Tuesday, January 20, 2026

Trump is trying to pressure UK by going hostile on Chagos

Thanks MF


Post

Conversation


Trump detonating series of bombshells on Truth Social overnight: leaking private messages from President Macron, posting image of Canada and Greenland as part of the US and going all out on PM Starmer and UK by calling the Chagos deal an ‘act of great stupidity’, and opening him up to attacks from opposition MPs long-opposed to the deal. Been speaking around government this morning to get a sense of what the hell is going on after the PM yesterday sought to reiterate the UK’s position on Greenland while also trying to de-escalate, stressing the strong relationship, dodging the matter of retaliatory tariffs (although not ruling it out) and avoiding any incendiary language adopted by other leaders clearly fed up with Trump. What’s clear is a sense that Trump is trying to pressure UK by going hostile on Chagos - he clearly links the Chagos deal to Greenland in the post. But what is also clear, is that UK govt is not going to change positon on Greenland, nor it is going to wobble on Chagos and will press on with the agreement with the Mauritian government. But the lashing out against the UK and Starmer seems to be part of a bigger assault on allies - as Trump reveals private messages with Macron and shares a map of Canada as US territory, which will no doubt explode in Canada when the country wakes up in a few hours. This is what work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden just said: “What we saw last night... was a series of posts criticising a number of world leaders. That may tell us that the President is frustrated right now. I don't really believe this is about Chagos. I think it's about Greenland and the best way to resolve that is through dialogue with the Danish government and that's what we've said all along.” Trump is clearly frustrated that European allies are standing firm on Greenland and facing down this threats, regardless of the consequences on the tariffs. Meanwhile, his Board of Peace plan has also fallen flat as the President demands $1bn for membership of a club that seems intended to undermine the United Nations. France intends to reject Trump’s invitation over concerns that it would call into question “the principles and structure of the United Nations,” according to a reports from the AFP news agency, while the UK government has “severe reservations” about the project’s legal framework, according to the The Times. Yesterday, the former Danish PM and Danish Foreign minister Lars Rasmussen told me how surprised he’d been by Trump’s public threats on social media over the weekend because he thought Denmark had come to an agreement with Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Rubio that the profound disagreement on Greenland would be negotiated away from social media. “We agreed that we should move this dialogue from social media and Truth Social...I thought, we have managed not to solve the problem, but to find a pathway forward. It was disrupted, by the statement from the president. And that's a reality of life.” It’s a reality all leaders dealing with, as Trump’s increasingly erratic behaviour with allies makes the US almost impossible to deal with, though the UK positon is that it must continue to try. Last night I was told it was “highly unlikely” the PM would attend Davos given that there is no sign of any resolution or big set piece of multi-lateral meeting in resolution of the biggest matters for the UK and EU - Greenland and Ukraine. But am told there will be engagement with the US administration this morning and conversation in Davos between UK and US players. But Trump turning on Starmer after all the PM’s efforts to build a good relationship, is undoubtedly a blow and raise questions about how else Starmer might have dealt with Trump. For the UK’s part, it managed to negotiate better trade terms during that purple patch. But now, this relationship is clearly under huge strain. I imagine Starmer will ignore it and carry on, his problem is that his opponents will not

Trump’s 50% Military Budget Surge to $1.5 Trillion: Tucker Carlson Warns of a World War







Image credit: People


When US President Donald Trump called for American military spending to rise to an unprecedented $1.5 trillion by 2027, the figure itself was staggering. It represents a more than 50% increase from the already enormous $901 billion defence budget approved by Congress in December. But numbers in politics are never just numbers. They are signals. And in this case, the signal being sent is hard to ignore: the United States is preparing for a world defined not by stability, but by large-scale war.


