Monday, July 14, 2025

International law empowers Wisma Putra to reject 'Zionist' Adams - KJ










International law empowers Wisma Putra to reject 'Zionist' Adams - KJ


Published: Jul 13, 2025 9:03 PM
Updated: 11:06 PM


Khairy Jamaluddin is lending his voice to calls for Putrajaya to reject self-described "alpha male" Nick Adams as the US ambassador to Malaysia.

The former minister cited Article 4 of the Vienna Convention which allows a receiving country to reject a foreign ambassador.

"Over to you Wisma Putra," he said in an Instagram story today.

Article 4 of the Vienna Convention states that a receiving country's formal agreement is required before another country can send an ambassador candidate there.

In the case the approval is refused, the receiving country is not obliged to explain why.

On July 11, US President Donald Trump nominated Adams - an Australian-American influencer, author, and self-described “alpha male” - as the next US ambassador to Malaysia.


Nick Adams and Donald Trump


The 40-year-old would be replacing Edgard Kagan, a career diplomat who was nominated by former president Joe Biden in May 2023.


Trump could retaliate if Adams rejected


Adams is infamous for his posts promoting a personal image based on “stereotypical symbols of masculinity”, as well as making Islamophobic remarks.

He is also an avowed Zionist, with Khairy sharing a post by Adams last year in which the latter bragged about getting a waiter wearing a "free Palestine" pin fired.

If Adams is confirmed by the US Senate, Malaysia rejecting him may have major consequences and risks angering Trump.

The country is one of many being targeted by Trump in his tariff wars.

Last week, Trump raised tariffs on Malaysia to 25 percent from 24 percent.


Is PM Anwar riding the Umno tiger?




Murray Hunter


Is PM Anwar riding the Umno tiger?


P Ramasamy
Jul 13, 2025





It would be interesting to know who is running the country, the PH-led coalition led by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim or by Umno leaders. Ahmad Zahid Hamidi might be the president of Umno and deputy prime minister, however, it is believed that he carries more power and influence in the administration of the country than Anwar. Anwar might be the prime minister and head of the coalition government, but in the real exercise of power, it is Umno that is calling the shots.

Umno might have slightly over 20 MPs, with some additional MPs from MCA and MIC, the number is far less to what is held by PKR and the DAP. Within the ruling coalition, the DAP has 40 parliamentary seats, but unfortunately the number of parliamentary seats held doesn’t correspond to its political strength. The party once vociferous defender of Chinese and Indian rights has succumbed to the dictates of Malay hegemonic politics. If the PH-led coalition collapses under its own weight, the DAP might be the sure loser.

Without the support of Umno, it is doubtful that the PH-led coalition would have come to power in 2022 with Anwar as the prime minister. Umno knowing this has exacted demands on the Madani government to the maximum to the extent promised reforms have been stalled, the judiciary considerably weakened and Umno leaders have gotten away from being charged in the court of law.

Most importantly, Umno is the Malay face of the Madani government, without this ethnic hegemonic front, there is hardly any legitimacy for the PH-led coalition to govern the country.

It is clear that Anwar having to please Umno has become a weak and indecisive prime minister. The promised reforms were stalled because of the obstacles placed by Umno. The weakening of the judiciary in the larger political interest of Umno has the potential to unseat Anwar from power. The plum ministerial posts are in the hands of Umno leaders. If Umno withdraws support to Anwar, the Madani government stands the chance of an ignominious collapse.

Anwar might give the impression that he is control of the administration of the country, but this is a mere facade to hide the forces that hold and exercise real political powers. The temporary rapprochement between Umno and the DAP is due to political convenience and political opportunism, but the minute Umno gains further political ascendancy, it would part ways with the DAP. There is no love lost between the two historical political enemies. Anwar being a weak character has allowed too much rope for Umno. It is definitely too late to pull back the rope.

Umno leaders are deluded into thinking that the party has the potential to rise to its former grandeur. A few recent by-elections wins are no guarantee that the hey day of Umno might be soon realised. As they say, the appearance of a swallow doesn’t mean the arrival of summer.

Anwar might have placed his false hope on Umno to support him for the rest of the electoral term and if possible pave the way for his transition in the second term. Unfortunately, whether Anwar realises it or not he is riding momentarily on the Umno tiger, it would not take much time to realise the consequences.


Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner Has a Long History of Safety Concerns

Jun 14, 2025 1:42 AM AET


Editor at Large


Aircraft debris at the crash site of Air India Ltd. flight AI171 in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India, on June 12, 2025.
Siddharaj Solanki—Bloomberg/Getty Images



The odds were in your favor if you were one of the 242 people who boarded Air India flight 171 in Ahmedabad, India, bound for London on June 12. The plane you were flying was a Boeing 787 Dreamliner which has been in service since 2011 without a fatal crash. More than 1,100 Dreamliners are in use worldwide, carrying more than 875 million passengers over the last decade, according to Boeing. Your particular 787, delivered to Air India in 2014, had amassed 41,000 hours of flying time and just under 8,000 takeoffs and landings, according to Cirium, an aviation industry analytics firm.

But none of that would have helped you. Just after takeoff, when the plane was barely 625 ft. in the air, it lost altitude and plunged into a residential area, killing all but one of the passengers and crew on board. The cause of the crash is as yet unknown.

“Our deepest condolences go out to the loved ones of the passengers and crew on board Air India Flight 171, as well as everyone affected in Ahmedabad,” said Boeing president and CEO Kelly Ortberg in a statement. “I have spoken with Air India Chairman N. Chandrasekaran to offer our full support, and a Boeing team stands ready to support the investigation led by India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau.”

