Pages

Thursday, July 31, 2025

"Oh Canada!" Trump Threatens To Blow Up Trade Talks As Carney To Recognize Palestinian State





"Oh Canada!" Trump Threatens To Blow Up Trade Talks As Carney To Recognize Palestinian State



by Tyler Durden
Thursday, Jul 31, 2025 - 11:20 PM


Another G7 member is set to add its name to a growing list of nations planning to recognize a Palestinian state at the United Nations summit in September, following France pledging to do so, and after the UK only this week said it very likely will.

Prime Minister Mark Carney said Canada plans to issue this recognition in a Thursday statement, setting up a clash with Israel and Washington. Canada has "long been committed to a two-state solution" involving an independent Palestinian state "living side by side with the State of Israel in peace and security."


via The Canadian Press


"Canada intends to recognize the state of Palestine at the 80th General Assembly of the United Nations," Carney told a press briefing, alongside Foreign Minister Anita Anand. "We intend to do so because the Palestinian Authority has committed to lead much needed reform."

France has positively encouraged the move, with a fresh statement the Elysee Palace highlighting that President Emmanuel Macron had directly engaged on the issue with Carney and looks forward to "working together".

"We will continue our efforts to encourage others to join this momentum in the run-up to the General Assembly in September," the Elysee added.

While some Europeans are hailing Canada's move, this has already provoked a swift and threatening reaction from President Trump.

"Wow! Canada has just announced that it is backing statehood for Palestine. That will make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them. Oh’ Canada!!!" he wrote on Truth Social.

The threat to blow up trade talks due to Palestinian recognition comes as the US is dangling a 35% tariff hike over Canada if a mutual agreement cannot be reached by August 1 - literally tomorrow.



Over in Europe, plenty of small nations have already recognized Palestine as a state, but heavyweight G7 powers like France, Canada and the UK doing so takes things to another level, and Israel's government would see it as a full-blown diplomatic disaster.

Already, European officials have grown more skeptical of Netanyahu policies, also as The Hague-based ICC has issued a warrant charging war crimes, which in effect prevents Bibi from traveling to much of the European continent.


***

Carrot headed Clown is no different from Biden, always licking Shailoks' guli's


Don’t Rule Out F-35s! Despite Su-57 Hype, IAF ‘Seriously Considering’ Two Squadrons Of F-35 Fighters: OPED



Thursday, July 31, 2025


Don’t Rule Out F-35s! Despite Su-57 Hype, IAF ‘Seriously Considering’ Two Squadrons Of F-35 Fighters: OPED



F-35


India’s stealth fighter jet conundrum has become even more complex. The indigenous stealth fighter jet program, the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), is still almost a decade away. Meanwhile, China has inducted two fifth-generation aircraft into service and is testing two sixth-generation fighter jets, widening the capability gap with India.

Since a full-scale war with China is unlikely in the near future, New Delhi may have overlooked this widening capability gap with Beijing. However, that changed the moment when Pakistan announced it was acquiring China’s latest fifth-generation stealth fighter jet, the J-35A.

According to initial information, which was later retracted, Pakistan was planning to acquire 40 J-35A stealth fighter jets from China and induct them into the PAF by 2026-27.

India and Pakistan had already fought two short aerial battles in the last six years, and the possibility of more such skirmishes in the future can not be ruled out.

Thus, it became apparent that India can not wait for AMCA for the next 10 years. New Delhi needs a bridge-gap solution to maintain aerial parity with Pakistan and China, its two main adversaries.

Furthermore, India needs to move swiftly, as defense deals in India often move at a snail’s pace, sometimes languishing for years or even decades. A case in point is India’s MRFA (Medium Role Fighter Aircraft) deal. First envisioned in 2001, the agreement has yet to be signed as of 2025.

Furthermore, the only two viable fifth-generation options for India, the F-35 and the Su-57, are both struggling with production issues, and New Delhi may face significant delays, even if the jets are ordered today.


While the Su-57 is struggling with production due to the Ukraine War and crippling Western sanctions, the F-35 is facing a massive backlog of orders.

Between these two, there is no easy choice. However, what is certain is that India could very soon finalize a deal for a fifth-generation fighter jet.


India To Order 2-3 Squadrons Of Stealth Fighters

The Indian Air Force (IAF) is seeking to acquire two to three squadrons of fifth-generation fighter jets from foreign sources to enhance its combat capabilities until the indigenous Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) project becomes operational, according to India’s news agency ANI.

A fighter squadron typically consists of 18 to 20 jets.

This means that India can order 40 to 60 fifth-generation fighter jets.


The IAF recently made a detailed presentation to the government outlining its future requirements for maintaining an edge over adversaries, defense sources told ANI.

An empowered committee led by Defence Secretary RK Singh recommended the induction of fifth-generation fighter jets to enhance the force’s deterrence and preparedness, especially along the northern and western borders.

However, the government has not yet made a decision on the issue of fifth-generation fighter jets, but discussions are ongoing in this regard, ANI reported.


While security analysts have intensively debated the F-35 versus the Su-57 issue, the debate has recently tilted considerably in favor of the Su-57 due to several factors.


File Image: SU-57


Why Security Analysts Are Giving An Edge To Su-57

Ahead of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s expected visit to India in the last quarter of 2025, many analysts have assumed that India will finalize a deal for the Su-57 during this trip.

Even though the Su-57 suffers from production woes and has a considerably larger Radar Cross Section (RCS) than the F-35, a host of Russian offers such as complete Transfer of Technology (ToT), domestic production in HAL’s existing facilities for Su-30 MKI, and cooperation in developing India’s AMCA program, along with Su-57’s competitive price, has made it an unresistable offer.

However, it will be a mistake to write off the F-35 so soon.

