99/111 in Beijing

Plane appears to crash into Beijing’s tallest building


A hole could be seen in one of the upper floors of the skyscraper, while images showed what appeared to be part of a small plane on the ground beside the building

A hole is seen on the side of the CITIC Tower in Beijing. (AFP pic)

BEIJING: A small plane appeared to have crashed into Beijing’s tallest building on Friday, with witnesses reporting plane debris at the skyscraper’s base and AFP journalists seeing a hole in the building’s upper floors.

Video footage taken by a witness from a nearby building showed fire trucks blasting water at small flames on an outcropping near ground at the 528-metre CITIC Tower, as well as on the pavement.

The images also showed what appeared to be part of a small plane on the ground beside the building.


Video on Chinese social media that appeared to be of the same skyscraper showed debris falling from the building. AFP could not immediately verify this clip.

AFP journalists at the scene saw a hole in the windows of one of the upper floors of the skyscraper, which is located near the CCTV public television headquarters in the east of the Chinese capital.


Police and ambulances swarmed the area, with officers blocking people from taking photos.

Police declined an AFP request for comment.

“I don’t know why the plane would fly in here. It really is quite strange,” one witness, a finance worker, told AFP on the condition of anonymity.

A man who worked inside the CITIC building told AFP: “I saw debris on my way out. It looked like part of a plane.”


Dozens of uniformed cleaners gathered near the police cordon on Friday evening.

One woman told AFP she had been told to evacuate the building via the stairs and not to use the lifts.

“I ran down dozens of floors in a hurry,” she said.

Two men who appeared to be from the building’s property management team told the cleaners to go home.

“No one can get in now,” one of the men said.


‘Shouldn’t happen’

A middle-aged woman who was staring at the building from the street said she was shocked by the incident.

“This kind of thing wouldn’t happen in Beijing. This is Beijing… It’s pretty common abroad, but in China, it shouldn’t happen,” she told AFP.

“I was very shocked.”

A student at the scene told AFP he rushed to the building as soon as information about the crash was shared in an aviation enthusiast social media group.

Images and posts online were being rapidly deleted, he added.

The CITIC Tower, which has 108 floors above ground and seven below, is able to accommodate 12,000 office workers.

China imposes strict restrictions over its airspace, particularly around Beijing’s urban area, citing public security for the new rules.

In April, China announced it was banning the sale of drones in Beijing and would require users to apply for permission for all flights in the capital.

That same month, China banned civil aviation for 40 days from a large airspace off Shanghai without specifying the reasons, according to a notice to aviators published by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Trump threatens 100% tariff on EU countries over digital services tax

Trump threatens 100% tariff on EU countries over digital services tax


The move comes just a day after EU countries gave the green light to a trade agreement negotiated last year with the US

US President Donald Trump threated to scrap existing trade deals with EU countries. (EPA Images pic)

WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump on Friday threatened to slap a 100% tariff on European countries that impose a digital services tax, adding that existing trade deals would be scrapped.

“Any Country that imposes such a Tax will immediately be met with a 100% TARIFF on any and all Goods sent to the United States of America,” Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform.

He added that “this TARIFF will supersede Trade Deals made with the Country, whether implemented, signed, or not.”


The move comes just a day after EU countries gave the green light to a trade agreement negotiated last year with the US, which caps taxes on European imports at 15%.

Reacting to Trump’s fresh threats, the EU on Friday vowed to “respond swiftly and decisively to defend its rights and regulatory autonomy,” according to a European Commission spokesman.


Trump has repeatedly made it clear he wants to tackle so-called non-tariff barriers to trade — and strict European regulations on technology and environment are in his crosshairs.

With most tech giants based in the US, Trump views digital taxes as a hindrance to US exports.

Earlier this month, Trump threatened to impose a 100% tariff on French wine and champagne unless Paris removed its digital services tax on technology firms.

France imposed in 2019 a three-percent levy on the revenues earned by technology firms, including US giants Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Google’s parent Alphabet, within the country’s borders.

