History of ancient Kedah: nation-building should be based on facts, not racial polemics – Abdul Rahmat Omar

The current evidence on temples built in ancient Kedah indicate that only a small segment of Malays there at the time adopted Hindu-Buddhism, says the writer. - Social media pic of Lembah Bujang ruins, April 14, 2025


History of ancient Kedah: nation-building should be based on facts, not racial polemics – Abdul Rahmat Omar


Academics should not spread false narratives, but instead present research grounded in verified evidence and reliable sources


14 April, 2025
9:00 PM MYT

2,400 years ago, people believed that the universe revolved around the Earth in a geocentric orbit. This belief — that Earth was the centre of the universe — was widely accepted until around 600 years ago, when it came to be understood that the Sun is at the centre of our solar system.





With the discovery of other galaxies, we now know that none of them move around a single centre. That is the current narrative — until a new discovery may come along to challenge it.

Recently, a protest was held outside the gates of a prominent public university against the organisation of a conference said to be discussing and defining the narrative surrounding ancient Kedah. The concern was that this narrative might be shaped by those who do not prioritise the interests of a particular race or religion.

Such fears are rooted in the opinions of individuals who have never been formally trained in the disciplines of History or Archaeology. As someone who has been specifically trained in History at a well-known local public university, I would like to explain why the protest was a fruitless exercise.

Evidence matters

Can anyone write about history? Certainly. You could even write a paper on the effectiveness of nuclear fission energy if you wanted to. However, there are several factors and conditions that must be fulfilled before your work can be accepted — especially by experts in the field. This includes the standards of evidence and sources you use, and how you interpret those findings.

Your sources must be empirical or academically peer-reviewed. If your references are merely social media posts, you may as well write a romance novel. You must adhere to ethical research practices and subject your findings to rigorous scrutiny by other experts to ensure they meet strict and credible academic standards.

If your writing is based on personal opinion, then it no longer qualifies as academic work. That is propaganda — or at best, baseless rhetoric.

Free from bias

Your research must also be free from bias. This means you cannot write to support one side or dismiss another. You must remain objective. We cannot fabricate a narrative and then create fictional evidence to support it. Historiography must be free from centrism of all forms — be it ethnocentrism, anachronism, political centrism, religious centrism, or other imbalances.

In the case of the aforementioned protest, it was driven by emotions rooted in ethnocentrism and religious centrism. Among the claims made was that the Malays of ancient Kedah practised Islam and not Hindu-Buddhism, as has been widely accepted.

However, there is currently no verified discovery that supports the claim that Malays in ancient Kedah practised a form of Islam or even an early version of it. We have discovered prehistoric human remains dating back to the Palaeolithic and Neolithic eras, such as the Pulau Pinang Woman (6,000 years ago), the Perak Man (11,000 years), and the Nenggiri Woman (14,000 years). Yet, none of these findings provide any evidence of Islamic practices — if anything, they suggest a belief system rooted in animism.

This also does not mean that all Malays in ancient Kedah were influenced by Hindu-Buddhism. Nearly all temples (candi) found in the Bujang Valley were built between the 4th and 13th centuries AD. They were discovered at ancient trading sites such as Sungai Batu, Kampung Pendiat, Pengkalan Bujang, and Kampung Sungai Mas. Only the temples at Bukit Choras and Bukit Batu Pahat were located slightly further inland.

All of them are small in size compared to Angkor Wat, Borobudur, Gedingsuro, or Welan temples. This suggests that the Bujang Valley temples served as places of worship for Indian and Chinese traders, and perhaps a small number of local Malays involved in international trade. They were not built for a large population of Hindu-Buddhist worshippers. In short, only a small segment of Malays in ancient Kedah adopted Hindu-Buddhism.

This is further supported by the absence of temples inland, including in the upper reaches of the Sungai Muda — a key trading hub — or after ancient Kedah declined as a major destination post-14th century. If the local population truly practised Hindu-Buddhism, more temples would surely have been found by researchers who have studied the area since the late 19th century.

Professors are not all-knowing

One of the individuals who frequently comments on ancient Kedah — especially Sungai Batu — is Professor Dr Nik Najah Fadilah binti Haji Yaacob, better known online as Professor Dr Solehah Yaacob. She is a professor of Arabic grammar at a public university in Gombak. She has not been formally trained in History or Archaeology.

I admire her dedication to studying history. And because she carries the title of “Professor”, many people understandably take her statements at face value.

In reality, a history graduate with a bachelor’s degree has greater subject knowledge than a professor whose field lies elsewhere. History students must study world history across various periods — from prehistory to proto-history, traditional history, and modern history. Professors, on the other hand, conduct focused research in their own specific fields, not across all disciplines.

This is why professors should understand the boundaries of their expertise. For example, I once had a discussion with Professor Emeritus Dr Anthony Milner, an Australian historian renowned for his work on Southeast Asia and Malaysia. His expertise is in traditional political history. He never claimed to be an expert in Malaysia’s proto-history, especially that of ancient Kedah, because that is not his area of study.