That investigation is likely to go deeper than just Flight 171, ranging back over the 14 years the 787s have been flying—years that, it turns out, have seen numerous complaints, concerns, and whistleblower reports over the safety of the widebody jet. All of them are getting a second look today.

The problems began in early 2013, when fires broke out aboard two Dreamliners owned by Japanese airlines. One plane had just landed at Boston’s Logan Airport, the other was just leaving Japan and had to turn around and land. Both blazes were traced to overheating of the planes’ lithium-ion batteries that power the electrical system. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) quickly stepped in, grounding the worldwide fleet of Dreamliners and temporarily halting the delivery of new ones to airlines that had placed orders for them. In April of 2013, the FAA accepted Boeing’s fixes, which involved better insulation for the batteries and a stainless steel box that would house the batteries and prevent smoke or flames from escaping into the plane if a fire did start. The Dreamliners were cleared to fly and the company was cleared to resume deliveries within weeks of the FAA’s decision.

The next incident occurred in 2019 when, as The New York Times reported in an exposé at the time, John Barnett, a former quality manager who retired in 2017, revealed that he had filed a whistleblower complaint, alleging sloppy work around the wires that connect the planes’ flight control systems, with metal shavings being left behind when bolts were fastened. The risk existed that the shavings would penetrate the wires’ insulation, leading to consequences that Barnett called “catastrophic.”

Barnett also alleged that damaged or substandard parts were being installed in 787s, including a dented hydraulic tube that a senior manager retrieved from a bin of what was supposed to contain scrap. The FAA inspected several 787s that were said to be free of the shavings Barnett reported and found that they were indeed there, reported the Times. The FAA then ordered that Boeing correct the problems before the planes were delivered to customers.

In retirement, Barnett sued Boeing, alleging that the company had denigrated his character and blocked his career advancement during his employment—charges Boeing denies. In March of 2024, he was in North Charleston, S.C., the site of the plant where he was employed, working on his case, when he was found dead in his truck from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

“Boeing may not have pulled the trigger,” Barnett’s family said in a wrongful death lawsuit it filed, “but Boeing’s conduct was the clear cause.”


The company sidestepped the charge: “We are saddened by John Barnett’s death and send our condolences to his family,” Boeing said in a statement.

Last year turned out to be a bad one for Boeing and the Dreamliner for reasons other than Barnett’s death. In January another whistleblower, engineer Sam Salehpour, came forward, reporting that sections of the fuselage of the Dreamliner were improperly connected, with gaps that could cause the plane to break apart during flight. When the sections wouldn’t fit, Salehpour claimed, workers would resort to brute force.

“I literally saw people jumping on the pieces of the airplane to get them to align,” Salehpour said in Capitol Hill testimony. “By jumping up and down, you’re deforming parts so that the holes align temporarily. I called it the Tarzan effect.”


In a statement on its website, Boeing defended the integrity of the Dreamliner: “For the in-service fleet, based on comprehensive analysis no safety issues have been identified related to composite gap management and our engineers are completing exhaustive analysis to determine any long-term inspection and maintenance required, with oversight from the FAA.”

Nonetheless, in May, the FAA acted again, announcing that Boeing had been ordered to reinspect “all 787 airplanes still within the production system and must also create a plan to address the in-service fleet.” That was not the first time the government had taken action on the problem of unacceptable gaps in the Dreamliner’s fuselage. From May 2021 to August 2022, the FAA halted the delivery of new Dreamliners to airline customers while the problem was addressed. Deliveries did resume but, as Salehpour testified, so did the shoddy work on the factory floor.

In March 2024, meantime, a LATAM Airlines flight from Sydney to Auckland suddenly plunged 400 ft. when the pilot’s seat in the 787 lurched forward unexpectedly. The captain recovered but 10 passengers and three members of the cabin crew were injured.

For now, the 1,100 Dreamliners criss-crossing the skies are still flying. That could change pending the results of the Air India investigation. Even a temporary loss of the plane—which is a workhorse for long-haul flights—could be a hardship for both the airlines and the flying public. But as the grieving families of the passengers aboard the Air India flight could attest, loss of life is much worse.






Air India Crash: Why Investigators Could Be Saving 787 Dreamliner & Boeing’s ‘Charred’ Reputation?



Monday, July 14, 2025


Air India Crash: Why Investigators Could Be Saving 787 Dreamliner & Boeing’s ‘Charred’ Reputation? OPED


By ET Columnist
-July 14, 2025

Analysis By Capt. Dilip Desmond




It has been three days since the preliminary investigation report on flight AI 171 was published, rather conspicuously, at the penultimate hour on the 30th day following the unfortunate incident.

While the report fails to specify the actual cause of the crash, it has planted vile insinuations in the minds of the general public and caused considerable distress across the pilot community.

The report’s fragmented and lacklustre presentation not only showcases the investigating team’s unprofessionalism but also undermines the credibility of our nation.

It highlights how our so-called professionals can be swayed by manufacturers and other vested interests in this complex web of aviation.

As a retired professional pilot, I believe it is my duty to defend the honor of my counterparts still serving in the aviation sector in India, especially as they are unable to speak openly themselves.

Their silence and frustration could pose serious risks to flight safety. Capt. Sumeet Sabharwal and Clive Kunder, in particular, are no longer in a position to speak for themselves.Let us first examine the flaws of the published report one by one.

