JAPANESE DUMPLING TAUNTING CHINESE DRAGON

 

OutSyed The Box

Wednesday, December 10, 2025

JAPANESE DUMPLING TAUNTING CHINESE DRAGON

 

 

China's carrier borne Shenyang J15 fighter jets. Based on Russian Su33 and Su27. 

 

Last Saturday there was an "incident" off the island of Okinawa. The Chinese Navy was conducting aircraft carrier drills in the South China Sea. A few Japanese fighter jets (F15s) showed up and buzzed around the Chinese carrier Liaoning. 

Chinese J15 fighters from the Liaoning promptly approached the Japanese jets and 'lit them up' with their radar. The Chinese jets  achieved a 'radar lock' on the Japanese. A 'radar lock' actually means a 'weapons lock'. The Chinese air-to-air missiles were locked onto the Japanese aircraft. The Chinese pilots only needed to press the Fire button and the Japanese jets would have been blown out of the sky.

The Japanese jets immediately backed off and left the area. 

 

"China reveals radio communication heard before mid-air stand-off with Japanese fighter jets.  State broadcaster CCTV released the clip as evidence to show that a warning was issued and confirmed before the incident took place".
 

This is yet another incident since the new Japanese PM Sanae Takaichi took office in October 2025. During her recent visit to the ASEAN Summit in Malaysia Takaichi made a controversial visit to the Japanese war graves to honour Japanese troops who invaded Malaya during the Second World War. After that (to balance things off) she also visited Malaysia's National Monument to honour Malaysians who died in the wars. Takaichi is a bit of a screw up.

Here is another short video from two years ago. A NATO FA18 fighter appeared and flew alongside President Putin's airplane (which was enroute somewhere). That was clearly an act of provocation because it was an official flight carrying the president of the Russian Federation. 

Anyway a Russian SU27 fighter pops up and aggressively chases away the NATO jet.  They like to provoke and keep things stirred up. Never poke a bear. A dragon can breathe fire and burn you to a crisp. The dragon can also whip its tail.

 

 

 

ORANG PUTIH CANCEL BAN ON PETROL CARS, POSTPONE GLOBAL WARMING. THEY ARE SUFFERING LOSSES.

 

OutSyed The Box

Wednesday, December 10, 2025

ORANG PUTIH CANCEL BAN ON PETROL CARS, POSTPONE GLOBAL WARMING. THEY ARE SUFFERING LOSSES.

Europe cancels ban on petrol engines in 2035 

 

JAKARTA – EU softened ban of internal combustion engine (ICE) cars by 2035.

• strong pressure from automotive industry
• inadequate EV infrastructure
• high electric vehicle prices
• potential loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs 
• prompted review of the policy
• greatest pressure came from Germany
•  combustion engines still allowed after 2035 

OSTB: Here are some comments by a friend of mine who is a CEO of a company:

• I knew this would happen. I knew they would influence Brussels.
• White man bullshit. Now that they can't win against China, they change the rules.
• So climate change is no longer as important as before. 😆 
• White people's jobs and prosperity are more important.
• The world has always been fooled by Britain, Europe and the US.

China's rise as a world economic superpower is the best thing that happened in this last decade. And the US and Europe's decline can't come quick enough.

• But seriously, can you imagine what the white man (the usual troublemakers - US, Britain, Europe) would do to the rest of the world if China didn't win this EV war? 
• Or if China didn't have the stranglehold on Rare Earth Elements (deposits and refining) which are critical for EVs, magnets and weapons? 
• And if China was weak like before? 
• And if the white man holds all the EV technology and manufacturing (and leave crumbs like assembly to countries like Malaysia)?

• The rest of the world would be forced to buy their EVs at very high prices. 
• And they would continue to dictate the rules in the name of climate action (not just on EV but EVERY DAMN THING) that will strangle emerging economies.

All this falls under the field of study called *"political economy"*.

When they (especially US) want your resources they tell u that the following are important: "free trade", "trade liberalization", "open markets", "comparative advantage", "global integration", "good governance".

But when the shoe is on the other foot, n they want to bend towards protectionism, they preach "resource security", "supply chain security," "strategic autonomy", "national security", "critical minerals", "critical technologies", "de-risking" and "levelling the playing field" (used for tariffs n subsidies).