Therefore, I would prefer if Professor Dr Solehah would present her research to qualified experts for academic review, rather than promoting it on social media. Social media is not the place for academic validation. It would also be better if her research did not involve prophets unless she can provide credible sources. Otherwise, that is no longer history — that is propaganda.

As the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “Whosoever tells a lie against me intentionally then surely let him occupy his seat in Hell-Fire” [Sahih al-Bukhari (110)]

Unity over division

Disputes involving race and religion serve no benefit. Why must we boast about our supposed superiority over other ethnicities when Allah SWT considers all of us equal? Must we Malays be arrogant and see ourselves as holier than others? Are we somehow greater than Allah SWT?

If someone we mock ends up embracing Islam, does that not make them purer and more free of sin than we are? But how will they ever do so if we continue behaving like this?

We must accept narratives grounded in recent discoveries. As academics, we should keep an open mind. All historical research and findings should contribute towards the strengthening of our nation and its people — not towards sowing division or conflict between communities.

If there is new evidence or findings, they should be presented for academic review by others in the field. If accepted, that narrative should be acknowledged. What are we trying to take pride in — a fabricated past, or a history built upon proven facts? May we all be spared from pointless actions. – April 14, 2025



Captain Abdul Rahmat Omar (Rtd) is the Malay Consultative Council Bureau of Security, Defence, Public Order and Martial Arts chairman.

F-16 Shootdown: Why U.S. Could Be Behind The 2nd Confirmed Crash Of Ukraine’s Fighting Falcon: OPED

Tuesday, April 15, 2025


F-16 Shootdown: Why U.S. Could Be Behind The 2nd Confirmed Crash Of Ukraine’s Fighting Falcon: OPED

By Vijainder K Thakur
-April 14, 2025



On April 12, 2025, the Ukrainian Air Force reported the loss of an F-16 fighter jet during a combat mission in eastern Ukraine—marking the second confirmed F-16 loss since the aircraft’s operational induction in August 2024.

Unusually, the incident was acknowledged within hours, following initial reports on social media around 1:00 PM Kyiv time. At 2:42 PM, Acting President Volodymyr Zelenskyy publicly confirmed the loss on X.com, posting:

“Today, Captain Pavlo Ivanov was tragically killed during an F-16 combat mission. He was only 26. My condolences to his family and all of Pavlo’s brothers-in-arms

Military officials have provided the necessary reports on the situation. We are establishing all the circumstances…”

The Ukrainian Air Force formally announced the incident later that evening, at 9:23 PM Kyiv time, confirming both the aircraft loss and the death of Captain Ivanov.

Zelenskyy’s swift acknowledgment suggests a message beyond the facts themselves—something we will explore further in the narrative.


What Caused The Loss?

Ukrainian authorities have not disclosed the exact location or cause of the incident that led to the death of Captain Pavlo Ivanov, a former Su-25 pilot who had transitioned to the F-16.

This was an unusual transition, considering the dramatically different vintages and roles of the two fighters. It would best be explained by the paucity of fighter pilots in the war-ravaged country.



Following the shootdown, speculation surged over the circumstances surrounding the loss. A Telegram channel known for reliable reporting cited an eyewitness who claimed, “There was a Russian missile that was very close to an F-16 over Sumy.”



This prompted theories that the aircraft may have been brought down by a long-range R-37 (RVV-BD) air-to-air missile, potentially launched from a Russian Su-35, Su-57, or MiG-31BM. The R-37, launched from high altitude, can engage targets up to 300 km away.



The S-400 system was considered unlikely to be involved, as Western intelligence closely monitors its deployment and operational status.

However, the reliability of these eyewitness reports came into question. Several claimed the F-16 was “being chased by missiles” as it flew towards the Russian border—a scenario inconsistent with how such engagements work. A missile fired from Russian territory would likely engage the aircraft head-on, not from behind.

Inevitably, friendly fire theories began circulating, with some reports suggesting the F-16 was mistakenly downed by Ukrainian air defenses.



Speculation ended on April 13 when the Russian Ministry of Defence (RuMoD) issued a statement claiming responsibility:

“Air defenses shot down a Ukrainian F-16 aircraft, eight JDAM guided aerial bombs, seven US-made HIMARS missiles, and 207 fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles.”

While the statement confirmed the F-16’s downing, it did not specify the weapon system or exact location involved.

File Image: F-16


What Likely Happened

Ukraine currently has a limited number of operational F-16s, with reports suggesting the fleet may not exceed 16 aircraft. Of these, only 6–8 are likely combat-ready at any given time. They are distributed across multiple air bases and primarily tasked with air defense, targeting Russian cruise missiles such as the stealthy Kh-101 and the less stealthy Kalibr. Occasionally, they are assigned strike missions.

For attacks on Russian ground targets across the border, Ukrainian F-16s employ Small Diameter Bombs (SDBs) and JDAM-ERs (Joint Direct Attack Munition – Extended Range). The range of these glide bombs depends on the release altitude, which typically ranges from 10,000 to 40,000 feet.

