Sunday, April 12, 2026

Clown has gone 'unhinged' again




US to 'immediately' block Strait of Hormuz, ready to 'finish up' Iran


Sunday, 12 Apr 2026 | 10:10 PM MYT


Trump said the US was ready to "finish up” Iran at the "appropriate moment". — Reuters


ISLAMABAD (AP): President Donald Trump on Sunday said the US Navy would "immediately” begin a blockade to stop ships from entering or leaving the Strait of Hormuz, after US-Iran peace talks in Pakistan ended without an agreement.

Trump sought to exert strategic control over the waterway responsible for the transportation of 20% of global oil supplies before the war, hoping to take away Iran’s key source of economic leverage in the fighting.


"I have instructed the Navy to seek and interdict every vessel in International Waters that has paid a toll to Iran.

"No one who pays an illegal toll will have safe passage on the high seas,” he said on Sunday (April 12).


Trump also said the US was ready to "finish up” Iran at the "appropriate moment," stressing that Tehran's nuclear ambitions were at the core of the failure to end the war.

Face-to-face talks ended earlier Sunday after 21 hours, leaving a fragile two-week ceasefire in doubt.

US officials said the negotiations collapsed over what they described as Iran’s refusal to commit to abandoning a path to a nuclear weapon, while Iranian officials blamed the US for the breakdown of the talks without specifying the sticking points.

Neither side indicated what would happen after the 14-day ceasefire expires on April 22.

Pakistani mediators urged all parties to maintain it. Both said their positions were clear and put the onus on the other side, underscoring how little the gap had narrowed throughout the talks.

"We need to see an affirmative commitment that they will not seek a nuclear weapon, and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon,” Vice President JD Vance said after the talks.

Iran’s parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, who led Iran in the negotiations, said it was time for the United States "to decide whether it can gain our trust or not.”

He did not mention the core disputes in a series of social media posts, though Iranian officials earlier said the talks fell apart over two or three key issues, blaming what they called US overreach.

Iran has long denied seeking nuclear weapons but has insisted on its right to a civilian nuclear program. It has offered "affirmative commitments” in the past in writing, including in the landmark 2015 nuclear deal.

Experts say its stockpile of enriched uranium, though not weapons-grade, is only a short technical step away.

Since the US and Israel launched the war on Feb 28, it has killed at least 3,000 people in Iran, 2,020 in Lebanon, 23 in Israel and more than a dozen in Gulf Arab states, and caused lasting damage to infrastructure in half a dozen Middle Eastern countries.

Iran’s grip on the Strait of Hormuz has largely cut off the Persian Gulf and its oil and gas exports from the global economy, sending energy prices soaring.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said his country will try to facilitate a new dialogue between Iran and the US in the coming days.

"It is imperative that the parties continue to uphold their commitment to the ceasefire,” Dar said.

The deadlock - and Vance’s take-it-or-leave-it proposal that Iran end its nuclear program - mirrored February’s nuclear talks in Switzerland.

Though Trump has said the subsequent war was meant to compel Iran’s leaders to abandon nuclear ambitions, each side's positions appeared unchanged in negotiations following six weeks of fighting.

The US and Iran entered talks with sharply different proposals and contrasting assumptions about their leverage to end the war.

Before negotiations began, the ceasefire was already threatened by deep disagreements and Israel’s continued attacks against the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Iran’s 10-point proposal ahead of the talks called for a guaranteed end to the war and sought control over the Strait of Hormuz. It included ending fighting against Iran’s "regional allies,” explicitly calling for a halt to Israeli strikes on Hezbollah.

Pakistani officials told The Associated Press in March that the US 15-point proposal included monitoring mechanisms and a rollback of Iran’s nuclear program. Speaking on condition of anonymity as they weren’t authorised to discuss details, they said it also covered reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

During the talks, the US military said two destroyers transited the critical waterway ahead of mine-clearing work, a first since the war began. Iran’s state media, however, reported that the country's joint military command denied that.

"We’re sweeping the strait. Whether we make a deal or not makes no difference to me,” Trump said as talks extended into early Sunday morning.

The impasse raises new questions about fighting in Lebanon. Israel has pressed ahead with strikes since the ceasefire was announced, saying the agreement did not apply there. Iran and Pakistan claimed otherwise.

Negotiations between Israel and Lebanon are expected to begin Tuesday in Washington, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun’s office has said, after Israel’s surprise announcement authorising talks despite the lack of official relations between the countries.

Protests erupted in Beirut on Saturday over the planned negotiations.

Israel wants Lebanon's government to assume responsibility for disarming Hezbollah, much like was envisaged in a November 2024 ceasefire. But the militant group has survived efforts to curb its strength for decades.


Politics needs to wait as Malaysia faces oil crisis






By WONG CHUN WAI
Sunday, 12 Apr 2026 | 3:12 PM MYT


Driver lorry filling up diesel at petrol station in Sungai Buloh. — FAIHAN GHANI/The Star


KUALA LUMPUR: The country is in a crisis mode.

That’s a reality, and the government, to its credit, has not tried to sugarcoat the situation by pretending all is well and fine because it isn’t.


The ceasefire between the United States and Iran is a welcome relief but it is only temporary and conditional.

A lot will depend on the outcome of the negotiations but even if the Strait of Hormuz reopens to all ships, it will take months before normalcy sets in.


Lale Akoner, a global market analyst at financial services company eToro, was quoted on CNN as saying that it could take six months to get ship traffic back to where it was before the war began.

These are situations beyond our control. Malaysia is spending RM6 billion a month to keep our fuel prices low.

Obviously, this cannot go on but more worrisome will be whether ample supplies will continue, so we would not want to see petrol stations closed or motorists having to camp at these outlets.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has given his assurances that domestic fuel stocks remain sufficient to meet national demand through April and May.

But at a time when missiles are flying across the Middle East and oil routes are no longer guaranteed, the Prime Minister is right to remind Malaysians - especially our politicians - that the nation faces far bigger headwinds than partisan quarrels.

The implications are immediate and tangible: rising fuel costs, supply chain uncertainties, pressure on inflation, a weaker ringgit and even jobs lost.

Even Bank Negara has acknowledged that a prolonged conflict poses downside risks to growth despite current resilience.

The war has severely disrupted global supply chains - triggering shortages in plastic resin and essential medical supplies including plastic medical tubes, syringes and packaging materials.