Currently, there are several issues running against the F-35.

Ever since President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January this year, India-US relations have been on a downward spiral.

There has been a persistent issue of trade sanctions. However, the real irritant has been Trump’s flip-flops on the policy towards Pakistan. Trump hosted Pakistan’s Army Chief Gen Asim Munir in the White House, and he seems to be a willing participant in Islamabad’s propaganda wars against India.

Another issue is that the Indian Air Force (IAF) currently has no US fighter jets in its arsenal (it has Russian, French, and joint French-UK fighter jets). The IAF is also inducting indigenously developed LCA Tejas fighter jets. Integrating one more fighter (from the US) will present a host of logistics issues for the IAF.

Despite these handicaps, the F-35 has many strengths, and it could be a significant capability boost for the IAF.

Firstly, on the diplomatic front, India could use the F-35 deal to mend ties with the Trump administration. Many countries, from Japan to the oil-rich Middle Eastern kingdoms, have used defense deals with the US to curry favor with Trump.

Furthermore, if India purchases Su-57, it runs the danger of Western sanctions. The EU has already begun sanctioning Indian companies and nationals for aiding Russian oil exports, underscoring Europe’s increasingly firm stance on Indian trade with Russia.

For New Delhi, moving ahead with the Su-57 deal at this juncture could be a risky move, fraught with the danger of further alienating the Western bloc.


File Image: Su-57 vs F-35


On the technical front, the F-35 has many strengths.

Superior Stealth Characteristics: This point can’t be stressed enough.

The F-35 is widely regarded as having unmatched stealth characteristics, which are critical for modern air combat, where undetected penetration of contested airspace is a game-changer.

Its radar cross-section (RCS) is approximately 0.0015 square meters, making it exceptionally difficult to detect. In contrast, the Su-57’s RCS is estimated at 0.1 to 0.5 square meters, just slightly better than a 4.5-generation fighter jet.

Talking about the F-35’s superior stealth, defense journalist Nisha P Shekhar wrote, “The F-35 is like a ninja, nearly impossible to detect on radar. Its radar cross-section is just 0.0015 square meters — as tiny as a pigeon flying in the sky. The Su-57, while stealthy from the front, has detectable signatures from the sides and rear.”

Former IAF pilot and defense analyst, Vijainder K Thakur writes: “The F-35 features all-aspect stealth, meaning ground-based radars, whether positioned in front, behind, or on the sides, struggle to detect it in time for effective engagement by air defense systems.

“In contrast, the Su-57 has strong front-aspect stealth but significantly lower all-aspect stealth compared to the F-35. When flying head-on, as it would when intercepting an intruding fighter, the Su-57 can approach an F-35 undetected and engage it at close range.”

“However, if the Su-57 were to penetrate contested airspace, it would not be detected at long distances, but it would become visible at shorter ranges, giving enemy radars and air defense systems enough time to engage it.”

Advanced Sensor Fusion and Network-Centric Warfare: The F-35’s advanced avionics, including its 360-degree Distributed Aperture System and sensor fusion capabilities, enable it to act as a battlefield command hub, integrating data from multiple sources for superior situational awareness.

“The F-35 Lightning II represents the most advanced fifth-generation stealth fighter available on the global market. It is designed with stealth, sensor fusion, and advanced avionics at its core, giving it a significant edge in modern air warfare. Its ability to operate in contested airspace without being detected by radar is a major advantage against technologically advanced adversaries like China,” said the Indian Army’s Gen MM Naravane (Retd).

Combat Tested: Again, this is a crucial point. The F-35 has been extensively battle-tested, most recently in Operation Midnight Hammer, where it led the US strike package, moving ahead of the B-2 Spirit bombers to sweep for enemy fighters and surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems.

On the other hand, the Su-57 has only seen limited combat. Russia claims that the Su-57 has been used for launching stand-off attacks on Ukraine and was also tested in Syria.

Designed for Offensive Roles: The F-35 is designed for offensive roles, whereas the Su-57 is more of a defensive platform. The F-35, due to its unmatched stealth, can penetrate contested airspace and launch punitive airstrikes.

The Su-57, with its limited stealth, might struggle in such operations. For instance, in the Operation Midnight Hammer, the F-35s were able to penetrate Iranian airspace and sweep and destroy enemy air defense systems. The Su-57 might not be very useful for such operations.

However, due to its frontal stealth, it excels in defensive roles.

According to Thakur: “The Su-57, with its limited stealth, is optimized for air defense and short-range airstrikes from within Russian airspace, aimed at halting enemy ground offensives along its borders.”

“On the other hand, the U.S. and its Western allies have prioritized long-range airstrikes through contested airspace over air defense. The F-35 is designed to penetrate contested airspace and destroy enemy air defense systems.”

“In simple terms, the F-35 is designed to breach Russia’s multi-layered air defense network, while the Su-57 is designed to intercept F-35s attempting to penetrate Russian airspace and block enemy advances along the Russian border,” Thakur said.

Given India’s current operational requirements, which prioritize penetrating Pakistani airspace to launch punitive airstrikes on terror camps, the F-35 is more relevant to the IAF.

Furthermore, China has advanced air defense systems, such as the S-400. If hostilities break out between India and China, the F-35 will be able to penetrate Chinese airspace and conduct bombing missions.

If Pakistan continues its terror activities, and the IAF needs to conduct another surgical strike, there is none better than the F-35. For an invading Chinese J-20, the Russian Su-57 would be the perfect aircraft to thwart the PLAAF.

An IAF expert, who did not wish to be quoted, said: F-35s could be a game changer not only for the Indian Air Force but also for New Delhi, which has been struggling to mend its ties with Donald Trump. India, I believe, is seriously mulling acquiring two squadrons of F-35 fighters, similar to the purchase of 36 Rafales from France.