To target enemy radars and air defense systems, F-16s use the AGM-88 HARM missile. Unlike glide bombs, the HARM is a powered, high-speed weapon that accelerates to over Mach 2 within seconds of launch. Upon release, it appears to blast forward past the launching F-16, a visible contrast to the slower, gliding bombs. To the uninitiated, the HARM at launch could look like a missile going past the F-16.

To release any of these weapons effectively, F-16s must approach the Russian border at low altitude to minimize radar detection. Near the calculated release point, the aircraft climbs to achieve the required altitude and speed for weapon delivery—an action that exposes it to enemy radar.



Release points are carefully chosen to avoid detection by long-range air defense systems such as the S-400, with the goal of staying outside missile engagement zones. However, on April 12, Captain Pavlo Ivanov appears to have entered one of these zones.

There are two plausible explanations:

• Pilot error in calculating or executing the release profile.

• Intelligence failure—Ukrainian forces may have been unaware of the exact position of Russian air defense systems in the area.

Conclusion

Acting President Zelensky announced the loss of a Ukrainian F-16 fighter jet on April 12, shortly after social media reports surfaced about a shootdown.

The following day, the Russian Ministry of Defence (RuMoD) confirmed the incident, crediting it to Russian air defenses.

For months—indeed, years—Ukrainian MiG-29s, Su-27s, and now F-16s have been conducting attacks using glide bombs and AGM-88 HARM missiles. This operational rhythm makes the question inevitable:

What went wrong on April 12?

As previously noted, two scenarios are plausible:

• Pilot error—a miscalculation during the attack run.

• Intelligence gap—the Ukrainian Air Force was unaware of a nearby S-400 system.

While pilot error is always a possibility, the latter scenario raises more serious implications. If Ukrainian forces were unaware of the S-400’s presence, it suggests that U.S./NATO may have withheld up-to-date ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance) data.



If that is the case, Zelensky’s unusually swift public acknowledgment of the F-16’s loss—even before the Air Force officially confirmed it—could be seen as a deliberate political signal, perhaps intended to highlight the consequences of such intelligence shortfalls.

More broadly, this incident underscores the strategic fragility of Ukraine’s small F-16 fleet. Despite the aircraft’s capabilities, limited spares, trained crews, and persistent exposure to advanced Russian air defenses challenge the fleet’s sustaining operations.

If support gaps in intelligence-sharing persist, the implications for Ukraine’s ability to effectively deploy these high-value assets—and for the broader trajectory of the war—are deeply concerning.Vijainder K Thakur is a retired IAF Jaguar pilot, author, software architect, entrepreneur, and military analyst.

Military Watch:

Canada Holds Talks to Procure Swedish Gripen Fighters as F-35 Deal Collapse Looms

North America, Western Europe and Oceania , Aircraft and Anti-Aircraft

Military Watch Magazine Editorial Staff

April-14th-2025

---

F-35 (top) and Gripen Fighters

The Canadian Defence Ministry is currently holding talks with the Swedish defence producer SAAB regarding the possible procurement of Gripen E/F fourth generation fighters, with Saab CEO Micael Johansson having on April 6 confirmed that negotiations were ongoing. The Gripens would replace 98 U.S.-supplied Royal Canadian Air Force CF-18A/B Hornet fighters, which first entered service in the country in 1982 and have long since been considered obsolete. Canada in March 2022 selected the F-35A to succeed its F-18s, with procurement of 88 fighters planned at a cost of $14.2 billion, around $161 million per aircraft. The decision to resume talks on procuring an alternative fighter have primarily been stimulated by a sharp deterioration in relations with the United States, primarily due to threats to impose steep tariffs on imported Canadian goods. Statements by President Donald Trump regarding the possible annexation of Canada into the United States have further stimulated anti-American sentiment in the country. The F-35 has consistently been strongly favoured over competing aircraft including the Gripen in tenders across the world, and while being significantly more costly its combination of stealth capabilities, a far more powerful sensor suite, and superior network centric warfare capabilities are considered to make it a more cost effective aircraft for high intensity operations. 

Gripen Fighter

Although shifting procurement plans from the F-35 to the Gripen would be motivated primarily by political factors, the Swedish fighter does retain a number of advantages over its American counterpart. The F-35’s notoriously high operational costs for a single engine fighter mean that over the fleet’s lifetime it is expected to set the Canadian Defence Ministry back by close to $39 billion in further expenses beyond initial procurement costs. The Gripen’s operational costs are well under half those of the F-35, which combined with a much lower procurement cost would allow for a fleet over twice as large to be fielded at similar expense, or for surplus funding to be allocated to procuring supporting assets such as AEW&Cs. Greater investment in procuring larger quantities of long range cruise missiles could also be made to compensate for the fighter’s lack of stealth capabilities and poor suitability to penetrate heavily defended enemy airspace. The limitations of Sweden’s defence sector are largely compensated for by outsourcing significant parts of the Gripen E/F program to other countries, with the fighters using an American engine and Italian radar.

