Police to question Kedah MB, Rembau Umno leader over N. Sembilan polls remarks

Police to question Kedah MB, Rembau Umno leader over N. Sembilan polls remarks



Negeri Sembilan police chief Datuk Alzafny Ahmad said police have so far received 11 reports against the Rembau Umno leader, while reports involving Kedah Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor are still being updated. — File picture by Shafwan Zaidon


Summary

• The Kedah Menteri Besar, Datuk Seri Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor, and a Rembau Umno leader are set to be questioned by police regarding their controversial remarks during the Negeri Sembilan state election campaign.
• The Negeri Sembilan police chief, Datuk Alzafny Ahmad, reported that 11 complaints were filed against the Rembau Umno leader, with investigation papers opened under applicable legal provisions.
• Similar procedures are underway concerning Muhammad Sanusi, with the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission assisting in the investigations.
• Muhammad Sanusi's comments, perceived by some as questioning non-Malay citizenship rights, have further fueled the controversy.

By Malay Mail
First Published: Tuesday, 28 Jul 2026 1:33 PM MYT


KUALA LUMPUR, July 28 — Police will call up Kedah Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor and a Rembau Umno leader soon to record their statements over remarks made during the Negeri Sembilan state election campaign.

Negeri Sembilan police chief Datuk Alzafny Ahmad said police have so far received 11 reports against the Rembau Umno leader, while reports involving Muhammad Sanusi are still being updated, Berita Harian reported today.


“Once police received two reports over statements issued by Datuk Seri Sanusi, investigation papers were opened under Section 505(b) of the Penal Code and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.


“We have yet to record his statement and immediate action will be taken,” he told a press conference after inspecting the early voting centre at the Nilai district police headquarters here today.


Alzafny said police had called several witnesses and recorded their statements, while seeking assistance from the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) to support investigations involving the PAS leader.


On the case involving the Rembau Umno leader, who allegedly linked the Negeri Sembilan royal institution with a political party, Alzafny said police had received 11 reports so far.

“Investigation papers have been opened and investigations are being conducted under Section 4A(1) of the Election Offences Act 1954, as well as Section 505(b) of the Penal Code and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.


“Several statements from witnesses who came forward to lodge reports, as well as additional witnesses, have been recorded. We will call this man to continue investigations,” he said.

Last Thursday, Muhammad Sanusi was reported to have said that Malays only have Tanah Melayu, while other races have countries historically associated with their origins.

However, the remarks by the PAS Sik division chief during a Perikatan Nasional (PN) and Barisan Nasional (BN) grand ceramah ahead of the Negeri Sembilan polls sparked controversy after some parties alleged they amounted to an attempt to deny the citizenship of non-Malays.

Sanusi's Tanah Melayu narrative misunderstands Malay history

Sanusi's Tanah Melayu narrative misunderstands Malay history

Tian Chua
Published: Jul 27, 2026 4:22 PM
Updated: 6:44 PM



COMMENT | Kedah Menteri Besar Sanusi Nor’s speech is problematic not simply because his remarks may be perceived as insulting Malaysians of Chinese or Indian descent.

The deeper problem lies in a fundamental misconception of Malay history and identity itself.

I do not intend to label Sanusi’s speech as racist. It was delivered on an election platform, where political figures often use strong language and emotional appeals to mobilise supporters.

A firebrand politician like Sanusi is known for such rhetoric, and sensationalism is expected in political campaigning.

Let us examine his exact words:

“Malays have no other land. Malays only have this Tanah Melayu. Indians have India, Chinese have China, Cambodians have Cambodia, and the Siamese have Thailand. Where do the Malays go? Malays are only here.”

At first glance, this sounds like simple, emotive logic. It is designed to evoke a sense of insecurity and urgency among Malays by suggesting that they must protect their only homeland.

The Kedah menteri besar’s aim is clearly to rally the Malay electorate by framing their rights as tied exclusively to a single, irreplaceable homeland.

There is no doubt that simplicity and emotional intensity are powerful tools for mobilising support.

However, the historical premise behind his argument is seriously flawed - not because it is offensive, but because it distorts historical and anthropological reality.

Clarifying the definition of Malay

From a legal perspective, Malays are recognised as the majority indigenous people of the Malay peninsula, with a special constitutional definition tied to language, culture, the Islamic faith, and customary practices.

Historically, Malays have deep roots in Malaysia and the wider Malay world long before the arrival of European colonial powers. Calling this land Tanah Melayu is largely a matter of semantics; acknowledging this history should not be controversial.

However, recognising the historical and cultural connection between Malays and Tanah Melayu does not mean that Malaysia as a modern nation-state belongs exclusively to one ethnic group.

The Federation of Malaysia was founded through the independence struggle of the peoples of Malaya and Borneo, uniting diverse ethnic communities. Citizenship in the federation is based on allegiance to the Constitution.

All citizens who call this country home are part of the shared national story.

This is why Sanusi’s statement is perceived as provocative: it risks creating the impression that some citizens have a less legitimate claim to belonging than others.

