Hamzah says new party only underwent name change

Hamzah says new party only underwent name change


Yesterday
Faiz Zainudin


The Larut MP addresses questions surrounding Parti Wawasan Negara's legitimacy

Hamzah Zainudin launched Parti Wawasan Negara on June 13, saying the name had been given by PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang.

KUALA LUMPUR: Hamzah Zainudin said questions surrounding the legitimacy of his new party, Parti Wawasan Negara, should not arise as it had only undergone a name change.

“I only took over an existing party and changed its name,” the Larut MP told reporters after attending a meeting with opposition MPs here tonight.

Hamzah launched Wawasan on June 13 and revealed that the name had been given by PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang.


Machang MP Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal had previously revealed that Hamzah would take over an existing party.

Yesterday, Registrar of Societies (RoS) director-general Zulfikar Ahmad said it has yet to receive any official application for the formation of a new political party using the name Parti Wawasan Negara.


On Sunday, Parti Sedar Rakyat Sarawak claimed that it had already approved amendments to change its name to Parti Wawasan Rakyat, potentially clashing with Hamzah’s Wawasan.

Sedar president Affendi Jeman urged RoS to address the issue, since the party officially applied to change its name on April 8.

Separately, Hulu Terengganu MP Rosol Wahid told reporters tonight’s meeting did not discuss Bersatu’s expulsion from Perikatan Nasional.

“We discussed the opposition leader’s post (and) our direction for the state polls. We agreed that Hamzah should be retained as the opposition leader,” he said.

Bersatu’s status in the opposition coalition has come into question after PAS decided to sever ties with the Muhyiddin Yassin-led party.

***

Which "existing party"??? Stop kerbau-ing. Hamzah, you'll be in trouble with your so-called Wawasan Party - RoS will see to that. Looks like you may have to stand in any election as PAS candidates, wakakaka.

Bersatu duo relieved of roles in PN

Bersatu duo relieved of roles in PN


Yesterday
Faiz Zainudin


PN chairman Ahmad Samsuri Mokhtar says the decision to replace Azmin Ali and Radzi Jidin was made in view of the upcoming Johor and Negeri Sembilan state elections

Azmin Ali (right) and Radzi Jidin were appointed as PN deputy secretary-general and PN election director, respectively, in March.

KUALA LUMPUR: Two Bersatu leaders were relieved of their positions in Perikatan Nasional tonight.

PN chairman Ahmad Samsuri Mokhtar said the coalition’s deputy secretary-general, Azmin Ali, has been relieved of his duties, while PAS election director Sanusi Nor would replace Bersatu vice-president Radzi Jidin as PN election director.

In a statement, PAS vice-president Samsuri said the move was made in view of the upcoming Johor and Negeri Sembilan state elections.


He said Sanusi’s former position as PN treasurer would now be taken up by Malaysian Indian People’s Party deputy president S Subramaniam.

Samsuri did not name a replacement for Azmin.


Meanwhile, Pendang MP Awang Hashim said that the restructuring was not raised during the meeting among opposition MPs at PAS’s headquarters tonight.

“The changes in positions was not brought up during the meeting. That is a separate matter concerning PN’s administration,” he told FMT.

Samsuri’s announcement comes amid uncertainty over PN’s future following the breakdown of political cooperation between PAS and Bersatu, its two key components.

PAS cut ties with Bersatu last week, stating that the party had become power-hungry and was no longer prioritising Malay-Muslim unity.

Bersatu has since pledged to go all-out against PAS in the upcoming Johor and Negeri Sembilan state polls, while insisting that it will contest under the PN banner.

PAS vice-president Amar Abdullah has said that Bersatu must exit PN if it intends to contest against PAS in the state elections.

The Johor state election will be held on July 11, and the Negeri Sembilan polls on Aug 1.

***

Can Ass-binte, the ultimate survivor, have political life after this major setback?

PATRICK LAWRENCE: Trans–Pacific Paskudniks

Consortium News
Volume 31, Number 163 — Wednesday, June 17, 2026


PATRICK LAWRENCE: Trans–Pacific Paskudniks


Is Beijing preparing for war? Of course: It has no choice. But the war it is bracing to wage is one the United States seems intent on provoking. The Chinese have no other such plans

China’s President Xi Jinping with President Donald Trump outside the Temple of Heaven in Beijingon on May 14. (White House / Daniel Torok)

By Patrick Lawrence
Special to Consortium News

I have never quite got over how completely Antony Blinken and Jake Sullivan, who Joe Biden assigned to oversee his foreign policy, blew it during their first encounter with Chinese counterparts at a hotel in Anchorage. This was in March 2021, a few months into Biden’s White House years, and all concerned understood the meeting was going to be a big deal one way or another.

It was: Biden’s secretary of state and national security adviser, facing officials representing a nation whose power was about to supersede the United States’, took it upon themselves to shake their fingers at figures such as Wang Yi, who is now Beijing’s distinguished foreign minister, about democracy, human rights, Hong Kong, press censorship, the Uighurs of Xinjiang and who knows what all.

The Chinese across the table, foregoing their customary courtesies, abruptly shut them down. Nothing got done. It made for stunning video footage as Blinken and Sullivan sat there flabbergasted that another people — non–Western, of all things — did not succumb to the scoldings of high officials from “the indispensable nation,” in Madeleine Albright’s memorably ridiculous phrase.