Major palm oil producers have been hit as there is now a critical shortage of fertilisers due to the strait blockage.

There is now a global shortage of bitumen essential for the construction and maintenance of roads as price surges as well as caused construction delays.

The government has had to take unusual measures - encouraging work-from-home arrangements to cut energy consumption and recalibrating national spending priorities. These are not routine policy tweaks. They are signs of a country bracing itself.

And yet, in the midst of this, our political discourse risks being hijacked by the familiar - endless manoeuvring, positioning, and speculation about elections.

There are seasoned politicians who question why the fuel prices have gone up - pretending to be oblivious to what has happened in Iran and the global impact.

One politician asked why the refineries in Terengganu are not enough to serve Malaysia, pretending to be unaware that we are an oil importer.

Politics thrives on immediacy - who said what, who gains advantage, who loses ground. But governance, especially in times of global crisis, demands focus, continuity and discipline. It is also a test on real leadership.

In times of crisis, we can sieve out politicians who can navigate us through the difficulties and the mediocre ones who merely speak unintelligently.

To his credit, Anwar has not merely sounded the alarm - he has acted. His phone diplomatic engagement has secured tangible outcomes, including safe passage for Malaysian vessels through a tense Strait of Hormuz. That is not abstract foreign policy - it is economic survival.

Malaysia can ill afford such political posturing now as we balance energy security, cost of living, trade and shipping issues, and maintain investor confidence.

Political instability at home, layered onto global uncertainty, is a recipe for capital flight. These are not issues that can be debated in campaign slogans or resolved in ceramah speeches, press statements or social media postings.

Our approach must continue to be measured, principled, and pragmatic - reflects an understanding that Malaysia must navigate carefully between global powers while safeguarding national interests.

Relentless political contestation now sends the message that some politicians are more preoccupied with Putrajaya than with protecting Malaysians from the economic aftershocks of war.

Expanding subsidies irresponsibly would widen the fiscal deficit, risk our credit standing, and ultimately undermine the very economic stability these politicians claim to defend.

Fuel prices in Malaysia do not exist in a vacuum as they are tied to global oil markets, which are now being shaken by conflict in one of the world’s most strategic energy corridors. When prices rise internationally, the government has only two choices: pass on the cost, or absorb it through subsidies.

If we fork out RM6bil in subsidies, let’s not forget that they are drawn from national coffers which could have funded healthcare, education, infrastructure, and targeted assistance for the most vulnerable.

To shout "lower fuel prices” without acknowledging these trade-offs is unhelpful and irresponsible politics.- Bernama



*Datuk Seri Wong Chun Wai is the chairman of Bernama and a National Journalism Laureate



"Who's ruling America - Trump to Netanyahu?"




I haven't written a full post for a number of years, and this is my first full post, perhaps just a short one to start off:

The issue I want to touch upon is the recent ceasefire talk between the United States and Iran, mediated and hosted by Pakistan. Notably absent has been the real trouble-maker of all times, Israel.

The Israelis have been particularly responsible for initiating the war against Iran, once it has somehow succeeded, or as some people put it, "conned" a compliant Trump into plummeting the USA into the silly, dangerous and illegal war - all just because PM Netanyahu wanted it. Netanyahu fears the formidable, resilient and ferocious Persians as its main (undefeated) opponent in the Middle-East, especially more so after witnessing how the Persians had fought valiantly, resiliently and indefatigably against Iraq (supported not so covertly by a United States) which even despicably resorted to chemical warfare.




Indeed Netanyahu lusted after such a conflict with Iran for decades but only if the US went along - Trump has been the first US President gullible enough to swallow Netanyahu's reasoning of a casus belli for war against Iran, and which now appears most likely to be an endless war, not unlike Vietnam and Afghanistan where the Americans lost in both and had to most humiliatingly scamper off with its tail behind its hind legs.


Taken from the top floor of the nearby Saigon Hotel, the photograph of a helicopter perched precariously on a rooftop as dozens of South Vietnamese citizens waited desperately to climb aboard, quickly became one of the iconic images of the Vietnam War.

"We just stuffed them in," remembered Bob Caron, who piloted the helicopter along with a copilot, Jack Hunter, as Saigon fell to the North Vietnamese.

Caron, now living on a quiet residential street in Fort Walton Beach, estimated that there were 15 people aboard the helicopter when it lifted off the roof of the Pittman Building, home to some of the few Americans remaining in Saigon.



Perhaps not having Israel as a party in the recent ceasefire talk could have been a mistake considering the Jewish State has been the central  instigator in the conflict, but we all know how an Islamic State like Pakistan (or for that matter, Malaysia) detests the Jewish nation, and perhaps found quiet pleasure in marginalising Israel.

Burt the most interesting point that came from the failed talks have been what Iran’s First Vice President Mohammadreza Aref said after the talks, that negotiation between US and Iran are possible if Washington adopts ‘America First’ approach rather than ‘Israel First’ agenda.




He had then warned that talks would fail if the US delegation pursue an “Israel First” agenda. And just what did that tell us?

Undoubtedly, a major disagreement during the talks between the United States and Iran must have been an issue that Israel would not concede nor agree upon, and which Iran must have demanded, namely: Cessation of all military fighting in Lebanon which as we all know too well have been mainly one-sided, that of a heavily armed Israel bombing (with munitions all of which would be American supplied) the wits off the Lebanese, regardless of whether the poor Lebanese have been innocuous civilians or Hezbollah members.

We also know too well how the United States would have responded to such an Iranian demand, that for Israeli bombing and fighting to stop in Lebanon - as the Americans have shown regularly, it apparently dares not order, or has been unable to order, the Israelis to cease military operations anywhere - just look at Gaza which still suffers endless murderous bombing and strafing until today even with a purportedly signed 'ceasefire', and don't forget the unfettered violence in the West Bank associated with Israeli settlers' rampant land robbery, condoned and even 'protected' by the Israeli military.

Such an American lamentably meek behaviour towards Israel invariably has given rise to provocative comments such as "Who's ruling America - Trump or Netanyahu?"




I find it extremely hard, even as a non-American, to accept and tolerate such a behaviour where an Israel supported, funded and equipped (for survival) by an overly obsequious America gives no heed to any American requirement or order.