I do not think Sanusi necessarily intended to deny the citizenship of non-Malays or question their loyalty. Rather, his strategy is to invoke emotion by arguing that Malays have no other homeland besides Tanah Melayu.

But this very logic becomes dangerous when it echoes a Zionist-style narrative - the idea that one ethnic group has an exclusive, timeless claim to a land while ignoring centuries of demographic and political evolution.

Assumption of ‘one people, one homeland’

The problem is that this argument relies on an oversimplified understanding of the historical evolution of states and societies.

The most problematic aspect of Sanusi’s narrative is the assumption that every ethnicity naturally corresponds to a single modern nation-state: Chinese have China. Indians have India. Cambodians have Cambodia. Siamese have Thailand.

This sounds intuitive, but it does not reflect historical reality.

Modern nation-states are political creations shaped by centuries of migration, empire-building, colonial boundaries, and socio-economic development. They do not perfectly correspond to ethnic or cultural groups.

China officially recognises itself as a multiethnic state consisting of more than 50 distinct ethnic groups. India is among the most culturally and linguistically diverse nations on Earth.

Cambodia is home to a Khmer majority, but Khmer communities have historically extended into what are now Thailand, Vietnam, Myanmar and Laos. The Tai peoples, meanwhile, founded numerous kingdoms across mainland Southeast Asia that later evolved into the modern states of Thailand (formerly Siam) and Laos.

Even the term “Indian” does not fit neatly into Sanusi’s equation. In the Malaysian context, Indian ethnicity implies various communities with ancestral origins in different parts of the South Asian subcontinent, including areas that today belong to India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.

Therefore, the idea that every people has a single exclusive homeland is historically untenable.

Malay world larger than Tanah Melayu

Sanusi’s fallacious logic only perpetuates ignorance about Malay history.

In truth, Malay identity has never been confined to the borders of modern Malaysia. Throughout history, Malay civilisation developed across a vast maritime region known today as the Malay Archipelago or Nusantara.

The ancestors of the Malays built great polities and kingdoms - Srivijaya, Langkasuka, Malacca, Brunei, Jambi-Riau, and numerous Malay sultanates - whose territories extended far beyond present-day Malaysia.

The legacy of these civilisations laid the foundation for multiple modern nation-states, including Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Singapore, the Philippines and parts of mainland Southeast Asia.

In other words, the homeland of the Malays extends well beyond Tanah Melayu. The division of this wider Malay world into separate political entities was largely a consequence of European colonialism, not intrinsic ethnic destiny.

Therefore, if history is the basis of identity, then Malay history itself demonstrates that the Malay homeland is far broader than Tanah Melayu alone.


Connection to Austronesian heritage

A wider historical perspective reveals an even greater story.

The Malays are part of the broader Austronesian family, a vast linguistic and cultural community whose origins and expansion span several millennia.

The Austronesian-speaking peoples accomplished perhaps the greatest maritime migration in human history.

Over at least 5,000 years, Austronesian seafarers explored and settled a vast area spanning over half of Earth’s circumference, estimated roughly 120 million square kilometres, 30 percent of the Earth’s ocean surface.

They did not merely settle new lands; they built extensive trading networks, spread agricultural and maritime technologies, and nurtured vibrant cultures.

Their reach extended from Taiwan in the north to New Zealand in the south, from Madagascar in the west to Hawaii and Easter Island in the east.

To put this in perspective, the total region is larger than the entire land area of Asia and Africa combined. In terms of inhabited land mass, it is estimated to be the size of India. No other ancient civilisational traditions attained such an immense geographical expanse.

The Malays of Tanah Melayu are inheritors of this incredible civilisational legacy. It is a history of exploration, commerce, and cultural exchange.

The Austronesian pioneers have created a cosmopolitan world characterised by diversity rather than insularity. Malay civilisation is part of this extraordinary heritage.

Malays should take pride in these remarkable achievements, rather than reducing them to a narrow, fearful narrative.

Instead of portraying Malays as a people with nowhere else to go, history tells a far more inspiring story: Malays belong to a great civilisation with deep roots, extensive connections, and illustrious traditions.


Future built on confidence, not fear

Whether one calls it Tanah Melayu or otherwise, this land has been shaped by many histories and communities. It is a country of abundance that thrives best when it embraces diversity and inclusivity. It is unbecoming for politicians to continually stoke fear and hostility in the competition for influence and power.

It is futile for Malaysians of different ethnic backgrounds to quarrel over who belongs here. Successful nation-building requires every citizen to understand their shared responsibility for the future.

Malay heritage deserves recognition and pride. But genuine pride does not require fear of others. A civilisation confident in its own destiny does not need to define itself through exclusion.

With such a rich and brilliant history behind us, we should look forward to building a great country where all citizens, regardless of origin, can call home. That should be the true spirit of our nation, rooted in the history of Tanah Melayu.



TIAN CHUA is former Batu MP.

