Test success: ATLAS Uncrewed Ground Vehicle put through its paces
BAE Systems today announced successful trials for its Autonomous Tactical Light Armour System (ATLAS) Uncrewed Ground Vehicle (UGV). The trials are part of the ongoing development for a next generation modular autonomous land capability designed to support main battle tank or combat reconnaissance vehicle capabilities.
Launched at Land Forces in September 2024, the ATLAS Collaborative Combat Variant (CCV) has been the focus of significant trial activities at all levels of autonomy – from teleoperation to waypoint-based navigation, to full ‘sense and avoid autonomy’ – and is a fully functional prototype demonstrator.
The M242 Bushmaster 25mm cannon integrated with the VANTAGE ATS provides accurate and highly lethal fire to a range of 2,500m (photo: BAE Systems Australia)
ATLAS represents a true combat multiplier – a fighting vehicle that increases combat mass and reduces the soldier’s exposure to risk. The prototype platform is manoeuvrable and fast, making it an ideal companion for both tracked and wheeled crewed combat vehicles across difficult terrain and in all weather and environmental conditions.
The ATLAS CCV can be delivered in multiple payload configurations. As shown in the assault configuration, the vehicle is armed with a new, lightweight, affordable, highly automated medium calibre turret system called ‘VANTAGE’, designed for use on uncrewed platforms.
The VANTAGE turret integrates BAE Systems’ passive Multi-Spectral Automatic Target Detection, Tracking and Classification System (ATTCS), delivering high levels of automated operation, reducing operator cognitive load, enabling one-to-many operation and reducing the probability of detection and the time to target engagement.
Andrew Gresham, Managing Director – Defence Delivery, BAE Systems Australia, said:
“In just sixteen months, we have gone from launching ATLAS at Land Forces to operating a fully functional prototype demonstrator.
“ATLAS has been developed to give soldiers the advantage on the modern battlefield.
“This has resulted in an autonomous platform that will deliver the dull, dirty and dangerous tasks expected in a combat environment.
“We are currently engaged in significant marketing and customer engagement activities in international markets.”
Skyshield ada jugk kita haha!🚀🦾🚀
BalasHapus4,5,7,8,10,11 yg bner brapa sich yg ktembak? goib haha!🤭😁🤭
BalasHapuseniwei indihe vs pak lbh ngeri kena tarip 200% drpd war haha!☠️😬☠️
klo thai vs kamboj, pilih war..gaspol🚀
wah ada yg gagal tuch haha!😂😋😂
⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️
‘11 jets shot down…’ Trump contradicts previous claims, brings new twist to India-Pakistan rant
https://youtube.com/watch?v=hIlmLo5px1U&pp=ygUddHJ1bXAgbGF0ZXN0IG5ld3MgcGxhbmUgaW5kaWE%3D
Dari India minimal 4: 1 MiG, 2 Rafale dan 1 Su-30. Total tidak jelas.
HapusDari Pakistan tidak jelas sama sekali.
Kalau dilihat dari bukti puing pesawat yg ada di video netizen indihe.
HapusMIG 29 - 1 unit
Sukhoi 30 - 1 unit
Mirage 2000 - 1 unit
Rafale - 2 unit
Menurut analisa pribadi
BEDA LEVEL =
BalasHapus-
perbandingan posisi geopolitik kedua negara:
1. Otonomi Strategis vs Subordinasi Kebijakan
🇮🇩 Indonesia (Otonomi Tinggi): Mempertahankan prinsip "Bebas-Aktif" secara nyata. Indonesia mampu bernegosiasi dengan AS tanpa harus memutus hubungan strategis dengan mitra lain (seperti China/Rusia). Posisi ini menjadikan Indonesia sebagai "Bridge Builder" (jembatan) di kawasan yang memiliki daya tawar tinggi karena tidak memihak blok manapun secara absolut.
🇲🇾 Malaydesh (Subordinasi): Terjebak dalam posisi "Vasal Ekonomi". Dengan adanya klausul intervensi dalam perjanjian dagang, Malaydesh kehilangan hak veto atas kebijakan luar negerinya. AS secara de facto memegang kendali atas dengan siapa Malaydesh boleh bertransaksi (terutama di sektor teknologi dan mineral kritis).
-
2. Kekuatan Tawar (Bargaining Power)
🇮🇩 Indonesia (Smart Power): Menggunakan Pasar Domestik Besar (PDB USD 1,44 Triliun) dan Hilirisasi Sumber Daya sebagai kartu as. Indonesia memposisikan diri sebagai pusat rantai pasok global masa depan, sehingga negara besar yang ingin masuk harus mengikuti aturan main Indonesia (Mutual Recognition).
🇲🇾 Malaydesh (Survival Mode): Berada dalam posisi "Diplomasi Terdesak". Karena beban utang yang melampaui limit dan rasio utang rumah tangga yang kritis, Malaydesh tidak memiliki kemewahan untuk berkata "tidak". Komitmen belanja USD 242 Miliar adalah bentuk "Protection Money" (biaya perlindungan) agar ekonomi domestiknya tidak dihancurkan oleh sanksi tarif luar negeri.