Sumit Ahlawat has over a decade of experience in news media. He has worked with Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee News, Economic Times, and Microsoft News. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Media and Modern History from the University of Sheffield, UK.

He can be reached at ahlawat.sumit85 (at) gmail.com


Rafizi delighted 95pct of his work in final 13MP document retained










Rafizi delighted 95pct of his work in final 13MP document retained


Published: Jul 31, 2025 4:03 PM
Updated: 8:05 PM


Summary

  • Rafizi says he is delighted 95 percent of his work for the 13MP were retained in the final document.

  • Former economy minister thanks ministry staff for toiling over the plan for more than 20 months.



Former economy minister Rafizi Ramli has expressed delight that almost all of his work for the 13th Malaysia Plan (13MP) were retained in the final document, which was tabled in Parliament today.

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim tabled the plan.

“I haven’t yet had the opportunity to examine every word on each page of the 13MP document presented today.

“However, based on the executive summary I’ve read thus far, I’m delighted that nearly 95 percent of what was developed throughout the process leading up to my resignation remains in 13MP,” he said.

The Pandan MP said that all the major reforms involving changes to the education system, economic structure, and focus on new matters such as the ageing nation agenda and developing the third sector, were retained as is.

He said that, additionally, several economic engineering plans that were initiated previously, and those that have been developed but not yet announced, such as the Special Tourism Investment Zone, were retained as well.

“Likewise, several outcomes of our work at the Economy Ministry that faced considerable opposition previously, including the implementation of the ‘Anti-Red Tape Act’ (Iltizam) and the Act prohibiting ‘Ali Baba’ practices, have all been retained.”

The Iltizam Act is aimed at reducing government bureaucracy and increasing public service efficiency.




“God willing, I shall review them one by one over the coming week. Allow me to examine each page first.

“I’m expected to debate the 13MP next Monday or Tuesday, followed by next week’s YBM (Yang Berhenti Menteri) podcast, where I’ll join Muhammed Khalid to analyse the 13MP in greater depth,” he said, referring to renowned economist, Muhammed Abdul Khalid.


Staff gratitude

Rafizi also extended his gratitude to the ministry’s staff and leadership line-up for toiling hard to prepare the document, over a period of 20 months.

“Their task was made more challenging by last-minute rumours of overhauls that needed to be made.

“Praise be to God, those rumours ultimately proved to be merely political reactions, meaning the economy ministry leadership succeeded in ensuring that the nation’s long-term planning wouldn't be muddled with political turmoil.

“One task completed, we all have a new responsibility, ensuring this planning is implemented efficiently, whoever forms the government,” he added.


Cabinet resignation

Rafizi resigned from his cabinet post after losing the PKR deputy presidency race to Nurul Izzah Anwar.

Finance Minister II Amir Hamzah Azizan was then appointed to carry out the duties and functions of the economy minister on June 27, following cabinet approval on June 25.


Second Finance Minister Amir Hamzah Azizan


Chief Secretary to the Government, Shamsul Azri Abu Bakar announced that Amir has been tasked with “reviewing and revamping” the 13MP, while carrying out the duties and functions of the economy minister with immediate effect.

This courted Rafizi’s ire, who then questioned whether the government’s move to revise the 13MP was a hasty reaction to social media criticism directed at Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil.

He was believed to be referring to reactions from netizens over an X post featuring a clip of Fahmi asserting that the 13MP is a “team effort” and not the product of any one individual or ministry.

Fahmi, who is also the PKR information chief, had courted backlash over his remark, with several users highlighting that while the plan does indeed involve various other ministries, the Economy Ministry under Rafizi’s leadership had pioneered the drafting of the document.


Dr M’s call for snap polls illogical and irresponsible, says DAP MP


FMT:

Dr M’s call for snap polls illogical and irresponsible, says DAP MP



Syahredzan Johan says Dr Mahathir Mohamad's call is poorly timed, especially as Malaysia and the rest of the world are facing turbulent conditions


DAP MP Syahredzan Johan (left) said Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s time had passed and the former prime minister must now allow others to lead the country.



PETALING JAYA: Bangi MP Syahredzan Johan has dismissed former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s call for a snap election as “illogical”, saying the public wants political stability, not another election.

In a statement, Syahredzan said such a demand is irresponsible, especially at a time when Malaysia and the rest of the world are facing turbulent conditions, from global trade wars to military conflicts.

“The majority of Malaysians do not want an election right now. They want a stable government,” he said.


He said Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim had just tabled the 13th Malaysia Plan amid global uncertainties, including impending US tariff decisions and ongoing regional conflicts, such as the border tension between Thailand and Cambodia which continued to loom large.

“Malaysia is not exempt from these global headwinds. What we need now is a steady government, helmed by a leader who can steer the country through these storms,” Syahredzan said.


Earlier today, Mahathir urged Anwar to dissolve Parliament to pave the way for a general election.

“If Anwar is truly brave, he should just dissolve Parliament and call for a general election now. He has nothing to fear – after all, his allies claim only 15,000 people attended the rally. Surely, he will win,” he said in a Facebook post.

Mahathir was referring to the Turun Anwar rally last Saturday, which was held to call for Anwar’s resignation. About 18,000 people took part in the rally, according to police, although the organisers, PAS Youth, claimed that more than 200,000 participants were present.

Syahredzan urged Mahathir to respect the country’s democratic process and the timeline of the current Parliament.

“Elections will come when the time is right. But that time is not now. The parliamentary term hasn’t even reached its maturity.

“To Mahathir, please – your time has passed. We still respect you, but now is the time for others to lead the country,” he added.

He warned that the future of the people and the next generation should not be gambled away to serve the ego and self-interests of a few politicians.