That wonderful Yiddish word for contemptible clods came immediately to mind. What a pair of tone-deaf paskudniks, I recall thinking. They read from scripts written in the mid–1950s.

No idea what time it was on history’s clock, no idea that the time for browbeating the Chinese into submission had passed long, long earlier — no idea, to go straight to the point, that the People’s Republic was well into the project of building a new world order and that it was about to emerge as its most influential proponent.

How could I not recall the Blinken-and–Sullivan act as I watched President Trump give the world a 2026 variation of the very same farce? History turned when Donald J. Trump arrived in Beijing for a two-day summit with Xi Jinping last month, as I wrote in this space at the time. The Chinese president all but told his visitor this.

And what was the Trumpster doing? Like the child he is, he went halfway to ga-ga at the sight of the red carpets and the displays of made-for-tourists pageantry while his planeload of greedy cronies chicken-scratched for “deals.”

Xi and Trump on the long red carpet during a welcoming ceremony for the U.S. president on May 14 at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. (White House/Daniel Torok)


I might have expected this, and I suppose I did, of the man who summited with Xi at Mar-a–Lago in April 2017 — a few months into his first term, indeed — and figured he had transformed Sino–U.S. relations to America’s advantage after serving the Chinese leader “the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake you’ve ever seen.”

You look for some measure of seriousness when America’s purported leaders and the inside-the–Beltway policy cliques who pretend to do Washington’s thinking look across the Pacific, but there simply is none.

There is no grasp of the gravity and magnitude of the moment among these people, and if you can’t see this in China you are a prisoner of that blinding ideology that besets so many Americans — as Blinken and Sullivan proved, as Trump was his first time around and now proves during his second. The world is turning — quick as a dervish it seems at times — and the Americans running the nation’s relations with others insist, as they have for decades now, that it is standing still.


Dedicated to the ‘Power to Hurt’

Ratner in 2021, while assistant secretary of defense for Indo-Pacific security affairs in the Biden administration. (DoD/Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain)

Foreign Affairs is running a revealing piece in this line in its July–August edition under the headline, “The Fault Lines in China’s Power.” The subhead goes yet straighter to the writer’s point: “America Must Build—and Use—Leverage Against Beijing.”

Ely Ratner, who served in the Defense Department during the Biden years, is a China hawk who deplores China’s insolent capacity to withstand Washington’s incessant assaults and thinks it is urgent to identify and exploit all possible ways to inflict maximum damage on the People’s Republic. “Washington should target vulnerabilities that its policy instruments can demonstrably affect,” Ratner writes.

And so off we go.

Ratner, now a principal at Marathon Initiative, a think tank nostalgically dedicated to “preserving America’s prosperity, security, and democratic way of life” — democratic way of life? — favors all sorts of things to subvert China’s prosperity and security: Redoubling the Biden era’s export controls on high-technology products (chips and such), recruiting some kind of coalition to ruin China’s export markets, restricting its access to U.S. dollars, using maritime sanctions to disrupt the mainland’s energy imports.

And so on down a list of purposely destructive propositions, each more malign than the previous. Ely Ratner, let’s leave it, is not a nice man. He is a virulent paranoid. His operating principle derives from Thomas Schelling, a prominent scholar and longtime Cold Warrior (1921–2016), whose well-known mot in these matters was, “The power to hurt is bargaining power.”

When you read Ratner’s working assumptions you realize easily enough why he has it hopelessly wrong. Here is his fundamental premise:

“Beijing had spent years identifying where it could squeeze Washington hardest and then built the capabilities to do so, the United States was not ready to exploit the anxieties that keep China’s leaders up at night…”

Say whaaa? China has done nothing of the kind. Well aware that its emergence would mark a world-historical turn in global balances of power, it has spent the last 46 years — taking my date from the start of the Dengist reforms in 1980 — trying to persuade the United States of the mutually beneficial virtues of peaceful co-existence.

Did Xi not warn Trump during their mid–May summit to avoid the Thucydides Trap — an established power’s givenness to go to war when faced with a rising power? To put the point figuratively, the Chinese leader was urging the American not to take seriously what he may read (assuming generously that Trump reads) in Foreign Affairs.

I actually think it is too late for warnings. The trap has sprung on the Americans. Look at Washington’s obsessive efforts to remilitarize Japan and re-enlist the South Koreans in the new cold war it has all but officially declared. Read people such as Ely Ratner, and there are woefully many Ely Ratners mooching corporate nickels in the think tanks.

What is Ratner doing if not assigning to the Chinese the late-phase imperium’s malevolent motives and intentions? In psychiatric terms this is sheer projection.

Antony Blinken and Jake Sullivan were so fully dedicated to ideology that thought was impossible — no need of it, indeed. The latter once explained that he drew his foreign policy principles from the black-hats, white-hats Westerns he watched as an adolescent.

Ratner and others like him are paskudniks of a more pernicious kind. They pretend to be thinking it all through, but it amounts to thoughtlessness as thoughtfulness. And their pretensions are the cinder blocks of which U.S. policy across the Pacific is made.

This is why the United States is doing precisely what the policy cliques fear most: It is losing out. It profligately wastes its brains, its great effort and its money building a monstrous war machine while the People’s Republic is building a new world order. And as earlier suggested, it seems to me time to recognize that the Chinese have emerged as leaders of this many-sided undertaking.

