Rubio tells Al Jazeera Strait of Hormuz will reopen ‘one way or another’

Published On 30 Mar 202630 Mar 2026

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio has told Al Jazeera that the Strait of Hormuz will “reopen one way or another” in the wake of the US-Israeli war with Iran.

The exclusive interview on Monday came as speculation has grown over a possible US troop deployment in Iran and as the effective closure of strait continues to roil global oil markets.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 items

list 1 of 4

Jackson faces child molestation rap

list 2 of 4

Memo: Bush wanted Aljazeera bombed

list 3 of 4

Chinese-controlled Kashmir

list 4 of 4

Behind Mohammed VI’s push for a more Amazigh Morocco

end of list

US boots on the ground would represent a new phase in the grinding conflict, which began on February 28 with US-Israeli strikes on Iran, even as US President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that the US was pursuing diplomacy with Iran.

Rubio again maintained there were “ongoing direct talks between parties in Iran and the United States, primarily conducted through intermediaries”.

Iran has repeatedly denied that talks were ongoing. Pakistan on Sunday said it would host direct talks “in the coming days for a comprehensive and lasting settlement of the ongoing conflict”.

Rubio added that Trump “has always preferred diplomacy and seeks to reach a resolution – something that could have been achieved earlier”.

The Trump administration had previously pursued indirect talks with Iran to curtail its nuclear programme. One round of talks was derailed last year with Israel’s 12-day war against Iran, which ended with US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facility.

A second round of diplomacy was underway when the US and Israel began the latest war.

Nuclear and ballistic weapons

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Rubio further called on Iran to take “concrete steps” to end its nuclear programme and stop “manufacturing drones and missiles”.

He accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons to “threaten and blackmail the world”, a claim Tehran has for years denied, maintaining its nuclear programme was only for civilian purposes.

On Monday, the Wall Street Journal reported Trump was considering a special forces operation to seize enriched uranium stored in Iran. Military experts have warned throughout the war that US and Israeli airstrikes alone would not be able to destory’s Iran’s capacity.

In a statement to Al Jazeera, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt did not deny the report, but said: “It’s the job of the Pentagon to make preparations in order to give the Commander-in-Chief maximum optionality. It does not mean the President has made a decision.”

Rubio said Iran “must also cease sponsoring terrorism and halt the production of weapons that threaten its neighbours,” he said. “The short-range missiles launched by Iran serve only one purpose: to attack Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain.”

Turning to the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has effectively closed to open traffic, Rubio voiced optimism it would be reopened.

“The Strait of Hormuz will reopen one way or another once our military operation in Iran is over,” Rubio said. “The strait will reopen either with Iran’s consent or through an international coalition including the US.”

He threatened “severe consequences” if Iran closes the strait after the fighting ends.

At CPAC, a generational divide over Republican support for Israel

At CPAC, a generational divide over Republican support for Israel

By Nathan Layne

March 28, 2026

9:04 PM GMT+11

Updated March 29, 2026


Summary

• Gaetz's CPAC remarks highlight Republican split over Israel
• Younger Republicans more likely to question support for Israel
• Debate over Israel and antisemitism risks deepening MAGA fault lines ahead of midterm elections

GRAPEVINE, Texas, March 28 (Reuters) - When former Congressman Matt Gaetz opened his speech by aligning with a Republican faction "loyal to only one nation," his message to the Conservative Political Action Conference was clear: It was a ​veiled swipe at perceived Israeli influence over U.S. politicians, even without naming Israel outright.

A month into the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran, Gaetz's comments struck a discordant note at the annual CPAC ‌event. They cut against calls for unity and exposed a growing Republican rift largely along generational lines, as younger conservatives increasingly question support for Israel.

That skepticism reflects a broader distrust of military intervention among younger Republicans, fueled in part by conservative figures such as Tucker Carlson, whose allegations of excessive Israeli influence on U.S. policy have drawn accusations that he is stoking antisemitism. Carlson has repeatedly denied accusations of antisemitism.

The Iran war, including Israel's role in it, emerged as one of the main flashpoints at ​CPAC, which for decades has served as a central gathering for Republican politicians and activists.

Jack Posobiec, a conservative commentator and online influencer, said age 45 is a dividing line, with the younger ​cohort more likely to question the party's steadfast support of Israel.

"People want to paint it off as if it's antisemitism, but I don't think that's what it ⁠is," Posobiec told Reuters.