U.S. Air Force F-35A at Eielson Air Force Base Alaska

The Gripen’s lower maintenance needs ensure that availability rates remain far higher than those of the F-35, meaning even if a similar number of fighters is procured a significantly greater number of aircraft will be combat ready at any time. The Gripen also has the advantage of being able to operate more effectively from makeshift runways including regular motorways without extensive hardening or other modification, which reduces vulnerability to the targeting of airbases. The fighter’s limited situational awareness can potentially be compensated for by networking with U.S. Air Force F-35s based in Alaska, as the air forces of the two countries operate together under the North American Aerospace Defense Command. This allows the F-35s to share targeting data and other key information that could not be picked up by the Gripen’s much more limited sensors, with the two fighter classes potentially being highly complementary when operating together. 

Hamas rejects Israeli ceasefire disarmament proposal, Palestinian official says

BBC:

Hamas rejects Israeli ceasefire disarmament proposal, Palestinian official says


Yolande Knell
Middle East correspondent
Reporting fromJerusalem
Rushdi Abualouf
Gaza correspondent
Reporting fromCairo

EPA
Armed members of Hamas's military wing took part in hostage handover ceremonies during the recent ceasefire


Hamas is said to have rejected an Israeli proposal for a six-week ceasefire in Gaza which called for the armed group to give up its weapons.

A senior Palestinian official familiar with the talks said the plan gave no commitment to end the war or for an Israeli troop pull-out - key Hamas demands - in exchange for releasing half of the living hostages which it holds.

It comes as Israel continues its military offensive in Gaza.

A security guard was killed and nine other people were injured in an air strike on a field hospital in Khan Younis, the hospital said. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said it struck the head of a Hamas cell.

A UN agency meanwhile warned that "the humanitarian situation in Gaza is now likely the worst it has been in the 18 months since the outbreak of hostilities".

It is six weeks since Israel allowed any supplies to enter through crossings into the Palestinian territory - by far the longest such stoppage to date.

UN agencies strongly refute Israel's claim that there is enough food in Gaza to last for a long time and suggest the blockade could breach international humanitarian law.

Israel's prime minister said the block on supplies was aimed at pressuring Hamas to release hostages and to extend the ceasefire which expired on 1 March.

At the same time, the UN's humanitarian affairs office stated: "Partners on the ground report a surge in attacks causing mass civilian casualties and the destruction of some of the remaining infrastructure that's needed to keep people alive."


Conditions at Gaza hospitals 'beyond description' after Israeli attacks, WHO says

Israeli air strike destroys part of last fully functional hospital in Gaza City

Israel says it will expand its offensive across most of Gaza


Israel is said to have submitted its latest ceasefire proposal to regional mediators late last week, just days after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met US President Donald Trump in Washington.

A Hamas delegation headed by chief negotiator Khalil al-Hayya then met Egyptian intelligence officials in Cairo.

The senior Palestinian official told the BBC: "The Israeli proposal relayed to the movement through Egypt explicitly called for the disarmament of Hamas without any Israeli commitment to end the war or withdraw from Gaza. Hamas therefore rejected the offer in its entirety."

It is understood to be the first time that Israel has added Hamas disarmament as a condition for advancing a ceasefire - a red line for the group.

The Palestinian official accused Israel of stalling for time, seeking only to retrieve the hostages while prolonging the war.

It is believed that 59 hostages remain in Gaza, of whom 24 are alive.

Reuters
In Israel, polls suggest a majority of Israelis back a new Gaza ceasefire and hostage release deal

Is the KKK cosplay at UiTM Dengkil a blatant display of antisemitism?

Murray Hunter


Is the KKK cosplay at UiTM Dengkil a blatant display of antisemitism?

There is no place for hate related programs at institutions of learning


Apr 15, 2025





Photos and videos have become public of a group of UiTM students at the Dengkil campus parading around in KKK costumes, making threats and re-enacting rituals used before lynchings.

The Ku Klax Klan was founded in the United States during the 19th Century to promote white supremacy. The KKK was strongly antisemitic. The KKK promoted hate against Jews, Catholics and other related groups. The KKK blamed Jews for societal issues, such as control of trade and the financial systems. The KKK viewed Catholics as unwanted immigrants with foreign loyalties and moral corruption. The KKK boycotted Catholic businesses and communities.

Any student on the subject of the KKK would be aware of this side of the KKK.

The parade was defended as a social project, approved by the lecturers. At the time of writing, the Vice Chancellor of UiTM has said nothing. If it’s only a “cosplay” then it was intended to be a celebration.

Over the last decades, Ketuanan Melayu has developed a deep antisemitic aspect. This is evidence that students are being exposed to groups in history sharing a similar philosophy.

The reputation of UiTM as an institution of higher education has been gravely tarnished by this episode, if not locally, certainly abroad. There should be no place for teaching hate in any learning institution.

His time: Remembering M'sia's modern democrat Pak Lah

His time: Remembering M'sia's modern democrat Pak Lah

Bridget Welsh
Published: Apr 15, 2025 11:15 AM
Updated: 1:21 PM


COMMENT | The passing of Malaysia’s fifth prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi marks a moment to recognise his contributions to making Malaysia a stronger, more resilient country.

