No evidence linking disrupted military-grade op to PMX or PMO, says Anthropic

Parkville, 12 Sept: Sometimes, the most important point in a story gets buried deep in the news. A case in hand is the news that Anthropic, the AI firm, had "disrupted" a "military-grade" operations based in a foreign city to manipulate, dictate and mess up Malaysia's politics and voters. Anthropic may not know (yet) who is behind this operations but it knows who are NOT and that is, I think, the most important part of the news, at.least for now.

Yes, Anthropic actually did say in its report that it found NO EVIDENCE linking the ops to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim or the Prime Minister's Office.

In othee worda, somebody else or someone else's office is behind this attack on Malaysia and I am sure it is not the Turks although the operation that Anthropic claimed to have disrupted was based in Istanbul.

I think the fact that PMX and PMO are not behind this campaign should be in the headlines, not buried deep in a news report. 

I know for a fact that MCMC is taking the Anthropic report "very seriously". This is one of the reasons why the communication and multimedia commission was formed, to safeguard the sovereignty of our cyberspace and the security of its users and dependents, which is basically the whole population.

The operation allegedly extended beyond social media, according to somw news reports, with Anthropic claiming that it involved a fabricated news website called Malaysia Pulse, which used AI tools to scrape legitimate Malaysian news reports, rewrite them and publish the material under fake bylines. The site also republished content from Chinese and Russian state-aligned outlets, including Xinhua, CGTN, Sputnik/RIA and TV BRICS.

Antrophic said it detected and removed the Claude account involved in the operation after an internal investigation, while using the information gathered to map the wider network and disrupt similar misuse.

Anthropic also said its findings covered activities it disrupted between December 2025 and August 2026, including cyber operations, influence campaigns, surveillance, scams and fraud.

The company did not disclose who commissioned the Malaysia-focused operation, whether it was linked to any election, or when exactly the activity took place.

Last week, incidentally, and this is not the most important thing in this story, which is why I am burying it deep in this posting, I was interviewed by the cops on a police report lodged earlier this year against a foreign news agency believed to have been engaged by one of the country's richest and powerful names.

The foreign news agency was supposed to have been engaged to churn out a series of news reports that would discredit the PMX and his then chief commissioner of the MACC, the national anti-graft body. Several.people have been interviewed in this ongoing probe, I was told, including members of the concerned family.

From.experience, I have come to know that a lot of Malaysians tend to be skeptical whenever one party lodges such a report with the police but perhaps the Anthropic's developing scandal will make them think again, that maybe in this day and age, where we have easy access to Information Technology tools without being really informed ourselves, scamming people, instigating voters, and undermining governments have become child's play, easier than ever.

And then there's the claim by Hadi Awang, the head of PAS, on how the Americans (CIA?) offered to help the Islamist party to overthrow the Malaysian government not too long ago, an accusation that the US Embassy in KL has, of course, denied but in view of this latest explosive scandal involving Anthropic, the question to ask is not why would Hadi make up a story like that? but, why would Hadi make up such a story?

TMJ's land in Singapore

Fitnacle, Damansara, 3 Sept:  Well, if you know your history then you'd know that Temasik, before it became Singapura or Singapore, was part of what is today the modern Johor, the southernmost state in Malaysia. A palace official back then, yes, this was in the early 19th century, had sold the island to Stanford Raffles. And that was that, Johor had lost the island forever. Or so we thought! For if Bloomberg is to be believed, we suddenly know now that there is still a part of Singapore that we can say Johor actually owns, through the TMJ, or the Crown Prince, the son of our current King. The island may have been sold to the colonial for a paltry sum but the tract of land that Johor still owns in the Republic through TMJ is worth a bloody fortune if, it has to be repeated and stressed, Bloomberg is to be believed.

How much, you ask? Well the news wire didn't say (maybe it didn't know) but it claimed in its news report today that the taxes that Johor or the.prince would have to pay if the sale goes through is in excess of 1 billion.

Sing dollar.

Insane. 

I'm not giving y'all the link to the story, do a bit of work and go find it yourselves ok. I am sure you guys have lots of questions but  please, be respectful if you want to ask them or leave any comment here.

I myself have so many questions but I left just one in the Bloomberg's comment box:

Is it not state land? 