The official copy released does not bear the signatures, stamp, or seal of any officials. This raises an important question. Who is legally responsible for such a report?

Is this yet another example of a “covering my back” attitude often adopted when officials are unsure of their responsibilities? An investigation report of this magnitude should bear the signatures of all members of the Board of Inquiry (BOI). Only then can the document convincingly communicate to the general public that every member stands by the findings, even if it is only at the preliminary stage.

Who Are the Members of the BOI?

The report states that the Director General of AAIB appointed five officials, naming them as investigators (along with their names). However, it does not mention their individual qualifications to conduct an investigation into a commercial aircraft accident.

Furthermore, while the report claims that experienced pilots, engineers, aviation medicine specialists, aviation psychologists, and flight recorder experts were brought in as Subject Matter Specialists (SMS), none of their names are included.

This omission is deeply concerning. The public has a right to know who these individuals are and whether they possess the necessary credibility, especially the pilots and engineers.

Are these professionals type-rated or technically qualified on aircraft such as the B787 or B777? If not, their ability to assess the systems, decision-making, and procedures involved may be limited.

Worse, there’s a risk they could merely echo the narratives provided by manufacturers or other stakeholders without offering an independent or technically grounded analysis.The Landing gear liver position: A Discrepancy Overlooked?

Page 10 of the report states that the landing gear lever was found in the “Down” position. Figure 12 on the same page presents two photographs: one of the original gear lever from AI 171 and another from a different B787 aircraft.

A close comparison reveals that the gear lever in AI 171 does not match the “Down” position shown in the reference photo. Instead, it appears to be in a mid-position, somewhere between “Up” and “Down.”

While it’s possible that the lever shifted due to impact forces or was tampered with post-crash, the investigation team made no attempt to verify its actual position using Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder (EAFR) data.

This is especially concerning given that the landing gear should have been retracted shortly after takeoff. If the gear was commanded to retract but remained extended, the Board must reconsider its initial report, particularly in light of the ANA 2019 incident, which involved similar anomalies.

It is baffling that the same team cross-checked the flap lever position with EAFR data, yet chose to overlook the gear lever position entirely. The report contains only a single sentence addressing the landing gear, which is insufficient given its potential relevance to the crash sequence.


Image for Representation


Discrepancies in the Thrust Lever Quadrant

Both thrust levers were found in the aft (idle) position as per the report. However, EAFR data revealed that the thrust levers remained in the forward (takeoff) position until impact.

This presents a critical mismatch between the physical lever positions in the flight deck and the digital commands interpreted by FADEC: unless, of course, the levers were displaced post-impact due to mechanical or thermal forces.

But this raises a deeper question: Can we trust post-crash lever positions as reliable indicators of pilot intent? Or are we witnessing the limitations of forensic reconstruction in the face of high-energy impact and fire damage?

If the pilots attempted to relight the engines, it’s plausible they moved the thrust levers to idle to manage the temperature surge that typically accompanies ignition. This is standard practice to prevent Exhaust Gas Temperature (EGT) overshoot, which can damage engine components.

However, it’s difficult to imagine FADEC initiating a relight sequence with the thrust levers digitally locked in the takeoff position, unless the system is designed to override lever input, restart the engine at idle, and then ramp up thrust in a controlled manner. If so, this behavior should be explicitly recorded in EAFR, yet the report suggests it wasn’t.

If FADEC can override thrust lever input during relight, but fails to log this override in EAFR, then we’re dealing with a black box within a black box: a subsystem whose decisions are invisible to investigators. That’s not just a data gap; it’s a design philosophy problem.

In an era where automation is increasingly entrusted with life-critical decisions, shouldn’t every autonomous action be traceable and auditable? If FADEC’s logic is opaque, then post-crash analysis becomes speculative and safety improvements become reactive rather than proactive.

This discrepancy isn’t just about lever positions. It’s about how much control pilots truly have, and how much trust we place in systems that may act independently and silently.

If FADEC made decisions that weren’t recorded, then the investigation is chasing shadows. And if the levers were moved by human hands during a desperate relight attempt, then we owe it to those pilots to understand their final actions with clarity, not ambiguity.Fuel Control Switches Vs Fuel Control Valves

Page 14 of the investigation report states that at 08:08:42 UTC, Engine 1 and Engine 2 Fuel Control Switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another, with a time gap of one second. The critical question here is whether the report refers to Fuel Control Switches or Fuel Control Valves. To the best of my understanding, the Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorder (EAFR) is designed to monitor the Fuel Control Valves, which physically regulate fuel flow to the engines and not the Fuel Control Switches located in the flight deck.

The switches merely send a signal to FADEC, which then commands the valves. If FADEC decides to cut off fuel flow while the switches remain in the RUN position, the EAFR would still record this as a valve transition, not a switch movement.

Therefore, the report’s reference to “Fuel Control Switches transitioning” appears to be a technical misstatement, unless corroborated by cockpit switch position data, which is typically not captured by EAFR.

This raises a deeper concern: Is this a genuine oversight or a deliberate framing that shifts the narrative toward pilot error?

Especially when cockpit voice recordings suggest confusion between the pilots with one asking, “Why did you cut off?” and the other replying, “I didn’t.

“The question remains, ‘Cut Off’ what? It could refer to any system involving the Engine or Thrust parameters.

For example, the first step in the memory item for a single Engine seizure or stall is to move the Auto Throttle Arm Switch of the affected Engine to ‘Cut Off’. However, even these Memory items are only executed after crossing 400 feet AGL, and always in a challenge-and-response manner, and not immediately after liftoff.