Aftermath of Thai-Cambodian border ceasefire




Murray Hunter


Aftermath of Thai-Cambodian border ceasefire


Jul 31, 2025





We are now three days into the Thai-Cambodian ceasefire agreed to in Putra Jaya on July 28. Fighting did cease at 12.00 AM on Tuesday morning, with only a few hiccups. The Thai and Cambodian forces fought very hard during the last few hours before the cease fire to consolidate their geographical positions.

Nevertheless, there were a few minor skirmishes until the morning, when Thai and Cambodian army commanders met in two places along the border to coordinate the ceasefire. A small number of ceasefire observers from the Malaysian army, led by General Mohammad Nizam Jaafar, had arrived to coordinate the ceasefire and place an ASEAN observer team along the border.

However, on Tuesday night around 30 drones were seen flying over Ubom Ratchathani Airport, where the Thai F-16s have been stationed throughout the conflict. There were a number of reports claiming small arms and grenade clashes at Chong An Ma and Phu Makheau. The Thais retaliated against the Cambodian forces to retake Chong An Ma, which has been met with diplomatic protests on both sides.

The Thai army alleged that 18 Cambodian soldiers surrendered to Thai forces after the ceasefire, and Cambodia is making diplomatic efforts for their return to Cambodia.

One of the major post ceasefire issues is the close proximity of Thai and Cambodian forces due to poor demarcation of the Thai-Cambodia border. Thai forces have erected temporary barriers around Ta Muen Thom temple to separate the two forces.


Aftermath

There appears to be a general peace along the border area, although more than 140,000 displaced Thai and Cambodians have been very slow to return to their homes. It appears authorities on both sides haven’t directed locals in halls and temples to return home as yet. On the Thai side, other than army and government traffic, there is virtually no general traffic on the highways heading towards the borders from cities like Surin and Sisaket. Some military units have been seen travelling across Thailand towards the Thai-Cambodian border areas.

As borders are still closed, there is almost zero border trade, which is an important aspect of both local economies. To the locals any ceasefire without reopened borders means very little. Cambodians on the Thai side who still wish to be repatriated, are moving at a very slow pace, as immigration and labour offices are only open spasmodically.

Bloomberg stated that the United States had just reached a tariff deal with both Thailand and Cambodia, ahead of the August 1 deadline. Both Thailand and Cambodia would have faced a 36 percent tariff rate on goods entering the US starting August 1, but it is believed the new tariff rate will be around 19-20 percent. Some believe that the threat by US President Trump to postpone tariff discussions if there was no ceasefire was a major carrot for both parties.

Others believe that the ceasefire presided over by the ASEAN Chair Malaysia has been a good boost to the integrity of the Association. Malaysia is also hoping that it will be rewarded for its mediation role in the ceasefire by Trump, with a lower tariff rate. However, for ASEAN the ‘devil will be in the detail’, with the negotiation of a longtime truce.

It will be very difficult for ASEAN negotiators to intervene upon the personalities behind the fighting. Hun Sen and Thaksin Shinawatra have personal issues that no one currently understands. Secondly, there are a number of ‘mafia’, and ‘mob’ groups well connected with Hun Sen who want some retribution against the Thai army for targeting their scam, money laundering and casino operations along the border.

Much of South East Asia is influenced by a relatively small number of families, which must be taken account of in formulating any long-term truce. This could be an issue ASEAN cannot grapple with in developing any long-term solution.

The major winner of the Thai-Cambodian border conflict is China. Chinese influence within Cambodia is massive. Much Cambodian development has been based upon Chinese money. The Ream Naval Base on the Cambodian coast not far from Phnom Penh is being expanded by the Chinese, making it suitable for military use. The base is strategically located in the Gulf of Thailand, with direct access to the South China Sea.

Currently, the base is a joint Cambodian-Chinese facility. However, there is every incentive for Cambodia to encourage China to maximize its presence on the base. For China, the Ream Naval Base can tip primacy towards China in the region. Any strong Chinese military presence within Cambodia could become an important future military deterrent in the future.


Border Flashpoint, Quiet Resolution: What Cambodia–Thailand Taught Us About Power Without War




Murray Hunter


Border Flashpoint, Quiet Resolution: What Cambodia–Thailand Taught Us About Power Without War


Samirul Ariff Othman
Jul 31, 2025





The border tensions between Cambodia and Thailand in mid-2025 illustrate how conflicts, when managed properly, need not spiral into prolonged instability. Unlike previous episodes around the Preah Vihear temple area—particularly the 2008–2011 skirmishes—this latest flare-up was contained swiftly and decisively. The crisis reached a moderate stage of escalation but never crossed into open confrontation. This was not accidental. It was deliberate.


A Conflict Contained, Not Ignited

Applying Glasl’s Conflict Escalation Model, the conflict rose to Stage 3, where positions hardened and military posturing began. However, it was pulled back before entering Stage 5, which typically involves loss of face, threats, or coercion. In short, it stopped at a “win–lose” threshold and did not degenerate into “lose–lose” territory. This is rare in regional disputes with historical baggage. The fact that it de-escalated so quickly requires explanation.

Two external actors played pivotal but contrasting roles—Malaysia and the United States. Malaysia acted in line with its ASEAN obligations, engaging in quiet diplomacy without fanfare. It avoided megaphone tactics and operated through trust networks built over decades. Malaysia has long branded itself as a neutral and moderate regional actor. That branding paid off. Cambodian and Thai officials responded to backchannel efforts initiated discreetly. Soft power is not declared—it is earned.