I think that is everyone'd question, too. I mean, given the history of the sale of Singapore, to Raffles, and today that red dot on the map has a GDP like 16 times larger than Johor's, it is fair, I think, to wonder.

If it belongs to the TMJ and has nothing to do with the state we'd still like to know how a member of our royalty could end up with that tract of land that is worth so much. Where is that land, when was it acquired, why are we (or the TMJ) selling it, who is going to pay the taxes, and how are the Johor people going to benefit.

Transparency is a pain in the ass but it is necessary. And it will make it easier for us to explain these things to our anakcucu di kemudian hari ...

I am Malaysian foremost

Parkville, 31 August: It is our nation's 69th Merdeka, yes, and I am remembering how a former Prime Minister of ours faltered big time when asked in 2010 (he was the DPM then and we only had one DPM back then) if he was Malay or Malaysian first.

"I am Malay first," he said, "but being Malay does not mean I am not Malaysian." 

That  didn't go down well at all with most Malaysians, many felt the right answer should have been "I am Malaysian first". Years later, Muhyiddin Yassin would formally amend this and declared that he was Malaysian first but, of course, hardly anyone remembered he did that.

In a recent episode of the Trick Lama podcast with my co-hosts Terence Fernandez, the Scoop editor-in-chief, and Zainul Ariffin, our CEO, we dived once more into the question of being Malay, this time in the context of the "Malay Unity" frenzy that had just been cooked up by the Malay politicians from Umno and PAS as their joint strategy to win the Negri Sembilan state election. They succeeded, overwhelmingly, but ironically the promoters of this Melayu bersatu rhetoric had left out Muhyiddin's fledgling party Bersatu.

In this context, Terence asked me on the podcast:  "So Rocky, are you Malaysian first Malay second or Malay first Malaysian second."

"Why, I am Malay first but I am Malaysian foremost," I said. Hindsight is the best lesson on one's way to wisdom.

So my fellow Malaysians, if you are Malay, Chinese, Indian, Kadazan, Dayak, Orang Asli, Mamak, Orang Asli, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or you're rich, poor or just broke, or you are a Kelantanese like Terence or a bangsa Johor like Muhyiddin or TMJ the Crown Prince, or whatever, here's the thing: You can be any or all the above first  but you are  Malaysian foremost.

Go on, say it: "I am Buddhist first and Malaysian foremost".

"I am Sarawakian first, Malaysian foremost."

"Malay first, Malaysian foremost".

Merdeka!

Defamation suit is not necessarily an attack on press freedom, on the contrary ...

“They cannot hope to cover themselves or hide from the laws. What is freedom without responsibility?” - PM Abdullah Badawi on the historic 2007 defamation lawsuit against two bloggers (Aljazeera)

Jalan Tangsi: Four decades as a journalist and I have become some kind of an expert on the matter of defamation, I think, even though I've never had the chance to read law, let alone practise it. The newsroom is the best of gurus.

And the courtroom, too, of course.

 In 2007, barely six months after parting ways with the New Straits Times Press, I was dragged into what Google describes as a "historic defamation lawsuit*** that changed the media landscape in the country". It was the first time on Earth that a newspaper company was suing a blogger for defamation. 

My legal battle would drag on for five years and has made me the wiser: a defamation suit cannot kill press freedom; on the contrary, it provides the journalist an opportunity in front of the whole world to prove that he has, to the best of his ability, reported the truth or he has been fair to all parties in his commentary.

It is not defamation if it is true.

Journalists from my era, those who started reporting in the 1980s, have seen some of the biggest defamation cases. The 1990s was the decade of mega awards, when the norm was for tycoons and corporations who believed they had been defamed would seek tens and sometimes hundreds of million in compensation and damages. The 2000s saw a string of lawsuits against blogs.

But we also had other, bigger concerns, the ISA and the OSA chief among them, yes, some of our bosses and colleagues had been incarcerated without trial. On top of that, there were scores of laws that could be used to shut your publication down without notice and put you out to pasture. 

The police raid on the home of journalist Nantha last April over his reports on foreign workers, now that had a chilling effect on journalists. 

But with a defamation suit, a journalist get to fight it out in court. 