Trump justified the proposed increase by citing “very troubled and dangerous times” and promising to build what he described as a “Dream Military” capable of keeping America “safe and secure, regardless of foe.” On the surface, this sounds like familiar political rhetoric. Yet when placed against the backdrop of escalating global tensions and the historical logic of military spending, the conclusion becomes unavoidable. States do not allocate wartime-level budgets unless they expect wartime-level threats.
Wartime Spending in Peacetime Language

A $1.5 trillion defence budget is not normal even by American standards. The United States already spends more on its military than the next several countries combined. During the Cold War, during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even at the height of post-9/11 militarisation, US military expenditure never reached this level in real terms without an active, large-scale conflict underway or clearly imminent.


This is precisely why figures such as American journalist Tucker Carlson have argued that Trump’s proposal is not a fiscal choice but a strategic confession. According to Carlson, budgets of this magnitude are typical of states preparing for major regional or global wars, not routine deterrence. In his assessment, there are no convincing alternative explanations for such a dramatic increase. You do not spend like this unless you believe something catastrophic is coming.


The logic is simple. Defence budgets reflect threat perception. When leaders truly believe that peace will hold, they invest in growth, welfare, and infrastructure. When they believe that war is likely, they invest in weapons, factories, and stockpiles.


Trump’s own language reinforces this interpretation. He has complained that military equipment is not being produced quickly enough and has urged defence companies to build new and modern manufacturing plants. This is not the language of symbolic deterrence. It is the language of mobilisation.


The Military-Industrial Acceleration

Trump’s attacks on defence contractors are also revealing. He accused major arms manufacturers of prioritising shareholder payouts and stock buybacks over production capacity. He criticised what he called “exorbitant” executive compensation and even proposed capping executive pay at $5 million. More significantly, he threatened to cut companies off from government contracts unless they rapidly expand manufacturing.


In one particularly pointed statement, Trump singled out Raytheon, calling it the “least responsive” to America’s defence needs and warning that it could lose business with what he pointedly referred to as the “Department of War.” That choice of words matters. It signals a mindset shift away from defence as abstract preparedness and toward war as an operational expectation.


Markets understood the signal immediately. Shares in Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon jumped sharply following Trump’s announcements. Investors are not sentimental. They respond to anticipated demand. Their reaction suggests an expectation of long-term, large-scale arms production, not short-term political theatre.


A World Growing More Dangerous


Trump’s proposal does not exist in a vacuum. It comes amid a cascade of geopolitical flashpoints that increasingly resemble the preconditions of global conflict.


The United States has seized a Russian-flagged oil tanker accused of violating sanctions, further escalating tensions with Moscow. It has also captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, transporting him to the US to face drug trafficking charges, a move that dramatically raises the stakes in Latin America.


Meanwhile, China has conducted military drills around Taiwan, simulating blockades and seizures of key areas in response to what Beijing views as separatist provocations. Taiwan’s own efforts to ramp up defence spending have only intensified the standoff. These are not isolated incidents. They are interconnected pressure points involving nuclear powers, major regional actors, and competing global systems.


History teaches us that world wars rarely begin with a single dramatic declaration. They emerge from overlapping crises, miscalculations, and escalating commitments. The current international environment fits that pattern uncomfortably well.


The Russia Question


Carlson has made a further, more controversial argument: that in the event of a global war, the United States cannot survive without Russia. From his perspective, treating Russia as an enemy while preparing for worldwide confrontation is strategically irrational. Russia is the largest country on Earth, rich in energy, minerals, and strategic depth. In a true world war scenario, these resources would be decisive.


Whether one agrees with Carlson or not, his argument underscores the scale of conflict implied by Trump’s budget. This is not about counterterrorism or limited regional wars. It is about a confrontation so vast that alliances, resources, and civilisational blocs become existential factors.


Economics of the Impossible


There is also the economic dimension. Economists have warned that the gap between US spending and income is already unsustainable. Trump has brushed aside these concerns, insisting that tariffs will generate enough revenue to “easily hit” the $1.5 trillion target. But even if that were true, the political choice is telling. When states are convinced that survival is at stake, fiscal restraint becomes irrelevant.


World wars have always rewritten economic rules. Debt ceilings collapse, deficits explode, and governments justify extraordinary measures in the name of national security. Trump’s proposal fits squarely within that historical pattern.