Lebanon, Israel, US sign trilateral framework agreement in Washington

Lebanon, Israel, US sign trilateral framework agreement in Washington


Officials say the agreement includes a pilot effort in which Lebanese soldiers will take control of two areas occupied by Israel

US secretary of state Marco Rubio said the deal ‘begins to put in place a framework for lasting peace and security’ but that ‘a lot of work’ remained. (EPA Images pic)

WASHINGTON: Lebanon, Israel and the United States on Friday signed a trilateral framework agreement aimed at paving the way for a peace deal between the two long-time Middle East adversaries.

The agreement — which officials said includes a pilot effort in which Lebanese soldiers will take control of two areas occupied by Israel, as well as a process aimed at disarming Hezbollah — is the result of five rounds of talks in the US capital.

The deal “begins to put in place a framework for lasting peace and security,” US secretary of state Marco Rubio said at the signing ceremony, while noting: “It’s the beginning of the beginning. There’s a lot of work ahead.”


Lebanon’s ambassador to Washington, Nada Hamadeh Moawad, said the accord “is a first step on the road to restoring Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity, securing a permanent and final cessation of hostilities (and) enabling our people to go back to their land.”

And Israel’s envoy to the US, Yechiel Leiter, said that under the deal, “Iran is out, Hezbollah is out, and the road to peace between Israel and Lebanon is in.”


Hezbollah drew Lebanon into the broader Middle East war on March 2 with rocket fire aimed at Israel to avenge the killing of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in US-Israeli strikes.

Israel responded with heavy airstrikes and a ground invasion, and its troops continue to occupy swaths of southern Lebanon, where they have been carrying out extensive demolition of homes and other buildings.

Despite the deal, Israel and its bitter enemy Hezbollah — which is part of the Lebanese government but also maintains a powerful armed wing outside state control — made clear that major differences remain.


‘Pilot areas’

Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem said earlier Friday that Israel has “no option but to withdraw completely from every inch of our Lebanese land,” and that its forces “must leave unconditionally.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu however said in a pre-recorded video shared with Israeli media shortly after the framework agreement was announced that Israel has no plans to exit Lebanon until Hezbollah gives up its weapons.

The text of the agreement was not released, but Netanyahu, Rubio and Lebanese authorities provided some details.

Netanyahu said his country’s military would allow the Lebanese army to take control of territory in “two pilot areas” — one south of Lebanon’s Litani River and another north of it.

That was confirmed by Lebanon’s embassy in Washington, which said in a statement that the deal also provides for the “disarmament of non-state armed groups” — a reference to Hezbollah.

Rubio meanwhile said in a statement that the agreement establishes a “clear and structured process” to disarm Hezbollah and its infrastructure, as well as a US-facilitated military working group to help implement the deal.

Washington’s top diplomat also said the United States would commit US$100 million in humanitarian assistance in coordination with the UN, and would reimburse Lebanon’s army for $30 million as it seeks to “improve the capability and capacity” of those forces.

Under US pressure, Lebanese and Israeli officials began direct talks in April in Washington, and a truce was announced on April 17 that ultimately failed to stop the fighting.

A new — but still extremely fragile — ceasefire was declared this month as Tehran insisted that Lebanon must be included in its deal with Washington to end the broader conflict launched by the United States and Israel in February.

The conflict has displaced more than one million Lebanese and left more than 4,200 dead, according to Lebanese authorities.

***

Don't trust the shailoks - they'll find excuses to violate the agreement

I was no dictator in 1976 petroleum deal, says Harris Salleh

I was no dictator in 1976 petroleum deal, says Harris Salleh


The former Sabah chief minister denies he acted unilaterally in agreeing to the 5% royalty and the Petroleum Development Act

Harris Salleh (left) said Joseph Pairin Kitingan’s accusation that he acted like a ‘dictator’ was a grave misrepresentation of constitutional facts and historical events.

PETALING JAYA: Former Sabah chief minister Harris Salleh has hit back at Joseph Pairin Kitingan, his political rival and later successor as chief minister, saying it was “wholly untrue and deeply irresponsible” for Pairin to say that he acted unilaterally in the signing of the Petroleum Development Act (PDA).

