Latest news with #WMDs
Straits Times
14-07-2025
- Business
- Straits Times
Malaysia tightens domestic oversight on US chip movements as tariffs negotiation tactic
Industry players and analysts view Kuala Lumpur's plan on the domestic movements of the high-end chips as a concession to Washington. - Malaysia has moved to tighten oversight on the movement of high-end chips from the United States by imposing a strategic trade permit requirement, in the hope of lowering the tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump from Aug 1. Mr Trump on July 8 sent a letter to Malaysia's King Sultan Ibrahim Iskandar and Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, formally notifying them of a 25 per cent tariff on Malaysian exports – a percentage point higher than the 24 per cent announced in April 2025. Industry players and analysts view Kuala Lumpur's plan on the domestic movements of the high-end chips as a concession to Washington aimed at preserving its trade ties with the US – Malaysia's second-largest trading partner after China, and its top export destination, especially for semiconductors and electronic goods. Malaysia recorded a trade surplus of US$24.8 billion (S$31.77 billion) with the US in 2024. Malaysia's Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry on July 14 invoked the Strategic Trade Act 2010 (STA 2010) – regulates the export, transit, transhipment and brokering of sensitive goods to prevent their use in weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) – to compel individuals or companies to notify the authorities at least 30 days before the cross-border movement of these chips if there is a possibility that they may be used for a restricted activity. 'This initiative serves to close regulatory gaps while Malaysia undertakes further review on the inclusion of high-performance AI chips of US origin into the strategic item listing (SIL) of the STA 2010,' the ministry's statement said. Nuclear materials, electronics, computers, telecommunication and information security goods that may facilitate the development of WMDs are regulated under the SIL. Singapore's Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam on May 3 revealed that computer servers that might contain Nvidia chips had been exported to Malaysia from the Republic, and possibly to an unknown final destination . Singapore had come under the spotlight in a Washington investigation in February into whether Chinese start-up DeepSeek had circumvented US restrictions on advanced Nvidia chips by buying them from third parties in other countries, including the Republic. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore HSA intensifies crackdown on vapes; young suspected Kpod peddlers nabbed in Bishan, Yishun Singapore Man charged over distributing nearly 3 tonnes of vapes in one day in Bishan, Ubi Avenue 3 Singapore Man allegedly attacks woman with knife at Kallang Wave Mall, to be charged with attempted murder Singapore Singapore boosts support for Timor-Leste as it prepares to join Asean Singapore UN aviation and maritime agencies pledge to collaborate to boost safety, tackle challenges Asia Thailand's anti-graft agency set to probe suspended premier Paetongtarn Singapore High Court dismisses appeal of drink driver who killed one after treating Tampines road like racetrack Singapore 18 years' jail for woman who hacked adoptive father to death after tussle over Sengkang flat Kuala Lumpur's move to enforce the new permit requirement for high-end chips signals the country's commitment to curbing activities prohibited by Washington, said Malaysia Semiconductor Industry Association president Wong Siew Hai. 'It's another reinforcement from the government to show its dead seriousness in complying with US requirements. We want to position Malaysia as a trusted nation for handling high-end chips,' he told The Straits Times. Datuk Wong noted that Malaysia's semiconductor industry, which accounted for over 7 per cent of global export market share in 2024, has a longstanding track record of compliance, including adhering to US export controls that prohibit shipments to sanctioned countries for more than four decades. While acknowledging that high-end chips are not directly linked to WMD, academic Dr Lam Choong Wah said Malaysia is taking US concerns over potential misuse of the technology seriously. 'Regulating these chips under the STA 2010 shows that Malaysia is willing to align with Washington's rules. Hopefully, Washington may consider reducing the tariff by a few percentage points,' Dr Lam, the deputy head of Department of International and Strategic Studies at the University of Malaya told ST. However, senior lecturer Dr Tee Chwee Ming of Monash University Malaysia believed the restriction on AI chips is primarily aimed at preventing Malaysian companies from being blacklisted by US firms, which could disrupt the AI chip supply chain and undermine Malaysia's ambition to become a global data centre hub. Dr Tee added that to secure more favourable tariff terms, Kuala Lumpur may be expected to move away from certain domestic policies the US has cited as trade barriers – such as pro-Bumiputera preferences in government procurement and halal certification requirements – as well as to reduce the involvement of Chinese firms in its semiconductor supply chain. 'The first two are red lines for the Malaysian government, while the last is an impossible request to fulfil,' he told ST. Minister of Investment, Trade and Industry Tengku Zafrul Aziz on July 14 said Malaysia remains open to US agricultural exports, provided they meet local regulatory requirements. But areas such as 'digital commerce, government procurement, and standards related to health or technical matters' are considered red lines and are unlikely to be open to negotiation, he noted.