The United States: Strategic Deterrence Without Escalation

In parallel, the United States signaled strategic boundaries. U.S. Indo-Pacific Command continued joint exercises with Thailand and released indirect warnings against further escalation. This hard power deterrence complemented Malaysia’s soft approach. Neither actor tried to dominate the process, but together they created a smart power framework that worked.

Smart power, as conceptualised by Joseph Nye, is the ability to combine attraction with coercion. The Cambodia–Thailand episode is a textbook example. Soft power opened the door. Hard power closed the door on conflict. The combination was effective because it was not overplayed. This is a lesson in proportionality.

Economically, both countries had every reason to avoid war. Thailand depends on cross-border trade and labour flows. Cambodia remains sensitive to external economic pressure, especially after losing partial access to the EU’s Everything But Arms (EBA) privileges. Both governments are also managing fragile post-COVID recoveries. Neither can afford to scare off investors or tourists. These are not abstract concerns—they carry real costs factored into national decision-making.


What ASEAN Got Right This Time

ASEAN’s framework—often criticised for being slow or consensus-bound—proved its worth here. There was no need for a formal summit. Informal ties, longstanding protocols, and cultural sensitivity achieved what many “rules-based” systems struggle to deliver: quick, face-saving de-escalation. This is regional diplomacy as it should be—pragmatic, not performative.

Comparatively, this conflict bears similarity to Turkey’s strategy in the Middle East. Turkey projects influence through cultural ties, humanitarian networks, and economic leverage—while retaining the capacity for hard response. Malaysia is not Turkey, but in ASEAN it plays a similar role: a broker that speaks softly and acts through relational power, not military muscle.

Critically, the conflict did not descend into identity-based or ideological dimensions. There were no attempts to weaponise religion, ethnicity, or nationalism. Media narratives remained controlled. Social media mobilisation was limited. This prevented escalation into an emotionally charged standoff. Policymakers on both sides behaved rationally, and their restraint must be acknowledged.

What does this episode tell us? First, conflict management in ASEAN still works—when countries want it to. Second, soft power is not about being weak; it is about being trusted. Third, the strategic pairing of soft and hard power—applied with timing and discipline—is more effective than relying on either in isolation.

Lastly, this case demonstrates that values, culture, and diplomacy still matter in Asia. Power in this region is not exercised through megaphones or military parades—it is exercised through calibrated words, strategic restraint, and behind-the-scenes persuasion.

This is how conflicts should end. Quietly, quickly, and with minimal collateral.

—————————————————————————-

Samirul Ariff Othman is an economist, adjunct lecturer at Universiti Teknologi Petronas, international relations analyst, and a senior consultant with Global Asia Consulting. The views expressed in this op-ed are entirely his own.


Afternoon abduction of tycoon's wife shows Malaysia's dark side




Afternoon abduction of tycoon's wife shows Malaysia's dark side


By Tom Redmond, Niki Koswanage & Anders Melin / Bloomberg
31 Jul 2025, 10:07 am




Datin Seri Pamela Ling went missing on April 9.


SINGAPORE/KUALA LUMPUR (July 31): Datin Seri Pamela Ling had a lot on her mind as she headed down the highway connecting Kuala Lumpur with Malaysia’s administrative capital some 30 minutes away.


The 42-year-old was en route to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, known as the MACC, where investigators wanted to question her for at least the 10th time in a money-laundering probe. Two days earlier, on April 7, she had filed a lawsuit against the agency, accusing it of colluding with her estranged husband — a tycoon involved in everything from healthcare in Singapore to timber in Papua New Guinea — to pressure her into settling a messy divorce.


Sitting in the back seat, Ling checked the Grab ride-hailing app on her phone. She typed out a note to one of her lawyers on WhatsApp, saying she was about 10 minutes away and would arrive at 2.08pm.



Suddenly, three cars surrounded the vehicle and forced it to stop. Two men and a woman in what appeared to be police gear jumped out, told Ling to exit the vehicle and bundled her into one of their cars. They ordered the Grab driver to hand over his ID card, and then sped away.


The brazen kidnapping in broad daylight on one of Malaysia’s busiest roads — recounted here from court filings, press statements and local media reports citing a witness — left the nation stunned. It was the talk of the town for weeks after it happened, with details of the case dissected on evening news shows, social media threads and in conversations around Kuala Lumpur.


More than three months later, the most important questions remain unanswered. Ling still hasn’t turned up, her kidnappers have made no ransom demands and police haven’t announced a suspect or progress in the investigation. Her family, meanwhile, is growing increasingly frustrated with the MACC.


They want to know why the anti-graft agency suddenly moved up her appearance to April 9, the day she was kidnapped, after it was originally scheduled for the following day. In addition, it “doesn’t make any sense” that the MACC didn’t seek a warrant for her arrest after she went missing, according to Sangeet Kaur Deo, a lawyer representing Ling’s family.


“You have hunted her, you have watched her every step, you have refused to let her leave this country on the pretext of investigation — the day she disappears you go silent,” Sangeet said. “The change in the behaviour of the MACC, going from hunting her to not caring whether she is around, also needs to be explained.”



MACC officials have refused to answer some of the police’s questions around Ling’s case, hampering the investigation and the ability of law enforcement to generate leads, according to people familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified because the information is private.


The MACC reports directly to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and is regarded as one of Malaysia’s most powerful enforcement agencies, with a broad remit to investigate both public officials and private individuals. Its officers are able to conduct arrests and freeze assets without needing to go through the police, which are overseen by the Ministry of Home Affairs.


An MACC spokesman didn’t respond to requests for comment.


“At every stage, the MACC has acted within the legal framework, including obtaining all necessary court orders and adhering to the established procedures,” the agency said in a statement on May 7. “Allegations of harassment or misconduct are unfounded.”


While Malaysia ranks higher than most other Southeast Asian countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index and has received plaudits for fostering a good investment climate, it also has a history of sensational disappearances.