In the book “Awakening: The Abdullah Badawi Years in Malaysia” which I co-edited with James Chin and included over 31 contributors in 2013, one of the main themes of the collection was that Abdullah left Malaysia transformed for the better; he facilitated conditions that empowered Malaysians and decentralised power.

It was a necessary and welcomed change after 22 years of strongman leadership of Dr Mahathir Mohamad, yet one in which Abdullah’s main challenge was dealing with the legacy issues of his predecessor and an unwillingness of his predecessor to let go of power.

Abdullah’s time in office was one in which he left an indelible legacy, changing views of leadership, reconfiguring power and bringing difficult national problems to the surface.

He was arguably Malaysia’s modern democrat, a man some argue was before his time and others bemoaned his timing. His years in office transitioned Malaysia from strongman rule to a more vibrant democracy, stewarded with decency and dignity and marking his role in the nation’s history.

Abdullah’s humanity

That he was known affectionately as “Pak Lah” speaks to his character. He was an approachable, caring person.

Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (left) with his predecessor Dr Mahathir Mohamad (front) and successor Najib Abdul Razak


Two important political acts stand out:

First, when he was asked about Mahathir (for a lengthy interview published in the Awakening collection), Abdullah chose the high road. He responded:

“Mahathir is very set in his ways. And he believes that his way is the only way. When I tried to do things differently, he believed that I was doing things wrongly. But that is Mahathir.”

When pressed, this was all he would say. Not a single negative word. Not a single attack.

Second, he released Anwar Ibrahim from prison in September 2004, less than a year after assuming office. Abdullah understood the wrong that had been carried out and the impact of being politically targeted.

The years that Abdullah was in the political wilderness in the 1980s after the split in Umno had left a mark on him and his family.

His decision set the country on its future leadership path while showcasing compassion.

Abdullah personified a different type of leader, a man who ignored the lampooning of him as a “sleeping PM” (he had the condition of sleep apnoea), apologised when he arrived often late to meetings, and greeted everyone (including strangers) with openness and a smile.

Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (right) and Anwar Ibrahim

He accepted people for who they were, not looking at what they could do for him, aggrandising personal wealth and without the insecurities and biases of other leaders toward other communities.

As Abdullah was comfortable with himself, he was comfortable with others. His genuineness was always evident.

Malaysians then used to portraying a leader without failings, saw a good man wrestling with the demands of a difficult office. In Abdullah they were able to connect, as leaders were not always those above, but a reflection of who they could be as individuals.

Building democracy

Abdullah will be remembered beyond who he was as a person. His actions revived democracy in contemporary Malaysia.

In the 2004 election when he won the highest share of seats for his party Umno and BN for being the “non-Mahathir” and promised change, he used this time to make important reforms.

The judiciary, police, Parliament and bureaucracy were strengthened through new commissions, practices, committees and an emphasis on service respectively. The MACC was created as his administration put in place a blueprint for integrity.

A spiritual man, he introduced the pluralist framework of Islam Hadhari. This was his landmark initiative that to this day remains unclear and was largely ineffective. The consequences were to strengthen political Islam rather than provide a clear path to how to navigate differences over faith.

Here there was a disconnect between Abdullah’s pluralist ideals and a society still traumatised from the wounds of decades of ethnic political mobilisation.

Democrat nevertheless Abdullah pushed further. He harnessed the potential of Malaysians by dispersing power, letting go of control and allowing plural voices to emerge. His years in office were one in which political fear dissipated, and public advocacy expanded.

He actively decentralised power through the creation of corridors for different regions. He recognised the differences of Borneo, which was able to win more recognition and power after the 2008 election.

These changes happened while the economy continued to grow and his administration introduced new ideas for development in areas such as agriculture and investment in human capital.

Inevitably, greater political space led to criticisms as expectations were high. Abdullah’s strength was allowing dialogue and discussion of Malaysia’s problems, as holistic solutions remained largely elusive.

While practising tolerance at the leadership level, groups in society were less so and unwilling to accommodate greater inclusion. Racial politics proved too difficult to manage, leading to the loss of the two-thirds majority in the 2008 election.

Abdullah accepted the results with dignity, setting an important example for democracy. He was later punished for the loss and pushed out of office. His actions served to reaffirm confidence in the electoral process, helping rebuild democracy after decades when it suffered and maintaining political stability at a time of political uncertainty.

A man of his time

Abdullah came into office in 2003 at a moment of tremendous promise for Malaysia and left office less than six years later in 2009, pushed out by those in his own party who were unhappy with his less controlling, more tolerant leadership.

He was a man of his time, a man that showcased a softer, nicer side of Malaysia. He allowed Malaysians to breathe, to find their own footing, to harness their own energy and to set their own agency. Ironically, his weaknesses were his strengths.

Like all of the prime ministers after him, Abdullah grappled with the problems of a rapidly changing, complex society, and often fell short of expectations. He was far from perfect, as was his governance. Yet, it was in the imperfections that made his leadership shine, giving Malaysia space for renewal

What he accomplished was much more important than the gaps – he allowed Malaysians to see themselves, and what they could be.