OPINION | Zahid The Next Prime Minister? Prof. Tajuddin Rasdi’s Bold GE16 Forecast That Could Reshape Malaysia



Malaysia's #1 Content Aggregator



OPINION | Zahid The Next Prime Minister? Prof. Tajuddin Rasdi’s Bold GE16 Forecast That Could Reshape Malaysia



Photo Credit: Concept by Chatgpt, Edited by GeminiAi


As Malaysia inches closer to its 16th General Election (GE16), political forecasts are beginning to crystallise into stark possibilities. Among the most provocative comes from Prof.Tajuddin Rasdi, who predicts a future many may resist but cannot ignore: Ahmad Zahid Hamidi as Malaysia’s next prime minister.


According to Tajuddin, the contest for Putrajaya is narrowing to just three viable contenders - Anwar Ibrahim, Zahid, and Ahmad Samsuri Mokhtar. Notably absent are figures like Hamzah Zainudin and Muhyiddin Yassin, both sidelined by internal party fractures and shifting alliances.



A Numbers Game Tilted Toward UMNO?


Tajuddin’s argument hinges on a simple but powerful factor: voter turnout. Should a significant segment of Malaysians abstain from voting - whether out of frustration or apathy - the balance could tip decisively in favour of Barisan Nasional (BN). In such a scenario, Zahid becomes the natural choice, particularly if BN maintains cooperation with Pakatan Harapan (PH).


Even more striking is the suggestion that Zahid’s path to power remains intact regardless of political permutations. Whether UMNO aligns with PH or rekindles ties with PAS, Zahid is seen as the most acceptable compromise candidate across coalitions. His positioning within UMNO and broader Malay politics gives him leverage that few others can match.



Pakatan Harapan’s Fragile Grip


Despite currently holding a dominant bloc in Parliament, PH’s future is far from secure. Tajuddin points to growing public sentiment suggesting potential losses for PKR and Amanah, while DAP may retain seats but with reduced majorities. Such an outcome would weaken PH’s negotiating power and open the door for UMNO’s resurgence.


Ironically, internal fractures within Perikatan Nasional (PN) - especially tensions involving Bersatu - could accelerate UMNO’s revival. Disgruntled factions and shifting loyalties may redirect support back to UMNO, strengthening Zahid’s claim to leadership.


PAS Factor: Kingmaker or Bystander?


PAS remains a formidable force, but its limitations are equally clear. While it performed strongly in GE15, its appeal among non-Malay voters remains minimal. Even if PAS pushes for Samsuri as prime minister, resistance from East Malaysian blocs such as Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) and Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS) could derail such ambitions.



This leaves Zahid as the more palatable option: even in a hypothetical UMNO-PAS alliance. PAS may settle for influence rather than outright leadership.


Can Anwar Defy the Odds?


For Anwar, the path to a second term is not entirely closed. Malaysia’s relatively stable economic performance and the government’s cautious handling of sensitive issues - such as vernacular education - could work in his favour, particularly among non-Malay voters.


However, Tajuddin suggests that these strengths may not be enough. Political fatigue, internal dissent, and the unpredictability of voter turnout could undermine PH’s chances.


The Silent Decider: Voter Apathy


Perhaps the most critical takeaway from this prediction is the role of the electorate.


Tajuddin warns that those who choose not to vote may inadvertently shape the nation’s future more than those who do. In a tightly contested election, silence at the ballot box could translate into a decisive victory for one camp.



A Future Malaysians Must Confront?



Love him or loathe him, Zahid’s inevitability is being framed not just as a political posibility but a statistical probability. Tajuddin’s message is an eye opener: Malaysians should prepare for this outcome - not necessarily because it is desired, but because current dynamics make it increasingly plausible.


As GE16 approaches, the question is no longer just who will win, but whether Malaysians are willing to accept the consequences of their participation - or lack thereof. Therefore, voters should fulfil their duty by casting their ballots to ensure fairer electoral outcomes and to elect parties and leaders that reflect the will of the majority.


By: Kpost

The Strange and Unexplained Special Relationship Between Ramanan and Anwar



Malaysia's #1 Content Aggregator



OPINION | The Strange and Unexplained Special Relationship Between Ramanan and Anwar


12 Apr 2026 • 8:30 AM MYT

TheRealNehruism
An award-winning Newswav creator, Bebas News columnist & ex-FMT columnist


Image credit: Ramanan X


Ramanan is 45. Anwar is 78.


Ramanan is Indian. Anwar is Malay.


Ramanan only joined PKR in 2020, after the party had finished its fighting years and was entering its winning years. But despite these differences, the two have struck a “special relationship” in record time—one that has left many insiders and political watchers asking: what exactly is going on?


Their special relationship has also given Ramanan significant advantages.


From a newcomer to one of the party’s central figures, Ramanan’s trajectory has been extraordinary. By 2022, he was given the safe parliamentary seat of Sungai Buloh in GE15, despite fierce competition and concerns over his lack of political experience. Within a year, he became Deputy Minister of Entrepreneur Development and Cooperatives, and by 2025, he had risen to Vice President of PKR. By December 2025, he had been appointed a full minister in Anwar’s cabinet—a progression that many long-time party members found astonishing.



The question on everyone’s mind is: how did Ramanan rise so quickly?


Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli, PKR’s former deputy president, recently offered a rare glimpse behind the scenes, revealing what he describes as a “special bond” between Ramanan and Anwar.


According to Rafizi, in the final days before GE15 candidate announcements, the Sungai Buloh seat was the only one without an agreement between him and Anwar. Rafizi had firmly supported Sivarasa Rasiah, the incumbent at the time, arguing that Sivarasa was stronger on all fronts. He also noted that Ramanan had refused to declare his assets—a basic requirement for candidates—while other contenders had complied.



Yet, Anwar reportedly “held my knee and pleaded” to allow Ramanan to contest. Rafizi recalls the moment vividly: “I told him he has the final say, and there was no need to plead. Anwar responded, ‘I don’t want you to make a fuss later.’” Even then, Rafizi secured what he thought was a firm “gentleman’s agreement”: Ramanan would not rise further in the party or be appointed to government positions beyond a certain point.


Those promises, however, did not hold. By the end of 2023, Ramanan was appointed deputy minister, and by December 2025, he was promoted to full minister. Rafizi commented on the shift: “I knew then there was a special relationship between Anwar and Ramanan to the point where the PM was willing to break his own promise—a promise I witnessed.”


