Share to help stimulate good governance, ensure future of people & M’sia
No News Is Bad News
This disgraced and shameless jailbird who stole millions, if not billions, of Ringgit from rakyat dan negara derserves no clemency!
BOMBSHELL: DAP supports Malaysia’s No. 1 pencuri (thief) Najib '1MDB' Razak!
KUALA LUMPUR, July 1, 2026: Former DAP Skudai assemblyman Marina Ibrahim has released a bombshell that DAP is secretly supporting the country’s No. 1 pencuri (thief), Najib “1MDB” Razak.
Marina said quitting politics was never due the DAP’s demand for her to switch from Skudai to Tiram to face Umno in the Johor elections.
It was due to DAP’s secret support for the disgraced a shameless former Umno president and prime minister Najib “1MDB” Razak who is now serving his jail sentences in Kajang Prison.
No News Is Bad News reproduces below an article posted by The Coverage on the issue and our previous post about Marina:
Marina Ibrahim: The Secret Najib Deal DAP Hoped You’d Never Hear About
1 July, 2026
Every time a general election approaches, the Najib issue gets dragged out and sensationalized again. “Voting for Barisan Nasional equals saving Najib.”
I only hope that the leader I met on 12 April 2026 at the second-hand clothing store in Masai Garden will still feel a shred of shame when he reads this article — assuming he still has any sense of shame left.
Many people say I betrayed the party. Many claim I left in a fit of anger just because my constituency was changed. But they don’t know the truth: my loss of trust in politics was never because of the constituency switch.
The conversation on 12 April 2026 was the final straw that destroyed whatever remaining faith I had in principles.
That day, I personally heard a leader who had always loudly criticized the Najib issue tell me:
“Based on Najib’s past contributions, letting him serve his sentence at home is not wrong.”
“We hope Najib receives a royal pardon only after the national election. If it happens before the election, the Chinese community’s trust in us will drop.” (They already knew very well what UMNO’s position was and how likely this was to happen. If Pakatan Harapan wins and Najib is then pardoned, the rice would already be cooked. Voters would have no choice but to accept it with tears, and there would be no need to resign from any positions.)
At that time, no one yet knew when the state election would be held, so of course no one was talking about it openly. It could be quietly swept under the rug.
This “leader” also discussed how they would handle the party’s special congress to avoid suspicion and regain the confidence of the Chinese community, and how they would resign if Najib received a pardon too early — while publicly stating that they would continue to support the existing federal government. To me, it all sounded like a carefully staged political performance. (Because they knew that by then the national election would be very close, so resigning as a minister wouldn’t hurt the party much, yet it would make them look like they had strong principles.)
Everything was done just to avoid a repeat of the voter backlash seen in the Sabah election.
But if UMNO in Johor had not been the first to declare they were unwilling to work with DAP, would this issue have been dug up so quickly and used as ammunition to attack the opposing camp? Or would it have remained hidden in the freezer, conveniently ignored?
For four years, they have been fully aware of UMNO’s stance on the Najib issue.
If DAP truly believes this is an uncompromising red line, why have they continued for four years to hope for and pursue cooperation with Barisan Nasional?
Johor was never part of the Unity Government. Without that burden, and if there really was an uncompromising principle, Johor should have been the most logical, most suitable, and first state to sever ties with UMNO. Yet right up until the Johor state election, Pakatan Harapan leaders at all levels were still actively seeking cooperation with Barisan Nasional and hoping to continue the alliance. They were the ones who initiated the partnership, but now they paint their cooperation partner as unacceptable. Is this principle, or is it just political expediency?
After the leader left, I immediately called my team members who were in the shop for a meeting. I admit, maybe I really don’t understand politics. Maybe I’m too naive.
But I couldn’t help asking: Has manipulating voters’ trust really become just another political strategy? Is my perspective too small, or has deception simply become the norm in politics?
I told the team what happened because I wanted to hear their thoughts. To me, politics is a platform. But my relationship with the residents in the community has long been like family. If one day the uncles and aunties who have always treated me like their own child come to my office, angrily questioning me about the Najib issue and losing trust in us… what should I do? Pretend I don’t know? But I do know!
Anyone who has visited my office knows that we serve everyone — regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation. That’s why, when I met another leader again on 17 May, my answer was simple:
“Whatever decision is made, I will discuss it with my team first.”
Yet some people still say: Marina was misled by the people around her.
You don’t understand my team at all. My team members are not vested interests. They have never asked me for anything. If anything, I am the one who owes them. They are night market vendors, painters, single mothers, and people battling anxiety disorders. Some of them originally came to the office seeking help, and later chose to become volunteers.
When political elders portrayed me everywhere as lazy and incompetent, it was they who stood by me. When outsiders said my office was always closed, it was they who responded with action to those smears. When the top leadership turned a blind eye to factionalism, it was they who stood with me to answer the doubts.
Before making the biggest decision of my life — to completely withdraw from politics — I also met another Malay leader on 20 May. I had hoped to hear different perspectives, but what I heard instead was talk about party positions and the distribution of power, and who had been given GLC positions…
He admitted in front of me that he felt he was just a “token” in the party. He complained that the party was always pessimistic about leaders from certain communities. He complained that although he held a fairly high position, he was often excluded from important decisions and discussions. There were even leaders who would sarcastically say things like, “If Marina hadn’t withdrawn from the party election back then…”
The pitiful often have despicable sides. The same person later publicly mocked me on social media after I announced my retirement. I just want to ask: Do you really feel no shame at all?
In my official letter to the party declining to contest again, the last sentence I wrote was: I hope that, as leaders, we never forget why voters gave us their trust in the first place.