"It's just a question of: Why? What is the purpose of this relationship? And I hear that a lot from young voters."

The issue has roiled the Democratic Party in recent weeks, with some ​lawmakers and primary candidates distancing themselves from the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC amid growing unease over Israel's military actions.

It is now exposing fault lines among Republicans as well, turning off young voters who helped propel Trump to ​victory in 2024 and potentially complicating the party's efforts to defend slim majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives heading into November's midterm elections.

Noah Bundy, 17, and Ryder Gerrald, 18, conservative friends from Georgia attending their first CPAC, said they opposed the war with Iran and questioned whether the military operation put Israel’s interests ahead of America’s.

Jet fuel prices have since doubled and forced carriers to rethink their strategies.

"I think they totally pushed us into a war with Iran," Bundy said. "My whole family is military and none of us is really for it."

"Our younger ​generation, we don't like Israel as much compared to the older generation," said Gerrald. He said he would prefer redirecting U.S. taxpayer dollars toward domestic priorities, rather than spending to bolster Israel's military.

EVANGELICAL SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL

The ​party's pro-Israel stance, however, resonates strongly with evangelicals - a pillar of Trump's political base - and with older voters like Harry Strine III, an 83-year-old CPAC attendee who was wearing a red “Make America Great Again” hat.

"Israel is God's people," Strine ‌said. "The U.S. was ⁠founded on the Judeo-Christian belief. I guess I'm a traditionalist."

On the conference’s opening day, Rev. Franklin Graham said that, by striking Iran to protect Israel, President Donald Trump was like the biblical figure of Esther, a Jewish queen who, according to scripture, was elevated by God to save her people from annihilation in ancient Persia.

"I believe God has raised him up for a time such as this, like Queen Esther," said Graham, a prominent Christian evangelist, invoking a core evangelical belief that the modern state of Israel represents the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

But unease over the Iran war and rising gasoline prices has pushed Trump’s approval rating down to ​36% - its lowest since his return to the White ​House - a Reuters/Ipsos poll completed on Monday found.

⁠Support among his core base remains strong, however, with 74% of Republicans backing the strikes on Iran.

The debate over Israel coincides with a broader Republican fight over the future of the MAGA movement and who belongs in it. Allegations of antisemitism flared at a December event organized by Turning Point USA, a nonprofit focused ​on promoting conservative politics. At its first national event since founder Charlie Kirk's death, commentator Ben Shapiro criticized fellow conservatives for associating with figures like white ​nationalist streamer Nick Fuentes, who ⁠has praised Hitler.

In his CPAC speech on Thursday, Gaetz said he did not agree with Shapiro and other conservative commentators "that we have some sort of near slavish loyalty to a country in a faraway land," an apparent reference to Israel.

He argued that conservatives needed to allow for disagreements and that "antisemitism isn't hiding around every corner and in every bush."

Visitors to the CPAC booth of Generation Zion, a nonprofit group that trains young Christians and Jews to ⁠advocate for Israel ​and to combat antisemitism, could pick up a sticker reading "Tucker Carlson Hates Me," a rebuke of the commentator's recent criticism of ​Christian Zionism and Israel's alleged sway over U.S. politics.

Gabriel Khuly, a 19-year-old volunteer for the group, said that while the Republican Party has an antisemitism problem, it is driven by a small minority with an outsized voice online.

"The actual anti-Israel, antisemitic wing of the Republican ​Party, I think, makes itself seem a lot bigger than it really is."

(This story has been refiled to remove the extraneous word 'exposing' in the third bullet point)


- reporting by Nathan Layne in Grapevine, Texas; Additional reporting by Tim Reid and Jason Lange in Washington; Editing by Michael Learmonth and Edmund Klamann

Military Watch:

Israeli Sources Confirm Iranian Missile Strikes Have 80 Percent Success Rates as Air Defences Falter

Middle East , Missile and Space

Military Watch Magazine Editorial Staff

March-27th-2026

---

THAAD Launcher (left) and Footage of Moments Iranian Hypersonic Glide Vehicle Strikes High Value Target in Israel

The Israeli paper Haaretz has confirmed that 8 out of 10 Iranian missiles launched against Israeli targets are reaching their targets, following mounting reports and growing quantities of footage pointing to the failures of Israeli and U.S. ballistic missile defences. The report further noted that success rates have continued to improve as air defences have become increasingly strained. Israeli analysts observed that contributing factors have included the systematic exhaustion of the air defence network, and the destruction of U.S. forward radar systems in allied Arab states such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates which have limited the quantities of cueing data that can be provided. Sources further observed that mass bombardment by Hezbollah paramilitary units in Lebanon has further strained Israeli and U.S. defences. 