Either way, *it's all white man bullshit that only serves their interest.*

OSTB: Couldnt have said it better.

So how now to all the Malaysian brown-cows who have been parroting the global warming, zero carbon bullshit?

We have embarked on that really useless and gargantuan stupidity carbon sequestering project. Price tag: About RM4.5 Billion. Taxpayer funded. Public funds. Big money for the contractors, consultants and commission agents.

Now the orang putih have postponed global warming, they have postponed Zero Carbon, they have just postponed every damned thing they have been forcing upon the unthinking Asiatic brown-cows.  (Err..to avoid confusion I am referring to YOU dear reader).

This 'no plastic bags' at the supermarket is really irritating. But its weird. In some places they charge you 20 sen for each plastic bag.

So does this mean if you pay extra 20 sen per plastic bag, then global warming is neutralised?  Hello Asiatic brown-cows can you please answer?

Then thank Allah that when you go to the pasar malam, the nasi lemak lady in the morning etc they still give you plastic bags. As well as the guys who sell fish and vegetables at the wet market.

Imagine the guy at the wet market handing you the ikan tenggiri in your hand. 'Sorry no more plastic bags'.  

Hello Asiatic brown-cows, hello Yeo Bee Yin can you please wake up?  

NATO Corruption Scandal Triggers Israeli Arms Contracts Cuts

 

NATO Corruption Scandal Triggers Israeli Arms Contracts Cuts – Media

 

Multiple NATO-Israel arms contracts have been suspended over a massive bribery scandal in the heart of the US-led military bloc’s buying section that has already triggered multiple arrests across Europe, several investigative media outlets have reported.

The scandal has exposed a shadowy network of private operators exploiting a revolving-door system that allows former NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) staff to become consultants in the defense industry, where they flourish in “the new geopolitical situation” as a result of “the explosion in European defense budgets,” according to La Lettre.

The NSPA has been forced to suspend multiple contracts with Israel’s largest weapons producer, Elbit Systems, over mounting evidence that the Israeli company used a former NSPA staff member to bribe ex-colleagues to secure deals for the company.

A 60-year-old Italian national, Eliau Eluasvili, has been on the run since late September, when a Belgian court issued an international arrest warrant for him. The decision was made over the summer in response to a multi-nation investigation into brivery allegations, with new details revealed on Monday by La Lettre, Le Soir, Knack, and Follow the Money. – RT

Our Take: So now the web of Ukrainian corruption has expanded to include Israel.

This development tracks with what we know about the relationship between the IDF and the Azov Battalion, with the former providing the latter with Israeli-made Tabor rifles. Not to mention the fact that several high-profile militia leaders in Ukraine (not just the Azov Battalion) are former IDF officers.

Two weeks ago, Colonel Macgregor stated in multiple interviews that there are plans to evacuate Ukrainian officials to Israel, and due to their Jewish heritage, they will be granted citizenship and protected from war-crime prosecution by the Israeli government, which rarely ever extradites its citizens for any reason.

Remember that senior Israeli cyber-security official who was arrested in Las Vegas for attempted pedophilia? The one who was allowed to leave the country and return to Israel on the promise that he would return for his arraignment? He still hasn’t returned.

In addition to guided mortars, communications equipment and microchips, among other things, Elbit Systems is most known for their aerial drones and other unmanned autonomous vehicles— which have become notoriously used by the Ukrainian military, including in an attempted assassination attempt against Vladimir Putin.

If these Ukrainian officials do flee to Israel, that will bring Netanyahu into direct confrontation with Putin, who will surely demand that these war criminals face justice. [Clip Link] – 

GhostofBasedPatrickHenry

Police stations are not houses of worship and must stop acting like them

Police stations are not houses of worship and must stop acting like them

By KT Maran
1 hour ago






OVER recent years a quietly worrying trend has been taking shape across Malaysia: police stations, once understood as civic institutions for law enforcement and public safety, are increasingly being treated—and treating themselves—as moral arbiters.


In practice this shift means that matters of private conscience, personal identity and cultural expression are being policed in ways that belong neither to criminal law nor to plural, democratic governance.


