It's A Joke: Obama Should Return His Nobel Peace Prize.

Hantu Laut

Will Barack Obama bomb the hell out of Syria?

Obama should return the Nobel Peach Prize as he is no more fighting a leftover war, but himself into war. 

He never did deserve the Nobel Peace Prize anyway. I have written here some time ago why he didn't deserve the Nobel Prize.

He says America is not the world's policeman, why than is he trying to get involve in an area of conflict that has nothing to do with the U.S?



The American never seem to learn their lessons, poking their noses in every area of conflicts whenever they think American interests are at stake.

Syria, for no viable reason, do not fit the picture of danger to American interests, but there is more to it than chemical weapon of mass destruction to justify U.S involvement.


The Syrian war if left unchecked can destabilise the region.

That's the only reason the U.S. wanted to exert its military power in Syria......... to shield Israel and protect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia from a spill over of the war, where a motley mix of dangerous rebels forces, including Al Qaeda are fighting to topple Bashar al-Assad. 



More than 100,000 people have been killed and 1.7 million forced to flee to neighbouring countries since the conflict started 30 months ago.

The U.S. have closed its eyes to what had happened in Cambodia, Bosnia and Rwanda where millions were slaughtered by murderous dictators and the American never bat an eyelid.

Why than is the U.S. keen to get involved in Syria? 

Why Syria, where Assad is fighting rebel groups as atrocious, cruel and murderous as Assad is ? 

The Middle East is the most important region for the U.S and for the security of Israel and the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. 

The U.S. doesn't give two hoots about human lives. If sincerely so, why wait until over 100,000 lives have been lost before it triggers the American conscience.

Obama says if they do proceed, it will be limited war, no ground troops.

Aren't aerial bombings the most destructive to human lives and properties and more often than not do not hit the intended targets, resulting in gross destruction to civilian lives and properties?

How many people have Assad killed using chemical weapons and how many more will Obama kill with his indiscriminate bombing of the country?

I am no fan of Assad, I think he is reincarnation of the devil itself and should be taken out, but not the way the American want to do it. 

The American with all the sophisticated weapons that they have are not known to be dead accurate hitting their targets and many civilians would become collateral damage if the U.S.military resorted to aerial bombings using drones or manned flights.

The rebels atrocities and cruelty are not less than what Assad is doing. Can Obama explain to the world his reasoning of supporting the same kind of evil that he is trying to stop, this war of baddies against baddies.

The video below was smuggled by a rebel disillusioned with the atrocities inflict on the enemies and civilians who do not support their cause.

Rebels have also reportedly killed 123 civilians in Assad's home province of Latakia and Assad's Alawite sect that controlled the military and have kept his family in power for over four decades. The massacre could have been retaliatory.

Among the rebels are opportunistic terror groups like Al Qeada and freedom fighters from other Muslim countries. 

America's next biggest headache is if the rebels succeeded in taking over Syria, there are no visible leaders align to the U.S. who can take over the running of the country.

Between the two evils, which one is Obama going to play ball with?

Obama is now looking for an escape tunnel where he can escape  from attacking Syria.

Najib, Please Bring TPPA To Parliament

Hantu Laut

I read with great consternation the statement made by MITI here that Malaysia stands to gain from the TPPA and not actually giving cogent information how the country going to benefit from a trade pact shrouded in secrecy.

Is the U.S the culprit to keep the negotiations under wrap because they are going to be the biggest beneficiary of this highly lopsided agreement that may cause other participating governments to fall if full details of the terms and conditions of the agreement is made known to the public?


Why the need to make the negotiations cloaked in secrecy if such association is good for everyone? 

How could the US, the mother of the free world allow such negotiations to be completely under wrap and no information made available to the general public when it can effect the lives of hundreds of million of people in the participating countries, particularly, smaller ones that could end up helplessly trapped in a lopsided deal?

The government has not been opened about the terms and conditions of the agreement other than saying it is good for the country. 

If the TPPA is so bloody good why other Pacific Rim countries like Mexico, China, South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines are not interested in the pact? Are they stupid or smarter?

In all likelihood the biggest beneficiary to this trade pact would be the U.S as it has the the largest number of intellectual properties and copyrights and would demand strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the trade treaty in all participating countries. The trade pact also called for the breaking down of trade barriers, removal of tariffs and unhindered cross-border investments by transnational corporations. 

Is Malaysia ready for comparative advantage or play the level playing field?

The Malaysian government is well known for monopoly, disenfranchising and cronyism. Can they pass the scrutiny of the TPPA and not caught with their pants down?