Launchers From U.S. Army THAAD System in South Korea Before Their Withdrawal and Redeployment to the Middle East

Preceding the U.S. and Israel’s initiation of a full scale assault against Iran on February 28, the U.S. Army and Navy deployed ballistic missile defence systems in and around Israel to support local missile defences. These included a reported three U.S. Army THAAD systems in Israel and Jordan, which have been allocated anti-ballistic missiles from across the world including the U.S. mainland, Hawaii, Guam, and South Korea, as well as Navy AEGIS destroyers which can fire SM-2, SM-3, and SM-6 anti-ballistic missiles. The depletion of missile defences has nevertheless been severe, particularly when considering that the U.S. and Israeli anti-missile inventories were still far from recovering from their severe depletion during twelve days of hostilities with Iran in June 2025. 

U.S. Army AN/TPY-2 Radar From THAAD System in Jordan Destroyed in Engagements with Iranian Forces

Iran has employed a number of ballistic missile types with improved penetrative capabilities, including the Fattah 2 which has demonstrated the capabilities of its advanced hypersonic glide vehicle to neutralise high value targets, and the older and less complex Fattah which uses an advanced manoeuvring reentry vehicle. Footage has show Iranian ballistic missiles repeatedly evading multiple rounds of anti-ballistic missiles over Israel before hitting their targets. Other Iranian missile types have made use of multiple warheads to complicate interception efforts. Complementing these advances in missile technologies, the Israeli Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps quickly achieved the destruction of $2.7 billion worth of high value radar systems, including the AN/FPS-132 radar in Qatar, and two AN/TPY-2 radars in Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. This has left U.S. and Israeli defences heavily reliant on ship-based radars and on the AN/TPY-2 radar station in Turkey. 

Military Watch:

Footage Confirms Iranian Precision Strike Destroyed $500 Million U.S. ‘Flying Radar’ Aircraft: Replacement Impossible Until 2030s

Middle East , Aircraft and Anti-Aircraft

Military Watch Magazine Editorial Staff

March-29th-2026

---

Destroyed U.S. Air Force E-3 at Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia

Following reports that Iranian ballistic missile and drone attacks had destroyed at least one U.S. Air Force E-3 Sentry airborne warning and control system (AWACS) at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, footage released from the facility has confirmed the aircraft’s destruction. Images show an E-3G from the 552nd Air Control Wing based at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, serial number 81-0005, destroyed at the key forward operating facility in the Persian Gulf. The Iranian attack appears to have precisely targeted its most critical component, the tail section, where its rotating radar dome is located, with analysts making conflicting assessments on whether a drone or ballistic missile impact was most likely to have been responsible. The E-3 is the most high value support aircraft in the U.S. Air Force, rivalled only by the E-4B Nightwatch airborne command post, with both costing close to $500 million. 

Destroyed U.S. Air Force E-3 at Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia

Although Iranian strikes have destroyed higher value targets, including the $1.1 billion AN/FPS-132 radar in Qatar, and two AN/TPY-2 radars valued at between $500 million and $1 billion each, the E-3 remains the most high value U.S. Armed Forces aircraft to have been destroyed so far in the war. Its destruction on March 28 marks one month since the beginning of a U.S. and Israeli air assault on Iran on February 28, with the capabilities of the U.S. and its strategic partners to intercept Iranian strikes having rapidly diminished due to both the raid destruction of their radar networks, and the depletion of their inventories of anti-missile interceptors. The E-3 will be particularly challenging to replace, with funding to produce the Air Force’s first post-Cold War airborne early warning systems, E-7 Wedgetails, having only been approved in early March, while a long queue remains to receive the aircraft. 