Harris said the law, which vests Sabah’s petroleum resources with Petronas, and the 5% royalty provided to the state, were matters of national interest that fell under federal jurisdiction, as provided by the Federal Constitution.

The legislation was thoroughly deliberated and passed at both the federal Cabinet and Parliament with the full participation of representatives from Sabah and Sarawak, he said.


He said Pairin was technically correct that the 5% payment was never discussed at the state Cabinet level, but only because the matter fell under federal jurisdiction.

“That fact does not in any way validate allegations of unilateralism or dictatorship,” the Daily Express reported him as saying today. “The Sabah Cabinet, by constitutional design, only serves to take note of Parliament’s final decisions on federal matters.


“The 5% is not a state-negotiated royalty in the traditional sense but rather an additional bonus, a practice commonly applied to resource-producing regions worldwide,” he said.

Harris, who was chief minister from June 1976 to April 1985, made his statement in response to comments by Pairin, who recently said that he and then state secretary Hamid Egoh were merely witnesses to the signing of the PDA, and were not involved in the decision-making process.

Harris said Pairin’s accusation that he acted like a “dictator” was a grave misrepresentation of constitutional facts and historical events. He said Pairin lacked first-hand knowledge of the events surrounding the oil agreement, was not directly involved in the political developments of the time and was absent from the relevant proceedings.

“At the material time, he was effectively in the political wilderness,” he said.

Harris also recounted the events leading to the signing of the agreement on the PDA, which was scheduled for June 6, 1976. Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, who had been named president of Petronas, arrived on June 5. A special dinner was held that night, and a luncheon gathering the next day.

He said that after the event, Sabah chief minister Fuad Stephens returned to Kota Kinabalu “while Razaleigh and I travelled to Kudat to inspect the cattle farming project on Banggi Island”.

Fuad died that afternoon in a plane crash that killed five state ministers and Fuad’s son in what has become known as the Double Six tragedy.

Harris, who was deputy president of Fuad’s Berjaya party, succeeded him as chief minister. However, he fell from power in 1985 when Pairin led his Parti Bersatu Sabah party to victory.

'a profound constitutional crisis born out of judicial abdication' - by WAYTHA MOORTHY PONNUSAMY

 

OutSyed The Box

Friday, June 26, 2026

'a profound constitutional crisis born out of judicial abdication' - by WAYTHA MOORTHY PONNUSAMY

 WAYTHA MOORTHY PONNUSAMY

Suite 13-12 Menara Sentral Vista

Jalan Sultan Abdul Samad

Brickfields 50470

Kuala Lumpur

waytha@waytha.com

OPEN LETTER TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF MALAYSIA
Yang Amat Arif Tun Wan Ahmad Farid bin Wan Salleh
Chief Justice of Malaysia
Palace of Justice, Putrajaya
26th June 2026

Your Lordship

RE: A Blanket Injunction Against Speech Yet to Be Spoken—Judicial Abdication,
Executive Servitude, and the Systematic Erosion of Constitutional Liberties

I am writing this open letter to voice an agonizing sense of betrayal shared by the rakyat regarding the recent ex parte interim injunction weaponized by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) against Wan Muhammad Azri.

While I maintain the utmost respect for the constitutional independence and integrity of our courts, I write out of a profound concern regarding how the extraordinary scope of this order may inadvertently impact public perception and long-term confidence in the judiciary.

This unprecedented, draconian order raises a terrifying, foundational question: can a court of law pre-emptively gag future speech and expression based solely on unproven allegations concerning present publications, when no judicial body has yet found those publications to be defamatory or unlawful?

What we are witnessing is not a routine legal remedy; it is a profound constitutional crisis born out of judicial abdication.

The Indisputable Analogy: Total Warfare on Free Expression

To underscore the staggering disproportion and sheer overreach of this judicial order, one must look at the foundational, centuries-old boundaries of English and Malaysian jurisprudence:

• The Newspaper Rule: A court may properly restrain a specific, allegedly defamatory article published by a newspaper, but it would never shut down the entire press or ban the newspaper from future printing.

• The Television Rule: If a television station broadcasts allegedly defamatory content, the court may restrain that specific offending programme, but it would never completely black out the station and prohibit it from broadcasting altogether.