Is China preparing for war? Of course: It has no choice. But the war it is bracing to wage is one the United States seems intent on provoking. The Chinese have no other such plans.

I was interested — and amused, too — to note Xi Jinping’s official calendar at the time of Trump’s May 14–15 summit with him. Three days before the Trumpster arrived Xi received Emomali Rahmon, Tajikistan’s president, on a state visit. Four days after Trump departed Vladimir Putin arrived for a two-day summit — the Russian president’s 25th trip to Beijing.

Wasting little time, Xi flew to Pyongyang last week for two days with Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader. It was Xi’s first foreign journey this year and his first to the North in seven.

This is the subtlest sort of diplomacy, in my read — chronology as statecraft. And it is hard to miss the meaning: The Chinese are busy building something new, and they must meantime manage relations with the old, those who are no longer building anything, busy as they are with their spoiling, their preventing, their provoking, their blocking, their tearing down.



Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune, is a columnist, essayist, lecturer and author, most recently of Journalists and Their Shadows, available from Clarity Press or via Amazon. Other books include Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century. His Twitter account, @thefloutist, has been restored after years of being censored.

ROBERT PARRY: Netanyahu Unmasks Israel

Consortium News
Volume 31, Number 163 — Wednesday, June 17, 2026


ROBERT PARRY: Netanyahu Unmasks Israel


The founder of Consortium News in 2015 foresaw Benjamin Netanyahu, despite leveling false charges of antisemitism, turning Americans against Israel by going too far with the Palestinians and Iran



Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meeting with his generals to discuss the offensive in Gaza in 2014. (Israeli government)


Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry had a knack for being years ahead of everyone else in the media in assessing the meaning and direction of a story. For instance, in 2015 he warned that the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine could not only lead to war with Russia, but that it could go nuclear. That fear has become real in just the past two years as the U.S., Britain and Germany gave the greenlight to fire its missiles and drones from Ukraine deep into Russian territory, prompting some prominent Russian voices to call for an attack on NATO, possibly with nuclear weapons.

On the Middle East, Parry was way ahead of the game in the following article in assessing that Israel would go too far against the Palestinians, and in a war he forecast against Iran, would turn the U.S. against it. This despite paralyzing false charges of “anti-semitism.” Today, two years after Israel’s assaults on Gaza, Lebanon and Iran, the American people, for the first time, have greater sympathy for Palestinians than for Israelis. Even Israel’s greatest backer, Donald Trump, told Benjamin Netanyahu two weeks ago: “Everybody hates Israel.” Given the viewpoint expressed in this piece about Israel’s racism towards the Palestinians, Parry would no doubt have been horrified, were he still alive, to see that that racism had fueled a genocide in Gaza.

By Robert Parry
Special to Consortium News
March 18, 2015




Desperate to win reelection, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stripped off Israel’s mask and exposed the ugliness that has deformed his country over the past several decades. He abandoned the subterfuge of a two-state solution, exposed the crass racism that underlies Israeli politics, and revealed Israel’s blatant control of the U.S. Congress.

For years, these realities were known to many Americans, but if they spoke up they were condemned as anti-Semites, so most stayed silent to protect their careers and reputations. But given Netanyahu’s brazen admissions the American people may have little choice but to finally take notice of this troubling reality and demand a change in U.S. policy.

The truth is that the two-state solution has been a fiction for at least the past two decades, dying in 1995 with the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. But the two-state illusion still served important political purposes both for Israelis, who would pay it lip service while continuing their steady encroachment on Palestinian lands, and for U.S. politicians who could point to the mirage as an excuse not to pressure Israel too hard on its human rights violations.

Yet, whenever any U.S. official actually tried to reach that shimmering oasis of a two-state solution, it would recede into the distance. Then, the Israelis would rely on their friends and allies in the news media and politics to blame the Palestinians. Now, however, the illusion of Israel seeking such an outcome in good faith has been lost in Netanyahu’s anything-goes determination to keep his office a case of political expediency trumping strategic expediency.

In the closing days of the campaign, Netanyahu promised that as long as he was prime minister he would block a Palestinian state and would continue building Jewish settlements on what international law recognizes as Palestinian land.

To further rally his right-wing Jewish base, Netanyahu warned that “Arab voters are streaming in huge quantities to the polling stations” an alarm similar to racist politicians in the United States motivating the white vote with claims about loads of blacks being bused to the polls. With his crude appeal, Netanyahu undermined the longstanding denial that Zionism is a form of racism.

Even before Netanyahu’s last-minute histrionics, he had exploited his relationship with the United States to burnish his reputation as a world leader by appearing for a record-tying third time as a foreign leader addressing a joint session of the U.S. Congress. (Only Great Britain’s Winston Churchill had appeared three times before Congress.) [Netanyahu has now addressed Congress four times, the last on July 24, 2024.]

Acting as almost a stand-in for the President of the United States, Netanyahu gave what amounted to a faux State of the Union address filled with scary tales about Iran and with dire warnings against international negotiations seeking to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program remains peaceful.

Though some Democrats boycotted the speech because it represented an unprecedented insult to an American president, the Republican majority and many Democrats gave Netanyahu more than 40 ovations as they cheered his vitriolic attacks on Iran and his denunciations of the negotiations supported by President Barack Obama. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Congress Cheers Netanyahu’s Hatred of Iran.”]


Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran

Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, March 3, 2015. (U.S. Congress/Wikimedia Commons)


Then, last weekend, a prominent neoconservative, Joshua Muravchik, admitted that the almost certain outcome of Netanyahu’s scuttling of the negotiations would be to bomb Iran. Muravchik laid out this scenario in a Washington Post article headlined “War is the only way to stop Iran” in print editions and “War with Iran is probably our best option” online.

“What if force is the only way to block Iran from gaining nuclear weapons? That, in fact, is probably the reality,” Muravchik wrote. “Sanctions may have induced Iran to enter negotiations, but they have not persuaded it to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons. Nor would the stiffer sanctions that Netanyahu advocates bring a different result.

“Does this mean that our only option is war? Yes, although an air campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would entail less need for boots on the ground than the war Obama is waging against the Islamic State, which poses far smaller a threat than Iran does. Wouldn’t destroying much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure merely delay its progress? Perhaps, but we can strike as often as necessary.”

In other words, if Netanyahu keeps pulling the strings of the U.S. government, an open-ended war on Iran is the almost certain result. But Netanyahu, for short-term political gain, risked Israel’s longstanding support from the American people by spotlighting his role as the marionette of the U.S. Congress. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “A Neocon Admits the Plan to Bomb Iran.“]

Netanyahu’s reelection victory has clarified the situation for the American people in another way. We now know there will be no two-state solution with the Palestinians as Israel cements its status as an apartheid state and all the cries of “anti-Semitism” are not likely to silence people taking notice of this reality since the Israeli Prime Minister himself has taken the sting out of the slur.

The American people now have little choice but to recognize that Israel intends to maintain and expand its “Jewish state” pushing the Palestinians into isolated enclaves. For nearly a half century, Israel has exercised effective control over these indigenous people in the West Bank and Gaza (totaling more than 4 million people), but there was always the hope of a Palestinian state.

Now, by jettisoning the prospect of a “two-state solution,” Netanyahu will institutionalize what had long been the unacknowledged fate of the Palestinians. In essence, Netanyahu is opting for a one-state solution, just with most Palestinians confined to a state-less netherworld where they will be denied political rights, left to wither and die.

And, whenever some Palestinians act up, Israel will wage war against them, killing thousands at a time and destroying their homes and infrastructure, what Israelis call “mowing the grass.”

With the facades gone, Americans must decide if they will embrace this apartheid system or not. Many Christian Zionists, who are a powerful force inside the Republican Party, are okay with Israel’s brutal repression because they see the Jews taking this land as a step toward fulfilling a biblical prophecy so Jesus can return to earth as its king.

But rational Americans are confronted with a difficult moral choice. Either continue supporting Netanyahu in brutalizing the Palestinians and in his looming war against Iran (using the U.S. military to carry it out) or insist that the U.S. government reassess its relationship with Israel.

The developments of March 2015 from Netanyahu’s proconsul-style speech before the U.S. Congress to the racist incitements of his victorious campaign have forced thoughtful Americans to abandon their longstanding excuses for Israeli behavior.

From now on, there’s no pretending that “standing with Israel” doesn’t mean kneeling in an obsequious acceptance of Netanyahu’s cruelty toward the Palestinians and cooperation in an illegal and aggressive war against Iran.

The late investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. He founded Consortium News in 1995 and was its editor until his death in 2018.

Fake or U-turn? Ramasamy fumes at public unis becoming religious conversion instruments

Fake or U-turn? Ramasamy fumes at public unis becoming religious conversion instruments

FIRST thing first. As expected, the Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) which is in the centre of the Muslim convert student registration controversy has denied that it has issued any promotion poster that offers incentives such as free tuition and college fees as well as financial aid (if needed) to the latter.


For the uninitiated, the said poster bears logos of the Malaysia Madani logo, UPSI, JHEPA (Department of Student & Alumni Affairs) and the university’s Islamic Centre.

📢 PEMAKLUMAN

Pemakluman berkaitan Poster "Pendaftaran Saudara Baharu" bagi mengelakkan kekeliruan. Terima kasih atas keprihatinan dan kerjasama semua.

#jiwaupsi #demiupsi #UPSIMalaysia

169

Comment

59

On that note, the Tanjung Malim-based university administration had in a statement requested the public not to spread the fake poster to avoid confusion and misunderstandings that could affect the harmony of the campus community and society.

The issue came to light after it was exposed by DAP’s senator R.A. Lingeshwaran who demanded an investigation into circulation of the poster despite denial by the Perak institution of its involvement given the matter has sparked public concern.

In a subsequent second statement to Malaysiakini, the doctor-by-training urged UPSI to immediately lodge a police report so that those responsible for creating and circulating the poster can be identified and investigated.

Malaysiakini

on Tuesday

Poster with Upsi logo states students who convert can receive free education.

Poster with Upsi logo states students who convert can receive free education.

malaysiakini.com

Senator urges probe into poster offering 'perks' for uni students who convert

Poster with Upsi logo states students who convert can receive free education.

Poster with Upsi logo states students who convert can receive free education.

6

35

9

Senator R.A. Lingeshwaran


Lingeshwaran further called on the Communications Ministry and other relevant authorities to trace the origin and dissemination of the poster.