As the news of Ling’s abduction broke and #PamelaLing trended on Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, many social media users criticised the MACC for not providing adequate protection to her as a witness in their investigations. Others pointed to enforced disappearances of human-rights activists and highlighted the case of Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu, who was taken to a forest outside the capital, shot twice in the head and blown up with military-grade explosives.


Two secret-service policemen, part of a bodyguard detail to then-defence minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and other senior Malaysian leaders, were convicted of Altantuya’s murder. They both have said they were following orders. Najib, currently in prison over charges related to the multibillion dollar 1MDB fraud during his time as prime minister, has denied any involvement.


Ling’s disappearance has increased scrutiny of the MACC, whose chief — Tan Sri Azam Baki — has seen his term repeatedly extended by Anwar in a break from past precedent. Azam has dismissed criticism over his contract extensions and said he’s accustomed to public disapproval, while Anwar has called the MACC chief brave in taking on powerful interests.


To critics, Ling’s case underscores the need to check the agency’s power.


“Serious questions about the role MACC played need independent investigation, as the case calls into question the organisation,” said Bridget Welsh, honorary research associate with the University of Nottingham Asia Research Institute Malaysia. “Authorities need to find out the truth.”


When asked for comment, a representative of the Prime Minister’s Office referred Bloomberg News to the Ministry of Home Affairs. A spokesperson for that ministry referred Bloomberg to the police. Representatives for the police didn’t comment when presented with written questions.


Safety concerns


Ling expressed concerns about her safety in a legal filing well before her disappearance. The saga began in August 2023, when she started divorce proceedings in Singapore against her husband, Datuk Seri Thomas Hah.


Ling and Hah, both born in Sarawak in Malaysian Borneo, married in 2001. She was 18 and he was 32. Today their personal assets stretch from the British Virgin Islands to Switzerland and Australia, including real estate, trusts and corporate shareholdings, according to court records. They own roughly 20 properties in Singapore alone, worth about US$70 million (RM298.2 million). A big part of the shareholdings consists of Joinland Group, a company Hah founded around 1990 as a distributor of cold storage products and later expanded into areas like logging, plantations and real estate. Some of these ventures also involve Ling’s father and brother.


The full extent of Hah’s business engagements can’t be discerned, but corporate filings provide some clues.


Companies in Papua New Guinea co-owned by Hah and Ling’s father exported more than US$150 million worth of timber since 2012, government records show. The men also hold minority stakes in another firm there that exported about as much timber in the same period. Several of Joinland’s Malaysian subsidiaries, while recording little or no revenue in recent years, have received around US$40 million from an entity in the British Virgin Islands, according to corporate filings. Ling’s father and brother are shareholders in at least three Joinland subsidiaries.


Ling’s divorce filing put all those assets at stake. At the time, she lived with the couple’s three children in a luxury riverside condo in neighbouring Singapore. As the two clashed, she accused Hah of forging her signature to illegally transfer some of her shares in a property company to him. Hah hasn’t publicly addressed the forgery allegation but has said in a filing for a separate civil case that he’s the owner of all shares in the company. He started a competing divorce suit in Malaysia, alleging she cheated on him.


According to Ling’s divorce affidavits, Hah was serially unfaithful and abusive, and threatened to “make the rest of her life miserable” if she ever left him. He said he had “connections to organised crime and gang leaders in Malaysia, as well as people in powerful positions”, one of the filings said.


In response to a request for an interview with Hah, his lawyer, Selva Mookiah, said his client wouldn’t be issuing any statement or making any comment at this point, because the matter is currently under active investigation. He added that Hah has extended full cooperation to the authorities and remains committed to doing so. Mookiah didn’t respond later to a detailed list of questions on the divorce proceedings and Hah’s dealings with the MACC.


Arrest warrant

The MACC got involved in May 2024, when it opened a case against the couple for unspecified offences related to corruption and money laundering. After Ling failed to appear for questioning, a Malaysian court in December issued a warrant for her arrest. Singaporean authorities picked her up the following month and sent her back to Malaysia.


Ling was handcuffed and eventually taken to MACC headquarters, where she was detained for three days and told she “might be charged” with money laundering, according to an affidavit by Ling. Then she was released, but was restricted from leaving Malaysia.


Separated from her children, Ling started living in hotels in Malaysia. She said in the affidavit that MACC agents frequently called her to headquarters for questioning.


Just before she was kidnapped, Ling had decided to fight the agency. On April 7, she filed a request for a judicial review into MACC’s actions in her case, including the legality of her arrest warrant and travel ban.


In her affidavit in support of her request for the judicial review, Ling alleged Hah was using the anti-graft agency to “seek to pressure me into resolving matters, including my complaint that Hah had forged my signature”. She recounted how Hah was present at the MACC for one of her interrogations, and she said Muslimin Chia Abdullah, an official at the agency, urged them to settle matters so the case could be dropped. Hah’s lawyer didn’t comment when asked about this.


Responding to the claims in early July, Muslimin denied in an affidavit that the MACC investigations were designed to push her into a settlement with Hah. Muslimin said that Ling was a flight risk and MACC investigators believed she was in the process of obtaining a second passport from another country.


Ling was summoned to the MACC a day earlier on April 9 to take a new statement on her application for a second passport, he said in the affidavit seen by Bloomberg News. Malik Imtiaz Sarwar Advocates & Solicitors, a legal firm representing Ling in her judicial review, said it didn’t have instructions to comment on this.


Malaysian police briefly questioned Hah about Ling’s disappearance before releasing him when the court rejected their application to remand him, according to local media reports.