Yet, this sacred boundary was utterly obliterated in the case of Wan Muhammad Azri. By issuing a sweeping prohibition against the use of his current and future social media accounts, the court did not merely clip an offending leaf — it scorched the entire earth. This is not the preservation of a status quo; it is a total, authoritarian veto over an entire medium of communication.

A Dangerous Doctrine: Presuming Guilt for Imaginary Statements

The law must act upon actual, identifiable, and proven wrongdoing — not hypothetical future conduct or paranoid political anxieties of the Madani government.

The purpose of an interlocutory injunction is strictly restorative, designed to pause a specific alleged defamation pending trial. It was never intended to be a pre-emptive weapon to penalize a citizen based on speculation, assumptions, or Madani government’s fears of what the defendant might say tomorrow.

By banning future accounts and future speech, the court has effectively pioneered a dangerous doctrine: presuming guilt for statements that have not yet been uttered, and whose contents are entirely unknown.

This shifts the judicial paradigm from evaluating concrete facts to policing the human imagination.

Judicial Abdication and the Rejection of Scrutiny

This was an ex parte application. The defendant was completely absent, and there was no opposing counsel to challenge the breath of this order or to raise basic constitutional alarms. In these specific circumstances, the Court's duty of independent, rigorous scrutiny should have been at its absolute, unyielding zenith.

An ex parte injunction is an extraordinary, highly invasive remedy; it must never be reduced to a mechanical, bureaucratic rubber stamp. Yet, the judiciary’s compliant attitude in this matter reeks of administrative deference. The Court cannot simply bow down to the assertions of an applicant, especially when that applicant is a powerful government agency acting as the “long arm” of the Madani government. To do so is a clear abdication of the judiciary's sacred oath of office.

The Perception of Servitude to Putrajaya

The judiciary is constitutionally mandated to be the final line of defence against the excessive, overreaching abuse of power by the Madani Government. When the public observes the granting of expansive state applications without rigorous scrutiny that ruthlessly crush fundamental freedoms, it sends a chilling message to the public.

The rakyat are left with the distinct, undeniable impression that the judiciary is actively bending backward to please its political masters at Putrajaya — rendering the courts subservient, beholden, and weaponized by those wielding executive power.

I am profoundly worried that this continuous, systemic failure — and the cynical use of legal procedures to bypass explicit constitutional guarantees — will cause the rakyat to completely lose all respect, faith, and hope in our last bastion of justice. When the courts are perceived to become an extension of executive tyranny, democracy dies.

Your Lordship, the judiciary now stands at an undeniable historical crossroads. History will judge this critical juncture not by the audacity of executive overreach, but by the response of the institution over which you preside.

The rakyat are watching with unwavering vigilance to see whether the Palace of Justice will reclaim its rightful place as the unyielding fortress of their constitutional guarantees. The choice to restore faith in our justice system, and to decide how this dark chapter of Malaysian jurisprudence will be remembered, is a heavy burden that rests entirely within the institutional conscience of your Lordship’s esteemed office.

Yours in service

Waytha Moorthy Ponnusamy

Advocate & Solicitor

MY COMMENTS: 

Antara sifat atau ciri-ciri  negara Dunia Ketiga adalah bahawa sistem keadilan sering dimanipulasi atau di hijack oleh ahli politik dan tidak bebas serta berkecuali. Ahli politik dan mereka yang berpengaruh boleh campur tangan dalam kes mahkamah, memberi tekanan kepada hakim, atau melindungi sekutu mereka daripada dihukum. Akibatnya, rakyat biasa di negara Dunia Ketiga mungkin tidak mendapat layanan yang adil, manakala individu yang berpengaruh boleh terlepas proses hukuman. Rasuah, institusi yang lemah dan kelemahan ketelusan menjadikan masalah ini lebih ketara di negara Dunia Ketiga. Hak rakyat serta kedaulatan undang-undang akan ke laut.