Corporations or individual can sue government not in compliance, in a tribunal outside the country's jurisdiction. 

The biggest hostility toward the TPPA in some countries is the fear of possible blockage of access to cheap generic medicines that could drastically increase the cost of medicines and health care.

Live saving drugs are affordable to the ordinary people because of the availability of cheap generic drugs. It will be of no surprise if big pharmaceutical companies in the  U.S demand the ban of generic drugs in member countries.

New Zealanders have been most vocal on this particular issue and have mounted an aggressive campaigns with their elected representatives to not join the TPPA. Close to 77% of health care in New Zealand is subsidised by the government.

If New Zealand,  a much more advanced country with much higher per capita income is fearful of TPPA, I wonder what is Malaysia trying to prove by joining the trade pact, which will only benefit higher income countries like the U.S, Japan, Australia and Singapore.



Why is Malaysia so eager to join this trade pact that is likely to injure the country in the long run. Read here what to expect from the TPPA and how it can ruin our economy more than it can benefit us.

The people at MITI should be more discerning when giving examples. They should look at the pound not the penny. Here, they gave the textile industry as one industry that will benefit with proposed elimination or reduction of duties in TPPA. 

The textile industry is chicken feed contributing less than 2% of total export making it one of the most negligible contributors and come hell or high water would never be able to compete with other textile and apparel manufacturing countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Cambodia and many others with much cheaper labour cost. 

Textiles and apparel manufacturing has long been a sunset industry in Malaysia due to competition from less developed economies in the region.

Not many Malaysians are aware of the TPPA and I am surprise that Pakatan Rakyat's leaders and people like Ambiga of Bersih have not come out strongly against the TPPA, which can effect the lives of millions of Malaysians and the future generations.

There may be something good coming out of the TPPA, but we don't know as dearth of information had made it difficult for Malaysians to assess the viability of the TPPA as far as Malaysia is concerned.

The people in MITI are not competent to handle matters of such magnitude and have probably advised the Prime Minister wrongly.

There should be open debate in Parliament on such important and far-reaching issue that will have long lasting effect on the country's future and the future of all Malaysians. 

Members of parliament from both side of the political divide should demand Prime Minister Najib to bring the TPPA to Parliament and let the house put it to the votes.

Najib, if he is truly a prime minster for the people as he so claimed, he must show he cares for the people and country and should bring the matter to parliament.

I believe the TPPA is predatory to countries with smaller economies and will open themselves to economic colonisation by the bigger economic powers.

Also read: Halal "Bak Kut Teh" Do They Exist ?

Anwar Running To Obama For Help.

Hantu Laut

Is Obama our keeper? Why is Anwar seeking out the U.S. to save him, or help him takeover the government? Aren't we a sovereign nation?

Watch the video.



I believe, if there have been massive cheating the CIA would have briefed President Obama.

Making a fool of himself.

Hahaha! Banglasia!

Why Should Foreigners Care Who Wins the White House?

By Anne Applebaum

“Is this presidential election really the most important in our lifetime?” That was the question asked, in so many words, by a concerned Brit at a discussion in London a few days ago. His words were directed at Larry Sabato, the American political analyst, whose countenance had been beamed onto a screen in a conference room like some giant electronic guru. Sabato didn’t blink. “This presidential election,” he replied, “is definitely the most important since 2008.”  

Appreciative laughter followed, but the audience wasn’t entirely satisfied. For the British—as for most other Europeans, and indeed most other foreigners—that aspect of this election is extremely hard to understand. Is the 2012 presidential race “important”—that is, will it mark a momentous change in American foreign policy and American attitudes toward the world—or will its result make no difference at all?

The source of the confusion is clear. Shards of harsh rhetoric from this nasty campaign do drift across the Atlantic, and many Europeans are aware that some Americans think Barack Obama is a Marxist-socialist bent on destroying America, while others think Mitt Romney is a vulture capitalist who will rob the poor to feed the rich. The British in particular like to “ooh” and “aah” over the stacks of cash Republicans and Democrats are spending in the apparent belief that the outcome matters a great deal.Read more.

The US Kick-Ass Foreign Policy And China

Hantu Laut

He was a bright shining star some four years ago, the impeccable oratory, assertiveness, aplomb and brimming with confidence he won a decisive victory over John McCain in both the electoral and popular vote of the 2008 U.S presidential election.

Watching the debate live over TV when I was in Kathmandu it was the obvious that Mitt Romney had sprung the most unexpected surprise that caught President Obama off guard. The Romney's spell have, somehow, rattled his confidence. His facial expression clearly showed how miffed he was with Romney's unanticipated remarkable performance.