The rapid rise of Ramanan has not been without controversy. Some within PKR argue that it illustrates the outsized influence of personal relationships over merit and seniority. Critics contend that Ramanan’s climb reflects not only political skill but also the power of proximity to leadership—where loyalty and personal trust appear to outweigh experience, track record, and formal party hierarchies.



Questions have emerged over why Ramanan has been so favored by Anwar, despite having joined PKR only in 2020 and not having had the time to demonstrate a substantial political or administrative record. Observers note that his swift ascent—from a newcomer to a minister in just five years—has happened at the expense of more seasoned party members with longer histories of service and proven performance.


Political analysts point out that Ramanan’s rise is emblematic of a broader trend in Malaysian politics, where personal bonds with party leaders often shape career trajectories. While formal party rules and internal elections exist, it is often the informal agreements, endorsements, and behind-the-scenes influence that determine who climbs the ladder—and how fast. For many, the question remains: what exactly explains Ramanan’s exceptional favoritism, and what does it signal for internal party dynamics?



More fundamentally, questions are now being asked about what exactly cements the so-called “special relationship” between Anwar and Ramanan. Observers note that there appears to be little on the surface that explains the depth and speed of their political closeness—no shared political history over the reformasi struggle, no long-standing personal bond, no comparable ideological trajectory, no age proximity, and no clear overlap in political mentorship or shared organisational struggle within PKR’s earlier years.


In the absence of such visible anchors—whether ideological alignment built over decades, shared political hardship, or even long-term working proximity—speculation has inevitably filled the vacuum. Among segments of the public and political circles, more uneasy narratives have begun circulating, with some suggesting that the strength of this political alignment may be tied to considerations that go beyond conventional party loyalty or merit-based advancement. These remain allegations and perceptions rather than established facts, but they have nevertheless gained traction in the absence of a clear explanation for the unusually rapid rise.



Adding to the scrutiny is the fact that Ramanan has already faced separate public allegations linked to claims of involvement in what has been described as a wider “corporate mafia” controversy. In reports published earlier this year, he was named in connection with accusations involving an alleged multi-million-ringgit arrangement. Ramanan has firmly denied these claims and has challenged those making the allegations to provide evidence and clarify references to an unnamed “Mr R” said to be involved in the matter.


Still, in the court of public perception, such controversies inevitably feed into broader questions about influence and access. Critics argue that when rapid political ascents coincide with unresolved allegations and opaque political relationships, it creates a climate where suspicions naturally intensify—fairly or unfairly.


Against this backdrop, political analysts caution that Ramanan’s rise has become more than just a question of internal party promotion. It has evolved into a broader discussion about transparency, accountability, and how political trust is formed at the highest levels of government. While formal party structures and elections exist, it is often informal networks and personal judgments that ultimately determine who rises—and how quickly.



For many observers, the central question remains unresolved: what exactly explains the extraordinary favour extended to Ramanan, and why has it developed with such speed in the absence of a publicly articulated basis grounded in shared political history or demonstrable long-term association?


As Rafizi bluntly put it in his remarks following the internal PKR tensions and the Johor PKR Convention, where a heated exchange involving party leaders had already drawn public attention: “If I had shared this before the PKR Johor Convention, people wouldn’t have believed it. Now, I hope the public can judge for themselves that DS Anwar is already tied down by people like Ramanan.”


From a political outsider in 2020 to a full minister five years later, Ramanan’s story is a striking illustration of how personal alliances, strategic positioning, and trust can turbocharge a political career. Whether this alliance will withstand scrutiny or influence PKR’s future leadership dynamics remains to be seen. But for now, Ramanan’s meteoric rise is a cautionary tale and a testament to the enduring influence of personal relationships in Malaysian politics.


Anwar’s Time Might Be Up: It’s Time to Ask—Who’s Next?





OPINION | Anwar’s Time Might Be Up: It’s Time to Ask—Who’s Next?


12 Apr 2026 • 7:30 AM MYT



Image credit: Kompas


At his core, Anwar is seen as an old-regime politician. Not in age alone, but in instinct. He governs, like many before him, on the implicit promise of “trust me, I will take care of everything.” This governing philosophy stretches back through Tunku Abdul Rahman, Abdul Razak Hussein, Hussein Onn, and culminates most forcefully in Mahathir Mohamad.


The difference, however, is this: those leaders, for all their faults, largely delivered. They did not demand excessive trust—they simply took care of things. When they could no longer do so, they stepped aside.



The post-Mahathir era has been far less flattering. Leaders have demanded more trust while delivering less, often appearing weak, corrupt, or self-serving. Worse still, many clung to power long after losing both legitimacy and effectiveness.


Anwar once promised to break from this mould. When he split from Mahathir in the late 1990s, he positioned himself as the architect of a new Malaysia—one governed by institutions, accountability, and ethical standards, not personality and patronage.


But three years into his premiership, that promise rings hollow.



Instead of institutional governance, Anwar has reverted to the very model he once opposed: “trust me, I know best, I will take care of everything.” The irony is not lost on the rakyat.


Today, public sentiment toward Anwar can be broadly divided into two camps.


The first sees him as a political chameleon—someone who promised reform but defaulted to old habits. To them, he is a disappointment at best, a betrayer at worst. This group is politically engaged, vocal, and actively seeks his removal.


The second group is more passive, more pragmatic. They do not necessarily admire Anwar, nor do they fully trust him. But they are willing to tolerate him—as long as life functions. As long as salaries are paid, groceries are affordable, bills manageable, and some semblance of stability remains, they see no urgent need to rock the boat.


This second group is the true pillar of Anwar’s survival.



They are not loyalists; they are conditional participants in a social contract. They see Anwar as a “big man”—someone who holds power, can dispense favour, and maintain order. Their support is not ideological; it is transactional.


And that is precisely why an economic crisis is fatal.


The moment the economy falters—when jobs are lost, prices surge, and daily life becomes a struggle—this second group will not hesitate to reassess. The “big man” who once seemed capable will suddenly appear weak, ineffective, even burdensome.


Once that psychological shift happens, the first group will have little difficulty persuading the second that change is necessary.


That is when Anwar’s position becomes untenable.


His recent statement that he has no intention of calling for elections in the next one or two months is telling. Leaders do not make such declarations unless the question is already in the air. The mere need to deny it suggests that speculation is growing—and more importantly, that confidence is eroding.