Racism and bigotry in Malaysian higher education are spilling over to social media

Racism and bigotry in Malaysian higher education are spilling over to social media


Kedah Executive Councillor Dr Haim Hilman Abdullah, a former Vice-Chancellor of Universiti Utara Malaysia, was charged for suggesting that certain elites enjoy easy access to higher education

Updated 3 hours ago · Published on 26 Jun 2026 3:40PM

Such practices were frequently justified because they would help improve the international rankings of public universities. - June 26, 2026



By Murray Hunter


THE issue of racism in Malaysian higher education has long been vigorously debated.

The application of the New Economic Policy (NEP) to the university sector introduced positive discrimination in favour of Bumiputeras.

This policy also extended to staff recruitment.

Based on my own observations over more than a decade in Malaysian higher education, foreign academics have often been preferred over equally qualified non-Malay Malaysian citizens.

Such practices were frequently justified because they would help improve the international rankings of public universities.

Just yesterday, Kedah Executive Councillor Dr Haim Hilman Abdullah, a former Vice-Chancellor of Universiti Utara Malaysia, was charged for suggesting that certain elites enjoy easy access to higher education.

His case is likely to open a Pandora’s box of issues that will emerge during the trial.

I was once told in confidence by a public university Vice-Chancellor that Vice-Chancellors were previously selected by higher education ministers largely for their ability to advance the “Malay agenda” in public universities.

Similarly, during the Pakatan Harapan 1.0 administration, former Higher Education Minister Dr Maszlee Malik was criticised for appointing senior IKRAM-linked academics to top positions in public universities between 2018 and 2020.

The cumulative effect of these policies has been the creation of a form of elitism in public universities, characterised by a particular mindset that fosters a culture of ignorance and disdain towards ideas and perspectives outside its narrow worldview on higher education.

Over many decades, this has contributed to a strong culture of racism and bigotry.

I have personally seen documentary evidence of resulting discrimination against foreign academics in Malaysia.

As a consequence, their numbers are declining, with many leaving for higher education systems that are not burdened by this skewed culture.

One striking example is a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit filed by a major Malaysian university against a former employee.

The academic described to me the intense bigotry she faced, which ultimately made her position at the university untenable.


Bigotry Now Spilling Over to Social Media

This toxic culture is now spreading onto social media, often perpetuated by members of the so-called educational elite themselves.

Dr Razali Mahfar, Executive Director of the International Institute of Public Policy and a board member of Universiti Malaya, publicly clashed with Dr Geoffrey Williams over the latter’s article titled “If Malaysia Has World-Class Universities, Why Are There So Many Underemployed Graduates?”

In a LinkedIn comment on the article, Dr Razali threatened Dr Williams, stating that he “should be deported back to the UK.”

Such comments are demeaning to the standards of higher education and set a very poor example for younger academics working in the Malaysian system.

These incidents point to deep cultural problems within Malaysian universities — problems that undermine not only freedom of speech and academic freedom, but the very foundational principles of education itself.

Such mentalities stifle critical thinking, creativity and suppress innovation. From personal experience, I can attest that a toxic culture exists within many Malaysian universities that is fundamentally counter-productive to the core mission of higher education.

This issue deserves serious attention, open debate, and concrete solutions from all stakeholders in the higher education sector. – June 26, 2026

Court forfeits Rolex watches, jewellery seized from ex-army chief’s sister-in-law to govt

Court forfeits Rolex watches, jewellery seized from ex-army chief’s sister-in-law to govt



Former Army chief Tan Sri Muhammad Hafizuddeain Jantan (centre) arrives at the Kuala Lumpur High Court Complex on January 22, 2026. — Picture by Yusof Isa

Friday, 26 Jun 2026 2:44 PM MYT


KUALA LUMPUR, June 26 — A total of 23 Rolex watches and 15 pieces of jewellery seized by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) from Nor Shahira Atirah Anuar @ Kamaruddin, the sister-in-law of former Army Chief Tan Sri Muhammad Hafizuddeain Jantan, were officially forfeited to the government today.

Deputy public prosecutor Mahadi Abdul Jumaat confirmed that the forfeiture followed an order by Sessions Court Judge Rosli Ahmad, who ruled that the items be confiscated in favour of the state.

