Defence: The Funniest Multiple Launch Rocket Story

Malaysian Incite’s story on a Multi Launch Rocket System offer by China to Malaysia

Malaysian Incite today came up with another piece of hogwash (what’s new) on a supposed defence deal between Malaysia and China.

Up to 12 units of the AR3 multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) will be offered to Malaysia in a purchase programme with a loan period of 50 years,” wrote Malaysian Incite quoting an unnamed source (very credible this) believed by many local defence observers and writers to be a person with the surname of ‘Lam.’

50 YEARS?  This is just to rile up the stupid Opposition supporters who cannot distinguish the difference between the rain-unfriendly ASTRO DTU and the Army’s ASTROS II.  In just 30 years the ASTROS system has undergone so many upgrades and a new system called the ASTROS 2020 is already in development phase.  Do you mean Malaysia will be stuck with an obsolete system for half the system’s life and still has to pay for it?

Firstly, the Malaysian Army already has six batteries of the ASTROS II MLRS acquired in two batches in 2002 and 2007.  The ASTROS II are battle-proven and was first deployed during the Gulf War by the Saudi Arabian forces.  The obvious differences between the ASTROS II and the AR3 system that “China is offering” are the range of the rockets and the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) as opposed to the conventionally-targetted MLRS that the Malaysian Army employs.

Secondly, the timing of Malaysian Incite’s article on the MLRS coincides with Singapore’s National Day – and with Malaysian Incite being as bad as Malaysiakini (or is attempting to dethrone Malaysiakini as the bad boy portal), the best thing to do mid-week (which coincidetally happens to be Singapore’s National Day) is to create a sour point in the Malaysia-Singapore relations.

Thirdly, the MLRS is a offensive operations weapons system.  No one buys an MLRS unless someone next door has it first. In Malaysia’s case, Thailand became the first MLRS operator on this end of Asia.  So, we bought the ASTROS II.  Two years after we acquired the second batch, Singapore bought the US M-142 HIMARS.  Therefore, Singapore has no fear to add if Malaysia is given access to China’s AR3 as. if fired from Woodlands, the HIMARS would be able to hit Bangi and Kajang compared to the AR3 hitting Woodlands only if fired from Ayer Keroh.

Fourthly, a new MLRS is not something the Malaysian Army wants right now. It has other worries to address. It is adequately prepared to defend against land aggression and protect its infrastructure and fire units with its air defence systems if needed. As with Singapore, the asymmetrical threat is now the paramount concern, and instead of being concerned about fighting each other, Malaysia and Singapore are working closely (even with other countries) to combat asymmetrical threats.

Fifthly (yes, there is fifthly. It is just superfluous but more formal than fifth), being at the receiving end of a MLRS salvo is like being in a rain of steel and high explosives, saturation fire is the concept.  You don’t need it to be super-duper accurate because when the rockets hit the ground, there is nowhere safe that you can hide.  And what is this about the AR3 having a radar because airspace control issue has been a sore point between Malaysia and Singapore?  The AR3 is not designed to do air defence. It is a land-offensive system! It shoots targets on the surface, not in the air!

The Malaysian Incite tries to be scarily defence-savvy but sounds scarily stupid trying to sound intelligent

Finally, read Malaysian Incite only if you believe that China has the ability to remotely-control the AR3 that Malaysia “will be getting” to fire rockets at Singapore if Malaysia refuses to do so. The Malaysian Incite is definitely THE portal for empty-skulled sorry-excuse-for-human-beings.

I read this I so scare one lor! I scare oledi Singapore sure scare one mah!

If I were the Malaysian Army, and in a decade I want to replace my ASTROS II, I would probably get the ASTROS 2020 with the tactical missiles with a 300 kilometre range, if I really want such a system.  Else, I will look for a system with commonalities for easy operator transition.

And to add, Najib Razak does not go around making enemies with neighbours. We have had a lot of enemy-making for 22 years once upon a time.

A Police Report – Part 2

Following the police report that I made last Thursday the CEO of Malaysiakini Premesh Chandran has denied any knowledge of the document in question.

