On behalf of UAE President, RAK Ruler arrives Malaysia to participate in GCC-ASEAN Summit, ASEAN-GCC-China Summit
Malaysia is hosting these high-profile events as part of its current presidency of the ASEAN 2025.
H.H. was welcomed upon arrival by Malaysian Minister of Defence Mohamed Khaled Nordin, and several Malaysian officials.
H.H. Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi is accompanied by an official delegation comprising Sheikh Khalid bin Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi, Vice Chairman of Ras Al Khaimah's Investment and Development Office; Dr. Thani bin Ahmed Al Zeyoudi, Minister of State for Foreign Trade; Ahmed Al Sayegh, Minister of State; Khalifa Shaheen Al Marar, Minister of State; Khalil Mohammed Sharif Foulathi, board member of the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA); Dr. Mubarak Saeed Al Dhaheri, UAE Ambassador to Malaysia, and Abdullah Salem Al Dhaheri, UAE Ambassador to Indonesia and ASEAN.
The two summits, which will be attended by several leaders, heads of government, and representatives of participating countries, are scheduled to discuss ways to enhance joint cooperation between the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the People's Republic of China across various economic, investment, development, and political fields. They will also explore new opportunities for cooperation to serve the aspirations of the countries' peoples to achieve development and prosperity.
This is the second summit bringing together the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), following the Riyadh Summit hosted by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 2023, during which it was agreed to hold the summit between the GCC and ASEAN every two years.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
27 minutes ago
- Malay Mail
Asean and the FPDA: Twin anchors of Malaysia's security outlook — Phar Kim Beng
AUGUST 20 — When Asean was established on August 8, 1967, its founding members envisioned a regional order built on dialogue, cooperation, and resilience. For South-east Asia, still emerging from the shadows of colonial rule and Cold War confrontation, Asean was a bold attempt to craft a zone of stability. Four years later, in 1971, Malaysia and Singapore joined hands with Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand to launch the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA). This pact was no accident of history; it was a deliberate complement to Asean's vision of regional security. The FPDA was born just a year after Asean declared the Zone of Peace, Freedom, and Neutrality (Zopfan) in Kuala Lumpur in 1970. Zopfan was a political statement of intent: South-east Asia must not become the playground of great power rivalry. But declarations alone could not guarantee safety. The Vietnam War was raging, and the withdrawal of British forces east of Suez left Malaysia and Singapore vulnerable. The FPDA filled this gap. While Zopfan embodied Asean's diplomatic quest for neutrality, the FPDA offered a hard security safety net—anchored not in alliance obligations but in consultation and cooperation. The importance of the FPDA for Malaysia cannot be overstated. Unlike Nato, it does not bind members to collective defence. Instead, it institutionalises regular consultations and joint military exercises, ensuring Malaysia and Singapore are never isolated in the face of aggression. Over the years, exercises such as Bersama Shield and Bersama Lima have done more than sharpen tactics; they have nurtured interoperability, exposed Malaysian forces to advanced operational practices, and prepared them for United Nations peacekeeping deployments. These engagements are Malaysia's only consistent multinational military training opportunities—an invaluable supplement to its limited defense capacity. When Asean was established on August 8, 1967, its founding members envisioned a regional order built on dialogue, cooperation, and resilience. — Picture by Raymond Manuel At the same time, Asean and the FPDA should not be seen as competing pillars of security. They are symbiotic. Asean, with its emphasis on consensus and dialogue, creates the political environment that makes cooperative security possible. The FPDA, in turn, provides a practical mechanism for capacity-building, ensuring that Malaysia and Singapore remain confident participants in Asean's broader vision of regional stability. Together, they reflect Malaysia's dual strategy: embrace neutrality and diplomacy through Asean, while anchoring deterrence and preparedness through the FPDA. Half a century on, both institutions face new tests. The rise of China, the resurgence of US strategic primacy, and tensions in the South China Sea demand careful balancing. Here, Asean continues to serve as the convenor of dialogue through the Asean Regional Forum, East Asia Summit, and the ongoing negotiations on a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea. The FPDA, meanwhile, has adapted to include non-traditional security threats—counterterrorism, humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief—broadening its relevance in an era where security is no longer defined solely by state-to-state conflict. Critics often argue that the FPDA is a relic of the Cold War. Yet its enduring value lies in flexibility. It reassures Malaysia and Singapore without constraining them in rigid treaty commitments. Similarly, Asean, though derided as slow-moving, has preserved South-east Asia as one of the least conflict-prone regions in the world. Neither is perfect, but both are indispensable. For Malaysia, the lesson is clear. Asean and the FPDA are not parallel tracks but complementary ones. They represent two sides of the same coin: Asean provides the diplomatic shield, while the FPDA delivers the operational muscle. In a region where great powers jostle for influence, Malaysia's security will continue to rest on the twin anchors laid down in 1967 and 1971. * Phar Kim Beng is a professor of Asean Studies and Director of the Institute of Internationalization and Asean Studies at the International Islamic University of Malaysia. ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Barnama
an hour ago
- Barnama
- Are We Ready For Formal Education Until Age 16?