"The court allowed the prosecution's application for forfeiture, and no third party came forward to claim the assets," he said after today's case mention, which had been scheduled for the attendance of any interested third parties.

Lawyer Muhammad Kausar Mohd Khairi, representing Nor Shahira Atirah, confirmed the outcome.

In earlier proceedings, the MACC had applied for a court order to publish a gazette notice calling on any persons with an interest in the seized items to appear in court, pursuant to Section 41(2) of the MACC Act 2009.

On May 4, the prosecution, as the applicant, filed a notice against Nor Shahira Atirah seeking to forfeit to the government the 23 luxury watches and 15 pieces of jewellery seized from her.

The application was made on the grounds that the prosecution, acting under the powers conferred by Section 41(1) of the MACC Act, read together with Section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was satisfied that the movable property seized by the MACC was subject to forfeiture, as no criminal prosecution had been instituted for an offence under the Act.

In support of this, the applicant claimed that the assets were obtained as a result of, or in connection with, an offence under Section 165 of the Penal Code. — Bernama

A big lie: The Anwar- Yusoff Rawther case

A big lie: The Anwar- Yusoff Rawther case


While people may question the details of a small lie, they will more readily accept a big lie, especially one repeated often enough

Updated 11 months ago · Published on 11 Jul 2025 7:27AM

Such allegations are resurfacing now as Anwar moves to consolidate his reform agenda - July 11, 2025



By Datuk Dr Siva Ananthan


SO, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is at it again. Not only is he sexually molesting men again, but this time also he is getting the cops, the prosecution and the judiciary to cover up for him and he is manipulating the appointment of judges to ensure this.

This is the narrative created and being canvassed in the media where PM Anwar is being subjected to – Trial by Media. It is no surprise that this is the narrative being employed because this has been the “fabula selecta” of the previous politically motivated accusations by his detractors.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated that people will, “more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.” Anwar’s perceived homosexuality is part of the Malaysian “Big Lie”.

The logic behind the “Big Lie” is that while people may question the details of a small lie, they will more readily accept a big lie, especially one repeated often enough.

This is the reason for most people’s ambivalence regarding Anwar. This feeling of uncertainty lays us open to manipulation, sloganising and prescription which are part a praxis intended to deceive us into a predisposition about Anwar’s culpability.

The malignancy of the “Big Lie” is that it undermines the very basis assumption that protects the liberty of every citizen within a state – the presumption of innocence. This nefarious fabrication is affixed on the public by his detractors by amassing the considerable resources of social media in the hope that such allegations will be easily believed by the gullible masses.

I would urge caution and common sense give us pause for thought to reflect more carefully on these serious matters. Is there a possibility that this scheme is being orchestrated by political adversaries whose sole intention is to destabilising this government?

Let’s examine the facts.

History of Politically Motivated Allegations – Anwar and his family have been the victims time and again of this type of politically motivated callous and capricious attacks. Most of them have been calculated to coincide with momentous moments in his political career when he has been on the ascendency.

In 1998 when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad feared that Anwar was going to topple him, the first sodomy and corruption allegations surfaced, leading to Anwar’s conviction and imprisonment. Eventually the sodomy conviction was overturned.

In 2008, when Anwar led the opposition to major electoral gains, the second sodomy allegations surfaced resulting in another conviction. He was later pardoned by the Yang Di Pertuan Agong in 2018.

The recurrence of such allegations now as Anwar is making efforts to consolidate his reform agenda, suggests a recurring pattern of character assassination. This is not coincidental and in my view is a coordinated deliberate effort to undermine and derailhis leadership.

Yusoff Rawther’s Credibility and Motives – Just who is the accuser? His own uncle, Mohideen Abdul Kader, has questioned the credibility of a sexual assault claim made by his nephew, stating that he believed that his nephew was being manipulated by certain quarters to serve their own interests.

Especially so because his family members were totally unaware of the alleged incident. Mohideen said, “The incident is supposed to have taken place on October 2, 2018, more than one year ago. Yet none of our family members including his (Yusoff’s) grandfather, who was very close to him, was told about this alleged incident”.