A Budget as a Warning

Taken together, Trump’s call for a $1.5 trillion military budget reads less like policy and more like prophecy. It is a warning encoded in appropriations and procurement plans. It suggests that decision-makers in Washington believe the era of managed competition is ending and that the era of open confrontation is approaching.


One does not need to believe that war is inevitable to recognise the direction of travel. Military budgets shape reality. They lock in priorities, mobilise industries, and normalise expectations. By proposing such an extraordinary increase, Trump is not merely responding to danger. He is institutionalising the assumption that danger will define the coming years.


In that sense, the $1.5 trillion figure is not just a number. It is a statement about the world as American power now sees it: fragmented, hostile, and racing toward a conflict that few want to name, but many appear to be preparing for.


***


Suits the Clown - he's MAD as a hatter




MCMC Probes Chinese Media for Alleged Misreporting of YDPA’s BM Remarks at Parliament Opening





MCMC Probes Chinese Media for Alleged Misreporting of YDPA’s BM Remarks at Parliament Opening




Published 9 hours ago
January 20, 2026

By Didi


Source: Kosmo! & Firdaus Wong Wai Hung | Facebook



Yang di-Pertuan Agong (YDPA) Sultan Ibrahim emphasised that any new education initiatives must align with the national education policy and urged those who refuse to accept Bahasa Malaysia (BM) as the national language within the education system to consider leaving the country.


Following the 2026 Parliament session, a local Chinese media outlet reported that His Majesty had supposedly said, “If you don’t know Malay, don’t live in Malaysia.”



Source: Firdaus Wong Wai Hung | Facebook


“if you don’t know malay, don’t live in malaysia”



MCMC probes local Chinese media for misleading report on YDPA’s BM remarks


Malaysian Muslim preacher Firdaus Wong later slammed the media for showing disrespect to the King, saying their report misrepresented His Majesty’s original statement.



Source: Firdaus Wong Wai Hung | Facebook
Firdaus wong


He also criticised the media’s choice of words, calling it “misleading,” and has since filed a police report against the media outlet as well as the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC).


“There is a big difference in meaning between ‘don’t know’ and ‘don’t accept,'” he said.

In a recent update, the MCMC confirmed it is investigating online content published by the Chinese media outlet in question, which is alleged to contain translation errors of His Majesty’s speech.


Source: Firdaus Wong Wai Hung | Facebook

Before and after shots of the thumbnail posted by the local chinese media



“The public is urged not to make extreme or defamatory comments”


According to BERNAMA, Communications Minister Datuk Fahmi Fadzil said the investigation follows official complaints lodged by members of the public.



He also called on the Malaysian Media Council, as an independent body, to step in and ensure journalistic ethics are upheld, encourage responsible and accurate reporting, and act as a self-regulatory platform to handle media-related complaints professionally and ethically.


“If any police reports are filed, those cases are separate and will be fully handled by the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) under the existing legal provisions.

“At the same time, the public is urged not to make extreme or defamatory comments, especially on social media, and to always respect the institution of the monarchy while allowing the legal process to run its course,” he said.



Source: Kosmo!
Fahmi fadzil

The investigation is being carried out under Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, which covers the improper use of network facilities or communications services that could cause confusion, public anxiety, or affect harmony.



Also read: Firdaus Wong Files Police Report Against Chinese Media Over Misleading Coverage on YDPA’s BM Remarks




What is 'Yeye Culture' and why the Army is against it?





OPINION | What is 'Yeye Culture' and why the Army is against it?


20 Jan 2026 • 1:00 PM MYT



Fa Abdul
FA ABDUL is a former columnist of Malaysiakini & Free Malaysia Today (FMT)


Photo credit: Malay Mail


Let’s start simple. Because apparently, we need to.


If you’ve been offline, off‑WhatsApp, or living peacefully without reading NewsWav for the past few weeks, here’s the tea: the Malaysian Army is very upset. Not about invasion. Not about sovereignty. But about something called “yeye culture.”