In the past, when others did this, we said it was wrong. Today, when we do the same thing… it suddenly becomes acceptable? Or does it mean that so-called principles actually change depending on who is involved? If that’s the case, isn’t that simply a double standard?
Also, Akmal was not new to Barisan Nasional, UMNO, or his role as a state executive councillor in Melaka. If UMNO had not drawn that clear line first, would the narrative “Voting for XX = Voting for Akmal” even have appeared?
Often, what’s truly frightening is not which side you stand on, but how your position keeps shifting with the political winds — while you continue to package it, rationalize it, and even mislead and incite the people to support your so-called “bigger picture.”
You can say I lack vision. You can say I lack experience. But what you call the “bigger picture” is often nothing more than a carefully constructed narrative by politicians. It exploits people’s sense of justice, their emotions, and their trust, making everyone believe this is the only correct choice.
The real bigger picture is simply this: “You (the people) are the chess pieces, but I (the politician) am the one moving them on the board.”
Source : Marina Ibrahim
Monday, 1 June 2026
Why is DAP ‘dumping’ a truly multi-racial Malay Skudai assemblyman?
Share to help stimulate good governance, ensure future of people & M’sia
No News Is Bad News
Why is DAP ‘dumping’ a truly multi-racial Malay Skudai assemblyman?
KUALA LUMPUR, June 1, 2026: Skudai (Johor) assemblyman Marina Ibrahim is truly a multi-racial DAP politician.
Yet, today DAP and its Johor chief Teo Nie Ching want to “axe” her by moving her to Tiram, a seat held by Umno.
It sure is mind-boggling why the DAP is “getting rid” of her?
However, she has turned down DAP and Teo’s offer to move to Tiram and an offer to head a Government-linked company if she loses (and how does Teo know DAP would still be in the Government after GE16)?).
Marina, however, turned down the offer and announced her retirement from politics.
However, the Umno-led Mentri Besar (MB) have secured the Johor Sultan’s approval to dissolve the Johor Assembly and pave the way for elections.
So, will Marina really retire or contest on another platform?
No News Is Bad News reproduces below an article posted by The Coverage on who multi-racial Marina is (also view the pictures at the bottom of the article):
Marina Ibrahim Represents Everything PAS Usually Attacks — Yet They’re Riding Her Wave
1 June, 2026
It is genuinely weird — and more than a little absurd — to watch some PAS supporters suddenly trying to ride on the wave of Marina Ibrahim, the young, progressive, and competent PKR leader from Skudai. They treat her like some kind of political asset they can borrow for optics, while everything about her public life directly contradicts the rigid, regressive worldview PAS has long championed.
Yes, one can (and should) criticise DAP for its hypocrisy on GLC political appointments and cronyism. That rot deserves scrutiny. But let’s not pretend PAS supporters are suddenly Marina’s genuine sympathisers or allies. That performance is hollow. Both sides have their hypocrisies, but Marina and PAS come from fundamentally different worlds. The attempt to act warm towards her feels like tactical opportunism rather than any real ideological alignment.
Marina represents the kind of modern Malaysian leader that PAS hardliners would normally spend their days attacking, not praising. She is young, vibrant, progressive, and comfortable in a multicultural society. She wears sarees during Thaipusam celebrations. She attends events where alcohol is served (without drinking herself). She has shaken hands with Buddhist monks during Wesak, visited Chinese temples, and even paid respects at Chinese graves. Her personal Facebook page operates significantly in Mandarin — something that would trigger instant allergic reactions among the more fanatical PAS circles who treat every Chinese character as a threat to “Tanah Melayu.”
Imagine the PAS response if one of their own women leaders behaved this way. The lectures would be endless: Why no tudung? Aurat! Haram! Why are you mixing so freely? They would dictate her clothing, her social interactions, and label half her schedule as “liberal contamination.” Yet some PAS voices now want to bask in her popularity? The cognitive dissonance is glaring.
Marina’s own words reveal her philosophy clearly. She has spoken movingly about her mother, a devout Muslim who prays, reads the Quran, and wears the tudung, yet freely brought Christian friends shopping during Christmas and Chinese friends during Chinese New Year. Marina quoted her mother’s wisdom: being around non-Muslims does not diminish one’s faith if one’s iman is strong. This is tolerant, confident, inclusive Islam — not the punitive, suspicious, control-obsessed version promoted by PAS politics.
PAS’s brand of politics often feels too shallow-minded, too restrictive, too punitive, too ancient, too regressive, and too extreme for a modern, multi-ethnic Malaysia. They appear more comfortable fielding candidates who can perform “terpaling Melayu” and “terpaling Islam” theatrics — even if they are mediocre or worse — rather than promoting genuinely capable, intelligent, and service-oriented leaders like Marina. How many defamation suits have they lost? How often do they rely on slander and fitnah while remaining strangely silent on real corruption when it suits them?
Instead of moral policing what people wear, eat, celebrate, or attend, perhaps they should focus on actual governance. Marina doesn’t impose her personal beliefs on others. She doesn’t play busybody moral police. That live-and-let-live attitude is exactly what makes her appealing to many moderate Malaysians — and exactly why hardcore PAS ideology struggles to accommodate her without looking deeply hypocritical.
In short: PAS can criticise their political opponents. That’s fair game. But pretending to embrace or ride the wave of a progressive, multicultural, Mandarin-savvy, temple-visiting woman leader like Marina Ibrahim is simply not believable. It exposes the ideological gap rather than bridging it. Malaysia needs more leaders who can function comfortably across communities without needing constant religious enforcement. Marina appears to be one. PAS, by its own long record, is not built for that world.