Observer
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Observer
Conflict communication: Then and now
As the digital landscape develops, the confluence between social media and conflict becomes an integral part of the narrative. A myriad of stories, perceptions, fake information, and imagery can ignite or amplify tensions. Artificial intelligence and social media have the potential to polarise or create scenarios with real-world implications. In times of war and conflict, government officials and influential figures address the public with messages in support of one side. Typically, it employs hostile narratives, propaganda, and disinformation for the convenient simplification of complex scenarios. This communication strategy is fertile ground for spreading deception and misinformation, but also for rallying support. In the past, the mainstream media aligned with the countries' governments, and their policies to play the drums for 'saving the world' from dictators and armaments; now, however, there is a fragmented media landscape in which people rely on social media such as Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter) for information or to ally with peers who share similar ideologies. Then-prime minister Tony Blair led the United Kingdom to war in Iraq in 2003 based on 'unquestionable intelligence' regarding weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. The goals of the war for the United States were to free the Iraqi people, remove WMDs from the country, and stop Saddam Hussein from supporting terrorism. The British newspapers on Fleet Street championed Tony Blair's 'journey' to Baghdad. Years later, the former prime minister apologised for the use of 'wrong intelligence' in the run-up to the war. The intelligence report was presented as fact, rather than information that may not be accurate. The media didn't play the drums as enthusiastically as it did pre-war. There are journalistic lessons yet to be learned. Two decades later, the ghosts of the Iraq War still haunt the region. The 'mission accomplished' staged by the President of the United States, George W. Bush, has barely materialised. Media organisations have failed and continue to fail in addressing the numerous military interventions in the region. The trumpets are still blowing. The mainstream media often offers one-sided, biased coverage. There are political barriers and ideological challenges; also, there is usually a gap in examining the political and historical context of the conflict. In today's digital landscape, people increasingly turn away from mainstream media for information. A vast array of channels is available, each offering either accurate information or potentially harmful misinformation. While social platforms facilitate quicker and decentralised communication, they also contribute to societal division. Social media is increasingly influencing conflict and contentious politics. The ongoing conflict between Israel and Gaza exemplifies how wars are now intertwined with social media. From images depicting military action to narratives crafted by various participants, the impact is significant. Yet, while offering alternative narratives and perspectives, social platforms are filling the gaps and addressing the vacuums in mainstream media coverage. The negative side is that, at the core of war rhetoric, there is a chaotic, senseless, and unreliable flow of information. Recent media studies suggest a staggering amount of artificial intelligence-generated misinformation online, as a result of the Israel-Iran war. According to a BBC article, the writers indicate that outdated clips and AI-generated content are being shared as real events, with X users turning to the platform's AI chatbot-Grok to establish the posts' veracity. In some cases, Grok asserted that the AI videos were authentic. Social media news, especially about war, can mislead and give a false sense of understanding. The global political landscape and interest relations have become more complex. Even though social media merely offers snippets of selective information, it has added a new dimension to how conflict plays out both online and on the ground.
Focus Malaysia
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Focus Malaysia
Israel-Iran conflict: When will the West learn?
THE world once again watched in alarm as the United States (US) launched military strikes against Iran, citing concerns over its nuclear weapons development. The international reaction has been largely cautious, with many nations urging diplomacy over aggression. But for those who remember the early 2000s, this latest development feels eerily familiar. History, it seems, is repeating itself and the lessons of the past remain unheeded. In 2003, the US, backed by Britain, Australia and other allies, invaded Iraq under the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). That assertion was later proven to be false. No WMDs were ever found, and the war, arguably based on a fabricated premise, led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, destabilised an entire region, and fuelled a generation of extremism. Yet, two decades later, not a single senior figure from the US or Britain faced civil or criminal liability. No tribunal, no sanctions, no legal consequences for initiating what some international law experts have labelled a 'crime of aggression'. The architects of the war continued their careers, published memoirs, gave lectures, and disappeared into quiet obscurity. Justice, for Iraq and for the world, was never served. Now, the same narrative is playing out with Iran. Allegations of nuclear weapons development, despite Iran's repeated insistence that its nuclear program is civilian in nature, are being used to justify military action. Meanwhile, the same countries that invaded Iraq with righteous fury remain silent about North Korea, a nation that has not only developed nuclear weapons but has conducted multiple missile tests aimed at showcasing its long-range strike capabilities. North Korea's Hwasong-14 and -15 missiles, launched in 2017, demonstrated potential range to strike US territories. As recently as 2024, North Korea conducted mock nuclear warhead launches and fired dozens of short-range ballistic missiles in defiance of US-South Korean military drills. Despite these provocations, the US has refrained from military strikes. Why the double standard? The answer may lie in geography, risk, and resources. North Korea, while dangerous, does not sit atop vast oil reserves. It is also bordered by China, a military and nuclear superpower, making any aggressive miscalculation potentially catastrophic. Iran and Iraq, on the other hand, are oil-rich nations located in a region where the US has long sought influence through both diplomacy and force. Control of oil routes, access to resources, and support for regional allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia have all contributed to the Middle East being a frequent target of Western military interventions. But what is often overlooked in this calculus is the human and cultural cost of these interventions. Iraq is not just a battlefield: it is Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilisation, home to some of the world's earliest writings, laws, and cities. Iran is not merely a 'nuclear threat': it is Persia, a land of poets, scientists, and empires that shaped human history. To reduce these nations to talking points in a geopolitical chess game is to insult their legacy and ignore their potential. If we continue to allow military might to dictate global norms without accountability, we not only erode the principles of international law, we risk destroying civilisations that have enriched humanity for millennia. The world deserves better than a system where power excuses everything and history is rewritten by the victors. The cradle of Mesopotamia, the gardens of Persia, the philosophies, the poetry, the science—these are not threats. They are treasures. And if they are lost, it will not be the fault of tyrants alone, but of those who stood by while empires masked greed as justice. Let us finally hold to account those who manipulate truth to justify violence. If the West is sincere in its pursuit of justice, it must understand that peace is not imposed; it is earned through humility, restraint, and the courage to see others as equals. ‒ June 27, 2025 Dr Sheila Ramalingam is the Deputy Executive Director of UMLEAD, International Institute of Public Policy and Management (INPUMA), and Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Universiti Malaya. The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia. Main image: Reuters
Hans India
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
No mention of Pak terror: Rajnath refuses to sign SCO joint statement
New Delhi: The perpetrators and sponsors of terrorism must be held accountable, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh told a conclave of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) on Thursday, even as he chose not to sign a communique by the bloc for not explicitly addressing India's concerns over Pakistan-backed cross-border terrorism. The SCO operates under the framework of consensus, and Singh's refusal to endorse the document resulted in the SCO defence ministers' conclave ending without a joint communique, people familiar with the matter said. There was no clear-cut approach to combating terrorism, including cross-border terrorist activities, they said. The Opposition launched a scathing attack, accusing the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government of failing diplomatically to rally international support against terrorism and to hold Pakistan accountable. In his address, Singh said there should be "no double standards" in combating terrorism and urged the SCO member nations to condemn the menace with unity. Besides India and China, the SCO comprises Pakistan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. In an oblique reference to Pakistan, Singh said some countries are using cross-border terrorism as an "instrument of policy" to provide shelter to terrorists. "The biggest challenges that we are facing in our region are related to peace, security and trust-deficit," he said. "And the root cause of these problems is increasing radicalisation, extremism and terrorism." Singh said peace and prosperity cannot co-exist with terrorism and proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in the hands of non-state actors and terror groups. "Dealing with these challenges requires decisive action, and we must unite in our fight against these evils for our collective safety and security," he said.
Time of India
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
SCO Summit: India nixes Pakistan-China bid to push their line on terror
NEW DELHI: Finding Pakistan teaming up with China to push its line on terrorism at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation defence ministers' meet at Qingdao, India Thursday refused to sign the proposed joint statement as it would've diluted its consistent stand on the scourge endangering regional peace and stability. Given the SCO norm stipulating consensus, the statement couldn't be adopted despite overnight talks, as defence minister Rajnath Singh made it clear that perpetrators, organisers, financiers and sponsors of terror acts, including cross-border terrorism, must be held accountable. There can be no double standards on this, Singh said, speaking at the 10-nation SCO meet with his Pakistani and Chinese counterparts Khawaja Asif and Admiral Dong Jun, among others, in attendance. Singh rejected the statement after finding that Pakistan, with help of current SCO chair China, opposed mention of the Pahalgam massacre and instead wanted "terrorist activities" in Balochistan and the situation in J&K to figure in it, sources told TOI. Pakistan was especially keen to include Jaffar Express hijacking in its restive Balochistan province in March in the joint document. Pakistan frequently accuses India of fomenting the ongoing insurgency for greater autonomy and independence in Balochistan. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo India, on its part, has consistently rejected all such "baseless" allegations. "The Indian delegation led by Rajnath Singh had serious objections to the draft joint statement and its language, which reeked of double standards in dealing with a serious issue like terrorism," a source said. External affairs ministry spokesperson said, "India wanted its concerns on terrorism reflected in the document, which was not acceptable to one particular country (Pakistan) and, thus, the statement was not adopted. " Both India and Pakistan in 2017 became full members of SCO, which also includes Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Iran and Belarus. Speaking at the meet, Singh said peace and prosperity cannot co-exist with terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in the hands of non-state actors and terror groups. "Dealing with these challenges requires decisive action and we must unite in our fight against these evils for our collective safety and security," Singh said. In a clear reference to Pakistan, he said, "Some countries use crossborder terrorism as an instrument of policy and provide shelter to terrorists. There should be no place for such double standards. SCO should not hesitate to criticise such nations." The Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy of UN designated terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) based in Pakistan, carried out the heinous attack in Pahalgam on April 22, in which 26 civilians were shot dead after being profiled on the basis of religious identity. "The pattern of Pahalgam terror attack matches with LeT's previous terror attacks in India. In exercising its right to defend against terrorism and pre-empt as well as deter further crossborder terrorist attacks, India on May 7 successfully launched Operation Sindoor to dismantle cross-border terrorist infrastructure," Singh said. India's zero tolerance for terrorism was manifested through its actions, he said. "This includes our right to defend ourselves against terrorism. We have shown that epicentres of terrorism are no longer safe... India reaffirms its resolve to fight terrorism in all its forms and manifestations," he added.
