians to pay Najib’s fine.

That is a political choice.

And it tells us something about priorities.

Imagine the difference RM50 million could make to struggling families.

Imagine scholarships for children whose parents could never afford university. Or the yearly flood victims who lose their homes in Kelantan. Imagine dialysis treatment. Food programmes. Assistance for single mothers. Better facilities in rural schools. Help for elderly Malaysians who worked their entire lives and have almost nothing.

Instead, we are passing around the collection tin for a former prime minister so that a RM50 million condition can be satisfied.

This is not about hating Najib.

It should never be about hate.

Nor is it about disrespecting the monarchy. Quite the opposite. We should understand the constitutional distinction between the King’s exercise of mercy and what politicians subsequently choose to do with it.

And it isn’t about attacking ordinary UMNO members either.

I respect them enough to ask the question.

Why should you pay?





Why should the farmer, teacher, Grab rider, small businessman, clerk or pensioner reach into his pocket?

Mercy is part of justice.

But so is accountability.

A country loses its moral compass when ordinary people are continually asked to make sacrifices for the powerful while the powerful are continually protected from the consequences ordinary people would have to bear themselves.

So by all means debate the pardon.

Lawyers can debate Article 42. Politicians can argue about precedent. Historians can argue about constitutional convention.

But don’t allow that argument to distract us from the much simpler question sitting in front of us.

RM50 million.

Whose responsibility should that really be?

Certainly not the ordinary Malaysian’s. Certainly not the ordinary UMNO members. And if any individual or corporation comes up with large chunks of it, I would ask why. And I would want an answer.

And let's not forget, Najib has already been sentenced to a further 15 years in jail in the 1MDB case. This includes a fine of RM 11.4 billion.

If he loses that appeal, are UMNO members going to be asked to pay that too? – September 20, 2026



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

Massie Explains Strategy For Going After Hegseth






Massie Explains Strategy For Going After Hegseth



by Tyler Durden
Sunday, Sep 20, 2026 - 09:35 PM


The non-interventionist D.C.-based think tank Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft has published an interview with the one Republican who has been most outspoken against Trump's Iran war.

Trump had in turn starting last spring launched a political war of his own against Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, who has been in the hot seat, with his political future in question. But Massie has been unrelenting, even after being defeated for another term by the largely unkown Ed Gallrein, a Republican candidate backed by President Trump and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and groups like the Republican Jewish Coalition.



Massie, who has unveiled eight articles of impeachment against Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, spoke to Responsible Statecraft about why he's gong after Trump's Pentagon chief - which appears focused on the his launching 'unauthorized' military actions in Iran, without Congressional approval. The argument as laid out below hinges on whether Hegseth was following 'lawful orders' from the Commander-in-Chief. Massie says no.

As it turns out, that potentially 'awkard' (for Republicans) impeachment vote has been entirely avoided for now with an early House election recess.

"A vote to impeach Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth that could have happened in the U.S. House as early as Thursday will now be avoided, at least until after this year’s midterm election. Republican leaders announced Wednesday they would leave Washington a day earlier than scheduled," CNBC reports.

"House Speaker Mike Johnson’s decision cuts short by a day an already light congressional work period, in a month that will see the House in session for just six days," the report adds. "The chamber is not due back in Washington until after the Nov. 3 election, as lawmakers will now fan out to campaign."

Mike Johnson sent lawmakers home Wednesday, avoiding a Hegseth impeachment vote as well as a bipartisan effort to release additional Jeffrey Epstein files.

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ House recesses early to avoid vote on Hegseth impeachment Speaker of the House Mike Johnson sent lawmakers home Wednesday, avoiding a vote on a resolution by Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky to impeach War Secretary Pete Hegseth as well as a bipartisan effort to release Show more
967
Reply
Copy link

Below is the Kelley Vlahos interview with Massie transcript produced by Responsible Statecraft [emphasis ZH].