US walks out of UN Security Council over French envoy’s ‘North Korea’ comparison

US walks out of UN Security Council over French envoy’s ‘North Korea’ comparison



France’s UN Ambassador Jérôme Bonnafont speaks as the United Nations Security Council holds an emergency meeting on the Ukraine-Russia war at UN Headquarters in New York on June 10, 2026. — AFP pic


Summary

• During a UN Security Council meeting, the United States staged a walkout in protest against French comments that likened U.S. positions on human rights to those of North Korea and other authoritarian states.
• Dan Negrea, representing the U.S., criticized France for its "disingenuous grandstanding" and defended the U.S. as a beacon of liberty.
• This incident occurred following a contentious General Assembly vote, where the U.S. stood with countries like North Korea in opposing the extension of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights' term.
• France's ambassador, Jerome Bonnafont, emphasized France's commitment to the UN's role in upholding human rights and peace.

First Published: Tuesday, 28 Jul 2026 10:46 AM MYT


UNITED NATIONS, July 28 — The United States walked out of a UN Security Council meeting Monday when France’s ambassador took the floor, protesting French comments comparing the US to North Korea and other authoritarian states regarding votes on human rights.

Dan Negrea, an alternate representative to the General Assembly and a senior US delegation official, slammed what he called “disingenuous grandstanding” by Paris.


“There is a member of this council that will feign moral outrage and pretend to lecture the rest of us about every topic, whether it’s about the very conflict we’re discussing yet again today, or even those unrelated to international peace and security, like human rights,” Negrea said.


“That is why we walked out during France’s intervention” at the meeting, which focused on the war in Ukraine.


Such a walkout from the Security Council, the UN’s highest decision-making body where both France and the United States are veto-wielding permanent members, is very rare.


On Friday the United States was one of 10 countries to vote in the General Assembly against extending Volker Turk’s term as UN high commissioner for human rights, joining the ranks of North Korea, Russia and Nicaragua, among others.

“The US used to be a beacon of human rights. Not anymore,” France’s mission to the United Nations in Geneva posted in English after Friday’s vote.


“Today, it stands alongside North Korea, Nicaragua, Mali & Russia, isolated. And the world no longer listens to it.”

In his remarks Monday, Negrea said: “I remind them that it is the United States that remains the beacon of liberty for the world. As such, we will not be affording them the benefit of listening to their politicized drivel.”

French Ambassador Jerome Bonnafont responded to the US walkout, saying: “This year we are celebrating the 250th anniversary of the United States. And everyone knows the role France has played in that.”

He said that France is working at the UN, both in the Security Council and the General Assembly, “to preserve this institution, its independence, and its capacity to act in service of the charter, in service of human rights, and in service of peace.” — AFP

Penang monitoring Rohingya settlements after Penaga relocation, says chief minister

Penang monitoring Rohingya settlements after Penaga relocation, says chief minister



Penang Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow speaks to reporters after visiting Mi Equipment in Bayan Lepas, George Town July 28, 2026. — Picture by Opalyn Mok


Summary

• The Penang government is closely observing areas with significant Rohingya populations following the voluntary relocation of 126 individuals from a temporary settlement in Penaga to Kuala Lumpur, where they sought UNHCR assistance.
• Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow clarified that the movement was initiated by the Rohingya community, not through government enforcement, and was facilitated by arrangements from national and local agencies.
• Concerns from local residents about the social and economic impact of the Rohingya community were acknowledged, with Chow emphasizing the importance of compliance with Malaysian laws and proper channels for addressing these issues.
• Additionally, Chow called on UNHCR to monitor the situation due to potential management challenges from increasing refugee numbers.

By Opalyn Mok
First Published: Tuesday, 28 Jul 2026 1:08 PM MYT


GEORGE TOWN, July 28 — The Penang government is monitoring areas with sizeable Rohingya communities following the voluntary relocation of 126 people from a temporary settlement in Penaga, Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow said today.

Chow said the move was not a government enforcement operation, but had been initiated by the Rohingya community, with transport arranged for them to travel to Kuala Lumpur to seek assistance from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).


“At the moment, these operations are not conducted by the government,” he told a press conference after visiting the Mi Equipment factory in Bayan Lepas here.


“In this case, what happened was the people wanted to move and seek assistance from UNHCR, so they left and went over to Kuala Lumpur,” he added.


When asked whether the group had left voluntarily, Chow said he understood that transport had been arranged to facilitate the relocation.


Police previously said the relocation last weekend was assisted and coordinated by the National Unity Department, the state government, the National Security Council, local community representatives and Rohingya representatives.

Chow said the state government was aware of concerns raised by residents over the settlement’s social and economic impact on the surrounding area.


“We have heard from the local residents on their views on the presence of the Rohingya community in their area, which has had an impact on the local social and economic environment,” he said.

“The Rohingya community understood the feelings of the local people and chose to relocate elsewhere,” he added.

Chow said there were several other areas in Penang with Rohingya communities, including parts of Bagan, and that the state government would continue monitoring the situation.

He said complaints about Rohingya settlements were not frequent and were generally channelled through Village Community Management Councils (MPKK) or the police rather than directly to the state government.