Ramasamy’s rebuke

Below are the thoughts of United Rights of Malaysian Party (Urimai) founder Prof Ramasamy Palanisamy who spent 24 years at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) between 1981 when he joined as a lecturer in the Department of Political Science till he left in 2005:

I NEVER imagined that higher learning institutions in Malaysia can be used as tools to propagate religious conversion as part of their academic curriculum.

The university’s officials responded by saying that the poster was not officially approved although its existence was not denied.

This is the first time that a public university – whether the poster was officially approved or not – has admitted to the practice of asking students who had converted to Islam to register so that certain benefits such as fees assistance, tuition classes, loans and other forms of support could be obtained.

I would like to ask the Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir as to the prevalence of such a practice in public universities.

What about other public universities in the country? If certain elements in UPSI were bold enough to come out with a notice for new converts, is such a practice an official policy of the university?

Whether the notice was approved by UPSI or not, the fact that it was issued seems to indicate concurrence or at least tolerance on the part of the university authorities.

If UPSI was bold enough to come out with such a notice, what about other public universities in the country?

Can Zambry answer this question and other related ones? What is becoming of our public universities?

Are they meant for the pursuit of knowledge, critical inquiry and academic excellence or are they increasingly functioning as institutions that facilitate religious conversion? – June 17, 2026

Exclusive: Iran deal includes $300 billion fund, more than half of which already committed, source says

Exclusive: Iran deal includes $300 billion fund, more than half of which already committed, source says

By Andrew Mills, Maha El Dahan and Parisa Hafezi

June 17, 20263:58 AM GMT+10

Updated 48 mins ago


Summary

• Commitments exceed $150 billion across five regions, says source
• The investment fund vehicle contains no government money
• New fund is separate from frozen asset talks, says source
• Fund only becomes operational after a final U.S.-Iran deal is signed

DUBAI, June 16 (Reuters) - A $300 billion private ​fund designed to trigger investment into Iran is outlined in the U.S.-Iran framework agreement and more than half that sum has already been committed, a source with ‌direct knowledge of the deal told Reuters.
The fund is designed to give both sides an economic incentive to conclude a final deal to end the war, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan has not yet been announced as Washington and Tehran prepare to sign on Friday.

The fund's existence has been previously reported but Reuters is revealing for the first time that more than half of the amount ​has already been committed and that it will be comprised entirely of private-sector funds.

U.S. and Iranian officials said on Sunday they had agreed on a framework to ​end their war, which began when U.S. and Israeli forces attacked Iran on February 28, halt the U.S. blockade of Iran and reopen ⁠the Strait of Hormuz, a key supply route for global oil and gas.

The new fund is a private investment vehicle, not a reconstruction or reparations programme and will not include any ​government money or grants, the source said, adding that companies based in the U.S., the Gulf Arab states, Asia, South America and Africa have agreed to commit financing.

Investments pledged span energy, ​logistics, manufacturing and transport, the source said.

A senior Iranian source told Reuters that Tehran had originally sought $400 billion as compensation for war damages from the U.S. but Washington had said it would not provide it.

The idea for the fund, which is to be named the Reconstruction and Development Fund, then emerged.
The mechanism envisages regional countries contributing in various ways, the Iranian source said. These include securing loans, establishing credit lines or ​directly financing the reconstruction of sites damaged in the war, including facilities such as the Mobarakeh Steel complex, refineries, airports and, more broadly, infrastructure affected by the conflict.

Iran, one of ​the Middle East's largest economies, has attracted almost no significant foreign direct investment in the past four decades, frozen out of global capital markets by successive waves of U.S. and international sanctions.

The country has ‌the world's second-largest ⁠proven natural gas reserves and the fourth-largest proven oil reserves.

It also has a young, educated population of more than 92 million people, a diversified industrial base and significant untapped potential in sectors ranging from petrochemicals and mining to tourism and agriculture.

The investment fund is entirely separate from a parallel negotiating track over the lifting of U.S. sanctions and the release of Iranian sovereign assets frozen abroad, the source with knowledge of the deal said, describing the two as distinct financial mechanisms with different purposes and timelines.
The fund will not be created or become operational until ​a final and satisfactory deal is concluded. The ​memorandum of understanding, once signed, is intended ⁠to structure the process over the next 60 days.

"It'll only be created once the final deal is signed," the source said. "During these 60 days the fund administrators will work with Iranians and investors to plan and scope projects."
Iran's foreign ministry and Pakistan's foreign ministry, which helped ​mediate the investment fund deal, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
A White House spokeswoman pointed to a CBS interview with ​Vice President JD Vance on ⁠Monday in which he said that Iran could gain access to a $300 billion reconstruction fund backed by Gulf states if it complies with an agreement with Washington, including dismantling its nuclear program, eliminating its stockpile of enriched material, and accepting a stringent inspection and enforcement regime.

The source would not say how the fund will be administered or by whom, noting that key details were still ⁠to be worked ​out.
The source named companies from South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia and the United States among those that had ​made commitments, but declined to provide a comprehensive list.

The 60-day memorandum is a framework, not a final agreement, and U.S. and Iranian negotiators are expected to work across multiple tracks during that period covering nuclear, sanctions and regional ​security issues.

Businessperson denies US mansion purchase link, Rosmah lodges police report

Businessperson denies US mansion purchase link, Rosmah lodges police report


Published: Jun 14, 2026 12:10 PM
Updated: 2:10 PM


Businessperson Daing A Malek Daing Rahaman has denied allegations linking him to the purchase of a luxury mansion in Alpine, New Jersey, in the US, which is alleged to have ties to Rosmah Mansor.