Suddenly, press conferences. Suddenly, investigations. Suddenly, words like integrity, discipline, and image are being repeated like a patriotic playlist.


So what exactly is going on?


The issue (for those who are confused)


There were videos that went viral. As viral things usually do.


They allegedly showed army officers entertaining outsiders inside military premises. There were women. There were parties. There was socialising that did not look like marching drills or weapon cleaning.


And the internet did what the internet does best - gave it a name. Thus, “yeye culture” was born.


The Army confirmed investigations. Officers were identified. Statements were issued. Serious faces were worn. Because nothing says national security like vibes.


So… what is “Yeye Culture”?


There is no official dictionary definition, but Malaysians are very good at reading between the lines.


“Yeye culture” seems to refer to all of the following:

  • Bringing non‑authorised individuals into camps
  • Hanging out instead of standing at attention
  • Parties instead of parade practice
  • Alcohol allegedly being present
  • A general ‘relax lah, boss not around’ energy


In short: behaviour that looks more like a messy college party than a disciplined military environment.


Is it illegal? That depends.


Is it against military rules? Apparently yes.


Is it shocking? Hmm. That one we need to talk about.


Why The Army Is Against It (Official Version)


According to official statements, the Army is against “yeye culture” because it breaches discipline, it violates regulations, it damages the image of the Armed Forces, and it affects public trust.


Fair enough.


The military is built on structure, hierarchy, and rules. Not vibes. Not TikTok energy. Not lepak culture.


When soldiers start acting like they’re at a bachelor party instead of a barracks, someone has to say, “Eh, hello?”


So yes. On paper, the Army has every right to be upset.


This is where Malaysians tilt their heads - because let’s be honest, nobody believes this behaviour started last month.


Are we seriously saying this is brand new? Nobody ever brought outsiders into camps before? Officers suddenly forgot discipline only in 2026?


Please lah.


This feels less like “we just discovered this” and more like “now everyone discovered this.”


The problem isn’t that it happened. The problem is that it went viral.


In Malaysia, things only become wrong when they become embarrassing.


The Real Question We’re Avoiding


Here’s the spicy part. When similar things happen outside the Army:

  • Office affairs? Biasa lah.
  • Boss brings girlfriend to company trip? As long as work done.
  • Politicians partying? Personal life.
  • Celebrities? Don’t judge.


But when it happens in uniform? Suddenly it’s about morality. Suddenly it’s about national values. Suddenly everyone remembers discipline. Interesting, no?


The behaviour didn’t shock us. The uniform did.


Is the Army angry because the behaviour is immoral?


Or because it happened in the wrong place? With the wrong people watching? And at the wrong time?


Because if we’re being honest, Malaysian society has always been very flexible about morals - as long as nobody records it.


Yeye culture is not new. What’s new is visibility. The Army is not wrong to enforce discipline. But let’s not pretend this is a sudden moral awakening.


This is about control, image, and damage management. And that’s okay. Just don’t sell it to us like it’s a shocking discovery.


We’re Malaysians. We know how this works. We’re not shocked. Just entertained.


***


The Officers' Mess is like a club - in fact it IS a club, meant for all officers. Hence it can be rendered PRIVATE, very very private, and facilitate very TOP "people" partying from prying eyes - that's when monkey business (call it ye-ye or whatever) happened and happens, for aeons.

That's what it is - ye-ye or monkey business for TOP people, to jolly etc etc etc away from prying (wives') eyes, wakakaka.

And when I say 'TOP people' I mean very very TOP people.