Anwar may believe he still commands a comfortable parliamentary majority, and therefore controls the timing of any election. But Malaysian politics has rarely been so predictable. If ground sentiment turns decisively against him, Members of Parliament will sense it. And when they do, loyalty can evaporate overnight.


A withdrawal of support from enough MPs would force an election—whether Anwar wants one or not.


And if that election comes amid economic hardship, Anwar will not just struggle—he may not survive politically.


Even before any economic crisis fully bites, his government is already juggling multiple fault lines: internal tensions within PKR involving Rafizi Ramli, uneasy relations with coalition partners, questions over Sabah and Sarawak’s fiscal rights, and a restless electorate across ethnic lines. Meanwhile, the opposition, particularly Muhyiddin Yassin’s camp, is showing signs of renewed energy.



Any one of these issues is manageable. Two or three, perhaps. But taken together—against the backdrop of an economic crisis—they form a storm that no “trust me” leader can weather.


And that brings us to the uncomfortable question: if Anwar falls, who replaces him?


If the metric remains the same—another all-knowing, paternalistic figure promising to “take care of everything”—then there is arguably no one better than Anwar himself. But that is precisely the problem. That model of leadership may no longer be viable in today’s conditions.


In an era where crises are systemic and global, no single leader—no matter how skilled—can plausibly claim to have all the answers.


What Malaysia may need instead is a different kind of leadership altogether—one that recognises the limitations of the old “trust me, I will take care of everything” model and adapts to the realities of a more fragmented, economically stressed, and politically restless society. The country is no longer a monolith where one powerful figure can impose order simply by fiat; crises today are systemic, complex, and often transnational. A new kind of leader would approach governance not as a performance of control, but as a practice of coordination, resilience, and responsiveness.



Perhaps that leader comes from East Malaysia—Sabah or Sarawak. These states have long felt sidelined, their wealth and resources extracted while their political concerns are often treated as peripheral. A leader from East Malaysia would bring both symbolic and practical benefits. Symbolically, it signals a more inclusive federation, recognising that national unity cannot be taken for granted. Practically, such a leader might be better equipped to mediate between the federal government and the regional states, ensuring that Sabah and Sarawak remain committed to the federation in times of difficulty. In a period where even the perception of unfair treatment can trigger legal battles or secessionist sentiment, having someone who intimately understands the region’s history, politics, and economic needs could stabilise the country in ways that a “big man” from Peninsular Malaysia may not.



Another possibility lies with the younger generation of leaders—figures like Rafizi Ramli, Khairy Jamaluddin, or Nurul Izzah Anwar. These leaders are less wedded to the paternalistic, top-down archetype that has dominated Malaysian politics for decades. They think in terms of systems and institutions, rather than personal loyalty or patronage. They understand that leadership today is less about being seen as omnipotent and more about being accountable, collaborative, and innovative. Young leaders are also likely to be more attuned to the aspirations of a new Malaysia: an electorate that is socially connected, politically aware, and less willing to defer blindly to authority. By moving away from the old “big man” template, they could begin to rebuild trust not through promises of control, but through competence, transparency, and tangible results.



A third alternative might be a leader with a redistribution-focused, quasi-socialist outlook. In times of economic contraction, it is not enough to promise growth when growth is hard to come by; the more pressing issue becomes managing scarcity and ensuring that what wealth exists is shared in ways that prevent societal collapse. Such a leader would focus less on capital accumulation for the few and more on equitable access, social safety nets, and economic resilience for the majority. Malaysia’s social contract has long relied on ethnic, regional, and class balances; a redistribution-minded approach might offer a pragmatic way to stabilize society, prevent unrest, and maintain cohesion during a period when the economy cannot reliably generate wealth for everyone.


There is even an argument—however uncomfortable—for a more security-oriented leadership model, one that prioritises national resilience and preparedness in an increasingly unstable global environment.



As the economic crisis deepens and Anwar begins to lose his mandate, the political vacuum may create an opening for a new generation of leaders to emerge—figures who offer Malaysians an alternative to the long-standing, old-regime model of leadership. These are not the “trust me, I will take care of everything” types who have dominated the country for decades, promising omnipotence but delivering unevenly. Instead, these aspirants might be leaders who focus on competence over charisma, accountability over patronage, and practical solutions over grandiose assurances.


The point is not which model is correct, but that the old model is failing.


As the economic crisis deepens, and as the second group of voters begins to feel its full effects, Malaysia may find itself at an inflection point. The “trust me, I will take care of everything” era may finally run its course—not because of ideology, but because reality no longer permits it.



And when that happens, Anwar Ibrahim may not just lose an election.


He may become the last of a political species that no longer fits the world it is trying to govern.

Maybe they were still in diapers when Rafizi was fighting the good fight, Hanipa mocks critics










Maybe they were still in diapers when Rafizi was fighting the good fight, Hanipa mocks critics


Published: Apr 12, 2026 11:43 AM
Updated: 5:05 PM


An Amanah leader and ex-MP has rallied to the side of Rafizi Ramli, the embattled former PKR deputy president who is facing calls from his own party to quit.

In a statement last night, Hanipa Maidin said it was “laughable to see PKR leaders demanding Rafizi’s resignation”.

“These critics seem to forget - or were too young to witness - the immense personal sacrifices and legal battles Rafizi undertook against the previous regime’s corruption,” said Hanipa, a former deputy minister under the Pakatan Harapan administration between 2018 and 2020.

“Or perhaps they were still wearing pampers (diapers) when Rafizi faced a slew of political tribulations in fighting the corrupt regime then.

“Anyway, politics is inherently cutthroat. Leaders once hailed as stalwarts can quickly find themselves cast out as persona non grata the moment their party perceives them as a threat.”

Hanipa’s remarks come after a group of individuals held a small protest outside the office of the think tank Invoke, founded by Rafizi, to demand that the former economy minister resign from PKR.


Protesters outside Invoke’s office


Before that, one of the party’s supreme council members had accused Rafizi of trying to “sabotage the party from within”.

Rafizi has openly feuded with his party, including with PKR president and Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, whom he claimed is defending Azam Baki, the MACC chief commissioner who has been investigated for impropriety over his share ownership.

Rafizi has also accused PKR vice-president R Ramanan of being linked to an RM9.5 million payment from businessperson Victor Chin.

Recently, Rafizi challenged the party to expel him after it issued him a second show-cause letter.