Chow also echoed Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s earlier remarks that everyone in the country must comply with Malaysian laws.

“We have laws in this country. We cannot allow actions that affect the lives of the people, obstruct traffic and create other problems,” he said.

“Those who come here must respect the law and use the proper channels.”

Chow said UNHCR should closely monitor the situation, as a further increase in the refugee population could create greater management challenges.

Loke's false premise on DAP's role in Madani

Loke's false premise on DAP's role in Madani

S Thayaparan
Published: Jul 27, 2026 7:00 AM
Updated: 9:52 AM



“Politicians are like bad horsemen who are so preoccupied with staying in the saddle that they can’t bother about where they’re going.”

- Economist and political scientist 

Joseph Alois Schumpeter

COMMENT | In a recent interview, DAP supremo Anthony Loke presented the base and the media with a false premise.

From reportage - “Withdrawing from the Pakatan Harapan pact would mean falling into the trap set by political opponents who ‘do not want the DAP in government’, said Loke, 49, who is also transport minister.”

Leaving Harapan was never an issue. Maybe it should be, but the reality is that rational people have not asked the DAP to leave Harapan because rational people understand that coalition politics is the only avenue we have to influence policy and the direction of this country.

However, some in the base have been asking the DAP to stop participating in Madani, which was exactly the point of the July 12 special congress that the DAP conveniently shelved.

DAP’s role in Madani

Now this false premise may work well for some, but any rational person who knows even a little bit about politics would understand that this is complete bunkum. In fact, what these so-called political rivals want is for DAP to remain in government.

DAP, by remaining in the government, gives the Malay uber alles types all the ammunition they need to engage in race-baiting politics, not to mention blame policy failures, especially when it comes to economic policy failures, as a convenient non-Malay target.

Furthermore, it gives the DAP’s political allies a convenient whipping boy when they want to burnish their race and religion credentials.

I do not think that anyone is seriously advocating for the DAP abandoning Harapan, but many are questioning DAP’s role in Madani.

DAP could still support Anwar but play no role in this Madani sham. Furthermore, Madani has demonstrated that it would throw DAP under the bus when it comes to Malay sensitivities.

DAP representatives have been vilified.

DAP representatives have had police reports made against them.

A DAP representative had his home firebombed.

DAP representatives have been reprimanded by the prime minister of their coalition.

DAP representatives have had to make retractions and apologies.

DAP representatives have been attacked by online mobs, who happen to also be the people who voted for them, and did you see DAP having a hissy fit and threatening to resign from all posts and abandoning Madani?

Have you seen Malay/Muslim coalition partners give genuine support when the DAP has come under these kinds of attacks?

Cost of staying in govt

For the sake of Madani, DAP placed a monetary value on Teoh Beng Hock’s murder. And let us not forget all the other malfeasances that DAP has turned a blind eye to in the name of nation building.

When “Thanos” was transferred, was this nation building?

When the state does not investigate certain cases, is this nation building?

When the state claims there is not enough evidence to prosecute religious provocateurs, is this nation building?

When the police refuse to act on the kidnapping of M Indira Gandhi’s child, the spirit of Teoh is present. When Raymond Koh, Amri Che Mat, Pamela Ling, and others are subject to enforced disappearance, is this nation building?

Or maybe something like the Urban Renewal Act (URA) is the kind of nation building that DAP is into.

From P Gunasegaram’s trenchant piece - “Now, here comes the killer. Under Section 5(2) of the proposed URA, the Federal Executive Committee will have the minister as chairperson. That would be Nga Kor Ming, the rising voice of DAP and a strong advocate of the URA, which property developers love. He would steer the FEC.”

Madani is merely a vehicle for Umno to engineer a reversal of fortune. By giving such prominence to Umno in Madani, the prime minister has allowed Umno to leverage its federal influence and symbiotic relationships with an entrenched civil service to make moves on a state level.

This is why the prime minister is making all sorts of overtures to the civil service and apologises for his harsh tone towards them.

Furthermore, as cabinet members with a huge sway on policy, whatever policy moves that Umno makes are to ensure that it plays into the strategies of state moves, which ultimately is a political war of attrition with Harapan.

By kneecapping DAP, which Madani has done because it is deathly afraid of spooking the Malays, Madani has done a good job at destabilising non-Malay support for DAP, which only benefits Umno and PAS.


Madani’s political gamble

Corruption is not a recent phenomenon; rather, it is part of the DNA of the organism fueled by racial and religious imperatives and a compromised electoral system.

Umno/BN designed the system, and Madani is attempting to replicate it, so any attempt at corrective measures is met by a deluge of propaganda or the spectre of the “Green Wave”.

Remember Perikatan Nasional was briefly in power, and how did that go? With all those really dumb “Langkah, langkahs” (moves), professional charlatans figured out they didn’t even need voting to get into power, and a small shift in voting got them ejected from the halls of power in Putrajaya.