Why Zahid Is Begging Old Allies to Stop “Sulking” and Come Back to the Table





Why Zahid Is Begging Old Allies to Stop “Sulking” and Come Back to the Table


20 Jan 2026 • 9:00 AM MYT



AM World
A writer capturing headlines & hidden places, turning moments into words


Facebook


Have you ever wondered why political leaders keep begging their own allies to come home after a fight? In Malaysia today, this is not just a question of strategy. It is emotional. It is personal. And it is shaping the future of the country’s oldest coalition. Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of Barisan Nasional (BN), has spent recent days on what feels like a reconciliation tour, urging longstanding BN component parties to stop being upset and return to a coalition he says is bigger than any disagreement. (The Sun Malaysia)


This moment is about more than party politics. It touches on history, identity, and the struggle to keep an alliance alive that once ruled Malaysia. It carries lessons about ego, loyalty, and political survival. And it raises a deeper question: Can traditional political alliances adapt to a new Malaysia where old wounds run deep? This article explores that story with cultural and political context, voices from stakeholders, and thoughtful analysis of what this all means for national leadership and unity.


Cracks in the Old House of BN


Barisan Nasional was Malaysia’s dominant political force for decades. For more than half a century, BN’s coalition of parties from different ethnic communities held power. UMNO led the Malay bloc, while MCA represented the Chinese community and MIC represented Indian Malaysians. But BN’s grip weakened sharply after the 2018 general election, when it lost power for the first time in history. (The Sun Malaysia)


Since then, the coalition has faced tension inside and outside. Parties that once marched as one have drifted apart. MCA and MIC have signaled frustration over their role in BN and in the wider unity government. Some leaders of these parties feel sidelined or ignored in decision-making. These feelings have not just political cost. They are emotional, rooted in decades of shared history and expectations unmet. According to insiders familiar with recent BN gatherings, Zahid has met these leaders multiple times to listen and to persuade them to return to BN unity. (Reddit)


Zahid’s plea is simple. In his words, disagreements are natural between partners who have worked together long enough. Like family members, he says, tempers can flare but reconciliation must come quickly so everyone can focus on strength and stability together. (The Sun Malaysia) His message has two parts: stop the public sulking and focus on the coalition’s future.


His argument resonates with history. BN’s peak was when parties worked together closely and without public disputes. That unity delivered decades of political stability. But the challenge now is that Malaysia’s political landscape has transformed. New coalitions, shifting loyalties, and voter preferences have made old alliances vulnerable.


The Return of PPP: A Symbol of Reconciliation



One sign that Zahid’s efforts are not just symbolic came when the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) was formally recognised again as a BN component party. (The Star) PPP’s return carries emotional weight. It once exited BN due to leadership disputes and was later deregistered. Now it is back after a formal announcement and cheers at its general assembly in Kuala Lumpur. (Malay Mail)


For many within BN, PPP’s reinstatement is more than paperwork. It signals that political wounds can heal, and that a sense of shared identity still matters. It also strengthens BN numerically and symbolically with more parties under one roof. At the same time, PPP is smaller in electoral terms compared to MCA or MIC. Its return does not automatically bring back the full support and influence of those larger parties. But it does show that Zahid’s message of unity is not empty rhetoric.


Why This Matters Right Now


The timing of these events is critical. Malaysia is edging closer to its next general election, GE16. Politicians and voters alike are assessing alliances and signaling where they intend to stand. Zahid has repeatedly stated that UMNO and BN will not abandon coalition partners lightly. (NST Online) And he is clear that the party will contest under the BN banner rather than as a solo force. Past statements by the party leader underline that identity and continuity matter. (Reddit)


But MCA and MIC’s signal of discomfort with the current arrangement shows that unity is not automatic. These component parties claim they are not getting enough say or share in power. They have also explored other alignments, including discussions with Perikatan Nasional. That move reflects frustration but also political strategy. They may believe their future is stronger with a different partner. This is where emotion meets calculus. Politics, after all, is about winning seats and influence as much as it is about shared ideals.


Adding to this dynamic is Zahid’s push for a broader Malay-Muslim party collaboration. At the UMNO General Assembly, he proposed a “grand collaboration” of Malay and Muslim-based political parties. (The Star) His message was that setting aside old rivalries could help champion Malay and Islamic interests more effectively. But observers warn this proposal could complicate things further if other parties feel excluded or threatened.


Different Voices in the Room


Zahid’s call for unity is not without critics. Some political analysts say his appeal for component parties to stop “sulking” avoids the underlying causes of the unhappiness. These include unequal influence, lack of meaningful roles, and perceptions of power imbalance within the coalition.