The result is an erosion of public trust, a chilling effect on marginalised communities, and a blurring of the line between the legitimate functions of the state and the territory of the heart and spirit.

At its best, policing is about protecting life, preventing harm and upholding the rule of law. At its worst, it can be an instrument for social control exercised according to majority tastes, moral panics or political convenience.

When a place charged with enforcing statutes becomes a venue for adjudicating morality—whether around attire, sexual orientation, religious practice or lifestyle—we must ask: to whom does the state answer, and whose dignity is being sacrificed in the name of order?


Many Malaysians will recognise the scenario when a member of the public is summoned or stopped because of how they present themselves or what they said on social media.

The encounter that follows is often not limited to checking paperwork or ensuring public safety. Instead, the person is questioned or lectured about morality, or even pressured to conform to normative expectations.

The consequences are concrete and harmful; for individuals, being subjected to moral assessment at a police station can be humiliating, frightening and damaging to livelihood and reputation.

It discourages people from reporting crimes, seeking help or cooperating with law enforcement. Women, LGBTQ+ people, religious minorities and the economically marginalised are especially vulnerable to these dynamics.

For institutions, it corrodes the legitimacy of policing. A police force that is seen as judging morality rather than protecting safety risks losing the consent of the governed. Once trust is lost, cooperation evaporates and effective policing becomes far harder.

For society, conflating legal enforcement with moral arbitration undermines pluralism. Malaysia’s Federal Constitution enshrines freedom of religion and certain liberties; the Rukun Negara calls for tolerance and harmony.

A policing culture that overrides these principles in practice weakens the social compact that holds a multi-ethnic, multi-religious nation together.

Consider the difference between a disturbance that endangers others and a private behaviour that offends some sensibilities: The former is a legitimate target for police action; the latter is usually a matter for social persuasion, religious counsel, or civil remedies.

When police intervene in the latter realm, they are stepping outside their institutional competence.

Public debates about morality are healthy when they take place in churches, mosques, temples, assemblies and the media. They are not healthy when the coercive apparatus of the state is the main forum for moral instruction.

Clearer operational guidelines must be in police manuals and standard operating procedures must clearly distinguish between criminal conduct and private moral choices. Guidance should be given on when interviews are appropriate, how to treat vulnerable persons, and when to refer matters to non-police agencies.

Training in human rights and cultural competence will reduce discretionary mistakes and equip officers to handle sensitive encounters with dignity. Training should emphasise procedural fairness, non-discrimination and the protection of vulnerable witnesses.

Stronger oversight and complaints mechanisms must be activated. Independent civilian oversight bodies with accessible complaint procedures would deter moralising behaviour and provide redress when it occurs. Transparency about investigations into alleged misconduct will rebuild public confidence.

Legal clarity and legislative reform in ambiguous or overly broad statutes that invite moral policing should be reviewed. Laws should target demonstrable harm, not private conduct that causes moral discomfort to some.

Policing requires humility. Officers are empowered with the state’s coercive force and must therefore exercise that power with restraint and respect for human dignity.

Moral leadership in a plural society comes not from enforcement alone but from institutions that protect rights while enabling citizens to debate and persuade one another freely.

When a police station starts to feel like a house of worship—a place where people are expected to conform to a single moral vision—everyone loses.

The believer who expects sanctuary from the state is disappointed; the sceptic who expects impartiality is betrayed. Malaysia’s strength lies in its ability to live with difference. Protecting that strength requires institutions that treat citizens as rights-bearing individuals, not as subjects to be moulded.

If Malaysia is to remain a society where debate is robust, institutions fair, and citizens secure, then the public sphere must be reclaimed from moral policing. Police stations must be re-cast firmly as places that investigate harm and keep the peace—not as tribunals of taste.

That re-casting will take political will, institutional reform and a renewed commitment to constitutional principles. But the alternative—a persistent blurring of lines between law and morality—will only deepen division, erode trust, and make all of us less safe.

In a healthy democracy, houses of worship remain houses of worship; police stations remain places of public safety. The guardians of order must remember which is which. ‒ Dec 10, 2025



KT Maran is a Focus Malaysia viewer.