* * *

Responsible Statecraft: Why are you bringing this about right now?

Rep. Thomas Massie: Because we have exhausted every other legislative remedy to make things right. We are at the point now where Hegseth is just ignoring the law. He's ignored the concurrent (War Powers) resolution. He ignored the 60-day limit. They never reached the threshold required under section 2-C under the War Powers resolution of 1973. He's severely degraded the DoD's ability to winnow out civilian targets from their target list.

There is an active and ongoing war that should be stopped immediately, and I think this is an effective way to do it. It's literally the only legislative remedy that I could think of that might work.

RS: I would imagine the timing is important because the House is leaving until after the midterm elections in November.

Massie: Yeah, and the Speaker has to schedule a vote within 48 hours.

I suspect there will be a motion to table; that's usually what these resolve to, if they're not supported.

RS: So what happens then?

Massie: Well, I would encourage people who are even unsure about the bill to vote against the motion to table, and hear the debate.

RS: Let’s get back to the merits of the case here. This is pretty wide-ranging, so you hit the constitutionality of the war, the civilian deaths, the kidnapping of (former Venezuelan President Nicolas) Maduro, the airstrikes on so-called narco boats, even your freedom of speech where Senator Mark Kelly is concerned. You're really going at him with both barrels here.

Massie: There's two categories of articles here. One category, which covers six of the articles, is that he basically followed illegal orders from the president. And these are illegal orders that were issued by the president, but Hegseth is under obligation not to follow them since they were illegal. And there's a category of impeachment articles here that are solely attributable to Hegseth himself where he degraded the infrastructure of the DoD which is supposed to minimize the civilian casualties. That's his. I don't think Trump was involved in that. And then the attack on Mark Kelly, where he weaponized the DoD to squelch the speech of a senator and a veteran. That's solely Secretary Hegseth's doing. So there are things in here which are top-level issues with the administration all the way to Trump, but then there are some that are uniquely Peter Hegseth’s high crimes or misdemeanors.

Peter Hegseth wins the award for most crimes committed. And he just committed one too many; I couldn't take it anymore.

RS: That begs a question, why didn't you just go after Trump?

Massie: Well, I kind of already answered that question. Some of these things, like the civilian targeting, are Hegseth’s alone, and some of it, Trump would probably ascribe to Hegseth and not himself to save his own skin. I just don't think it's politically feasible or viable or even advisable to try to impeach Trump.

RS: A reporter just asked newly confirmed Attorney General Todd Blanche about your articles of impeachment and you. Aside from him saying he thinks Hegseth is doing “a phenomenal job,” he said he disagreed with the characterization that we are in a war, and that a majority of Congress would disagree as well. What do you make of these continuing assertions by the White House, the administration, even members of Congress, that we can't call it a war?

Massie: Well, somebody better give the president that memo. He calls it a war every week.

It's beyond playing with semantics. It's beyond trying to be cute legally. There's no way you can say this is not a war. Even the raid in Venezuela was an act of war. We overturned the government and put boots on the ground. But at least it seems to be over with now that we have their oil and control of their government.

He's wrong about a majority of Congress not thinking it's a war. A majority of Congress passed a concurrent resolution in the House and in the Senate telling them to stop under the War Powers Act.

So with semantics or not, they've been told to stop. They've claimed to stop the war by day 60, and now they say that every time they strike Iran it’s an unconnected military action to the others.

If you want a little something in the weeds here, I read every communication from the White House to Congress. They are sending us notices every time they do a strike pursuant to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Now they're obligated to do that, and I noticed at least three of these they said were motivated by a strike on a neutrally-flagged vessel. They're claiming the authority to engage in hostilities on behalf of neutrally flagged vessels. And the War Powers Resolution says that it has to be an attack on U.S. soil or soldiers or infrastructure. They're admitting right there in three of these communications to Congress that their predicate was an attack on something that wasn't American.

RS: Did those (War Powers) communications end when they declared the so-called ceasefire, or do they keep coming?