If the switches were never moved, and FADEC initiated the cutoff autonomously, then attributing the shutdown to pilot action is not just misleading, but it’s unjust. This inference amongst the general public stems from the selective leak of Flight Deck conversation, which, in the absence of full context, feels more quaint than conclusive.Is This a Road Accident Report or an Aviation Investigation?

The investigation report presents a Time vs Distance sequence of events from aircraft roll to impact: a methodology more suited to road accident reconstruction than to aviation analysis.

This approach likely stems from either a lack of professional aviation expertise or a deliberate oversimplification by the officials involved. It seems they’ve overlooked the fact that aviation operates in a three-dimensional environment, where altitude is the most critical third dimension.

It is astonishing that not a single Altitude vs Speed vs Distance estimate appears anywhere in this aviation investigation report. This glaring omission speaks volumes, either of unprofessionalism or a deliberate cover-up, neither of which aligns with the principles of objective investigation.

Let us now examine why altitude is of paramount importance.


Why Altitude Is Crucial to the Investigation

The Rate of Climb (ROC) of a fully loaded Boeing 787 at liftoff is typically 2000–3000 feet per minute, averaging 50 feet per second.

As per the report, the aircraft reached 180 knots within 3 seconds of liftoff, which corresponds to approximately 150 feet AGL.

If both engines failed at this point, the aircraft with gear down and high drag could barely climb to 200 feet before stalling or descending.

The minimum altitude for autopilot engagement is 200 feet. Unless engaged instantly, the aircraft would remain under manual control during this critical phase.

Yet the earlier report references an altitude of 625 feet indicated, which, considering Ahmedabad airport’s elevation of approximately 200 feet, implies a climb to 425 feet AGL.

The question is: 

How did the aircraft gain 275 feet after both engines failed at 150 feet?


Engine Shutdown and RAT Deployment

The report states that N2 values dropped below idle, but fails to specify whether this refers to flight idle or ground idle: a crucial distinction.

At 08:08:47 UTC, the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) deployed: a system that activates only during dual engine failure or total electrical or hydraulic loss.

This occurred 4–5 seconds after engine shutdown, confirming a complete loss of thrust.

The fact that the landing gear was not retracted suggests either distraction or system failure: gear retraction is standard within seconds of liftoff.


Fuel Control Switches: Pilot Action or FADEC Logic?

At 08:08:52 UTC, Engine 1 Fuel Control Switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN, as per EAFR, though this likely reflects valve movement, not switch position.

Was this a pilot memory item for dual engine failure (recycling switches to initiate relight)? Or was it a FADEC-driven action? Will FADEC restart the engine if it has shut it down? So, it is a clear case of Pilot response to Dual Engine Failure.

Without full cockpit voice data, intent remains speculative, and the selective disclosure of pilot dialogue only deepens ambiguity.

One should even consider the remote possibility of both fuel switches inadvertently cutting off due to material or mechanical failure, coupled with the aircraft vibrations during the takeoff roll.


Final Thought

This report’s reliance on two-dimensional metrics and its omission of altitude-based analysis is not merely a technical oversight but a conceptual failure.

In a climb-phase accident, the absence of vertical performance data is indefensible. Whether this stems from incompetence or intent, the outcome remains the same: a narrative that lacks aerodynamic credibility and risks misrepresenting the truth.

By selectively presenting data, the report has armed vested interests and segments of foreign media to cast aspersions on the flight deck crew.

Worse still, sections of the domestic media, operating on a ‘cut-copy-paste’ model of news telecasts, have already inflicted reputational damage on the Indian pilot community as a whole. This is not just unfair; it is deeply irresponsible.

Even the insinuation that one of the pilots may have cut off both the fuel control switches sounds absurd since the same pilots tried to relight the engines. If one pilot had gone rogue, he would have prevented the other pilot from relighting the engines. The cockpit voice recorder would certainly corroborate these if full information were made available.

Finally, let us not forget that Boeing already has blood on its hands from the 737 MAX tragedies. If the company is waiting for a second Dreamliner disaster to acknowledge systemic flaws, then God save the aviation industry in the days to come.



Captain Dilip Desmond is a former Indian naval fighter pilot and a retired Air India B777 pilot.


Chinese swimmers dope-tested the most ahead of World Aquatics Championships


FMT:

Chinese swimmers dope-tested the most ahead of World Aquatics Championships



Chinese swimmers underwent 8.8 tests on average, while US and British swimmers had 4.1 and 2.2, respectively


Chinese players prepare ahead of the water polo match against Argentina at the 2025 World Aquatics Championships. (EPA Images pic)



HONG KONG: Chinese swimmers took more anti-doping tests this year than swimmers from any other country ahead of the World Aquatics Championships in Singapore this month, the Aquatics Integrity Unit said in a report.

From Jan 1, Chinese swimmers had an average of 8.8 anti-doping tests versus those from the US, who were tested 4.1 times, and those from Britain, who were tested 2.2 times, the report showed.

Swimmers competing as neutrals – mainly those with Russian nationality – were tested 8.2 times on average.


In total the Aquatics Integrity Unit conducted 4,018 anti-doping tests on athletes participating in the Singapore event scheduled for July 11-22.

“The report underscores World Aquatics’ unwavering commitment to fair competition and the highest standards of integrity in aquatic sport,” it said.


The China Swimming Association did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

China’s swimming team has faced heightened scrutiny since revelations in April that 23 swimmers had tested positive for a banned heart medication in 2021 but were permitted to compete in the Tokyo Olympics that year.