I have my own rules or principles pertaining to defamation: one, journalists (and newspapers or media companies) have no business suing anyone for defamation; and, two, a politician should only sue another politician for defamation.

Salim Fateh Din, who is suing journalist P. Gunasegaram for defamation, is neither journalist nor politician. 

He is deputy executive chairman of MRCB, a public-listed property development, engineering and construction company. The EPF is the largest single shareholder of MRCB. 

So if Salim decides to sue journalists in this country (which he has on several occassions), journalists in foreign countries (most recently against Murray Hunter), politicians (he recently won a case against a former assemblyman), or anyone else, for that matter, to defend his reputation or the reputation of his family or company, that is his business and his right. 

Bear in mind that when someone is sued for defamation, he is not doomed. Whether he is sued for RM1 or RM240 million (probably the biggest case on record in Malaysia) is immaterial, the defendant must still prove his case.

The system gives the defendant ample opportunity to prove defend himself or herself against the accusation. 

I know at least a couple of journalists who were sued successfully by Salim for defamation in the past. One of them was ordered to pay the businessman a sum but after a post-hearing table talk and after one party offered a belated but sincere apology, Salim waived that money. All he wanted, Salim had said later, was to protect his reputation. 

Last year Salim succesfully sued Murray Hunter, the former lecturer at a Perlis university who has found fun and fame in Thailand as a blogger specialising in finding fault with everything Malaysian. The lawsuit was filed in Thailand. The arms of the law are long. Read my postings on the matter at rockybru.com.my

Hunter had a lot to say until reality hit him, which is, the laws are clear about defamation, yes, and the colour of your skin, your nationality, and your seniority do not count, what matters are facts, the truth and your intentions.

Hunter made a public apology to Salim and admitted that he had defamed the Malaysian.

In another case, involving  Chegubard, Salim and the blogger settled their differences out of court. No public apologies were recorded, none in chamber as well, if I'm not mistaken.

Gunasegaram is no Murray Hunter or Chegubard, of course, like langit dan bumi. He was already an established byline when I interned at Business Times some 42 years ago. This.is not his first multi-million ringgit defamation suit. He lost his job (not at BT) purportedly because he published an article that made Proton the national car look bad.

The RM100 million defamation against Guna is not an attack on the journalist and definitely not on presa freedom. Salim felt he had been defamed by Guna, asked the journalist to apologize and bring down the article, and filed the suit only when Guna said he would stand by his article and would not apologize.

Gunasegaram is a bigger expert than me on matters pertaining to defamation, that I am sure of. He  will agree with me that while it will be an inconvenience, a great one perhaps, the lawsuit is an opportunity to prove that his commentary or report was was factual, a fair comment in the interest of the public, and was done without malice.

A chance in the court room, not just the court of public opinion, to uphold and fortify that freedom.

In Malaysia's defamation history, the highest payout was RM7 million in the.Ling Wah Press vs Vincent Tan in 2000. Ironically, this was over a series of articles accusing tycoon Vincent Tan, the owner of the Sun newspaper, of using his media group to manipulate politicians and advance his business interest. 

*** The historic 2007 defamation lawsuit against Ahirudin Attan (Rocky Bru) ended in January 2012 when the case was settled out of court. [1, 2]

The legal battle drew to a close with a mutual resolution after dragging on for five years:

• The Corporate Withdrawal: The primary corporate plaintiff, The New Straits Times Press (NSTP), formally dropped its part of the lawsuit against Ahirudin in September 2010. [1, 2]
• The Apology in Chambers: The remaining suit, driven by four former top NSTP executives (including former deputy chairman Datuk Seri Kalimullah Masheerul Hassan), was resolved when Ahirudin agreed to a recorded statement of settlement. He apologized for the "distress, embarrassment, and inconvenience" caused by the 48 blog posts under dispute, withdrew the specific allegations, and published the apology on his blog. [1, 2, 3]
• No Money Exchanged: Crucially, in the spirit of an amicable resolution, both sides agreed that no damages or court costs would be paid. [1]

By ending in a cost-free settlement rather than a massive financial judgment, the conclusion was widely seen as a landmark victory for the survival and freedom of independent political blogging and cyber-journalism in Malaysia.