The property is reportedly located on Margo Way, an ultra-exclusive enclave in the affluent borough that is home to some of the wealthiest individuals in the US.

The allegations were made by an X user named Mark Lansvin in a video shared on the social media platform.

The viral post, citing unnamed sources, alleged that the property valued at about US$13 million (RM53 million) was purchased on July 30, 2025, at the direction of and using funds provided by Rosmah, the wife of jailed former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak.

It further alleged that Rosmah's son-in-law, Daniyar Kessikbayev, was listed as the buyer.

In response to this, Rosmah's lawyer Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin told Malaysiakini that she has lodged a police report regarding the allegations.

"She has made a police report. It will be circulated soon.

"Report made today," Firoz said when contacted.


Alleged shareholder

The X post also claimed that the property was transferred in May to Daran Investments Capital Inc, a British Virgin Islands-registered company, through a confidential declaration of trust, and alleged that Daing was a shareholder in the company who is listed on record.

It also alleged that US authorities were tracing the money trail through proxies.

Bernama reported that Daing called the allegations “gravely misleading”.

Businessperson Daing A Malek Daing Rahaman


“All the allegations that relate to me in the publication are false, baseless, defamatory and gravely misleading. I categorically, unequivocally and without reservation deny each and every statement in the publication as far as the same are directed at me.

“The allegations against me are wholly untrue. The publication, circulation and recirculation of the false statements are wrongful and have caused serious injury to my reputation, character and personal integrity.

“All persons are placed on notice that the making, publication, republication, forwarding, sharing of the false statements will expose them to legal liability and criminal prosecution,” he was quoted as saying in a statement last night.


Don’t spread allegation

He also reportedly cautioned the public against relying on, repeating or further circulating the allegations, and warned that any continued dissemination would be treated as a further publication of defamatory material.

“I expressly reserve all rights and remedies in law, including the right to commence proceedings against persons responsible for the publication of criminal and defamatory statements.

“I will not hesitate to take necessary action against the perpetrators responsible for the publication and its republication or circulation by whatever means,” he added.

He said a police report has also been lodged, and that investigations, including efforts to identify those responsible for the publication and its circulation, are underway.

Teo slams manipulated poster aimed at scaring non-Muslim voters ahead of Johor polls

The original poster on the right showing Johor DAP’s potential women candidates for the July 11 state election, and the manipulated version on the left showing them wearing the Muslim headscarf. - Teo Nie Ching Facebook, June 17, 2026

Teo slams manipulated poster aimed at scaring non-Muslim voters ahead of Johor polls


Deputy Communications Minister says AI was used to show DAP’s potential female candidates wearing the Muslim headscarf


Scoop Reporters
Updated 3 minutes ago
17 June, 2026
6:07 PM MYT



KUALA LUMPUR — Johor DAP chairman Teo Nie Ching has slammed attempts to tarnish the party ahead of the Johor state election with manipulated photos of its women members wearing the Muslim headscarf.

“There are parties who have deliberately manipulated a poster of Johor DAP’s potential female candidates by making them appear as Muslim women wearing the tudung in a wrong position. The intent is to scare away non-Malay voters, especially the Chinese, from voting for Pakatan Harapan,” she said on Facebook.

She also posted the original poster alongside the manipulated image which has been stamped with the words “AI Edited”.

Teo, who is also Deputy Communications Minister, advised the public not to be influenced by dirty tactics ahead of the Johor election slated for July 11.

“DAP respects all religions, and we understand and are aware that the headscarf as part of Muslim women’s clothing cannot be played with. The dirty tactics of changing the poster pictures are a despicable act that must be rejected,” said the DAP national Women’s chairman.

“Hopefully voters of all races reject this act. Let’s all choose harmony, unity and peace,” she added.

The Johor legislative assembly, which has 56 seats, was dissolved on June 1.

Nomination day ahead of polling will be held on June 27. – June 17, 2026

***

If the photo is of Hannah Yeoh wearing Muslim headscarf, then it's not fake 😂😂😂

Guan Eng slammed for “insulting Islam, testing Muslims’ patience” with Butterworth mega pork sale

Guan Eng slammed for “insulting Islam, testing Muslims’ patience” with Butterworth mega pork sale

WHILE he was showered with praises for his bold idea by his fanbase, DAP adviser Lim Guan Eng has found himself lambasted by the rightist fraternity for disrespecting the nation’s official religion by mooting the so-called Butterworth mega pork sale last weekend (June 14).


Staged for the fourth straight year at the covered basketball court at the Taman Selat Tua Pek Kong Temple in mainland Penang with prior approval of the Seberang Perai City Council, the event in conjunction with the annual Dragon Boat Festival saw some 2,000 porcine consumers literally snatched up 60 swine in two hours.

“Other places don’t want, can’t or don’t even dare to hold pork sales but not Butterworth because we want to prove to everyone that Butterworth folks live with dignity, hence wish to usher in the Dragon Boat Festival with pride,” the four-term Bagan MP penned in a recent Mandarin-only Facebook post.

Lim Guan Eng

on Monday

#既然没有错那就敢敢做
#猪肉大促销60头猪2小时抢空

其他地方不要、不能、不敢办猪肉大促销，但北海敢，因为我们要向大家证明，北海人民活得有尊严，迎接端午节是有尊严的，买猪肉也是有尊严的！

...See more

1.2K

81

63

Although at the beginning there were some opposition voices saying that pork should not be sold in public places, I believe that buying and eating pork is part of the freedom and right of the people.