The World Anti-Doping Agency accepted the findings of a Chinese investigation that the results were due to contamination from a hotel kitchen. An independent review backed WADA’s handling of the case.

Testing will remain in force until the end of the event, with 830 samples to be collected during 24 days of competition, the Aquatics Integrity Unit said.


China’s male freestyle sprinter Wang Haoyu was tested 13 times, while 200m breaststroke world record holder Qin Haiyang was tested 12 times, the report showed.


***


kt remarks:

Before the Chinese, the West bullied the Japs.





Police to summon all attendees of ‘immoral’ eHati marriage programme amid probe





Police to summon all attendees of ‘immoral’ eHati marriage programme amid probe



Two days ago, Selangor Menteri Besar, Datuk Seri Amirudin Shari, reportedly urged the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (JAIS) to investigate allegations of immoral activities at a family motivation programme, held at a convention centre in the state involving eHati. — Picture via eHati website

Monday, 14 Jul 2025 7:29 PM MYT


SHAH ALAM, July 14 — Police will summon all participants of a controversial eHati marriage programme, alleged to have involved immoral activities, to record their statements as part of an ongoing investigation.

Selangor police chief, Datuk Hussein Omar Khan, said that the action falls under Section 122 of the Criminal Procedure Code, following the opening of a police inquiry into the matter.


“Further investigations have led to the case being classified under Sections 294 and 509 of the Penal Code, as well as Section 14 of the Minor Offences Act,” he said, in a statement, today.

“A thorough investigation will be carried out to determine the presence of any obscene elements or teachings, which deviate from societal norms, as alleged.


Hussein added that the probe would be conducted comprehensively, to ensure all aspects and allegations are assessed fairly and objectively.


He also advised the public to be more cautious and discerning before participating in any programme, activity, or workshop, especially those with unclear objectives, or organisers with questionable backgrounds.

“The public is encouraged to verify and seek clarification beforehand, to avoid being involved in activities which may contravene the law or societal moral values,” he said.


Two days ago, Selangor Menteri Besar, Datuk Seri Amirudin Shari, reportedly urged the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (JAIS) to investigate allegations of immoral activities at a family motivation programme, held at a convention centre in the state.

Amirudin stressed that the matter should be taken seriously, and that firm action must be taken if the allegations are found to be true, following a thorough investigation. — Bernama


***


kt remarks:

Damn it, I've never heard of such IMMORAL going ons, let alone attend one - should be interesting, more so as a non-Muslim where I should (in all probability) be able to enjoy Muslim-immoral activities legally, wakakaka 😁😁😁


Pentagon wants to make Aukus work but some stakeholders have ‘serious concerns’, senior US defence official says


Guardian:

Pentagon wants to make Aukus work but some stakeholders have ‘serious concerns’, senior US defence official says


Defence official says major increase in Australian defence spending is ‘quite warranted’

Josh Butler
Mon 14 Jul 2025 18.30 AEST




Some US military stakeholders have “very serious concerns” about the Aukus arrangement but the Pentagon wants “to make this thing work”, a senior American defence official says. While they say a review of the nuclear submarine pact is being undertaken in good faith, it will not be completed within 30 days, as initially anticipated.

Still, Washington is sticking to its request for Australia to give “a clear sense” of how it would respond militarily, including with the Aukus submarines, to future conflicts. While Anthony Albanese declares the Australian government wants to see “peace in and security in our region”, the senior official says the US wants Australia to step up more.


“Substantial increases in Australian defense spending I think are quite warranted,” they told Guardian Australia in an email.


Australia rebuffs calls to commit to joining hypothetical US-China conflict


The Aukus pact, under which America would share nuclear-powered submarines and sell several secondhand models to Australia, is under review from the Trump administration. The appraisal was initially reported as running for 30 days, but Labor sources said last week that it was not likely to be completed for months, while a Pentagon spokesperson said there was no public timeline for the work.

The senior US defence official told Guardian Australia of the review that “thirty days was never accurate”. They said it was continuing, but conceded diverse opinions inside the American military establishment on the Australia-US-UK pact.


“We’d like to make this thing work as best as we can, consistent with President Trump’s agenda,” they said.

“We are doing this in good faith. Elbridge Colby is in many ways a moderate on AUKUS. There are folks that are very powerful and very important stakeholders who have very serious concerns privately. [Colby] in many ways is a moderate trying to do this thing in a prudential manner.”

Albanese, now in China on a six-day trip with a delegation of business leaders, has downplayed US demands for Australia to spend more on defence, noting Australia has already boosted its military commitments.

Over the weekend, he pushed back on requests from the US about future conflicts, alluding to America’s own position of so-called “strategic ambiguity” on whether the US would militarily respond in a conflict over Taiwan.

On Monday, asked in China if he was concerned about American responses to Aukus reported in recent days, Albanese responded: “I’m very focused on my purpose of being here.”

Asked whether his China trip – and its focus on business and economic ties with Australia – was partly about helping smooth Beijing’s Aukus concerns, the prime minister responded that the two countries were important partners.


“One of the things that’s important to recognise is that the economic relationship is obviously based upon a stable and secure region. We’ve seen the disruption that occurs when there is conflict in the world. That’s why we need to make sure that we do everything we can to promote peace and security in the region.”

Pushed on when he planned to meet Donald Trump, Albanese called for “a bit of perspective” and said he looked forward to “constructive engagement” with the US president in due course.skip past newsletter promotion

But speaking later, the shadow home affairs minister, Andrew Hastie, said the Aukus issue “needs the prime minister’s attention”.