 “I have not seen this document before, nor was I part of any discussions on ‘shared frameworks’, nor was I the chair of any committee related to OSF,” said Premesh to Malaysiakini.

My response:

When I was interviewed after making the police report, I specifically asked for the police that in the name of fairness for all, to thoroughly investigate the authenticity of the said document.

Therefore there is no need for Premesh Chandran to do an outright denial and let the police investigate.

It is a known fact that Soros has indirect links to 29% ownership of MalaysiaKini – something that Mkini themselves had knowingly admitted.

Premesh should explain why OSF documents listed his name as the Chairman of the advisory board for Malaysia.

I did not name him. OSF did. Why jump before the police has completed their investigation?

He Is Human? Right!

Of late, I am often spoilt for choice of political comedians. For example, there are several memes of Ahmad Maslan – the ‘Bingung‘ one was particularly funny. Then we have the riddle – What is a Takoyaki without balls?  The answer to that one is Sotong.

Then you have Marina Mahathir who today claimed that George Soros cares for human rights.


I am sure George Soros is philanthropic as well as humane. Therefore, I would agree to a certain point with Marina that Soros indeed cares for human rights.

In 1997-98, Soros the human rights defender went on a full frontal assault against the Malaysian Ringgit. Even Marina’s father agreed explicitly to this.


What Soros did was to try bring down old Mahathir whom during his premiership incarcerated his opponents without trial. In a Human Rights Watch reported dated some time in 2001, Mahathir was reported to have detained thousands without trial, and at the time of writing there were 105 ISA detainees in the Kamunting Detention Centre.


Soros is a very generous person. Through his Open Society Institute he had given generously to both the colour revolution in Eastern Europe as well as the Arab Springs of North Africa and the Middle East. Since then 65,000 people have been killed in Syria; 435,000 are internally displaced in Libya while 2.5 million have left the country through migration or by becoming refugees; about 2,000 died in Egypt. Soros has also been funding the Opposition and Opposition-friendly organisations such as BERSIH and Malaysiakini (where a director is also a former Soros employee) – perhaps for a Malaysia-spring.

I did not make those figures up the way Rafizi, Tony Pua and Syed Saddiq would. You can see them for yourselves HERE .

Therefore, you must also remember when Soros attacked the Asian financial systems in 1997 and 1998 he also caused the deaths of thousands in Asia – all died in misery after wallowing in mental pain and total despair.


So Marina, Soros is NOT a champion for human rights. He is just interested to see the world spins the way he wants it to – much like your father, only on a global scale. They both have their caprices.

I hope you will find a better joke the next time, Marina. It has been a delightful afternoon. If you can’t find a better joke then just remain as one.

Oh! If only you could now see my face all lit up with impish glee!

Shut Up, Sotong!

Shut up, says the person who has lost court cases for not stating facts and lie to the people

Shut up if you don’t have the facts,” said PKR’s Rafizi Ramli to Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Dr Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki on the latter’s claim that Tabung Haji (TH) has initiated a suit against him (Rafizi). In his Facebook Dr Asyraf has refused to debate with Rafizi on an issue involving TH saying that it isnow  a legal issue between TH and Rafizi.

Rafizi, however, is most famous for getting sued for making false allegations and getting his ‘facts’ wrong, and lose in court.

In 2012, he made allegations that funds from a government defence contractor was used to purchase 80 percent stake in Astacanggih Sdn Bhd. The then Defence Minister, Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, promptly filed a suit against Rafizi. Rafizi told portal The Malaysian Insider in the 26th January 2013 that he would stand by his allegations and fight Zahid in court.

Yes, I will face the suit. I will go through this issue with my lawyer. If he (Zahid) sues me, good. We will subpoena all the documents,” he said to The Malaysian Insider.

However, on the 9th April 2013, Rafizi applied for the High Court to reject the writ of summons filed by Zahid! In his statement of defence Rafizi on the 5th April 2013 Rafizi denied defaming Zahid and in the end removed all the allegations against Zahid from his blog post.

The above is a fact.