With the way the system is gerrymandered, and the unequal weightage of votes, issues like corruption and competent governance are not exactly the greatest concerns of a majority of rakyat who sustain themselves on entitlement programmes and the delirium of social media.

DAP can remain in Harapan without participating in a government that ultimately strengthens Umno and PAS strategies. Perhaps, when more Malaysians recognise that politics should not simply be about holding office, the conversation can shift.

DAP does not need government positions to support policies that benefit the average rakyat. The real question, then, is whether participation in government is genuinely about nation building - or whether it has become about preserving political power and personal interests.

It is funny; the scrapped July 12 special congress could have been the reset that Malaysia and Harapan needed.

S THAYAPARAN is commander (Rtd) of the Royal Malaysian Navy. Fīat jūstitia ruat cælum - “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”

Pejuang wants BN and Perikatan to oust Pakatan in Negeri Sembilan: What exactly is going on? — Phar Kim Beng

Pejuang wants BN and Perikatan to oust Pakatan in Negeri Sembilan: What exactly is going on? — Phar Kim Beng


Summary

The article discusses Pejuang's strategic decision to ally with Barisan Nasional and Perikatan Nasional in the Negeri Sembilan state election after suffering significant electoral setbacks.

It highlights the risks of a political contradiction when pragmatic alliances compromise a party's identity and how such arrangements may undermine democratic principles by prioritizing tactical cooperation over coherent governance.

The situation poses a crucial test for Malaysian politics, questioning whether opposition parties should align based on shared convictions or simply unite against incumbents.

Ultimately, the legitimacy of these coalitions hinges on voter confidence and judgment in Negeri Sembilan.

First Published: Monday, 27 Jul 2026 1:00 PM MYT


JULY 27 — Politics is often described as the art of the possible. But there comes a point when political pragmatism risks becoming a political contradiction.

Pejuang’s latest decision to campaign alongside the Barisan Nasional (BN)-Perikatan Nasional (PN) understanding in the Negeri Sembilan state election raises precisely that question.


Here is a party that has just suffered one of its worst electoral setbacks, failing to convince enough voters in its own right, yet now seeks to become a decisive influence in determining who governs another state. That deserves careful scrutiny.


Pejuang’s electoral record in recent state elections has been sobering.


Having failed to secure meaningful public support, the party now appears to have concluded that the shortest route back to relevance is not through winning elections but through helping larger coalitions win them.


There is nothing unconstitutional about such a strategy. Politics allows alliances, compromises and tactical cooperation. Yet democracy also requires consistency.

Voters are entitled to ask why a party that could not persuade Malaysians to vote for it should suddenly expect Malaysians to embrace its political judgment on who deserves to govern.


The explanation offered by Pejuang’s leadership, especially Mukhriz Mahathir, is straightforward.



Parti Pejuang president Datuk Seri Mukhriz Mahathir speaks during a Johor state election campaign in Simpang Renggam, February 25, 2022. — Bernama pic



Defeating Pakatan Harapan (PH) has become the overriding objective.

Everything else, including previous reservations about cooperation between BN and PN, has become secondary.

That may be politically understandable.

It is not necessarily politically convincing.

Coalitions are strongest when they are built upon shared principles, common policy platforms and mutual confidence.

They become fragile when they are constructed primarily around defeating a common opponent.

Malaysia has already experienced what happens when governments are formed primarily through convenient electoral configuration rather than coherent governance.

The Sheraton Move in February 2020 remains one of the clearest reminders that parliamentary numbers alone cannot produce political stability.

Governments require trust, legitimacy and a shared governing philosophy.

The BN-PN understanding now emerging in Negeri Sembilan carries precisely this contradiction.

On one hand, leaders insist that cooperation is merely tactical.

On the other hand, every successful tactical cooperation gradually develops its own political momentum.

Today’s electoral accommodation can become tomorrow’s permanent coalition. Political history demonstrates that temporary arrangements often outlive their original purpose.

That is precisely why Negeri Sembilan matters.

The state is not merely choosing its next government.

It may also become a testing ground for a broader political architecture leading into the next general election.

Pejuang appears willing to play the role of facilitator in this experiment despite having received little electoral endorsement of its own.

This creates an unusual democratic paradox.

Normally, political influence follows electoral strength.

Here, electoral weakness is attempting to translate itself into coalition influence. There is another risk.

By aligning itself so closely with larger partners, Pejuang risks losing what remained of its distinct political identity. A political party cannot indefinitely define itself by whom it opposes.

Eventually, voters will ask what it stands for, what policies it champions and why it deserves representation independent of larger coalition partners.

Political relevance cannot permanently be borrowed. It must eventually be earned.

This is particularly true in Malaysia’s increasingly sophisticated political environment, where voters have shown themselves willing to punish parties they perceive as inconsistent or overly opportunistic.

For BN and PN, the calculation is equally delicate.

Every additional supporter may appear useful in the short term.

Yet every additional partner also introduces new expectations, competing priorities and potential disagreements after the election.

Malaysian politics has repeatedly demonstrated that winning together is often easier than governing together.