‘Patently false’

Meanwhile, comments from law enforcement on the case have prompted rebukes from her family. Kuala Lumpur police chief Datuk Rusdi Mohd Isa said on May 8 that Ling is probably still alive, without providing evidence. He also said it was possible that Ling staged the abduction herself. It’s unclear if police sought Thailand’s help after one of the cars used in the abduction was found abandoned near the border.


The MACC has sought to distance itself from the kidnapping, saying it was a matter for the police and beyond their control because it happened on a public road. It also said it was cooperating with the investigation.


When Azam, the MACC chief, addressed the abduction in May at a news conference, he said Ling was never a suspect in the money-laundering investigation but was cooperating as a witness.


“We never called her with the intent to arrest her,” he said, according to local media reports.


Sangeet, the lawyer for Ling’s family, said Azam’s statement was “patently false” because the MACC arrested Ling and had her extradited to Malaysia. “For the chief commissioner to deny a matter already in the public record was alarming,” she said in a statement on May 26. “It suggests not only indifference but an absence of fear of accountability.”


The Ling family has had one small victory after her disappearance. On May 19, the Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled that her judicial review into the MACC could proceed.


Still, Sangeet warned that Ling’s case shows that “Malaysia is unsafe” and people in the country can’t depend on protection from authorities.


“You cannot go to our agencies, specifically our law enforcement agencies, because either they are completely incompetent or they just will not investigate,” Sangeet said.



“It could be any one of us. It could be anyone coming into the country.”


Read also:


Abang Jo, Fadhlina Sidek named as potential PMX successor as PMXI candidacy gains traction




Abang Jo, Fadhlina Sidek named as potential PMX successor as PMXI candidacy gains traction




FALL-OUT from Saturday’s (July 26) Turun Anwar rally continues. This time in the form of continued chatter online about potential candidates as PMXI.


A list had already been discussed in FocusM by weighing up the pros and cons of each individual’s hypothetical suitability for office.




These discussions have been rampant on social media. As highlighted by political observer Khalid Karim STEMKITA (@Khalidkarim) on X, the issue is very much at the forefront of Malaysians’ thinking at the moment.

Apparently, certain dissenters just want the ouster of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim They are not insisting on forming any backdoor government which is an interesting proposition in itself.


Did I read it correctly? They want Anwar to turun but NOT for Unity Gov to turun. No intention to tebuk tap but just to change PM. But who is fit to take over from Anwar? Fadhlina maybe
2.5K
Reply
Copy link




Khalid ended his post by suggesting current Education Minister Fadhlina Sidek as a potential candidate. The post has generated over 256.2K views, suggesting that the poser is very much in the minds of Malaysians.

Of course, many gave their two sen on who could take over with some dismissing the suggestion that the Nibong Tebal MP and PKR women’s wing chief is a worthy candidate on grounds that “she babbles a lot” and “she’s always flip-flopping like there’s no tomorrow”.


The name of Sarawak premier Tan Sri Abang Johari Openg was also mooted with one commenter pointing to the good job he has done at state level.


However, some suggested that he is disinterested with the poster himself dismissing the idea on the basis that there is no way an East Malaysian leader will eventually be made PM. One commenter rightly put it that Abang Jo is not even an MP to begin with.



Plantation and Commodities Minister and UMNO vice-president Datuk Seri Johari Ghani was also mentioned with some claiming that he is an expert in economic matters. One commenter even proposed that while PMX can remain the premier, Johari can be made the Finance Minister.


Ex-PM Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob was also mentioned in view of his past premiership experience aside from having previously addressed the United Nations (UN) Assembly.


One commenter even joked that the Turun Anwar rally was part of ousted PKR deputy president Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli’s “grand movement”, insinuating that it is part of a power grab.


Interestingly, incarcerated former premier Datuk Seri Najib Razak was suggested given he “was good in economic management”. This suggestion was given short shrift by the poster who highlighted various examples of mismanagement of economic affairs under the former Pekan MP.


Although the weekend rally was supposedly a PAS-led movement, one commenter claimed that he would not be at all surprised if the attendees were made up of UMNO loyalists.

He insinuated that it was a conniving move by UMNO to grab power while publicly maintaining support for PMX.


However, not everyone believed that a change would be good as a rotating door at Putrajaya was not good for the nation.

One commenter contended that while PMX might not be the best, the lack of viable alternatives mean he will continue to be PM. An effective opposition is what the country needs alongside a competitive environment to improve performance of politicians.

Echoing this sentiment, another commenter reckoned that it was better to judge the Madani government upon it completing its term. Constant change would lead to disaster, he claimed. – July 31, 2025



Australia Could Be Biggest Victim Of Trump’s “America First” Policy - 'Chong-ed kaukau' in kerbau-ish AUKUS deal




Australia Could Be Biggest Victim Of Trump’s “America First” Policy; Why US Wants To Review AUKUS Deal?


By Sumit Ahlawat
- July 30, 2025


It was hailed as Australia’s biggest defense agreement ever, one that could redefine the security architecture in the crucial Indo-Pacific and challenge China’s rising belligerence in the region.

However, four years after the agreement, worth nearly USD 240 billion, was signed, the deal has not progressed, with the US, the strategic pivot of the landmark agreement, launching a formal review of the contract last month.

On July 29, the US announced that it aims to complete a review of its AUKUS security partnership with Britain and Australia by the fall, buying Canberra more time to convince Washington of the pact’s importance.


The US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Elbridge Colby’s office, said in a post on X that the review will be an “empirical and clear-eyed assessment” of the deal.


“The Department anticipates completing the review in the fall. Its purpose will be to provide the President and his senior leadership team with a fact-based, rigorous assessment of the initiative.”

AUKUS Submarines. Image for representational purposes only.