Opinions on topical issues from thought leaders, columnists and editors. Learning should come willingly and wholeheartedly from the students themselves, and not through coercion. However, I question the readiness of students to comply with such a policy once it is implemented. What is the purpose of enforcing this policy if students lack the interest and motivation to attend school and learn? A few months ago, I responded to the Ministry of Education's suggestion to make secondary education compulsory for all students. It is indeed a commendable initiative aimed at producing a knowledgeable generation. More recently, a Member of Parliament proposed allowing students to complete their formal education by the age of 16. I am not taking sides with either the supporters or critics of this proposal. According to the World Bank's 2024 report, Bending Bamboo Shoots: Strengthening Foundational Skills, the SEA-PLM (Southeast Asia Primary Learning Metrics) assesses basic skills in reading and mathematics at the primary level. The most fundamental concern is the mastery of basic skills among primary school students. The '3M' skills – reading, writing, and arithmetic, must first be addressed. Instead, I write to highlight that there are many important factors to consider before such a policy is adopted. Alarmingly, almost 36% of Malaysian Year 5 students were found to lack mathematics skills appropriate to their grade level. This issue deserves immediate and focused attention. Although the MOBIM (Modul Bimbingan) intervention has recently been introduced, it is still in its infancy and not yet mature enough to show significant impact. Complex educational issues Educational issues in Malaysia are long-standing and complex. Personally, I believe the Ministry of Education should focus on implementing one policy effectively, rather than constantly introducing new ones. Less is more. I understand that the suggestion to end formal education at 16 is meant to offer students the opportunity to enter the workforce earlier, based on their preferences, strengths and capabilities. However, we must take into account Malaysia's local context, rather than simply citing examples from countries such as Germany, Japan, Singapore, and Finland. Vocational training systems are well-established in many of these countries especially in Germany, where the apprenticeship model is standardised nationwide. Students there use the same textbooks and tools, ensuring consistent training quality. After completing three years of training and working, often with modest wages, many students continue with the same companies. As a result, Germany enjoys one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe. In Singapore, 16-year-olds typically complete their final year of compulsory education. After that, they may choose to proceed to pre-university, polytechnic, or the Institute of Technical Education. However, we must remember that Germany and Singapore are developed countries, while Malaysia remains a developing nation. Critical matters need to be tackled In Malaysia, several critical issues must be addressed first – chief among them being the state of our education infrastructure. Many rural schools still lack basic facilities, such as fully equipped science laboratories, vocational workshops, ICT tools, and conducive learning environments. Without adequate infrastructure, it is impossible to provide meaningful and hands-on learning experiences, especially in technical and vocational fields. This is reflected in the annual national budget presentations, where improving school infrastructure remains a top priority in the education sector. Furthermore, our curriculum needs to be reviewed and updated to meet current industry demands and prepare students with future-ready skills. In particular, the vocational curriculum must be modular, flexible, competency-based, and aligned with technological advancements. The dense content of the current curriculum further complicates efforts to achieve the goal of completing formal education by the age of 16. In this context, teacher readiness is also a significant concern. Achieving such an ambitious objective requires substantial investment in additional training and ongoing professional development to ensure that teachers are genuinely prepared to implement new approaches. Given their already high workloads, teachers must also be equipped with a variety of pedagogical strategies so they can guide students in a more holistic manner. The proposal to allow students to finish formal schooling at age 16 is not a quick fix to Malaysia's educational challenges. It demands comprehensive reforms – beginning with strengthening basic education, developing robust alternative pathways, enhancing infrastructure and teaching quality, and reshaping societal perceptions of what educational success truly means. Sufficient groundwork required Malaysia should learn from the experiences of other nations but avoid rushing into flexible education policies without sufficient groundwork. Education is not merely a pathway to employment; it is the foundation for nurturing resilient, ethical, and productive citizens. Any new policy must be grounded in current data and realities, not idealism alone. The government must commit to a phased, evidence-based implementation strategy with a clear focus on quality. Today's youth are tomorrow's leaders, and their future must not be jeopardised by hastily-crafted policies. -- BERNAMA Assoc Prof Dr Abdul Halim Abdullah is a lecturer at the School of Education, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
MACC cripples tobacco smuggling syndicates
PETALING JAYA: The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission has crippled a tobacco and cigar smuggling syndicate believed to have caused more than RM250mil in tax revenue losses between 2020 and 2024. The operation, codenamed Op Sikaro, was carried out by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission's Special Operations Division with the cooperation of the Inland Revenue Board, Bank Negara Malaysia and the Customs Department. Raids were conducted at 14 locations across the Klang Valley and Johor on Tuesday (Aug 19). According to sources, enforcement teams targeted business premises and company owners involved in the tobacco, cigar and liquor distribution trade. "Following the raids, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission froze personal and company bank accounts amounting to RM218mil," the source said. Customs also suspended the import licences of several companies identified as being part of the smuggling network pending further investigations. It is believed that the syndicate had the cooperation of certain enforcement officers. Investigations will also focus on tracing and seizing assets acquired through money laundering activities. Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Special Operations Division senior director Datuk Mohamad Zamri Zainul Abidin confirmed the raids. He said investigations are being conducted under Section 16 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 and Section 4(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001. "The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission will not compromise with any parties seeking to profit through corruption, money laundering and smuggling, which cause huge losses to the country," he said.