“It is important if a conflict arises we have an understanding with the US on our role and what that means for our sovereignty and national interest,” Hastie told the ABC.

Asked about reports in multiple media outlets that the Pentagon was seeking guarantees of support from Australia in future conflicts, the official confirmed the US was asking questions.

“There’s a conversation about command structure, about alignment of assets. We would want, in any scenario, a clear sense of what we can expect from Australia,” they said.

“There seems to be a hyper emphasis on Taiwan in public reporting. But this is broader than any one particular contingency. It is about how we can reasonably expect these kinds of critical assets to be allocated across different scenarios.”

On Monday afternoon, the environment minister, Murray Watt, said when Albanese met President Xi Jinping tomorrow, he would raise security matters, trade matters and human rights matters.

“It is a fact that there are security tensions with China,” Watt said.


***


kt remarks:

Morrison blindly (and most stupidly) led Australia into a losing-pact (which includes the devious but toothless Poms) against China (and in Aus case, for what?). With the change in Australia to a Labor govt, Albo was scared of being viewed as an anti-Wankee leftie so he too affirmed his support BLINDLY for AUKUS.

Australia has already spent nearly 400 billion dollars on the as-yet invisible submarine thus far, and from the sound of the new Trump Administration, Aus should expect more disappointment, to wit, NIL submarine from Wankeeland - The French are laughing their guts out at the moronic Aussies.


Manufactured outrage over judicial appointments: a case of selective memory


FMT:

Manufactured outrage over judicial appointments: a case of selective memory



If the Malaysian Bar, civil society, and opposition leaders are truly serious about reform, they must first reckon with past violations that went ignored




From Apandi Ali


It is laughable, if not deeply ironic, that a group of MPs, the Malaysian Bar, and civil society figures are now calling for a royal commission of inquiry, petitioning the prime minister and organising walks for justice and public forums all because they fear the prime minister may appoint senior judges without strictly following the names recommended by the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC).


Even more amusing is their insistence that the top judicial vacancies must be urgently filled despite the fact that no legal or constitutional deadline mandates immediate appointment.

Let’s be clear: this hysteria is entirely based on a hypothetical scenario, one that has not even materialised. According to Section 27 of the JAC Act, the prime minister is perfectly entitled to request two more names for any judicial vacancy, including the offices of the chief justice, president of the Court of Appeal, and other top positions. The law allows room for executive discretion in such appointments.


Section 27, titled “Request for further selection by the prime minister”, says the “prime minister may, after receiving the report under Section 26, request for two more names to be selected and recommended for his consideration”.

Even former Court of Appeal judges – the late Gopal Sri Ram, Hishamudin Yunus, and Mah Weng Kwai – publicly stated that the prime minister is not bound to accept the JAC’s recommendations.

In 2018, they noted that the Federal Constitution, being the supreme law, overrides the JAC Act. Mah, for example, plainly said: “The JAC makes recommendations to the prime minister, who may decide not to agree with the proposals.”

Where are these same voices now, when the media circus rages over a potential decision that has not even been made?


The deafening silence over real violations

What makes this sudden outrage even more disingenuous is the utter silence over actual, proven breaches of the JAC Act and the Federal Constitution. These are not speculative concerns, but documented in the government-declassified special task force (STF) report on allegations made by former attorney-general Tommy Thomas in his book “My Story: Justice in the Wilderness”.

This STF was approved by the Cabinet on Dec 22, 2021 and comprised respected legal experts, including Fong Joo Chung as the chair besides members Hashim Paijan, Junaidah Kamarruddin, Jagjit Singh, Shaharudin Ali, Balaguru Karuppiah, Farah Adura Hamidi, and Najib Surip.

The report uncovered staggering facts. In July 2018, the names appointed to the highest judicial offices – Richard Malanjum as chief justice, Ahmad Maarop and Zaharah Ibrahim as Court of Appeal president and David Wong Dak Wah as chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak — were not those selected by the JAC in its meeting on May 24, 2018. Instead, they were names privately agreed upon between then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and attorney-general Tommy Thomas, bypassing the mandatory processes.

The JAC’s recommended names on May 24, 2018 were Azahar Mohamed for chief justice, Rohana Yusuf for Court of Appeal president, and Abdul Rahman Sebli for chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak. Yet, these names were discarded, and there was no evidence that Mahathir ever requested additional names under Section 27 of the JAC Act as required.

According to the STF report: “If the prime minister disagreed with the above selection and recommendation of the JAC, pursuant to Section 27 of the JAC Act, he should have requested for more names for each of the vacant judicial positions. There is no evidence before the STF that he had made such a request.

“Instead, from the report of Bahagian Kabinet, Perlembagaan dan Perhubungan Antara Kerajaan, the names submitted by the prime minister when he tendered his advice to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong under Article 122B were the names discussed and agreed upon between the prime minister and attorney-general.”

Worse, the STF found that no consultation was held with the chief ministers of Sabah and Sarawak before appointing Wong as chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak – a direct violation of Article 122B(3) of the Federal Constitution. This wasn’t merely an administrative oversight, but a constitutional breach.

The same pattern emerged in 2019, when the JAC in its meeting on Jan 17, 2019 initially selected Ahmad for chief justice, Wong for Court of Appeal president and Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat for chief judge of the High Court in Malaya.