On the 24th November 2014, Rafizi defamed Rosmah Mansor, wife of Najib Razak, at a forum in Bandar Tun Razak claiming that the rising fuel prices was to allow Rosmah to buy diamond rings.  In his defence when sued by both Najib and Rosmah, Rafizi said that he was only joking!

The above is also a fact.

Just a week ago Rafizi was ordered by the High Court to pay RM200,000 (approximately USD47,733) to National Feedlot Company’s Chairman Dr Mohamad Salleh Ismail and also to the Company for defaming them.

In the suit filed on 3rd June, 2013, Mohamad Salleh and NFCorp, claimed that on 7th March, 2012, Rafizi had made a defamatory statement at a media conference at the PKR Office on the purchase of KL Eco City properties and was published by Malaysiakini on the same day.

He said the suit was filed because of losses incurred due to the lies, misleading information, disclosure of confidential banking information and slander made by the defendant.

The above is another fact.

Therefore, it is Rafizi in my opinion who should just shut up as it is an established fact that he is nothing more than a habitual liar.

Let us hope Strike Four will bury him deep.

How Kutty Destroyed Melaka Kutty Will Destroy Malaysia

Mahathir named Soros as the person behind the currency attacks of 1997-98
Mahathir named Soros as the person behind the currency attacks of 1997-98

It was a well-coordinated efforts to destabilise Asean currencies for self-serving purposes,” said a joint-comunique by ASEAN Foreign Ministers in 1997 on the serious attacks by George Soros and his Open Society Institute on ASEAN currencies.  Pribumi founder, Mahathir, who was the Prime Minister then said Soros was using the wealth under his control to punish Asean for welcoming Burma. “There is definite evidence that we cannot disclose,” he said. “There is no doubt he did it.

Yesterday, minutes of meeting that happened on the 22nd June 2015 between Soros’s Open Society Foundation with local opposition-leaning organisations such as but not limited to the likes of the Merdeka Centre for Opinion Research was made available by DC Leaks, the same organisation that exposed Hillary Clinton’s e-mails scandal.

Plans have been made to mobilise what has been named as the ‘Malaysia Programme – Portfolio Review Outcome Summary‘ to influence domestic politics in anticipation of the 14th General Elections that is expected to be held by May of 2018.  The programme includes:

  • Greater mobilisation of the Muslim population as current involvement is not satisfactory.
  • Greater mobilisation of minority groups, women, Orang Asli and rural youth.
  • Engage with Election Commission, explore any possibility of policy reform, and identify clear policy targets.
  • Begin the process of leveraging the programmes’ existing networks in the country from this year onwards.
  • Develop a strong post-election mechanism to ensure documentation of any dispute can be quickly presented, unlike the 2013 election.

Other revelations:

  • OSF monitors and attempts to chart domestic politics since 2010, shortly after Datuk Seri Najib Razak assumed the office of prime minister.
  • The foundation had engaged in lobbying or “advocacy” in the US to shore up support for its efforts in Malaysia.
  • The most successful initiative was making “grants” or providing funds for friendly groups working for a common cause.
  • Following negative media exposure of Soros, the programme has proceeded in secret, with staff working quietly to minimise public exposure.
  • MalaysiaKini and its online broadcast service KiniTV received special allocations for election reporting, with ongoing support outside the election season.

img-20161031-wa002

img-20161031-wa001

img-20161031-wa003
The three pages of the minutes that were leaked by DC Leaks

Merdeka Centre’s Ibrahim Suffian admitted that he was among the attendees along with OSF’s President, Christopher Stone.  OSF has been providing “grants” to “local networks” and while no NGO was named, Mahathir-friendly BERSIH’s recently-arrested Chairman Maria Chin admitted to having received such grant.

The OSF does not only meddle in Malaysia but encourages “coloured” protests in Asia (where in Malaysia it is YELLOW) and also seeks to influence elections in the European Union. So, how can BERSIH be a free and fair movement when it is actually doing the bidding for a foreign megalomaniac?