READ MORE:




***


Let's face it lah - Rafizi brought all of it upon himself. He has gone renegade since he lost the party deputy president post - sangat KIASU lah





Greatest Hypocrites



Pedophiles & child rapists accuse Muslims of pedophilia



Genocidals accuse Muslims of Genocides





Terrorist States accuse Muslim States of terrorism






At a recent Pentagon briefing, he said, “The mullahs are desperate and scrambling,” referring to Iran’s clerical leadership, before reciting Psalm 144: “Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle.”


And we so often hear Wankees accusing Muslims of religious fanaticism







China's nuclear surge reshapes Indo-Pacific security












R Paneir Selvam
Published: Apr 12, 2026 12:30 PM
Updated: 2:30 PM




COMMENT | The 2026 Munich Security Report warns that the international order is entering an era of “wrecking-ball politics”, where established norms and institutions are being dismantled faster than they can be reformed.

Nowhere is this upheaval more consequential than in the Indo-Pacific. As the United States recalibrates its global posture and China accelerates its push for regional primacy, Asia’s strategic balance is undergoing structural change.

China’s rapid expansion and modernisation of its nuclear weapons infrastructure, including reported developments in Sichuan and renewed activity at Lop Nur, adds a destabilising layer to an already volatile environment.

The Munich report identifies a core dilemma: US allies increasingly question Washington’s reliability even as they confront a more assertive Beijing.

Unlike Europe, the Indo-Pacific lacks institutions comparable to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) or the European Union that can cushion strategic shocks.

This institutional gap magnifies uncertainty. As Washington alternates between hardline confrontation and transactional dealmaking, regional states hedge - raising defence budgets and deepening partnerships while stopping short of formally aligning against China.

Against this fragile backdrop, China’s nuclear trajectory assumes profound significance.


Missile silo fields


Recent reporting by The New York Times highlights China’s rapid construction of new missile silo fields and supporting infrastructure, suggesting movement beyond its traditional minimum deterrence posture.

Satellite imagery analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies has detailed activity at Lop Nur, China’s historic nuclear test site, consistent with facility upgrades that raise questions about transparency and long-term strategic intent.

Coverage by Oregon Public Broadcasting has outlined US allegations regarding potential low-yield nuclear test preparations, underscoring deepening mistrust between Washington and Beijing over arms control compliance.




Taken together, these developments point to three major shifts.

First, China appears to be prioritising survivability and escalation dominance. By dispersing silos, hardening sites, and modernising support infrastructure, Beijing strengthens its second-strike capability and reinforces deterrence credibility.

A larger and more diversified arsenal complicates US extended deterrence guarantees to allies such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia. Washington may feel compelled to adjust force posture and missile defence systems, increasing the risk of an Indo-Pacific arms competition.

Second, nuclear modernisation intersects with grey-zone coercion. China’s posture toward Taiwan, its militarisation of the South China Sea, and its economic pressure on neighbouring states carry added weight under a strengthened nuclear umbrella.

Even if nuclear weapons remain in the background, they shape escalation calculations. In a Taiwan contingency, for instance, nuclear capabilities could influence timelines, intervention decisions, and crisis signalling, heightening the possibility of miscalculation.

Third, arms control erosion worsens instability. Unlike the Cold War era, the Indo-Pacific lacks robust trilateral frameworks involving the US, China, and Russia.


Unpredictable times

The Munich report stresses that transactional politics and weakened multilateral institutions undermine cooperative security mechanisms. If Beijing resists transparency while Washington retreats from rule-based leadership, smaller states must navigate a more opaque and unpredictable order.

For Malaysia and Asean, these trends carry direct consequences.

Southeast Asia has long sought insulation from major power rivalry through Asean centrality and inclusive multilateralism. The Asean Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone embodies a regional commitment to restraint.




Yet China’s nuclear expansion, combined with shifting US policies, tests this normative shield.

Developments in Sichuan or Lop Nur are not distant abstractions. A more credible Chinese nuclear deterrent could embolden assertive behaviour in maritime Southeast Asia.

In the South China Sea, where Malaysia has direct interests tied to its exclusive economic zone, disputes may become entangled in broader US-China strategic competition.

In a Taiwan crisis, Southeast Asian sea lanes could become contested logistical corridors, exposing the region to economic and security shocks.

Malaysia has traditionally pursued equidistance: sustaining strong economic ties with China while maintaining security cooperation with the US and partners in the Five Power Defence Arrangements.

However, nuclear modernisation compresses strategic space. As escalation capabilities expand, ambiguity becomes harder to sustain.

Adapting to this environment requires strategic maturity rather than abandonment of neutrality.


Asean must buck up

First, Asean states should invest in strategic literacy and early-warning capabilities. Enhanced maritime domain awareness, cyber resilience, and intelligence-sharing can reduce vulnerability to surprise.

Analytical capacity to assess missile and nuclear developments is no longer optional for smaller states.

Second, Asean-led forums such as the Asean Regional Forum and the East Asia Summit must be strengthened as platforms for nuclear risk reduction dialogue.

Even absent formal arms control treaties, sustained engagement can promote transparency norms, crisis communication channels, and confidence-building measures.

Third, Malaysia can expand practical minilateral cooperation without provoking bloc polarisation. Deepening exchanges within the FPDA and collaborating with middle powers such as Japan, Australia, and India on humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, and maritime safety builds resilience while preserving autonomy.

Fourth, economic diversification is essential. As weaponised interdependence becomes normalised, Asean states must reduce exposure to economic coercion by broadening trade partnerships and reinforcing multilateral frameworks.




Fifth, Southeast Asia can advocate renewed arms control diplomacy. As a nuclear-weapon-free region, Asean holds moral authority to press for restraint and transparency.

Malaysia could support Track II dialogues between US and Chinese strategic communities, positioning Asean as a constructive bridge rather than a passive observer.

The Indo-Pacific is entering what the Munich report calls a new and uncertain security landscape. If the post-1945 US-led order continues fragmenting and China’s nuclear rise accelerates without guardrails, the region risks drifting toward competitive deterrence marked by mistrust and escalation risk.

Smaller states cannot rely solely on external guarantees nor assume great power self-restraint.

The future of the Indo-Pacific will not be determined solely in Washington or Beijing. It will also depend on whether regional actors can strengthen institutions, pool resources, and demonstrate that cooperative security remains viable amid intensifying rivalry.