Romney is no dunce. On conclusion of the debate he sent his detractors scurrying for explanation. His moment of triumph speech, much to the anguish of Obama's campaign team, and a big shot in the arm for his team,  narrowed the gap between him and Obama. Even the staunchest Obama supporters must have been miffed by Obama muffed performance.

What happened to the man of 2008? The eloquent speeches, the "yes we can"man and the straight talk that caught not only America but the world's attention. The first black man destined to break white monopoly of the presidency.

Has Obama lost his mojo?

As Mitt Romney narrows the margin and move in for the kill can Obama still resuscitates his dwindling popularity and reignite the spark the man that he was at the next presidential debate due 16 October 2012 and give Romney a run for his money or let Romney overtake him?

Can Obama bounce back?

If Obama loses the next debate, as sure as the sunrise, America will have a new president and with it come new political mindset that can change US foreign policy and the course of world peace. 

Mitt Romney, have decided to accuse Obama of "passive leadership" in his foreign policy, particularly, in the Middle East casting aspersion on Obama's capability as president, inferring the killing of US Libyan Ambassador Christopher Stevens by fanatical Muslims as Obama's lack of will to retaliate.

The world is watching on the possible return of  kick-ass foreign policy and Bush like belligerency that could throw the US into another war if Mitt Romney win the presidency.

Under his presidency Obama only carry on his predecessor's unfinished business and has not caused any new conflicts. He restrained from opening new theatre of war. Though, some of his promises fell short he has been more careful than the previous administration in the handling of crisis with Iran, North Korea and China.

Iran and China are growing threats to U.S. foreign policy. Iran covertly seeking nuclear capability and the Chinese naval excursion in the South China Sea had caused uneasiness in Washington. 

The US have deployed its naval ships in and around the area of possible conflicts in the China Sea. The Sino-Japanese dispute over the Diaoyu Islands brought back ghosts of the Sino-Japanese War. The Americans, who usually are quick to side with Japan have taken a non-interference attitude at the moment but is in a state of readiness should the conflict escalates into open warfare between the two nations.

Some weeks ago Chinese naval vessels stopped oil drilling exploration off the coast of Sarawak. The incident went unreported to avoid unnecessary diplomatic fallout between Malaysia and China. 

The Philippines trying to act tough against China was cowed when the Chinese sent a few research vessels to the disputed waters. This poor country ravaged by every succeeding corrupt governments has no military capability and its claims on the Spartly's islands based on res nullius is not going to impress China at all of its finders keepers territorial claim.

Territorial disputes are hard to resolve unless both parties are prepared to avoid arm conflicts and use peaceful method to settle the dispute.

Malaysia's dispute with Indonesia over Sipadan and Ligitan Islands was settled in the World Court. Malaysia won the case based on terra nullius, the long occupation, administration and settlement of its people on the island. Sovereignty over territory which is terra nullius may be acquired through occupation.

Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad was smart enough to reclaim Layany-Layang in the Spratlys and stationed the navy there. He later allow a holiday resort to be built on the  island. He did it before other countries could lay claim to the island, which was an atoll, reclaimed to form a small island. It is now one of the top dive sites in the region. 

With its aggressive territorial claims spanning the whole of the China sea, from Japan right down to the Paracels and the Spratlys, China will soon have no friends in Asia. Any flare up with any of the countries would not be in China's favour.

China has territorial disputes over the Spratly Islands with Vietnam, Taiwan, Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei. In the North China Sea it has disputes with Japan and South Korea.

Uncle Sam will not hesitate to give support to any of those countries in the event China is stupid enough to use military force to settle the dispute.

During her recent visit to Bangladesh, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was rumoured to have discussed with Bangladesh President the possibility of setting up another base for the Seventh Fleet for strategic reason, though, they already have a Naval Support Facility for ships and submarines in the Indian Ocean at Diego Garcia. 

This move, true or not, is probably to checkmate the Chinese growing naval presence in the Indian Ocean and to counter China's ambition to set up base in the region.

USS John C.Stennis

The US Seventh Fleet have increased deployment of its ships in the region and as far south as in the South China Sea sent its naval ships regularly on pretext of friendly visits to friendly countries.

USS Makin Island docked at KK Sepangar Naval base

As component force of the US Pacific Fleet it has 50 to 60 ships including aircraft carriers with 350 aircrafts, with bases in Guam, Japan and to lesser extent, Singapore.

Kota Kinabalu, recently had the rare honour of the visit of USS John C Stennis, a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier that formed part of the US Pacific Strike Force. 