For example, one observer noted that BN’s cooperation with Pakatan Harapan in the unity government has upset some traditional BN allies because they feel they have lost their historic place in the leadership. The involvement of DAP as part of the wider coalition, even if not directly allied to BN, has highlighted tensions over identity and ideological differences. (Malay Mail)


Meanwhile, voices within MCA and MIC emphasize that their decision-making must reflect both grassroots sentiment and political strategy. Some leaders argue that public tension is a symptom of deeper dissatisfaction with representation and policy influence. They say these cannot be fixed by mere calls for unity without addressing real grievances.


Other experts caution that personality-driven reconciliations rarely last unless structural changes in coalition dynamics occur. They point to the need for clearer power-sharing agreements, more inclusive leadership forums, and mechanisms for conflict resolution that go beyond personal persuasion.


What This Says About Malaysian Politics Today


This moment offers a revealing look at how Malaysia’s political system is changing. Politics is no longer solely about traditional loyalties or historical identity. Voters and parties alike are questioning old assumptions.


BN’s effort to hold onto its legacy while adapting to new realities is emblematic of this shift. Zahid’s plea to component parties to stop sulking is part of a broader strategy to reframe BN as relevant, inclusive, and forward-looking. Yet, the challenge is whether symbolic gestures and calls for unity can overcome accumulated distrust and political fatigue.


Another layer to this story is how coalition politics now interacts with broader national debates about identity, governance, and policy priorities. The push for a Malay-Muslim coalition reflects ongoing tensions in Malaysian society about race, religion, and representation. It also highlights the balancing act political leaders must perform between appealing to specific bases and maintaining broader national unity.


Lessons from Reconciliation Attempts


Three key lessons emerge from this moment of political introspection:


First, reconciliation requires more than words. It needs actions that show respect for each partner’s role and contributions. For BN, this means finding ways to give component parties real influence, not just symbolic inclusion.


Second, unity must be rooted in shared goals, not nostalgia. Political leaders must articulate a compelling reason for parties to unite beyond historical ties. For some, that reason is electoral success. For others, it is national stability and inclusive governance.


Third, addressing emotional wounds in politics means acknowledging them publicly. Leaders cannot simply tell partners to stop sulking and expect harmony. They need to engage in honest dialogue about what caused the pain and how to heal it, with mechanisms for accountability and shared decision-making.


What do you think? I’d love to hear your opinion in the comments section.


The next few months in Malaysian politics will test whether Zahid’s appeal for unity can translate into a stronger coalition or whether the disagreements simmering beneath the surface will grow louder. Key signals to watch include how MCA and MIC respond in formal meetings, whether PPP’s return strengthens coalition dynamics, and how voters react to these shifting alliances.


Zahid’s efforts show that leadership often involves patience, persuasion, and a willingness to face uncomfortable truths. Whether this leads to a more united Barisan Nasional coalition remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the emotional dimension of political alliances matters as much as strategy. Parties that ignore the feelings of their allies risk weakening not just their coalitions but also public trust.


In a broader sense, this moment reflects a global trend where established political alliances struggle to adapt to new realities. Voters demand more accountability, clearer visions, and genuine inclusion. Leaders who can navigate these demands with empathy and strategic clarity may be better positioned for success.


Ultimately, this story is about the human side of politics. It shows that even seasoned political leaders must grapple with feelings, perceptions, and relationships that shape political action. And it reminds us that unity is not just a strategic goal but an ongoing process that requires work, humility, and mutual respect.

Who’s the bigger traitor? One who’s unwilling to respect BM or one who plunders the nation’s wealth?





Who’s the bigger traitor? One who’s unwilling to respect BM or one who plunders the nation’s wealth?






IT IS amazing how a more crucial second part of His Majesty Sultan Ibrahim, King of Malaysia’s decree was conveniently given a miss by the rightist fraternity who only preoccupied themselves with the juicier first part – “those unwilling to accept Bahasa Malaysia (BM) as the national language should not live in this country”.