Alongside the E-3, Iranian attacks on Prince Sultan Air Base are reported to have destroyed at last three  KC-135 Stratotanker airborne refuelling aircraft, which cost approximately $53 million each. The attack is reported to have caused at least ten casualties. This follows a prior Iranian missile strike on Prince Sultan Air Base which damaged at least five KC-135s in the second week of March, and the destruction of one KC-135 and damage of another over Iraq which were reportedly the results of air defence operations by local militias. The U.S. Air Force’s aerial refuelling fleet has faced growing strain, as Iranian strikes on military bases across the Middle East have limited the service’s ability to conduct fighter operations, forcing attacks to be launched from air bases further afield that require much greater support from tankers. The age of the KC-135 fleet and its resulting higher maintenance needs, combined with major issues with the limited numbers of new KC-46 tankers, have left the Air Force vulnerable in this regard.

Alongside the E-3, Iranian attacks on Prince Sultan Air Base are reported to have destroyed at least three KC-135 Stratotanker airborne refuelling aircraft, which cost approximately $53 million each. The attack is reported to have caused at least ten casualties. This follows a prior Iranian missile strike on Prince Sultan Air Base which damaged at least five KC-135s in the second week of March, and the destruction of one KC-135 and damage of another over Iraq which were reportedly the results of air defence operations by local militias. The U.S. Air Force’s aerial refuelling fleet has faced growing strain, as Iranian strikes on military bases across the Middle East have limited the service’s ability to conduct fighter operations, forcing attacks to be launched from air bases further afield that require much greater support from tankers. The age of the KC-135 fleet and its resulting higher maintenance needs, combined with major issues with the limited numbers of new KC-46 tankers, have left the Air Force vulnerable in this regard.

A Year in Jail for a Fleeting Act

OPINION | A Year in Jail for a Fleeting Act


30 Mar 2026 • 8:44 AM MYT

Pola Singh
Writer, green advocate, values health and happiness, loves nature

Image Credit: Malay Mail/ BERNAMA


Malaysia must not let disproportionate punishment crush lives for a first-time, non-violent offence. Two Malaysians have been sentenced to 12 months in prison for a lewd act at a cemetery—a punishment that raises urgent questions about fairness, compassion, and the purpose of justice. With overcrowded prisons and vulnerable families left behind, is this truly the path our courts should take? This article argues that mercy, not incarceration, must guide our response to such first-time, non-violent offences.



The recent sentencing of M. Jegathesan and Halila Abu Bakar to 12 months in prison for engaging in a lewd act at the Batu Gantung Chinese cemetery has stirred public debate—and rightly so. Under Section 377D of the Penal Code, both individuals pleaded guilty and were swiftly handed a one-year jail term. But is this punishment proportionate to the offence?


Let us examine the facts.


No one was physically harmed.


No property was damaged.


No violence was committed.


Yes, the act was inappropriate—especially given the location—but it was a moment of human weakness, not a threat to public safety. The cemetery setting understandably evokes sensitivities, but should that alone justify a year of incarceration?


Malaysia’s prisons are already overcrowded. To confine two individuals for a non-violent, first-time offence not only strains our correctional system but also burdens taxpayers. Jegathesan, a security guard earning RM1,800 monthly, supports a wife who has suffered a stroke and two children. Halila is single and financially dependent on her family. A fine would have been a more constructive penalty—allowing them to continue working, support their families, and reflect on their actions.



Moreover, both accused pleaded guilty, saving the court valuable time and resources. Shouldn’t their admission of guilt and cooperation be met with some degree of leniency?


Justice must be firm, yes—but it must also be humane. Punishment should serve to rehabilitate, not ruin lives. A one-year jail term for a fleeting lapse in judgment does not reflect a balanced approach to justice.


We urge the Bar Council of Malaysia and civil society organisations to appeal for a reduction in sentence. Let compassion guide our legal system. Let mercy temper our judgment.


Give them a chance to repent. Give them a chance to rebuild.

Najib Refuses to Drop Contempt Case Against Former Attorney‑General

OPINION | Najib Refuses to Drop Contempt Case Against Former Attorney‑General


30 Mar 2026 • 4:00 PM MYT

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

Orientaldaily


PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia In a move that has sent shockwaves through Malaysia’s legal and political circles, former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak is pressing ahead with a contempt of court bid against former Attorney‑General Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh, rejecting calls to withdraw the case despite legal setbacks and intense public scrutiny. The decision underscores deep fissures in Malaysia’s judiciary, executive decisions, and post‑corruption scandal politics. (The Edge Malaysia)



This contentious legal battle hits at the heart of how power, accountability, and redemption intertwine in one of Southeast Asia’s most high‑profile political scandals. It raises fundamental questions about legal strategy, institutional trust, and how Malaysia’s justice system navigates highly politicised fights long after criminal verdicts.