BRIDGET WELSH is an honorary research associate of the University of Nottingham’s Asia Research Institute, a senior research associate at Hu Fu Centre for East Asia Democratic Studies, and a senior associate fellow at The Habibie Centre. Her writings can be found at bridgetwelsh.com

Man fined RM4,000 for insulting prime minister on TikTok

FMT:

Man fined RM4,000 for insulting prime minister on TikTok

FMT Reporters-15 Apr 2025, 09:40 PM


Police say the man had used derogatory nicknames and also urged the public to boycott Anwar Ibrahim’s visit to Bachok.

Bachok police chief Ismail Jamaluddin said the suspect was arrested following a police report lodged on Friday. (PDRM pic)


PETALING JAYA: A 25-year-old man was fined RM4,000 by the Bachok magistrates’ court today after pleading guilty to uploading content deemed insulting to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.



He was charged under Section 292 of the Penal Code, reported Sinar Harian.

Bachok police chief Ismail Jamaluddin said the suspect was arrested following a police report lodged on Friday after he was found to have uploaded a video which insulted the prime minister.

“The suspect used derogatory nicknames for the prime minister… and also accused the prime minister of visiting Bachok last Saturday solely to ‘deceive’ the public who attended the Madani Hari Raya Aidilfitri celebration at Pantai Irama,” Ismail was quoted as saying.

Ismail said the man also urged the public to boycott the prime minister’s visit, which could have potentially disrupted public order.

He said pornographic videos and images were also found on the man’s mobile phone.

The man is also being investigated under Section 504 of the Penal Code and Section 14 of the Minor Offences Act 1955, both of which relate to insults made with the intent of provoking a breach of the peace.

He is also being probed under Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, which relates to improper use of network facilities or services.

“We are waiting for a full report from the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) for further action,” Ismail said.

Judicial independence under scrutiny: Why Nazri Aziz’s defence of PM Anwar misses the point

Murray Hunter


Judicial independence under scrutiny: Why Nazri Aziz’s defence of PM Anwar misses the point

P Ramasamy
Apr 15, 2025





I am puzzled by the reaction of former law minister Nazri Aziz in rising to the defence of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim in response to remarks made by Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat on the need for reform in the process of judicial appointments.

During a law conference in Malta, Chief Justice Maimun rightly called for amendments to the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Act and the Federal Constitution to ensure that the prime minister does not retain the final say in the appointment of senior judicial officers. She was advocating for institutional reform—not personal criticism.

Under the current system, although the JAC is tasked with identifying and recommending candidates, the prime minister retains overriding power in the final selection. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong appoints judicial officers based on the prime minister’s advice, effectively giving the head of government substantial influence over the judiciary.

Maimun’s call, far from being politically motivated, reflects a long-standing concern among legal scholars and reform advocates: the need to uphold judicial independence and safeguard the separation of powers. These are not new concerns. They are embedded in the broader debate about governance, accountability, and democratic maturity in Malaysia.

Nazri, however, took issue with the Chief Justice’s remarks, suggesting that as a civil servant nearing retirement, she should not politicise the matter. He also claimed that existing checks and balances are sufficient, and that the prime minister’s dominant role is justified because he is an elected leader entrusted by Parliament.

This argument, though familiar, is no longer tenable in light of modern democratic norms. In an era where transparency and independence of institutions are paramount, the concentration of power—especially in appointments to the judiciary—poses a risk to the doctrine of separation of powers. The judiciary must not only be independent, but also be seen to be independent.

More curiously, Nazri’s reaction suggests he was defending Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim personally. Yet, Chief Justice Maimun was clearly referring to the institutional role of the prime minister in the appointment process, not to any specific individual. Even if her remarks were indirectly aimed at the current administration, they are justified. After all, it was Anwar himself—long before becoming prime minister—who championed institutional reform and the depoliticisation of state apparatuses, including the judiciary.

Nazri, a former politician known for his bluntness, may see his defence of Anwar as necessary, but in doing so, he downplays the importance of a critical self-examination of our institutions. His claim that Maimun should have waited for a better time to make her concerns known is disingenuous. If not now, when?

If anything, Maimun should be lauded for speaking out—especially in a climate where many in the public service shy away from addressing structural deficiencies. Her insights, shaped by years of experience at the highest levels of the judiciary, carry more weight than the rhetoric of political loyalty.

Nazri’s criticisms, while wrapped in the language of protocol and political legitimacy, miss the broader point. The judiciary must be shielded from political influence—not just in theory, but in practice. Suppressing calls for reform only entrenches the very weaknesses that undermine public confidence in our institutions.

If Malaysia is to progress toward genuine democratic governance, critical perspectives such as Maimun’s should be welcomed, not silenced. In an otherwise moribund bureaucracy, her voice is a rare and necessary breath of fresh air.