Hence, sensationalising the fact that the Agong as the Supreme Commander of the Malaysian Armed Forces “may one day have to appoint a sergeant instead of a senior officer as Armed Forces Chief” if corruption continues to wreak havoc among senior ranks within the Armed Force was literally accorded ‘second class citizenry”.

Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar
on Sunday

“SEBARANG USUL MENGIKTIRAF SISTEM PENDIDIKAN LAIN MESTI MENERIMA BAHASA MELAYU DAN SEJARAH MALAYSIA” - YANG DI-PERTUAN AGONG

KDYMM SPB Yang di-Pertuan Agong Sultan Ibrahim bertitah sebarang usul mengiktiraf apa jua sistem pendidikan selain daripada yang sedia ada, mesti menerima Bahasa Melayu dan Sejarah Malaysia.

Bertitah sempena Istiadat Pembukaan Penggal Kelima Parlimen Ke-15 pada hari ini (19 Januari), Seri Paduka Baginda bertitah sistem pendidikan negara perlu terus dipe...

See more

While nobody is denying that the stature of BM as the national language within the national education policy realm must be upheld at all times, one wonders if corruption, abuse of power, misappropriation of public funds or shielding those involved in graft amounts to a bigger betrayal to the nation.

This follows the Facebook post of UMNO Youth chief Datuk Dr Muhamad Akmal Saleh who only applauded Sultan Ibrahim’s edict on the acceptance of BM by taking a swipe at those who are fighting for a full recognition of the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) in Malaysia (ie Dong Zong).

“Daulat Tuanku!!! Straight to the face of those who talk about recognising UEC,” jibed the firebrand Merlimau MP who yesterday (Jan 19) vacated his Melaka state EXCO post as chairman of the rural development, agriculture and food security committee.

Daulat Tuanku!!!

Terus kat muka yang sembang nak iktiraf UEC

Kalau tidak terima bahasa Melayu lebih baik jangan duduk di Malaysia 

...See more

“If you don’t accept the Malay language, it’s better not to live in Malaysia. Daulat Tuanku.”

Akmal aside, Muslim convert preacher Firdaus Wong Wai Hung went to great length to lodge a police report against Chinese language daily China Press for allegedly “distorted” Sultan Ibrahim’s edict in its thumbnail/headline by originally citing “Agong: Don’t live in Malaysia if don’t know BM”.

“China Press has changed their thumbnail after I exposed their rudeness and provocation. Will they change their thumbnail (to ‘Agong: Don’t live in Malaysia if don’t accept BM’) if I don’t expose their evil choice of words?” the Multiracial Reverted Muslims (MRM) president penned on his Facebook page.

China Press, saya ada persoalan kepada kalian,

“Jikalau tak bersalah, kenapa perlu tukar ‘thumbnail’?”

China Press telah menukar tajuk ‘thumbnail’ mereka selepas saya mendedahkan kebiadaban & provokasi mereka.

...See more

Saya telah menjalankan tugas & tanggungjawab saya sebagai rakyat Malaysia dengan membuat laporan polis ke atas China Press.

Diharapkan tindakan tegas akan dikenakan terhadap China Preas oleh PDRM & SKMM.

Aktivisme di media sosial perlu disusuli tindakan undang-undang. 

...See more

“I’ll file a police report against them this evening at Damansara Utama Police Station. Friends, you can file a police report at the nearest police station. We will teach them a lesson.”

Interestingly, however, the second and perhaps more vital part of Sultan Ibrahim’s royal address – among others, the Agong was deeply troubled that corruption had allegedly reached the highest levels of the military, an institution entrusted with defending the nation’s sovereignty – was given a miss by Firdaus.

Shouldn’t the preacher be condemning corruption or expound on how it violates the teaching of Islam?

Well, can this trend be summed up as it’s all about clickbait and eyeball game to cater to the likeminded masses? Sadly, some Malaysians see more value to weaponise BM instead of an all-out fight to eradicate corruption. – Jan 20, 2026