Therefore, I decided to continue to support such activity with an allocation of RM100,000.

According to Guan Eng, response was encouraging with buyers started queuing up as early as 4.40am.

“A total of 20 stalls participated in selling meat from 60 pigs. The meat was sold at the price of RM10 cheaper per kg than the market price,” enthused the four-term Air Putih state assemblyman.

“Purchase is only open to non-Muslim citizens who possess MyKad with a maximum limit of 4kg per person while pork belly is limited to 1kg per buyer.”


Belittling Islam

But when Malay language news portal MYNEWSHUB featured Guan Eng’s post on its FB page, brickbats of sorts were hurled at the seasoned DAP lawmaker with the post having attracted 6K likes, 4.2K comments and 1.4k shares at the time of writing.

Program Jualan Daging Babi Besar-Besaran Di Tempat Awam Bukti Butterworth Hidup Penuh Maruah - Guan Eng

Oleh Mynewshub

BUTTERWORTH – “Tempat lain mungkin tidak mahu, tidak boleh atau tidak berani menganjurkan promosi besar-besaran daging babi, tetapi Butterworth berani melakukannya.”

...See more

1.1K

3.3K

1.5K

One commenter described the mega pork sale as an activity “that seemingly challenges Muslims in Malaysia at a time when the pig farming issue (is Selangor) is being hotly debated”.

“Now they (DAP) organised a massive pork sale programme in Penang … that’s how DAP always harp on sensitive issues pertaining to Muslims in Malaysia,” berated the presumably PAS loyalist from Kota Bharu.

“We are the ones to decide if there should be another (DAP) Cabinet minister in the Putrajaya government after GE16 (16th General Election).”

Another commenter provoked his brethren with his remark that “the kafir (infidels) will not be satisfied as long as Muslims do not follow their lead”.

One netizen claimed that DAP “has clearly broken the law”. “The open sale of pork is against the law. Action should be taken against the local authority which granted the license,” he hit out.

One commenter contended that “it is within the right of the Chinese to consume as much pork as they wish so long as they rear the hogs in the vicinity of Chinese settlements”.

“Muslims eat beef with cows being farmed close to where Muslims live. Mutton is a favourite of Indians, henceforth goats are reared in the confines of where Indians live,” he justified.

Yet it was lamented that “many Malay Muslims still proudly support DAP”.

The bottom line, as one opposition-slant commenter put is, the days of the Madani government are numbered. – June 17, 2026

Inside the UEC Facebook debate: Who shapes the controversy?

Inside the UEC Facebook debate: Who shapes the controversy?

Azreen Madzlan
Published: Jun 17, 2026 10:00 AM
Updated: 2:17 PM



On Dec 9, 2025, Housing and Local Government Minister Nga Kor Ming announced that DAP would meet Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim to push for federal recognition of the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC).

The announcement quickly reignited a familiar national debate.

Yet this was far from the first time the issue had returned to the political spotlight.

In January 2020, with Pakatan Harapan in the federal government, Nga said DAP would not hesitate to leave the government if the UEC was not recognised, describing the issue as one of the party’s core principles.

Five years later, the certificate once again became the centre of public debate.

This time, the issue resurfaced less than two weeks after DAP suffered a major setback in the Sabah state election. Nga’s remarks at a Chinese independent school fundraising dinner reignited debate over the UEC’s political significance.

Housing and Local Government Minister Nga Kor Ming


A Malaysiakini analysis of 430 public Facebook posts published between December 2025 and mid-June 2026 found that discussion within Malaysia’s BM and English political sphere was driven by a relatively stable group of recurring actors, many of whom appeared across multiple controversies months apart.

While it does not capture the full range of discussion taking place in Chinese-language online spaces, it provides insight into how the UEC becomes a recurring subject of national political debate.


Different triggers, same patterns

To understand why the UEC repeatedly returns to public debate, Malaysiakini analysed 430 public Facebook posts from two major discussion waves between December 2025 and mid-June 2026.

Facebook was chosen because it remains a key platform for political discussion, making it useful for tracking how narratives emerge and spread.

The analysis focused mainly on public posts in BM and English.

While some Mandarin-language posts appeared in the dataset, Chinese-language Facebook discourse was not systematically sampled due to language limitations in the data collection and coding process.

The findings, therefore, reflect how the UEC is discussed within BM- and English-language political networks, rather than a full account of all online discourse on the issue.

Within these networks, the UEC more frequently becomes a subject of national political contestation involving major political parties, advocacy groups, commentators, and media organisations.

This analysis should therefore be understood as an examination of political mobilisation and narrative framing in the BM- and English-language sphere, rather than a measure of overall public opinion on the UEC.

ADS




The first wave followed Nga’s renewed push for UEC recognition in December 2025 and generated 252 posts.

The second followed the Higher Education Ministry’s announcement in May 2026 that UEC and tahfiz graduates could apply to public universities through a pathway requiring credits in SPM BM and History, generating a further 178 posts.

Posts were identified using keywords such as “UEC”, “Dong Zong”, and “tolak UEC” to capture discussion from both supporters and opponents. Each post was manually coded as anti-UEC, pro-UEC, or neutral before undergoing AI-assisted narrative analysis to identify recurring themes and arguments.