P. Ramasamy

Chairman, Urimai

April 15, 2025

Pak Lah meninggal dunia pada usia 85 tahun: Yang baik selalunya pergi dahulu

Pak Lah meninggal dunia pada usia 85 tahun: Yang baik selalunya pergi dahulu


15 Apr 2025 • 8:00 AM MYT



TheRealNehruism
Writer. Seeker. Teacher

Kredit Imej: Pocket News


Pada tahun 1987, satu pertikaian politik yang besar telah tercetus di antara Mahathir, yang ketika itu merupakan Perdana Menteri, dan satu lagi puak dalam Umno yang diketuai oleh bekas Menteri Kewangan, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah dan bekas Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Musa Hitam.


Pertikaian ini menyebabkan Umno berpecah kepada dua kumpulan, dan ini kemudiannya membawa kepada pembubaran Umno yang asal — parti yang membawa negara ke arah kemerdekaan. (Umno sekarang, atau Umno Baru, hanya ditubuhkan semula pada tahun 1988.)


Pak Lah memilih untuk menyokong Team Tengku Razaleigh dan Musa Hitam, yang akhirnya tewas dalam pertikaian tersebut, dan sebagai akibatnya, beliau telah dipecat daripada jawatan Menteri Pertahanan dalam Kabinet.


Namun begitu, Pak Lah bukan sahaja diterima kembali ke dalam Umno Baru tidak lama kemudian, pada tahun 2003, beliau telah berjaya naik ke puncak kepimpinan Umno dan juga menjadi Perdana Menteri kelima negara.


Kemampuan Pak Lah untuk bukan sahaja kembali ke pihak yang menang, walaupun pada asalnya menyokong pihak yang kalah, tetapi juga mampu memimpin negara 15 tahun kemudian, menunjukkan bahawa beliau sememangnya merupakan seorang yang dikenali sebagai yang gentleman dan berprinsip. Pertikaian beliau dengan pihak lawan mungkin lebih disebabkan oleh perbezaan prinsip dan pendiriian, dan bukannya disebabkan oleh pertarungan ego dan kepentingan politik semata-mata. Oleh sebab itu lah, kedua-dua pihak yang bertelagah tidak begitu mengambil hati dengan pendirian dan prinsip beliau.


Apabila krisis antara Mahathir dan Anwar berlaku pada tahun 1998, yang sekali lagi memecahkan Umno dan negara kepada dua, hanya seorang tokoh yang dikenali umum sebagai seorang yang bersifat gentleman, adil dan berprinsip sahaja boleh diharapkan untuk menyatukan kembali negara.


Di saat kita memerlukan tokoh sebegitu, nama Pak Lah lah yang muncul di bibir kita.


Untuk membuktikan bahawa beliau adalah pemimpin yang tepat pada waktu itu, Pak Lah telah memimpin Barisan Nasional dalam pilihan raya 2004 untuk mencapai satu kemenangan besar, di mana BN memenangi 90 peratus kerusi Parlimen dan menguasai semua negeri kecuali Kelantan.


Kemenangan besar ini membuktikan penerimaan menyeluruh rakyat terhadap Pak Lah sebagai tokoh yang dapat menyatukan negara di kala negara dilanda perpecahan.


Di tempoh pemerintahan Pak Lah, Perdana Menteri kita sekarang, Anwar Ibrahim, juga telah dibebaskan dari penjara pada tahun 2004, walaupun keputusan membebaskannya bukan keputusan politik yang bijak. Walau bagaimanapun, pembebasan Anwar dari penjara, yang hampir sebulat suara dianggap bermotifkan politik, menunjukkan bahawa Pak Lah lebih cenderung membuat apa yang baik, adil dan benar, daripada memilih percaturan politik dan kelangsungan kareer politiknya semata-mata.


Namun demikan, dalam ertikata politik, tindakan Pak Lah membebaskan Anwar itu akhirnya memakan diri Pak Lah dalam Pilihan Raya 2008, apabila BN menerima tamparan hebat dengan kehilangan majoriti dua pertiga di Parlimen, manakala pembangkang yang dipimpin Anwar (walaupun secara rasmi diketuai oleh Wan Azizah, isteri Anwar, tetapi umum mengetahui bahawa Anwar adalah pemimpin de facto) mengejutkan negara dengan memenangi 82 kerusi dan menguasai 5 negeri.


Selain faktor Anwar, kekalahan BN juga mungkin disebabkan oleh harapan yang terlalu tinggi diletakkan di atas bahu Pak Lah untuk bertindak secara adil, berprinsip dan gentleman — dalam sebuah negara yang belum bersedia untuk diperintah sepenuhnya dengan adil dan berprinsip , di bawah kepimpinant seorang pemimpin yang bersifat gentleman.


Disebabkan kekalahan dalam pilihan raya 2008 , Pak Lah akan didesak untuk meletak jawatan dan menyerahkan kepimpinan negara kepada Najib pada tahun 2009.


Walaupun secara luaran, Pak Lah menamatkan pemerintahannya dalam kekalahan, tetapi apabila di lihat secara lebih mendalam, pemerintahan Pak Lah mungkin harus dihargai oleh rakyat Malaysia, kerana ia merupakan satu pemerintahan oleh seorang tokoh yang sanggup menerima kekalahan peribadi demi kebaikan negara.