In an age of “wrecking-ball geopolitics”, resilience, strategic clarity, and multilateral engagement are no longer idealistic aspirations but necessities.



R PANEIR SELVAM is the principal consultant of Arunachala Research & Consultancy Sdn Bhd, a think tank specialising in strategic national and geopolitical matters.


***


Do the Wanks have missile silos?

Then, US has 70 nuclear subs armed with nuke-missiles, whilst China is on par with Russia, each having 30.

US possesses over 5,000 nuclear warheads while China has around 900, less than a thousand. Yet when there is talk about China and her nuclear programme, we hear about her nuclear "SURGE" and new "MISSILE SILOS" as if she is a global renegade outdoing others in nuclear armament.






The pig farm dilemma is a test of Malaysia’s diversity and tolerance — Ahmad Ibrahim


Sunday, 12 Apr 2026 10:05 AM MYT


APRIL 12 — A delicate issue has recently taken centre stage in multi-religious Malaysia, with social media flaring up with theories and concerns while experts in the field appear largely absent from the debate.

The controversy surrounding the proposed centralised pig farm is more than a zoning dispute. It reflects Malaysia’s broader challenges in balancing economic development with religious sensitivities, technological progress with governance realities, and centralised planning with community trust.

To dismiss objectors as merely NIMBYs or resistant to progress is to misunderstand the deeper layers of the issue. A closer examination of the matter is necessary.

On paper, the state government’s rationale appears sound. Consolidating smaller, often informally regulated farms into a single Integrated, Modern and Large-scale (IML) facility promises improved biosecurity, easier monitoring, better waste management through centralised systems, and a more competitive livestock sector.


However, public concern is not irrational. It is rooted in experience and trust deficits. The promise of available technology carries limited weight if environmental enforcement has historically been inconsistent.

A poorly managed mega-farm could become a source of serious environmental pollution and community disruption. For some non-Muslim communities, it also represents concerns over livelihoods, while for Muslim communities in the proposed area, the proximity of a large-scale pig farming operation raises cultural and religious sensitivities.

The issue, therefore, extends beyond technical planning into questions of trust, governance, and social acceptance.

A purely top-down approach risks deepening resentment, while outright cancellation could stall necessary agricultural modernisation. The way forward, therefore, lies in transparency and partnership.



A poorly managed mega-farm could become a source of serious environmental pollution and community disruption. — Reuters file pic



First, site selection must be both scientifically and socially grounded, with careful consideration of environmental buffers and watershed impact. A multi-stakeholder committee involving environmental scientists, community representatives and agricultural experts is essential.

Second, operational plans must go beyond assurances and be translated into enforceable conditions, including closed-loop waste systems such as biogas digesters and advanced effluent treatment. Real-time environmental monitoring should be made publicly accessible.

Third, governance should be strengthened through an independent oversight body with statutory powers, comprising civil society actors, technical experts and relevant stakeholders to ensure compliance and accountability.

Finally, meaningful engagement must recognise religious sensitivities while also protecting the economic rights of affected communities, framing the issue within broader principles of social justice and national unity.

The controversy ultimately tests Malaysia’s ability to modernise while maintaining social cohesion. The objective should not be to “win” the debate, but to transform it into a model of inclusive and transparent policymaking.

Beyond the religious dimension, public understanding of pig farming science remains limited, highlighting the need for greater input from scientists to bridge information gaps and reduce misunderstanding.

*Professor Dato Dr Ahmad Ibrahim is affiliated with the Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy Studies at UCSI University and is an Adjunct Professor at the Ungku Aziz Centre for Development Studies, Universiti Malaya.

As costs bite, DBKL halves rent for 10,000 traders till Dec 31, 2027





As costs bite, DBKL halves rent for 10,000 traders till Dec 31, 2027



Federal Territories Minister Hannah Yeoh announced on April 12, 2026 that 10,000 traders renting from DBKL will receive a 50 per cent reduction from April 1, 2026 to December 31, 2027. — Bernama pic

Sunday, 12 Apr 2026 11:28 AM MYT


PUTRAJAYA, April 12 — Some 10,000 traders under the supervision of Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) will receive a 50 per cent rental reduction for two years, said Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Federal Territories) Hannah Yeoh.

She said DBKL and Labuan Corporation are among the earliest local authorities (PBTs) to announce the initiative, aimed at easing the cost-of-living burden on traders, particularly following rising fuel prices.

“We have a long list (of recipients under) DBKL, involving 10,000 traders across all sites, including food courts and markets,” she told reporters after launching the Putrajaya Actif Programme here today.

The rental reduction for hawker sites and selected premises under DBKL takes effect from April 1 until Dec 31, 2027.


However, she said the government is currently prioritising rental reductions over other forms of subsidies, taking into account financial constraints and the need to generate alternative revenue.

“When we reduce rent, we need to find other sources of revenue as we are also facing rising operating costs, including higher fuel prices,” she said.

On today’s programme, Hannah said the government has also launched free sports classes involving sepak takraw and skipping in Putrajaya as a targeted effort to address obesity among children.


She said the programme was chosen as it is low-cost and easy for children to practise at home.

“These classes are held twice a month, in the second and fourth weeks, involving 50 participants per session at four locations around Putrajaya and will run throughout the year,” she said.

Hannah said the initiative is implemented in collaboration with the Ministry of Health, focusing on providing programmes and cultivating interest in sports, while aspects of nutrition and health are monitored by the ministry.

She added that the government also plans to obtain data on obese children in Putrajaya through cooperation with the Ministry of Education to expand the programme’s reach to target groups before extending it to other areas, including Kuala Lumpur. — Bernama

Driver of Singapore-registered car first to be arrested in Johor under new RON95 petrol rule, reports ST



Driver of Singapore-registered car first to be arrested in Johor under new RON95 petrol rule, reports ST


Saturday, 11 Apr 2026 | 10:46 PM MYT

The man, who is in his 50s, was detained during an enforcement operation at a petrol station in Johor Bahru at 10pm on April 10. -- PHOTO: COMMUNITY ROAD JOHOR/FACEBOOK


SINGAPORE (The Straits Times/ANN): A man on April 10 became the first person to be arrested by the Malaysian authorities for filling his Singapore-registered car with subsidised RON95 petrol in Johor, following a ban that applies to foreign-registered vehicles, according to media reports.