Yusoff Rawther’s background as a political hack and inconsistencies in his own statements cast serious doubt on the legitimacy of his claims. His own narrative about the alleged incident has evolved over time, with inconsistencies in dates, locations, and details.

He also waited several years before coming forward, raising questions about his motives. If the incident was truly traumatic, why was there no immediate complaint? His sudden emergence with the allegations and the fact that he had not complained about this at the time of the incident cast doubts about his reliability as an accuser and aligns suspiciously with this period of political tension.

A credible accuser would provide a consistent, timely, and apolitical account of what happened.

Timing of the Allegations – The timing of these accusations is also highly suspicious, coming at a moment when Anwar’s administration is making significant progress in governance and reform.

This type of allegations often arise when political opponents seek to destabilise a leader’s credibility. When the allegations first surfaced, Anwar’s coalition was gaining momentum in implementing reforms and the opposition factions were struggling to regain political traction.

It was also the time when key policy decisions (e.g., economic reforms, anti-corruption measures) were being rolled out, threatening entrenched interests. The timing suggests a deliberate attempt to distract, delegitimise, or force Anwar’s resignation.

Lack of Corroboration – There has been no credible evidence or independent witnesses to corroborate his claims. Given the gravity of the allegations, the absence of verifiable proof suggests a potential fabrication.

The are no independent witnesses, third-party testimonies or forensic evidence to support his claims. Furthermore, he seems to have maintained contact with Anwar or his associates after the alleged incident. This contradicts his claims that he was traumatised by the incident. In my view serious allegations of this nature demand solid proof not mere speculation or conjecture.

Pattern of Smear Campaigns Against Anwar Ibrahim – Anwar has faced multiple legal and character attacks over decades, many of which were later proven to be baseless. This latest accusation fits a familiar pattern of using defamatory tactics to tarnish his reputation.

This recurrence should make us all think twice about the situation and ask the question - Who stands to gain if Anwar is weakened? Without question, all allegations of misconduct must be taken seriously and be investigated fairly. However, the media is not the place where this should take place.

We should end this Trial by Media and should exercise caution, demand thorough and impartial investigations, and keep our minds open to the possibility of political manipulation behind these allegations.

The cumulative evidence, the historical context, the accuser’s credibility issues, suspicious timing and lack of corroborating evidence, strongly suggests that these allegations are a deliberate attempt to frame Anwar.

Everyone deserves to be judged based on facts, not slander. We should reject Trial by Media because unverified allegations should not shape public opinion. Anwar, like any other individual, is innocent until proven guilty. Let us not become the victims of a big lie. – July 11, 2025

Datuk Dr Siva Ananthan is a former Governing Council Member, ASEAN Law Association

***

Most of us can guess who's the Big Mountain behind the accusations

BRITISH ‘DEMOCRACY’ vs HONG KONG ‘UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE’

From the FB page of:

Nury Vittachi 

Favorites ·nstedSooprtfgc4hf68166gu4chg78m37ii40i2t1gt4919huic7ghit8hia ·

BRITISH ‘DEMOCRACY’

1. Small elite group chooses person they want to rule.

(The people get no say.)

2. Small elite group tells democratically elected Prime Minster to resign.

(The people get no say.)

3. Small elite group notices that their chosen man needs to be MP first, so they make that happen.

(The people get no say.)

4. Small elite group tells the people who will be their leader.

(The people get no say.)

Similar scenarios have happened REPEATEDLY in the UK.

.

HONG KONG ‘UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE’

Now compare that with the system of universal suffrage that Beijing offered Hong Kong in 2013.

1. Electoral college of people’s representatives, made up of all major parties, puts forward a selection of candidates.

2. Every legal citizen gets two votes, one for their local representative, one for the overall leader of Hong Kong.

3. All seats in the Legislative Council (Hong Kong's parliament) go to democratically elected people, including the top job.

(The Beijing-endorsed universal suffrage system proposed for Hong Kong was popular with the public, but it was, bizarrely, rejected by a certain group of politicians. This caused a return to the British colonial mixed system. We now know the people who rejected it were supported by US political interference groups.)