Massie: They keep coming. In fact they refer to the ceasefire in two of these communications after the ceasefire.

RS: That flies in the face of what they're saying publicly

Massie: Yeah, if it's not a war, how is Trump gonna end it after the election like he told everybody in Texas last week?

WW3 Near-Miss? AI Hallucinated Nuclear Weapons Components Aboard Chinese Vessel Bound For Iran






WW3 Near-Miss? AI Hallucinated Nuclear Weapons Components Aboard Chinese Vessel Bound For Iran



by Tyler Durden
Saturday, Sep 19, 2026 - 09:40 AM


Could runaway artificial intelligence (AI) spark a future WW3?

We don't need movies like Terminator 2 and its SkyNet to help us imagine this, it's 2026 and there is already a terrifying real-world precedent that could have kicked off a shooting war with nuclear-armed China.

A human analyst within the US intelligence community utilized data gathered by AI for a report that was later widely circulated across classified Pentagon channels, except that the chatbot which was relied upon in effect hallucinated nuclear weapons components being transported aboard a Chinese vessel bound for Iran.


Naturally this set off the highest alerts in Washington in the middle of an active hot war which President Trump launched ostensibly to prevent this very thing - Iran obtaining a nuke and atomic weapons components.

From there military planning kicked into high gear, with a special forces boarding operation imminent. Supposedly elite assets were already airborne, ready to descend on the Chinese ship in question.

But then, "the operation was halted only after officials took a closer look at the intelligence report and discovered that it had been produced with assistance from an AI chatbot," CNN reports in a bombshell Friday exclusive. The episode reportedly happened last spring.

The severe error was realized with barely enough time to call off what could have been the geopolitical blunder and disaster of the century, "The chatbot had incorrectly identified the material the vessel was carrying."

In essence the United States found itself based on completely manufactured 'intel' potentially headed for conflict with China.

As if to to preempt anyone who might be tempted to think the account is merely being hyperbolic or needlessly sensational, one official (unnamed) source told CNN that the intelligence assessment, which was "entirely false" - in the end "almost started a war."

While Pentagon leadership, including US Special Operations Command Pacific, has yet to respond to CNN's queries, the outlet pieces together the alleged chain of events and how this could have possibly happened in the following:


In this particular instance, the analyst queried a chatbot about some intelligence reporting on the ship’s manifest that originated with US Special Operations Command Pacific, based in Hawaii. It was not clear whether the chatbot was a commercially available one or a US government product.

“The internal tools are mostly just copies of the commercial stuff wearing lipstick,” a former senior US official familiar with the AI systems used by military and intelligence analysts.

The bot fused together open-source intelligence with secret signals intelligence in government holdings and reached its fateful conclusion about the material the ship was carrying.

The analyst then used AI again to package the findings into a standard intelligence report — the kind that is trusted by military officials — and disseminated it.

The report seems to be suggesting that the unknown AI tool that was utilized would be deemed substandard and weak for such an important assessment in the first place.

Further "comforting" for readers is that given heavy AI-integration seems the "irreversible" trend of the day across the DoD/Depart of War and IC, similar near-misses in the near and distant future are bound to happen.

CNN underscores, "Across the US military and the intelligence community, officials are pushing to weave AI into nearly every facet of their work, from analyzing the huge volumes of raw intelligence the US collects and selecting targets for strikes, to more mundane applications like managing budgeting, logistics and supply chains."

Meanwhile, another botched AI job perhaps?...


SCOOP: A shipment of F-35 parts, including a canopy, wound up in Hong Kong — sparking an investigation on Capitol Hill and raising the possibility that China could have access to key components of the highly-classified program. with @marksatter
1K
Reply
Copy link

So apparently it's not just lazy college undergrads who've become over-reliant on AI as a substitute for deep research and critical thinking, but now we apparently have a generation of US INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTS making potentially world-altering mistakes with the technology.