It is odd but hardly surprising that Mahathir, who just last year said that street rallies were not the way to get what was desired and that this should be seen as a last resort, has announced that he has his own BERSIH 5 t-shirt and will be attending the rally.  Mahathir, after all, is now shedding his Malay skin. The survival of the Malays and the cohesion of the multiracial society is no longer of any significance to him. All that matters is for him to fulfill his personal agenda and interests whatever it is that those may be. For that he is willing to work with his sworn enemies such as Lim Kit Siang, Mohammad Sabu, Anwar Ibrahim.

kit-siang-mahathir2

He even made friends with Malaysian-enemy-numero-uno George Soros himself! He buried the hatchet used to attack Soros even back in December 2006 saying, “You (Soros) personally are not involved but the devaluation was done by other traders and I accept that you are not involved.

mahathirsoros

So was he wrong about Soros? Were all those suicides, broken marriages, depression caused by loss of income and closure of businesses back in 1997-98 not the result of Soros’s attacks on Asian currencies? Mahathir was cocksure it was Soros who did it! If he was wrong then, what else could he be wrong about?

Being funded by a megalomaniac to influence the outcome of elections is not a democratic process. Working for foreigners to form a government that kowtows to them is nothing short of treason.  Societies will be destroyed, the spirit of our independence diluted, the way of life as we know it will no longer be there. Races will be pitted against one another. Resentment will grow to biblical proportions. Blood will be spilt and lives will be lost.

In the end, foreign troops will walk all over us.

Therefore in my book, both BERSIH and Mahathir are traitors.

Just as how one Kutty brought down the Melaka empire by opening the gates to foreign soldiers 505 years ago.

Malaysia’s Day: Death of the Psychopathic God (Part 2)

20130925-001101.jpg

I blame the skewed understanding of history among Malaysians, as well as attempts to rewrite history, on the Malaysian education system. The best way to get the nation together is to say that Malaya was colonised. The only times Malaya was wholly colonised was between 1942 and 1945, then again in 1946 until 1948. The Portuguese colonised Malacca, so did the Dutch. The rest of the Malay Peninsula were divided into various sovereign states.

Let me give you a brief history lesson on the MALAY peninsula:

The British came here for want of economic materials, and as a result of the various treaties with the respective states’ Sultan and Raja, the various states in Malaya became protectorates, administered by British Residents who were employed by the various Sultans and Rajas. Save for the Strait Settlements, the rest of the Malay Peninsula were never British colonies. Initially, the states of Perak, Selangor, Pahang and Negeri Sembilan all had their own Resident, but decided to have a common Resident as mentioned in Clause 4 of the Treaty of the Federation, 1895:

The above named Rulers agree to accept a British officer, to be styled the Resident General as the agent and representative of the British government under the government of the Straits Settlement. They undertake to provide him with a suitable accommodation with such salary as determined by Her Majesty’s government and to follow his advice in all matters of administration other than those touching the Mohammadan religion. The appointment of the Resident General will not affect the obligations of the Rulers towards the British Resident now existing or hereafter to be appointed to offices in the above mentioned protected states.

In return for the access to economic gains, Britain promised the states protection against threats. The protectorate over the Malay states does not amount to colonisation and sovereignty but prevents occupation or conquest of the protectorate by other nations (as evident during the Japanese invasion of Malaya). This differs from a colony in that the protectorates do not form an integral part of the territories of Great Britain.

As mentioned, the Malay states were made up of nine sovereign states, headed by the Sultan/Raja, and advised by a British adviser, with Negeri Sembilan, Selangor, Pahang and Perak forming the Federated Malay States, while the rest were termed as the Unfederated Malay States with individual treaties with the British. Malacca, Penang and Singapore became part of the colonies as part of the Straits Settlement. Three legal cases became the test for the independent-nature of the sovereign states, namely the Mighell vs Sultan of Johore (1894), Duff Development Co. Ltd vs Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan & Anor (1924), and the Pahang Consolidated Co. Ltd vs State of Pahang (1931-32).

Therefore, on 31st August, 1957, the independence we gained was from feudalism, and not colonialism as we were brought up to believe in. On that day, the Sultans and Rajas were removed of their British advisers who administered their state on their behalf, and were now advised by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet (Chief Minister and Executive Councillors on state level). The constitution of rulership was continued but modified to include parliamentary democracy.