After the prime minister requested two additional names, the JAC in its meeting on April 5, 2019 revised its list and put forward these names:

  • Tengku Maimun and Azahar for chief justice
  • Azahar and Rohana for Court of Appeal president
  • Rohana and Azahar for chief judge of the High Court in Malaya

The final names eventually accepted were Tengku Maimun as chief justice (despite being junior), Rohana as Court of Appeal president, and Azahar as chief judge of Malaya.

Again, the irony is thick. Those who now cry foul over possible junior appointments were silent – if not supportive – when Tengku Maimun, a comparatively junior judge at the time, was appointed chief justice. Where was the outrage then?


A convenient crusade for ‘judicial integrity’?

It is even more comical that Mahathir – the very person who subverted the JAC process in 2018 and 2019 – is now positioning himself and his allies as the guardians of judicial independence. Even some lawyers today are openly rooting for a specific candidate to be appointed chief justice, undermining their own calls for neutrality and due process.

This hypocrisy recalls the cautionary words of former chief justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad, who once criticised proposals by Zaid Ibrahim in 2008 (then minister in the Prime Minister’s Department) to create a JAC dominated by practising lawyers. He warned that it would “give these lawyers an unfair advantage besides damaging the integrity of the court. Judges will kneel to the lawyers!”

And now, that prophecy seems to be unfolding before our eyes with segments of the legal fraternity actively lobbying for appointments while masquerading as defenders of institutional integrity.


Enough with the double standards

The selective outrage over potential breaches, while real violations are ignored, exposes a deeper rot in Malaysia’s legal-political culture. This isn’t about upholding the law. It’s about political convenience, power struggles and self-interest, all disguised under the banner of judicial independence.

If the Malaysian Bar, civil society, and opposition leaders are truly serious about reform, they must first reckon with the past violations which they so conveniently ignored. Until then, their cries ring hollow. Let the law be applied consistently, not only when it suits political narratives.



Apandi Ali is a former attorney-general and Federal Court judge.


5 appellate judges may be elevated to Federal Court, say sources


FMT:

5 appellate judges may be elevated to Federal Court, say sources



3 hours ago
V Anbalagan


Separately, six judges of the Federal Court may be in the running to fill the top two vacancies of chief justice and Court of Appeal president


Five appellate court judges in consideration for elevation are believed to have accumulated more than 10 years’ experience in presiding over criminal and civil cases.



PETALING JAYA: Five judges of the Court of Appeal could be elevated to the Federal Court to fill vacancies created by retirements of several senior judges, including that of Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat as chief justice, according to sources.

It is learnt that among those in contention for elevation are appellate Justices Azizah Nawawi and Nazlan Ghazali, who on several occasions have been co-opted to sit on the Federal Court bench.

Separately, six Federal Court judges could be in the running to fill the posts of chief justice and president of the appeal court. They are said to be Justices Rhodzariah Bujang, Nordin Hassan, Abu Bakar Jais, Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera, Ahmad Terrirudin Salleh (the former attorney-general), and Lee Swee Seng.

Sources told FMT that the promotion of the five appellate court judges – with one or two slated to occupy administrative positions in the judiciary soon – was one option to fill Federal Court vacancies, with the other option being to adopt the recommendations of the Judicial Appointments Commission.

The five appellate judges under consideration have risen through the ranks and have accumulated over 10 years of experience on the bench, presiding over criminal and civil cases.


Among them are those appointed judges from the legal service (the Attorney-General’s Chambers) or lawyers who were made judicial commissioners, before becoming High Court judges and later elevated to the Court of Appeal.

The five vacancies on the Federal Court arise from the retirements of chief justice Tengku Maimun, Court of Appeal president Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim, and Federal Court judges Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal and Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil, while the chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak, Abdul Rahman Sebli, will retire on July 24.

The functions of chief justice and Court of Appeal president are currently being performed by Chief Judge of Malaya Hasnah Hashim and Federal Court judge Zabariah Yusof respectively.

Legal sources told FMT that the next chief justice and Court of Appeal president could be chosen by the government based on the recommendations of the Judicial Appointments Commission chaired by Tengku Maimun.

However, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is not bound to follow the recommendations when advising the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on making the appointments, the sources said.

Separately lawyer A Srimurugan said the public and the legal fraternity want the appointing authority to pick judges of impeccable character and ability, as they are the guardians of the constitution and to uphold the rule of law.

“One of the key criteria is to provide far-sighted judgments as judgments set a precedent and are akin to legislation that must be followed by all lower courts,” he told FMT.

Another lawyer, Syed Iskandar Syed Jaafar, said the prime minister should also consider the appointments commission’s proposals, which are based on the criteria of integrity, competency and adequate experience, ability to make timely judgments and good legal writing skills.

“The prime minister, too, must be transparent and accountable to Malaysians, who deserve the best candidates to helm the judiciary,” Syed Iskandar said.


Addendum Order: DAP Treachery?


From FB:


Addendum Order: DAP Treachery?