The Negeri Sembilan election therefore carries implications beyond its 36 state seats.

It represents a referendum on whether opposition politics in Malaysia should be driven primarily by coherent alternatives or by anti-incumbent configuration.

Neither approach guarantees success.

But only the first offers a durable foundation for governing.

Ultimately, the decision rests not with Pejuang, BN or PN.

It rests with the voters of Negeri Sembilan.

They must decide whether coalitions built upon shared conviction deserve greater confidence than coalitions assembled primarily to remove another government.

Political parties may negotiate among themselves.

Only the people can confer legitimacy.

And in any democracy, legitimacy remains the one electoral deposit that no political party can afford to lose.

* Phar Kim Beng is a professor of Asean Studies and a director at the Institute of International and Asean Studies, International Islamic University Malaysia.

So-called Western Democracy

 

‘Stupid and foolish’: Kim Jong Un’s sister unleashes on Asean over ‘denuclearisation’ call

‘Stupid and foolish’: Kim Jong Un’s sister unleashes on Asean over ‘denuclearisation’ call



US Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrives for the 16th East Asia Summit Foreign Ministers’ Meeting on the sidelines of the Asean Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Pasay, Metro Manila on July 23, 2026. — AFP pic


Summary

In response to ASEAN's call for a denuclearized Korean Peninsula, Kim Yo Jong, the influential sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, criticized the Southeast Asian bloc for what she termed a "stupid and foolish" stance.

ASEAN, during its recent regional forum, voiced concern over North Korea's ongoing nuclear activities and emphasized the need for dialogue to achieve peace and stability.

North Korea insists on its right to maintain nuclear weapons, a position enshrined in its constitution, despite UN sanctions.

Kim Yo Jong accused ASEAN of acting as a mouthpiece for the US and reiterated North Korea's irreversible commitment to its nuclear program.

First Published: Monday, 27 Jul 2026 9:11 AM MYT
Last Modified: Monday, 27 Jul 2026 9:30 AM MYT


SEOUL, July 27 — The powerful sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un attacked the bloc of Southeast Asian nations on Monday for seeking a denuclearised Korean peninsula, blasting the position as “stupid and foolish.”

At its annual regional forum last week, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) expressed “grave concern” over Pyongyang’s ongoing nuclear weapons development and stressed the importance of dialogue “to realise lasting peace and stability in a denuclearised Korean Peninsula.”


North Korea has long insisted on its right to nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programmes, although they are forbidden under the terms of UN Security Council sanctions. It enshrined its nuclear status in its constitution in 2023.


Kim’s sister Kim Yo Jong said in a statement carried by state news outlet KCNA that she expressed “strong dissatisfaction with the forum’s undisguised hostile attitude of going along with the US trumpeting about ‘denuclearisation’” and ignoring North Korea’s constitution.


“It is a failure in strategic thinking and logic and a manifestation of a stupid and foolish wild dream to still adhere to the ‘denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula’ which had already lost its meaning conceptually and practically,” she said.


Asean should guard against “being misused as a hired mouthpiece for the US,” she added.

In June, Kim Yo Jong – a key player in the North’s communications and foreign policy – said in a statement that North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme is “the line of no retreat”.


Pyongyang has repeatedly declared itself an “irreversible” nuclear state since Kim Jong Un’s 2019 summit with US President Donald Trump collapsed over the scope of denuclearisation and sanctions relief. — AFP

MESSING UP THE HOSPITALS

 

OutSyed The Box

Sunday, July 26, 2026

MESSING UP THE HOSPITALS

KSN directed immediate measures to address critical issues at PPUM
called for a meeting to discuss the matter
PPUM is a teaching hospital
immediate action on decisions reached 
discussion involved MOHE, MOH, the VC of UM and PPUM admin
policy-related issues arising from public complaints
including long waiting times
challenges in delivery of clinical services
issues related to skilled manpower and specialist expertise
— Bernama

MY COMMENTS: 

First of all the Vice Chancellor will not know anything about managing a hospital. Managing a hospital and managing a university are two different things. So they are asking a teacher to manage patients, doctors, nurses, treating the sick. This idea of teaching hospitals is of course a tried and true system since modern medicine was invented. 

But it does not mean they cannot screw it up. However today in Malaysia not only teaching hospitals but too many government hospitals are facing too many "challenges". 

Firstly the acute shortages of doctors and specialists is a direct result of the really stupid and way past shelf life ketuanan policies where numbers of doctors are still subject to some quota number stuck on somebody's wall. So now we all pay the price. And the price paid by the politicians is that you will get kicked out again and again at the next polls. Its as simple as that.

Then there is not enough money to pay for all the medical services. The gomen just announced that they are cutting RM3.0 billion from medical services.  Report: Treasury Wants RM3b Cut To Health Ministry’s 2026 Budget By CodeBlue | 29 April 2026

Despite no money there is wastage / leakage in procurement, building new facilities, follow through services etc. Building new facilities is crucial. The gomen must build even more facilities. But the wastage and the leakages occur through overpricing, who gets the construction contracts and things like that. Old ketuanan style. Nothing has changed. 