The Trump administration has launched a review into the 2021 deal struck during the Biden administration on June 11, causing alarm in Canberra and raising eyebrows among other US allies and partners about the future of the three-way submarine pact.

The US decision to review the four-year-old agreement, widely considered to be Australia’s most significant defense pact ever, was cited as further proof of US unreliability under the Trump administration.


Notably, earlier, it was reported in the US media that the Department of Defense (DoD) would finish the review within 30 days. The new timeline suggests that either the review has not formally started, or the US has decided to extend the timeline.

Either way, it gives Canberra and London more time to convince Washington of the criticality of the defense pact in containing China and providing net security in the Indo-Pacific region.


AUKUS: Australia’s Biggest Defense Pact Ever

The AUKUS pact, signed in September 2021, is a trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States aimed at promoting a “free and open Indo-Pacific.”

The deal has two central pillars.

Pillar 1 is about the supply and delivery of nuclear-powered attack submarines.


Under the pact, Australia will buy three second-hand nuclear-powered but conventionally-armed (SSNs) Virginia-class submarines from the US, with options to purchase two more. These SSNs were expected to be delivered to Australia beginning in the 2030s.

After that, the plan is to design and build an entirely new nuclear-powered submarine model for the UK and Australian navies.

Furthermore, the United States and the UK will deploy their own nuclear-powered submarines in the region as part of “Submarine Rotational Force-West.”


Pillar 2 is about the allies collaborating on their “advanced capabilities,” including sharing military expertise in critical areas such as long-range hypersonic missiles, undersea robotics, quantum technology, and AI.


Why AUKUS Is Critical To Australia

AUKUS is Australia’s most significant defense pact ever.

The deal will significantly enhance Australia’s undersea capabilities, as Canberra currently only operates diesel-electric submarines. The nuclear-powered submarines offer many advantages, such as extended range, endurance, and stealth—features that have become necessities.

Notably, the deal would have made Australia the only country besides the UK with which the United States would share the nuclear propulsion technology.

Furthermore, the commitment by the US and the UK to deploy their own nuclear-powered submarines in the region will strengthen Australia’s position in the Indo-Pacific. Besides, Australia will get access to sensitive technologies such as hypersonic weapons, quantum technology, and AI, giving it a significant military capability boost.

AUKUS is Australia’s biggest-ever defence project, with Canberra committing to spend A$368 billion (US$240 billion) over three decades to the programme, which includes billions of dollars of investment in the U.S. submarine production base.


Why US Wants To Review AUKUS?

In the US, questions have been raised over the deal’s relevance to Washington in an atmosphere where the narrative is dominated by Trump’s ‘America First’ policy.

Colby’s office said the AUKUS review would “be an empirical and clear-eyed assessment of the initiative’s alignment with President Trump’s America First approach.”

Notably, Colby has been a known AUKUS skeptic.

He has previously expressed skepticism over the benefits of the pact’s submarine sales element, arguing before the US Senate’s Armed Services Committee in March that the United States wasn’t producing enough submarines to meet its own requirements in the Indo-Pacific region.


SS Navy’s Virginia-class submarine, a version of which has been envisaged for Australia under the AUKUS pact.


When the Senate’s Armed Services Committee asked Colby about the AUKUS deal, Colby replied: “I have expressed concerns, as I understand, shared by many on this Committee, regarding U.S. attack submarine force structure and production rates. I believe we must increase U.S. attack submarine production to meet U.S. military requirements in the Indo-Pacific region.”

However, during that hearing, Colby also expressed his commitment to AUKUS, saying, “I also agree with Secretary Hegseth that AUKUS is a model for how we should engage with our closest allies and partners when it comes to technology cooperation, scaling
production, and integrating our industrial bases.”

Media reports have also claimed that the US wants to enforce additional conditions on the deal. These include a commitment by Australia to spend 3.5 % of its GDP on defense, and a promise by Canberra to deploy its submarines in support of the US in case of a conflict with China.

While speaking in front of the US Senate’s Armed Services Committee in March, Colby suggested that the US should press Australia to spend more on defense.

“The main concern the United States should press with Australia, consistent with the
President’s approach, is higher defense spending. Australia is currently well below the 3% level advocated for NATO by NATO Secretary General Rutte, and Canberra faces a far more
powerful challenge in China,” Colby has said.

Notably, the US is reviewing the AUKUS deal, even as the UK and Australia are doubling down on the pact. Earlier this week, the UK and Australia signed a bilateral 50-year pact to cement the AUKUS partnership. Called the “Geelong Treaty,” the UK-Australia pact enables “comprehensive cooperation on the design, build, operation, sustainment and disposal” of SSN-AUKUS submarines.

The AUKUS pact, in many ways, signifies the US’s commitment to not only Australia’s security but broadly to the whole of the Indo-Pacific region. If Washington falters on the AUKUS agreement, it will send negative signals to other US regional allies, such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.

Australia is also part of QUAD, another multilateral defense pact led by the US, which is focused on containing China in the Indo-Pacific region. This move by the US will also raise questions about Washington’s commitments to QUAD.

However, the extension of the deadline for the AUKUS review has provided Australia with another opportunity to convince Washington that the deal is also in the US interests.

Speaking on the development today, the Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese denied that the US is using its AUKUS review as “leverage.”

“We expected a review from an incoming government, just like the Keir Starmer government did (in the UK). We expect that those things take longer than just 30 days,” Albanese added.

Asked if it was being used as “leverage,” he simply replied: “No.”

It remains to be seen what compromises, if any, are struck by Canberra to save the deal.



Sumit Ahlawat has over a decade of experience in news media. He has worked with Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee News, Economic Times, and Microsoft News. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Media and Modern History from the University of Sheffield, UK.

He can be reached at ahlawat.sumit85 (at) gmail.com