Jump jets and gunships on USS Makin Island

A few months back the city also received another US naval ship, a Wasp-class amphibious assault ship USS Makin Island docked at KK Sepangar Naval port. 

USS Makin Island

"Ships like these are sent all over the world really to do two things; one of them to reassure our friends that we support them and Malaysia is an important friend" said the captain of USS John C.Stennis.

A Sea-Knight helicopter on USS Makin Island

That may be just a small part of the truth, the bigger grand plan is gunboat diplomacy and show of force against China rising naval power in the region.


Kuala Lumpur

Holy Crap! The Nobel Peace Prize ?

Hantu Laut

The question is what has Barack Obama actually done for world peace to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

Don't get me wrong, I like Barack Obama but I don't think he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, not just yet.

I have all this while questioned the credibility and criteria used by the Nobel Prize Committee that oversees the award of the Nobel Prize. Many a time, less deserving and less prominent figures have been given the award for so-called accomplishment.Will get back to that subject later.Let's deal with Mr Obama first.

Obama has been President for less than a year and is still fighting wars on two fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan. He is sending more American troops to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban, the Palestinian conflict is still unresolved, the relationship with Iran is still tense and North Korea is still a pain in the ass. 

Tell me what world peace has he achieved since taking office as President of the most warring nation on earth.

The Nobel Peace Prize are for achievements in bringing peace to the world, a region or an area of conflicts.Obama has achieved nothing of that sort to deserve such an honour.

The Nobel Prize committee should clarify whether the Peace Prize is for a person's past and current achievements, or for foreseen future achievements. Obama has no track record and qualifications for such an award.

How do they gauge and determine what's likely to happen say two to five years from now. Can Obama achieve lasting world peace during his term of office? 
The answer is a big NO! 

The world will continue to have conflicts where one conflict is resolved new ones will emerge.

The present conflict that would probably end up like Vietnam is Afghanistan. The Soviet learned an expensive and humiliating lesson in that country.

Death in jihad is the greatest honour for an Afghan fighter. No where death is more revered than in that godforsaken country. Like the Russians, the Americans will leave Afghanistan with the tails in between their legs. They would have lost the war as in Vietnam and in Iraq. 

Many idiots think the American won the war in Iraq. No, they didn't.They won the battles but lost the war. Iraq is still as restive and as dangerous as during the war.

Obama is sending more troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan to widen the area of conflicts rather than trying to find peaceful solutions. How can a belligerent be awarded such honour?

The Nobel Prize has always been mired in controversies, not only in the Peace Prize, but also in its other disciplines. I will only confine my area of interest to the Peace Prize.

The biggest hypocritical achievement ever made by the committee, an unforgivable blunder was Mahatma Gandhi. Nominated 5 times and the most qualified during his time, he was never awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. More shameful, they refused a posthumous award to Gandhi due to what they claimed prohibition of such award,  but in 1948 the year Gandhi died the hypocrites in the Committee awarded a posthumous Nobel Peace Prize to their fellow Scandinavian Dag Hammarskjold who was nominated but died in a plane crash. If any of you ever heard of his name than you should be awarded a doctorate in History and World Politics.

Is the Dalai Lama more deserving than Gandhi? To me, he is the world's biggest conman. Tibet is still under Chinese rule and the Dalai Lama lived in sheer opulence and conned the whole world to gain sympathy for him and a country that he dared not set foot on. Has he freed his people of Chinese rule like what Gandhi did to India or Nelson Mandela to South Africa. 

Mandela spent half his life in prison because of his conviction that all men are created equal irrespective of colour. He, through non-violence broke down apartheid, brought independence to his people and became president of the country?

Without any doubt, Mandela was much more deserving than the Dalai Lama and Aung San Suu Kyi, of both whom I think do not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. 

Yesterday, the American government awarded the Dalai Lama with the inaugural Lantos Human Rights Prize that angered the Chinese government.

After so many decades Myanmar is still under dictatorial military rule, its door half- closed to the outside world and she under house arrest and her people living in fear of a ruthless regime. Has Aung San Suu Kyi brought peace to her country?

In 1994, hypocrites bade hypocrites, Nobel Peace Prizes given to three personalities, Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin for their efforts to peace in the Middle East.

Peace in the Middle East?  

That probably stood as the biggest joke of the century.

The three have done more to conflicts  and violence than peace. It goes to show the politics in this so-called prestigious body.

Those highly glorified awards would be as highly explosive as the dynamites of Alfred Nobel, who is probably kicking in his grave listening to  the "Who" list of his not so esteemed award anymore.

Barack Obama?  Hiya!

Watch out! Anwar Ibrahim may be next.