I know one gomen hospital where they would tell some classes of patients that their medication would be delivered to their houses - for free. Wow! I know because I  was a beneficiary.  So someone must benefit (projek dan kontrak)  from  getting the contract to deliver the meds to peoples' houses. There must be thousands of home deliveries. 

Lately they have changed this a little. I must pay a fee of RM10.00 if I want them to send the meds to my house. (You can also pick up the meds at the hospital pharmacy but you may have to wait - sometimes for hours). So I pay RM10 and the guy sends the meds to my house. But  I live 40 km away and I can assure you the cost of the delivery will be more than RM10.00. Even the packaging itself is expensive. First there is a cold pack for some meds, then they pack it inside sterile plastic, sometimes there is styrofoam and then the whole thing is put inside a nice cardboard box.  And it must be delivered by car with air conditioning. All this costs money.  Then toll, petrol plus the delivery driver's salary. I used to tell them, "Look I am already here let me pick up my medication from the pharmacy". They will say, 'Takpa Encik. You go home. We will send it to your house'.  As I said someone has to benefit, someone makes money from the projek dan kontrak to provide the delivery services. This is wastage.  And they want to cut RM3.0 billion from the medical services budget. 

Back to the UMMC issue.

The oldest teaching hospitals in Europe are hundreds of years old.  In Holland the Dutch University Medical Centre (UMC) system is a distinctive model in which the medical school, teaching hospital, specialist care, and biomedical research are integrated into a single institution. Rather than a university merely being affiliated with a hospital, the hospital and medical faculty operate as one organisation.

Perhaps this is the model they are trying to establish here. But it will not work as well here. (I have a suggestion). Here the culture is different. Here they are not as professional. Here, regardless of the very high qualifications, the staff still behave like kampong people.  I get really irritated when the doctor refuses to talk or even smile at me. And then you have the village idiots who gossip with the other staff about personal matters, while treating the patient. As though the patient is a nuisance and they are doing you a favour. And I have seen the staff at hospitals play with their smartphones instead of attending to the patients. So the professionalism is lacking. It is still kampong behaviour. 

But not all. The pharmacists, nurses and staff who went out of their way to assist me. But these were individual examples of par excellence.  It is not built into the system. The system as a whole does not guarantee excellence. It is almost random. Like it must be your lucky day. Or not your lucky day. 

Believe me I dont expect the KSN or the KSUs to understand all this. Too much reading on a Sunday. Or on any day. Retirement is close anyway.

Here is my suggestion: place the administration of all the teaching hospitals (staffing, procurement, maintenance etc) under the Ministry of Health. Create a department - Department of Teaching Hospitals. WHY? Because the MOH are the content experts. Or they shud be. They know best how to own, operate/manage and maintain a hospital.  The universiti VCs do not have the skills to manage hospitals.

All staffing, procurement, maintenance, ops shud be under the MOH - like any other hospital. Except the teaching and the curricula part should be left to the medical faculty of the university that is affiliated with that hospital. Plus the university shud have an input on the selection, promotion etc of the teaching staff. Leave the rest to the MOH.

The UMMC is not the only teaching hospital that has problems. The problems become more acute when these outfits become 'semi-privatised'. This means they start behaving like private hospitals and charge the patients very high fees. How exhorbitant? RM10,000 for an angiogram, RM40,000 if a stent is also involved  (but that was NOT a teaching hospital - just a gomen hospital turned 'semi-private'.) 

I think these gomen hospitals turned semi-private are getting carried away. They charge so much money, like many of the other predatory private hospitals we have in the country. The difference is the gomen hospital was set up using MY MONEY!! I already paid for the building of the hospital, for the doctors and nurses salaries, for the medicines etc. You use my money to build a hospital and to pay yourselves salaries and then you charge me money again - for the second time.

So what is the final outcome of all this? Kick them out. I am not going to vote for these idiots. Just kick them out.  Negeri Sembilan is coming up in SIX days. KICK THEM OUT.

MUST WATCH: THE MALAYAN EMERGENCY

 

OutSyed The Box

Saturday, July 25, 2026

MUST WATCH: THE MALAYAN EMERGENCY

 

MY COMMENTS:  I  have a collection of books about the Malayan Emergency, which I have read. I totally disagree with the story surrounding the Emergency. The Malayan Emergency was not what we have been told about. 

In 1945 after the end of World War 2 Britain was almost bankrupt. During the postwar reconstruction which began almost immediately  there was a boom in raw materials, including rubber and tin.  The rubber estates and tin mines in colonial Malaya began churning profits for British commercial interests as well as tax revenues for the British Crown. In no time Malaya was the single largest revenue earner for the entire British Empire. Then in 1946 Dato Onn organised all the Malays, he torpedoed the idea of the Malayan Union, he established UMNO and immediately began agitating for Malayan independence. The Independence movement picked up steam quite quickly. This made the British very uncomfortable. 