Ketika Pak Lah memegang tampuk pemerintahan, arus sejarah sedang galak menolak negara ke arah sistem pemerintahan dua parti, selepas sekian lama diperintah oleh satu parti sahaja. Jika bukan kerana adanya seorang sebaik, setelus dan se-gentleman Pak Lah yang menerajui negara dalam tempoh peralihan ini, kemungkinan besar kita tidak akan berjaya melalu tempoh peralihan ini dengan aman.


Sehingga semalam (13 April), Pak Lah satu-satunya daripada enam Perdana Menteri negara yang masih hidup yang tidak pernah terpalit dengan isu perundangan.


Hari ini, Pak Lah telah pergi meninggalkan kita.


Mungkin inilah masanya yang paling sesuai untuk beliau pergi, kerana seperti kata orang, yang baik memang selalu pergi dahulu.


Semoga rohnya dicucuri rahmat.

Briefly reunited: Anwar, Azmin put differences aside to pay final respect to Tun Abdullah

A video of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim greeting and shaking hands with Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and Datuk Seri Azmin Ali at Masjid Negara has gained popularity on social media today. – Screengrab, April 15, 2025


Briefly reunited: Anwar, Azmin put differences aside to pay final respect to Tun Abdullah

Video of prime minister shaking hands with the former PKR deputy and Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin circulates on social media, garnering generally positive reactions


Scoop Reporters
Updated 3 minutes ago
15 April, 2025
8:44 PM MYT


KUALA LUMPUR – Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and his former ally Datuk Seri Azmin Ali briefly reunited at Masjid Negara to pay their final respects to former prime minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi earlier today.

Azmin, who is Bersatu secretary-general, shared this meeting on his Facebook page, mentioning that he took the chance to greet Anwar and expressed his hope that their encounter would bring blessings to everyone involved.

In his post, Azmin wrote: “Before Zuhur prayer, I greeted YAB Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. It’s been a long time since we last met. We were brought together today at Masjid Negara during the month of Syawal. May Allah SWT bless us all.”

Azmin, who is also Bukit Antarabangsa assemblyman and Selangor opposition leader, was the deputy president of PKR in 2018 when Anwar was the party president.

In 2020, Azmin and other members left PKR during the Sheraton Move and joined Bersatu.

At the same time, Anwar was also seen shaking hands with Bersatu president and former prime minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.

A video of Anwar greeting and shaking hands with Muhyiddin and Azmin at the mosque has gained popularity on social media where the prime minister is seen placing his hand on Muhyiddin’s shoulder and whispering to him before greeting Azmin, who stood next to Muhyiddin.

Public reactions have been mostly positive, with many appreciating the leaders for setting aside their differences to honour the late prime minister.

Other notable Bersatu leaders present at Masjid Negara earlier today included Datuk Radzi Jidin, Datuk Seri Ahmad Faizal Azumu, and several Selangor state assembly members.

Meanwhile, Tun Abdullah, who was 85, passed away at the National Heart Institute at 7.10pm yesterday and was buried at Makam Pahlawan at Masjid Negara around 2.30pm.

Born on November 26, 1939, in Bayan Lepas, Abdullah served as Kepala Batas MP from 1978 to 2008 and was prime minister from October 31, 2003, to April 3, 2009, after Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s resignation. – April 15, 2025

Swedish probe finds no conclusive evidence of deliberate cable damage by Chinese ship

FMT:

Swedish probe finds no

conclusive evidence of

deliberate cable damage by

Chinese ship

Reuters

-15 Apr 2025, 07:44 PM

The Yi Peng 3 bulk carrier has been under investigation for dragging its anchor and breaching two subsea fibre-optic communications cables in Swedish economic waters last November.

1

Shares

Total Views: 43

Chinese authorities maintained jurisdiction over the vessel, prohibiting criminal investigations and recording of interviews aboard, investigators said. (EPA Images pic)

COPENHAGEN: 

A Swedish probe found no conclusive evidence to suggest that a Chinese ship had deliberately dragged its anchor to damage two Baltic Sea cables, Sweden’s accident investigation authority said on Tuesday, though a separate investigation remains under way.

The Yi Peng 3 bulk carrier has been under investigation for dragging its anchor and breaching two subsea fibre-optic communications cables in Swedish economic waters, one linking Finland and Germany and the other connecting Sweden to Lithuania, on Nov 17-18 last year.

“It cannot be determined with certainty whether a Chinese ship intentionally damaged data cables in the Baltic Sea,” the government authority, which investigates accidents and incidents, said in a statement.

Swedish prosecutor Henrik Soderman told Reuters he was still investigating the case in a separate probe, declining to provide further detail.

Investigators faced some constraints as Chinese authorities maintained jurisdiction over the vessel, prohibiting criminal investigations and recording of interviews aboard, it said.

China, in December, said it had provided information and documents for the investigation into the severing of the cables, while its ally Russia has so far denied involvement in any of the Baltic infrastructure incidents.

The Baltic Sea region is on high alert after a string of power cable, telecom link and gas pipeline outages since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, and the Nato military alliance has boosted its presence with frigates, aircraft and naval drones.