Johor Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Ministry (KPDN) director Lilis Saslinda Pornomo said the man, who is in his 50s, was detained during an enforcement operation at a petrol station in Johor Bahru at 10pm.


“Initial investigations confirmed that the transaction involved RON95 petrol,” she said in a statement, as reported by the Malaysian media.

She said further checks were carried out, including reviewing CCTV footage at the petrol station, checking the purchase receipt and recording statements from the petrol station’s employees.

Johor KPDN officers confiscated a Honda Civic car, CCTV footage, copies of the purchase receipt and related documents.

“The foreign man, who is believed to be the driver of the vehicle, was also detained to assist investigations,” said Ms Lilis.

She said that the case was being investigated under the Supply Control Act 1961 for purchasing controlled goods such as RON95 petrol using a foreign-registered vehicle.

If found guilty, individuals can be fined up to RM1 million (S$322,000) or jailed for up to three years, or both. Repeat offenders can be fined a maximum of RM3 million or jailed for up to five years, or both.

For companies, the fine can be as much as RM2 million, and increases to RM5 million for the second and subsequent offences.

From April 1, drivers of foreign-registered vehicles are banned from purchasing RON95 petrol.

Under Malaysian law, subsidised RON95 has strictly been for Malaysia-registered vehicles. Malaysian citizens driving Singapore-registered cars are also barred from buying it.

On Jan 14, a Singapore permanent resident was fined RM9,000 in the magistrate’s court in Kulai, Johor, after he was filmed pumping subsidised RON95 petrol into a Singapore-registered car with a partially covered registration plate. -- The Straits Times/ANN


In fiery speech, Pope Leo says ‘Enough to war!’


FMT:

In fiery speech, Pope Leo says ‘Enough to war!’


The pontiff calls on billions of people around the globe to embrace peace and 'believe once again in love, moderation and good politics'


Pope Leo said faith was needed ‘in order to face this dramatic hour in history together’. (EPA Images pic)



VATICAN CITY: Pope Leo lashed out against warmongers on Saturday while calling on billions of people around the globe to embrace peace and “believe once again in love, moderation and good politics”.

In one of his most passionate entreaties yet to end the raging conflict in the Middle East, the American pope said faith was needed “in order to face this dramatic hour in history together”.

“Enough of the idolatry of self and money! Enough of the display of power! Enough of war! True strength is shown in serving life,” Pope Leo implored in an address during a prayer vigil for peace at St Peter’s Basilica.


Uttered in measured tones, as is customary for the soft-spoken head of the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics, the comments by the 70-year-old Leo nevertheless marked some of the most pointed criticism yet of the wave of conflicts inflaming the globe.

“Dear brothers and sisters, there are certainly binding responsibilities that fall to the leaders of nations. To them we cry out, ‘Stop!’ It is time for peace! Sit at the table of dialogue and mediation, not at the table where rearmament is planned and deadly actions are decided!”

As he has done in the past, the Chicago native did not cite politicians by name and did not call out specific countries.


‘Delusion of omnipotence’

Responsibility also fell to the “immense multitude” that rejects war, Leo said, urging them to build a “Kingdom of peace… in our homes, schools, neighbourhoods, and civil and religious communities.”

“A Kingdom that counters polemics and resignation through friendship and a culture of encounter. Let us believe once again in love, moderation and good politics.”


The pope described the Kingdom of God as a “bulwark against that delusion of omnipotence that surrounds us and is becoming increasingly unpredictable and aggressive”.


It also was a place with “no sword, no drone, no vengeance, no trivialisation of evil, and no unjust profit, but only dignity, understanding and forgiveness.”

Leo painted a grim picture of the current state of the world, “where there never seem to be enough graves, for people continue to crucify one another and eliminate life, with no regard to justice and mercy.”

Pope Leo, who was elected pontiff last May following the death of his predecessor Francis, is moderate and known as a bridge-builder.


But he has been increasingly denouncing the conflicts dividing the world, most recently on Friday when he railed against the “senseless and inhuman violence” spreading across the Holy Land.

Leo has repeatedly urged de-escalation in the current US-Israeli war on Iran and the need for a diplomatic solution.


***


VP Vance is Catholic - let's see how he reacts to Papa's message.


Khairy best suited for urban, semi-urban seats, say analysts


FMT:

Khairy best suited for urban, semi-urban seats, say analysts


5 hours ago

Mazlan Ali from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia says his image as a fairly progressive politician improves his chances of victory


Speculation has swirled over possible seats for former health minister Khairy Jamaluddin in the coming polls, even though he has said it is premature to talk about such matters.



PETALING JAYA: Analysts believe that Khairy Jamaluddin is best suited to urban and semi-urban seats if the former MP is nominated to contest in the next election.

Mazlan Ali from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia said Khairy would be able to rally voters both in Malay and mixed areas, based on the former Umno Youth chief’s performance in past polls.

Khairy was Rembau MP from 2008 to 2022. He ran in Sungai Buloh for Umno in the 15th general election, losing by a slim margin with 48,250 votes against 50,943 for PKR’s R Ramanan.


Mazlan said Khairy’s image as a “fairly progressive” politician improves his chances of victory.


“He is best suited to run in mixed areas, or where there are many ‘progressive Malays’. Look at how he almost beat Ramanan in Sungai Buloh,” he told FMT.

Speculation has swirled over possible seats for Khairy, even though he has said it is premature to talk about such matters as the decision lies with Barisan Nasional chairman Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.

On Friday, he dismissed rumours that he would contest the Kepala Batas parliamentary seat in the next general election as his late father-in-law and former long-serving Kepala Batas MP, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, had told him to leave the seat to Reezal Merican Naina Merican.

The Rembau seat is now held by Umno deputy president Mohamad Hasan. PKR vice-president Ramanan is expected to defend Sungai Buloh.

Khairy has expressed his intention to seek reinstatement of his Umno membership in Sungai Buloh.


His application to rejoin Umno will be discussed at the party’s Supreme Council meeting on April 17, with a decision expected the same day.


Khairy’s popularity among the public has increased since his defeat after establishing himself as a radio announcer and a co-host of the Keluar Sekejap podcast with fellow ex-Umno man Shahril Hamdan.

Syaza Shukri from International Islamic University Malaysia noted that much has been said about Khairy’s unique, cross-party appeal as a moderate.

“We know he is strongest in urban and mixed areas,” she told FMT.