This article traces the evolution of the dispute, outlines why Najib refuses to back down, examines the legal and political stakes, and situates this feud in Malaysia’s broader rule‑of‑law challenges.


Anatomy of the Contempt Battle


At the centre of the dispute is a bid by Najib to cite Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh for contempt of court. Najib claims the former attorney‑general knew about a so‑called “royal addendum” an alleged additional order from the Yang di‑Pertuan Agong that Najib argues should have allowed him to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest but failed to disclose it and allegedly misled the court. (The Edge Malaysia)



Najib’s legal team, led by senior counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, states that the matter cannot be abandoned after substantial time, money, and legal effort. Shafee told reporters that Najib would pursue the contempt bid “for sure” and that there would be “no withdrawal”. (The Edge Malaysia)


The case was scheduled for appeal this month, but the court paused proceedings to determine which of two overlapping appeals the contempt bid and a separate challenge to enforce the alleged royal addendum should be heard first. (The Edge Malaysia)


Roots in the ‘Royal Addendum’ Controversy


The contempt drama stems from a wider legal contest over Najib’s imprisonment after his conviction over the SRC International corruption case, part of the sprawling 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal. After Najib’s sentence was significantly reduced by the Federal Territories Pardons Board in early 2024, his lawyers filed a suit to enforce a supposed additional royal order that would allow house arrest instead of imprisonment.



The High Court initially dismissed the “addendum” application, calling it speculative and hearsay. (ceomorningbrief.theedgemalaysia.com)


Najib then tried to launch contempt proceedings against Terrirudin, accusing him of misguiding the court about the document’s existence. The High Court’s dismissal of that contempt bid prompted an appeal to the Court of Appeal, which has now been put on hold to coordinate the related cases. (The Edge Malaysia)


The Stakes: Strategy, Reputation, and Legal Redress


For Najib, continuing the contempt bid is about more than a legal technicality. It is a strategic assertion of procedural accountability. His lawyers argue that failure to pursue the contempt case could set a precedent where key documents and evidence are misrepresented without consequence especially if those decisions have contributed to adverse judicial outcomes.



This approach also reflects Najib’s broader legal strategy: to exhaust all avenues that might vindicate his interpretation of the addendum and, by extension, challenge how his post‑conviction treatment unfolded. Legal analysts point out that this strategy could bolster claims of procedural unfairness, even if it falls short of reversing his convictions.


Yet the decision to escalate a contempt claim carries risks. Some legal experts warn that these acts may appear as attempts to shift blame onto court officials or past office‑holders for procedural outcomes. That perception could further erode public trust in impartiality and fuel political narratives of entrenchment.


Public Reaction and Political Undercurrents


The public reaction has been sharply divided. Najib’s supporters view his persistence as a principled effort to expose what they see as judicial missteps or concealment of key documents, reinforcing longstanding narratives of institutional bias. Critics see his refusal to withdraw the contempt bid as an extension of a broader campaign to remake his legacy, even after multiple convictions and the widespread fallout from the 1MDB scandal.



The 1MDB scandal itself which resulted in Najib’s conviction for corruption, money laundering, and abuse of power has had global repercussions, prompting investigations and lawsuits across multiple countries, including the United States and Switzerland.


In Malaysia, the scandal damaged public faith in governance and triggered deep debates over reform, accountability, and the independence of prosecutorial and judicial institutions. Against that backdrop, the contempt case is resonating beyond legal circles, tapping into long‑standing political cleavages.


Expert Views: Law, Accountability, and Constitutional Boundaries


Legal scholars and practitioners have weighed in on different aspects of the case, particularly on the legal basis for contempt and the handling of executive directives.


Contempt of court is traditionally a remedy to safeguard judicial integrity and prosecutorial candour. Yet critics caution that stretching contempt claims to target state officials over complex procedural disputes could muddy doctrinal boundaries. In Malaysia, some have argued that contempt claims should be tightly circumscribed to clear instances of obstruction or disrespect for court authority.



Experts also note the constitutional dimensions of the royal addendum scenario. Questions about the monarch’s powers, the role of the Pardons Board, and the proper legal channels for enforcing or contesting royal recommendations have sparked debate over constitutional balance and separation of powers.