And - more importantly - on 17 August 1945 Soekarno had declared independence for Indonesia. Which resulted in the Indonesian War of Independence which lasted for FOUR years until the Dutch gave up and withdrew in 1949. There was serious fighting in Indonesia but there were no Dutch soldiers to do any fighting. Because the Dutch had lost Indonesia to the Japanese, Holland had been occupied by the Germans and there was no more Dutch colonial influence. So after the Japanese surrender, the British who had landed about 100,000 troops  to reoccupy Malaya and Singapore  offered to help the Dutch regain Indonesia. (Very white and neighbourly colonials).

British troops from Malaya were sent to Indonesia to fight Soekarno. The British Royal Air Force took off from air bases in Singapore, Johor, Melaka to bomb Indonesia. The British did not do all that for free.  The British secured concessions from the Dutch to exploit oil and gas deposits in Indonesia. Plus other goodies of course. 

Because the British seriously needed the colonial revenues to help prop up London.  Then in 1946 Dato Onn Jaafar was very successful in organising the Malays to defeat the Malayan Union, he founded UMNO in 1946 as a 'united Malays national organisation' and he wanted independence for Malaya - all this in 1946.

The British had a major trump card in their pocket - the single supreme leader of almost all the Communist organisations in Malaya at that time was a British secret agent. At that time 1945 - 1948 there were the:

Communist Party of Malaya (CPM / MCP)

Malayan People's Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA)

Malayan People's Anti-Japanese Ex-Service Comrades' Association (MPAJA Ex-Service Comrades' Association)

Malayan Democratic Union (MDU) – not a communist party, but worked closely with the CPM in the constitutional struggle.

Pan-Malayan Federation of Trade Unions (PMFTU) – communist-dominated.

New Democratic Youth League – CPM youth front.

Women's Federation – CPM women's front.

Min Yuen – underground civilian support organisation.

Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA - mentioned in the video)

etc etc. (The list is not exhaustive).

The name of the supreme leader was the Vietnamese Chinese Loi Tek. Also known as:

• Loi Tek / Loi Teck
• Lai Tek
• Lai Teck
• Lai Te
• Loi Tak
• Mr. Wright (or simply Wright)
• Light (sometimes used in English sources)
• Chang Hung (also rendered Chang Hong) (who signed the Blantan Agreement)
• Wong Kim Geok
• Lee Soong
• Vietnamese names attributed to him
• Phạm Văn Đắc
• Hoàng A Nhạc (also written Hoang A Nhac)
• Nguyễn Văn Long (reported by Leon Comber)
• Lai Rac
• Trương Phước Đạt (or Truong Phuoc Dat) – before he appeared in Malaya in 1936.
• Other reported aliases
• Wong Siu-tong
• Lao Wu Huang
• Huynh Kim Ngoc
• Ly Minh Son
• Huang Kuo-
• Total number of aliases
• Japanese historian Yoji Akashi and later researchers have suggested that Lai Teck may have used more than 50 aliases during his career as a communist organizer and intelligence agent.
• His many identities reflected his extraordinary career as a triple agent, successively serving the French Sûreté, the British Special Branch, the Japanese Kempeitai, while simultaneously rising to become Secretary-General of the Communist Party of Malaya.

Then in March 1947 the British informed their master spy Lai Tek that his cover had been blown. So on 6 March 1947 Lai Tek escaped to Singapore and beyond. He also emptied the funds belonging to the Communist Party.  The Communists in Malaya were totally embarrassed, insulted and made fools of. The British had totally played them like playing a guitar. 

Just over 15 months later on 16 June 1948, the Communists launched those revenge attacks against the British planters in Sungei Siput in Perak and killed  Arthur Walker,  John Allison and Ian Christian.

Two days later on 18th May 1948 the British declared the Malayan Emergency. The young woman in the video Prof Rachel Leow, professor of History at Cambridge University raises the question (and the doubts) why did the British have to declare a state of Emergency over the whole country over the shooting of three planters in just one area Sungei Siput, Perak?  She says it was such a disproportionate response for the British to despatch 40,000 British troops to Malaya, organise 250,000 Home Guardsmen and mobilise another 60,000 Commonwealth troops over the death of three British rubber planters. It was not an all out shooting war by the Communists. It was just a Communist hit squad that was sent to shoot those planters. 

Well we can argue till the cows come home. But once the Brits declared the Emergency in 1946 the whole idea about Independence, Dato Onn's ground work was all pushed to the back burner for another 11 years.    British revenues were intact for another 11 years - until 1957.

And why did the British agree to our Independence in 1957? Again it was money. After the end of the Korean War in 1954, the rubber prices had crashed. There was an economic slowdown around the world. Colonial revenue from Malaya was also affected. The British had to fork out money to pay the salaries of Civil Servants in Malaya. So they cut us loose and "gave" us independence on 31 August 1957.

Chin Peng said Lai Tek was killed by his communist comrades in Bangkok.  When I was in school in Ipoh (early 1970s) I positively remember the Straits Times carrying a news report that Lai Tek the British agent had escaped to London.