Although triggered by different events and separated by several months, both waves produced broadly similar distributions of opinion.

In the first wave, 75.4 percent of posts opposed UEC recognition, while 14.3 percent supported it. In the second wave, anti-UEC content accounted for 71.3 percent, compared with 12.9 percent supporting recognition.

The same voices keep returning

One of the analysis’ most striking findings was how often the same actors reappeared.

Twenty-four individuals, organisations, and media platforms were active in both waves despite the controversies being separated by several months and triggered by different events.

Among them, TV Pertiwi emerged as the single most prolific actor in the dataset. The platform published 46 posts during the first wave and another six during the second, making it one of the few voices to maintain a sustained presence across both periods.

TV Pertiwi is led by chief executive Firdaus Salleh Huddin, a commentator associated with the Muslim advocacy movement Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma).

Responding to Malaysiakini’s findings, Firdaus argued that the recurring controversy reflects the government’s reluctance to take a definitive position on the issue.

“So long as the government does not dare make a final decision on this issue, it will never be resolved,” he said, adding that public pressure often drives official responses.

Beyond TV Pertiwi, the anti-UEC ecosystem brought together a mix of activists, academics, commentators, and political actors.

Recurring figures included Aminuddin Yahaya, Ridhuan Tee Abdullah, Anuar Ahmad, and Eric See-To, alongside a network of political and community-based Facebook pages.

PAS and Perikatan Nasional-linked voices were particularly prominent throughout both waves, suggesting that opposition to the UEC is not sustained by a single organisation but by a broader network that repeatedly activates around the issue.

The pro-UEC coalition is noticeably smaller and more concentrated. Its most visible participants include DAP leaders such as Teo Nie Ching, political analyst James Chin, and Dong Zong - the umbrella body for Chinese independent schools and administrator of the UEC examination.

Unlike the anti-UEC camp, which draws on a wide network of commentators and advocacy-linked actors, pro-UEC mobilisation is more concentrated among political figures and Chinese education organisations.

This concentration reflects the scope of the dataset, which is limited to BM- and English-language Facebook posts and does not systematically sample Chinese-language discourse.


Not really about education

At first glance, the UEC appears to be a debate about educational qualifications.

Issued by Chinese independent secondary schools, the certificate is recognised by universities in countries including Singapore, Australia, the United Kingdom, Taiwan, and China.

Yet education policy occupied only part of the discussion.

READ MORE: KINIGUIDE | A guide to the Chinese schools’ education system in Malaysia

Among anti-UEC actors, the most common themes revolved around race and ethnicity, the BM language, electoral politics, constitutional concerns, and national unity.

Pro-UEC actors focused more heavily on education rights, mother-tongue education, institutional recognition, equality, and government commitments, often framed through promises of policy consistency and equal access.

Opponents tend to frame UEC as an issue of national identity and integration, while supporters frame it as a question of fairness, recognition, and minority rights.

Electoral framing appears frequently across both camps, suggesting that political considerations cut across the debate rather than belonging to one side alone.

Anti-UEC actors often portray the qualification as part of DAP’s political agenda or an appeal to Chinese voters, while supporters frame recognition as a matter of honouring manifesto commitments and government promises.

Taken together, these patterns suggest that the UEC functions less as a technical education issue than as a proxy for broader debates about identity, representation, and nationhood.


Why do these debates keep returning?

If the UEC has become more symbolic than practical, why does it continue to resurface?

Chin argued that the certificate occupies a symbolic position in the Chinese Malaysian community, closely tied to the preservation of Chinese-language education.

Although only a relatively small proportion of students sit for the examination, its significance extends beyond those directly affected.

For many supporters, recognition is no longer primarily about educational access but about cultural and political identity within Malaysia’s multicultural framework.

Political analyst James Chin


“This is really an issue of Chinese Malaysian identity and political recognition of minorities,” Chin said.

Political analyst Mazlan Ali offered a complementary explanation, pointing to the gap between policy arrangements and political perception.

From a policy perspective, he noted that successive governments have created pathways for UEC graduates to access public universities, teacher training institutes, and parts of the civil service through requirements such as SPM BM and History.

“The solution has actually been there for some time,” he said.

However, Mazlan argued that these arrangements have not reduced controversy because the issue is frequently interpreted through the lens of identity, integration, and nation-building.

“When people hear UEC, many automatically view it negatively. They see it as something separate from the national system,” he said.

He added that the controversy endures because the issue has become politically useful to competing actors.

Political analyst Mazlan Ali


“The UEC has become a label that can be used to mobilise nationalism, identity, and ideas about nation-building,” Mazlan said.

“So long as political actors continue to use the UEC for political purposes, the issue will continue to resurface.”


At the centre of identity politics

Across BM and English Facebook discourse, the same actors reappear, familiar narratives resurface, and similar political framings are repeatedly mobilised across different moments of debate.

Within these networks, the UEC functions less as a technical education issue than as a recurring site of political and identity contestation.

While framing in other linguistic communities may place different emphasis on education policy or institutional recognition, the findings show how the issue is articulated within Malaysia’s BM- and English-language political networks, where it most consistently intersects with debates over identity, representation, and nationhood.

As long as these broader questions remain politically salient, the UEC is likely to remain a recurring source of controversy despite changes in policy.