What Happens Next in Court


The Court of Appeal will soon manage how and when the overlapping legal challenges proceed. The bench must decide whether to first hear the royal addendum enforcement appeal or the contempt bid. This sequencing could influence legal theory, evidentiary strategy, and judicial appetite for confronting constitutional quandaries. (The Edge Malaysia)


Observers believe the appellate outcome will shape future high‑profile disputes involving executive directives and prosecutorial actions, particularly in cases entangled with political legacies.



Broader Implications


Beyond this specific dispute, the Najib‑Terrirudin confrontation reflects broader questions about how democracies deal with former leaders who face legal sanctions and the mechanisms for legal recourse. Across Asia and beyond, legal systems grapple with how to hold powerful figures accountable while ensuring that procedural fairness and institutional integrity are maintained.


In Malaysia’s case, the debate touches on institutional trust in the Attorney‑General’s Chambers, the judiciary, and the procedures governing pardons and executive clemency. It could also influence future reforms around legal transparency and prosecutorial discretion.


What Do You Think? I’d Love to Hear Your Opinion in the Comments Section.


Najib Razak’s refusal to back down in the contempt of court bid against former Attorney‑General Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh signals a high‑stakes legal and political standoff with wide implications. It highlights tensions between legal strategy, institutional boundaries, and public perception in a nation still grappling with the aftershocks of one of its biggest scandals.



Regardless of how the courts ultimately rule, the dispute has already deepened debates about accountability, institutional integrity, and the rule of law in Malaysia’s evolving democratic landscape.

OPINION | Two Consenting Adults, One Cemetery & a Basic Human Instinct

OPINION | Two Consenting Adults, One Cemetery & a Basic Human Instinct


30 Mar 2026 • 9:30 AM MYT

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

(Photo credit: MalayMail)


Only in today’s economy can a couple be jailed not for what they did but for where they could afford to do it.


A man and woman in Penang have been sentenced to 12 months in prison for indecent acts in a cemetery. A cemetery. The one place where people are, quite literally, minding their own business… permanently.


Let’s get the moral outrage out of the way. Yes, public indecency is wrong. Society has rules. But what’s fascinating is how quickly we jump to punishment without asking a far more practical question:



Where exactly are people supposed to go?


The Penang beach? Please. Between the families, tourists, influencers, and one uncle doing aggressive tai chi at sunset, you’d need two invisible cloaks!


The park? Lovely in theory. Until you realise you’re sharing the space with joggers, children, and a pack of strays who are far too invested in your personal life.


The staircase of a mall? Now we’re not immoral, we’re just unhygienic.


Cheap hotels? Have you seen the prices? At this point, you’re not paying for a room, you’re contributing to the owner’s retirement plan.


So what options are left for two consenting adults who simply want to… follow their most basic human instinct and let off a little steam?


Apparently, the afterlife.


Because if you really think about it, a cemetery ticks a lot of boxes. Quiet. Spacious. No one complaining. No one watching.



And let’s be honest, f those two had money, do you really think they’d be there?


Of course not.


They’d be in a five-star hotel, wrapped in overpriced bathrobes, arguing over room service. Or posting sunset photos from Langkawi. Or “finding themselves” romantically in Bali like everyone else with a disposable income and a couples’ package.


But they’re not.


They can’t afford ocean views or infinity pools. They can’t even afford a room with a door that locks.


What they can afford, apparently, is a cemetery plot… temporarily.


Now, are we saying cemeteries should be rebranded as alternative lifestyle venues? Absolutely not.


But a 12-month jail sentence?


That feels less like justice and more like society throwing the book at two people for failing to secure better real estate.


Because when you strip away the scandal, what’s left? Not criminals. Not masterminds. Just two people doing what humans have always done - just with significantly fewer viable locations and a much higher risk assessment.



If anything, this isn’t a story about indecency. It’s a story about scarcity.


Scarcity of space. Scarcity of privacy. Scarcity of affordable options for something that, ironically, requires the bare minimum - just two willing people and a door that locks.


And when even that becomes inaccessible, people improvise.


Sometimes poorly.


Sometimes in ways that make headlines.


And sometimes, unfortunately, in ways that land them in jail for a year.


So before we rush to outrage, maybe we should ask: In a country where privacy is expensive, public spaces are crowded, and judgment is abundant… are we really shocked?


Or just uncomfortable that they picked the only place left where nobody would interrupt?