The action of DAP Member of Parliament, Lim Lip Eng, who openly questioned the Addendum Order enabling Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak to serve the remaining sentence under house arrest is an action that can be considered as not supporting the order of Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
More worrying, Lim Lip Eng's actions are also clearly against the spirit of the Federal Constitution. As a Member of Parliament, he should better understand the position of His Majesty's prerogative power allocated under Article 42(1) of the Constitution. He is unreasonable to confuse the people with rhetorical statements driven by political interests solely.
It must be emphasized that Article 42(1) gives the authority to Yang di-Pertuan Agong to grant amnesty, postpone or alleviate punishment for offenses prosecuted by the military court or that occur in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya. Similar power also lies with the King or Head of State for wrongdoings in their respective states.
The issue is not because this case involves Datuk Seri Najib solely, but because this touches on the principle of the Constitution as well as the rule of law that must be maintained by all parties regardless of political understanding.
If the DAP disagrees with the existing allocation and wants to shape the country according to their ideological mold as embedded in the Declaration of Setapak, will the DAP which has 40 Members of Parliament now propose Constitutional amendments in the House of Representatives?
Since the beginning of the legal process involving Datuk Seri Najib, MCA has always respected court decisions and has never interfered with judicial matters. We never push, dispute, or belittle the state's justice system, let alone incite citizens to demonstrate on the streets.
When the Adendum Order was issued, the MCA remained consistent in upholding the same principle. This prerogative power is the right of His Majesty as provided for in the Constitution, and must be respected by all parties.
MCA would also like to ask: Did Lim Lip Eng or any DAP leader ever speak out loud like this when full amnesty was given to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim after PRU-14, which allowed him to return to being active in politics and eventually become Prime Minister?
Why back then the power of royal amnesty was considered reasonable and unquestionable, but today when it involves Datuk Seri Najib, it is suddenly considered invalid?
‘double standard’ attitudes like this are extremely dangerous and inappropriate to be left. It tarnishes the image of a Unity Kingdom and can undermine the harmony of the Constitutional and Constitutional Monarchy.
The MCA would like to assert that the power of royal amnesty is part of the Constitution's emergence as well as the symbol of sovereignty of Malay Kings. It cannot be questioned arbitrarily simply because of difference of political views.
This is the basis of the Constitution that should be respected and upheld by all parties irrespective of the party.
Neow Choo Seong 梁子祥
MCA Youth Briefing
Trapping National Line Youth Communication Director
July 14, 2025

Trump Nominated Again for a Nobel Peace Prize – The Gods Must Be Crazy





Trump Nominated Again for a Nobel Peace Prize – The Gods Must Be Crazy


13 Jul 2025 • 10:00 AM MYT



TheRealNehruism
Writer. Seeker. Teacher



Image credit: CNN


Trump was just reelected to office this January, and since then, two countries—Pakistan and Israel—have already secured two nominations for him for the Nobel Peace Prize.


If the fact that he has only been in office for less than a year is not enough to raise eyebrows over why he deserves such a nomination, then the fact that his tenure so far has already fast-tracked the world toward World War III makes the case even more bizarre.


Through his new wave of tariffs, Trump is basically strong-arming the entire world into giving in to him simply because he can. The only entities known to behave this way are triads and mafia organizations—and no one in their right mind would accuse those groups of promoting peace.


Just last month, Trump joined Israel in its war against Iran, essentially preparing the entire Middle East for open warfare. After a 12-day conflict, Israel and Iran agreed to a ceasefire. But only a fool would believe that this ceasefire will result in permanent peace. At the opportune moment, either one of these two countries will break the truce—and in round two, it is highly likely that the entire Middle East will be engulfed in flames.


Permanent peace is made possible by leadership that projects competence and fairness—not supremacist attitudes and exploitative strategies. Be it a person or a nation, if you have practiced to perfect yourself and are committed to being fair even to those less skilled or powerful than you, then peace will follow. But if you simply believe you are entitled to remain on top and have no qualms about using your advantages to strong-arm and stamp down others in order to preserve your superiority, then even if you achieve peace—it will be a superficial one. Beneath it, quarrels and strife will fester.



This has always been the case in the underworld. And I am quite certain it will prove true in Trump’s administration too.


If that is the case, then why is Trump being seen as a figure worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize?


To that, I have only one answer: “Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.”


You know madness has set in when right looks wrong, wrong looks right, good appears bad, and bad appears good.


That Trump is seen as a figure representing peace is, in my eyes, proof that the gods have decided to destroy the world. And in line with their intention, they have first made many of its leaders mad.


***


kt comments:

No matey, it's not the Gods are crazy, it's the brown-nosers like Paki and Shailoks who want to stay in the Clown's good grace, so they are in super-bodek mode.

The frigging MFer Clown has an obsession for the Peace Prize because Obama already has it, and he can't stand the thought of a Black American winning one whilst he has none, wakakaka.


A special note:


Le Duc Tho



... in 1973 Le Duc Tho became the first and only person ever to voluntarily refuse a Nobel Peace Prize. The prize had been awarded jointly to Tho, a North Vietnamese politician and diplomat, and U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for their work negotiating a ceasefire in the Vietnam War.


As TIME reported, the Nobel committee’s decision “aroused an unprecedented storm of criticism”:

Only at the White House was the announcement greeted with unguarded praise. Kissinger was unabashedly delighted; President Nixon, who might have hoped to win it himself, said that the award gave “deserved recognition to the art of negotiation itself in the process of ending a war and laying the groundwork for peace.” Hanoi, however, was resoundingly silent, lending substance to rumors that Tho would not accept the prize.

The biggest reason for the controversy was the obvious one: despite Tho and Kissinger’s work, the war in Vietnam continued (as it would for more than a year after the Nobel announcement). And many argued that Tho and Kissinger had been just as responsible for creating war, not stopping it.


[Tho] ... agree that Vietnam was not at peace—and, further, as the Nobel Committee puts it, “his opposite number had violated the truce.” He declined to accept the prize. 


He said that he might reconsider if peace were restored to his country eventually, but his decision stood.



Asian pride & integrity versus (one) low class Wankee hardup-ness, wakakaka. Ptui!