A case of overzealous security guard crying foul over woman’s “jacket collar exposure being too big”

A case of overzealous security guard crying foul over woman’s “jacket collar exposure being too big”






FRESH from the hemline fiasco at Melaka’s Jasin police station where a young lady was asked to change her attire before being allowed to lodge a police report, comes another dubious attempt to enforce a dress code that smacks of over-zealousness.


This time the incident was at the Kuala Lumpur Court Complex in Jalan Duta.

Ramesh Rajaratnam

on Monday

Last Friday, I had a court appointment at the Duta courts.

As usual, all entrants are screened for security purpose, usually by RELA personnel.

When Weiling Ho entered, initially the RELA said her jacket collar exposure was too "besar" and couldn't enter unless she covered up. WL countered that there was nothing "besar" to show. The officer then sought confirmation from a higher officer who said it was fine and allowed. 

...See more

332

72

39

Recounting the incident from last Friday (Dec 5) on his Facebook feed, former executive deputy chairman of Malaysian Merchant Marine Bhd Datuk Ramesh Rajaratnam who had gone to that venue for an appointment pointed out the usual procedure where RELA personnel screened all entrants for security purposes.

However, he noted that communications specialist Weiling Ho was prevented from entering the building.

Ramesh recalled: “When Weiling Ho (WL) entered, initially the RELA (guard) said her jacket collar exposure was too “besar” (big) and couldn’t enter unless she covered up.

“WL countered that there was nothing “besar” to show. The officer then sought confirmation from a higher officer who said it was fine and allowed (her in).”

Feeling the need to interject, Ramesh approached the RELA personnel to admonish her for attempting to force her personal values onto others:

“Noticing the commotion, I walked over to the first RELA officer and queried her initial objection. I told her ‘jangan kau cuba memperislamkan pakaian di mahkamah ini. Siapa kata pendapat kamu adalah betul?’(literally, ‘Don’t try to Islamisise dress code in this court. Who says your opinion is right?’)

“She just sulked and didn’t look at me.”

Little Napoleons on the prowl

The obviously non-plussed poster added: “This is how the little Napoleons get braver by the day because most of us don’t argue back. Someone has to stop this creepy, oops creeping, theocratisation of the system.

“Otherwise, we all will be walking around with dark tents over our body.”

The post has generated 328 likes, 125 comments and 37 shares at time of writing with many commenters echoing the same sentiments expressed by the poster.

Referencing the Jasin police station incident, one commenter highlighted the inconvenience such dress codes place upon members of the public.



Highlighting the ridiculousness of such dress codes, one commenter pointed out that she was denied entry into a court hearing for donning a skirt deemed too short.

She was allowed in after an argument with the security personnel but she was non-plussed that informal attire such as long jeans and T-shirts were allowed but not a formal dress.



The perception was that the holier-than-thou types were trying to force their beliefs unto others with this observer pointing out that Malaysia is very different from countries like Saudi Arabia.



This apparent need to follow Arab-style dressing and customs was also a point of contention for some commenters.

However, one commenter begged to differ by claiming that there is no flaw with the dress code given “it was made to respect each other while doing business”.

“If your house you put a rule no smoking in your house but somebody doesn’t care about it and smoke in your house, would you be happy to let somebody smoke? Please respect the law as it was not imposed because of culture but rather for modesty,” he countered.



At any rate, one lady confessed that she no longer bothers arguing with such security personnel over dress codes as she has to “dress conservatively” anyway since she is in her 60s.



It was also sarcastically suggested that wearers of short-skirts pay less taxes since their civil rights are being affected.



Others though applauded the poster’s stance in telling off the RELA personnel for imposing her worldview onto others.



Some commenters argued this was the best way to keep Little Napoleons in check while another claimed she deliberately dons a saree to government departments to provoke an argument on the subject of dress codes.



Though some may argue that these dress codes have been in place for some time already and it really isn’t that big a deal to adhere to them, the point being highlighted by the case above (as well as the Jasin police station incident), is that it is being taken to extremes.



It is not just a case of inconveniencing tax-paying citizens but also forcing ultra-conservative values onto others which is NOT taken kindly to. – Dec 10, 2025