Since the independence we gained on 31st August, 1957 was from feudalism (the governing of the nation by a government elected by the people as opposed to British-appointed advisers), when did the nationalist movement for this independence actually began? It was upon the formation of the Malayan Union of 1946, an idea conceived during the Second World War and first presented to the British War Cabinet in May 1944 which required the Malay rulers to concede ALL powers to the British Crown, another indicator of the independent nature of the Malay states before the Japanese occupation. That started the ball rolling for the independence we now have.

Characters such as Burhanuddin Helmi, Ibrahim Yaacob, Hassan Manan, Mokhtaruddin Lasso, Ahmad Boestamam, Shamsiah Fakeh all fought for an independent Malaya under Javanese rule under the banner of Melayu Raya. You can read more on this in my posting The Road to Merdeka: Persekutuan Tanah China dated 6th September 2013. There you can read more about the characters mentioned, and also how that movement is linked to Chin Peng’s attempt to turn Peninsular Malaysia/Malaya into a communist state aligned with China.

The question whether Chin Peng was a contributor to the independence does not arise at all; he only assumed command of the Communist Party of Malaya when his predecessor, Loi Tak a.k.a Loi Tek a.k.a Lai Teck absconded with the movement’s funds in 1947. Why would the staunchly anti-communist British regard the Communist Party of Malaya as brothers-in-arms fighting the Japanese? Loi Tak, the Secretary-General of the CPM was a spy for the French colonial authorities in Vietnam to penetrate the Vietnamese freedom fighters and communists. You can read more in British Intrigue & The CPM: Some Characters.

And the remark made by Mariam Mokhtar that without the CPM, the Japanese in Malaya would not have been defeated is a feeble and shallow attempt to rewrite history. On 13th August 1945, Sukarno and Drs Hatta met up with Burhanuddin Helmi and Ibrahim Yaakob in Taiping to discuss the independence of Malaya under Javanese rule. In attendance was Major General Hirokichi Umezu of the Imperial Japanese Army. Ibrahim Yaakob was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Japanese Volunteer Army (Giyuugun). That effectively says that from that date, until the formal surrender of the Japanese military on 2nd September 1945, the Imperial Japanese Army remained undefeated.

Chin Peng fought against a collectively independent Malaya in 1948, a Malaya that was not colonised. Therefore, what was he fighting for? Was he planning to drive out the British advisers and become advisers in turn to the Malay rulers? According to Prof Dr Cheah Boon Kheng, the ratio of Chinese to Malays in communist-front organisations was 15:1, and as high as 50:1 in the CPM itself (The Star, Red Star Over Malaya, Sunda, 29th November, 2009). Do we honestly think they had the support of the whole population of Malaya? Whose interests would have been protected or preserved had they gotten their way then? Therefore the label “Chinese communists” as mentioned by Mariam Mokhtar is an apt description.

Mariam Mokhtar should also get her facts right (Chin Peng Has The Last Laugh, Malaysiakini, 23rd September 2013). Because of the ratio above, the Emergency was in essence a battle between the Malays who were trying to preserve their identity and religion, and the non-Malays who were against the CPM, against the Chinese-majority CPM that was bent on setting up a satellite communists state here. Mariam mentioned that atrocities were not just committed by Chin. Peng, but by both sides because “Malaya was on a war footing”. Since when was Malaya on a war footing? Who committed the first atrocity in 1948? Why was he fighting against an independent Malaya? And why did he not stop after the Tunku had announced our independence in 1956?

Chin Peng betrayed the people of Malaya. At the Baling talks, he promised the Tunku that the CPM would lay down their arms immediately if the British agreed to transfer power over internal security and defence into the hands of the Tunku’s Umno-MCA-MIC Alliance Government. Did he do it? No. He continued to kill Malayans/Malaysians for a further 34 years after the talks.

Chin Peng may be gone. And on every 16th September, Malaysia Day would be more meaningful – the day the man who butchered 10,000 of the people he had wanted to liberate, finally kicked the bucket on foreign soil.

Good riddance to bad rubbish!

In the final instalment, I will cover non-Malaysian Chin Peng’s request to be allowed to visit Sitiawan.