-
3. Pengaruh di Kawasan (Regional Leadership)
🇮🇩 Indonesia (Regional Leader): Sebagai ekonomi terbesar di Asia Tenggara, Indonesia menentukan arah standar kawasan. Keberhasilan menjaga marwah kedaulatan dalam perjanjian internasional memperkuat posisi Indonesia sebagai "Anchor" stabilitas politik dan ekonomi ASEAN.
🇲🇾 Malaydesh (Follower): Menjadi preseden buruk di kawasan di mana kedaulatan legislasi bisa ditukar dengan akses pasar. Malaydesh berisiko kehilangan relevansi dalam forum regional karena keputusannya seringkali harus melalui "konsultasi" atau restu dari Washington terlebih dahulu.
-
4. Dampak Jangka Panjang pada Struktur Industri
🇮🇩 Indonesia: Diplomasi diarahkan untuk Transfer Teknologi dan penguatan industri dalam negeri. Setiap kesepakatan wajib mendukung pertumbuhan ekonomi domestik yang mandiri.
🇲🇾 Malaydesh: Menjadi Pasar Produk Asing. Dengan kewajiban membeli barang (Boeing, LNG, dll) dalam jumlah masif, Malaydesh sebenarnya sedang mensubsidi industri negara maju menggunakan cadangan devisanya sendiri, yang memperlemah struktur industri lokal dalam jangka panjang.
________________________________________
Kesimpulan: Indonesia bermain dalam level "Strategic Partner" yang setara, sedangkan Malaydesh jatuh ke level "Compliance Officer" yang hanya menjalankan agenda ekonomi negara lain demi keamanan fiskal jangka pendek.
ART ..........
BalasHapusSMART DIPLOMACY VERSUS DESPERATE DIPLOMACY
-
1. Perang Diksi: Mutual Agreement vs. Mandatory Compliance
Kedaulatan sebuah negara dalam perjanjian internasional ditentukan oleh kata kerja operatif yang digunakan.
Indonesia (Prinsip Kesetaraan): Menggunakan diksi seperti "Agree to", "Promote", dan "Acknowledge". Dokumen hukum Indonesia menekankan pada koordinasi di mana Undang-Undang Nasional (NKRI) tetap menjadi filter tertinggi. Standar internasional diselaraskan melalui proses adopsi mandiri.
Malaydesh (Klausul "Shall"): Terjebak pada diksi imperatif. Kata "Shall" dalam hukum internasional berarti kewajiban mutlak. Ini menciptakan subordinasi yuridis, di mana parlemen Malaydesh kehilangan hak veto karena harus menyesuaikan aturan domestik dengan standar Washington demi menghindari sanksi.
-
2. Efisiensi Transaksional (ROI Diplomasi)
Data menunjukkan ketimpangan yang mencolok dalam efektivitas negosiasi kedua negara
Nilai Komitmen Investasi
Indonesia: USD 22,7 Miliar (Investasi strategis yang efisien).
Malaydesh: USD 242 Miliar (Beban biaya 10x lipat lebih besar).
Cakupan Produk (Tarif 0%)
Indonesia: 1.819 Produk (Akses pasar lebih luas).
Malaydesh: 1.711 Produk (Akses pasar lebih terbatas).
Rasio Biaya per Produk
Indonesia: ± USD 12,4 Juta (Hasil maksimal dengan biaya rendah).
Malaydesh: ± USD 141,4 Juta (Sangat mahal dan tidak efisien).
Status Hukum dan Posisi Tawar
Indonesia: Mutual Agreement (Hubungan setara sebagai mitra).
Malaydesh: Mandatory Compliance (Hubungan subordinasi/kepatuhan).
Kedaulatan Industri Nasional
Indonesia: Hilirisasi tetap diakui dan dilindungi secara mandiri.
Malaydesh: Wajib adopsi standar AS secara otomatis (Kehilangan filter lokal).
Kemandirian Kebijakan Luar Negeri
Indonesia: Bebas Aktif (Mandiri dalam menentukan mitra dagang).
Malaydesh: Terikat restu pihak ketiga/AS (Kehilangan otonomi geopolitik).
3. Geopolitik: Bebas Aktif vs. Izin Eksklusif
Perbedaan ini menentukan seberapa besar ruang gerak negara di panggung dunia:
Indonesia (Smart Diplomacy): Tetap menjalankan prinsip Bebas Aktif. Indonesia berhasil mengamankan kesepakatan dengan AS tanpa harus memutus hubungan strategis dengan China atau Rusia. Hilirisasi nikel dan kerjasama teknologi tetap berjalan mandiri.
Malaydesh (Remote Control): Melalui klausul pembatasan pihak ketiga, Malaydesh secara implisit harus mencari "restu" Washington sebelum bertransaksi dengan negara yang dianggap rival oleh AS. Ini adalah bentuk Ekstertorialitas Hukum, di mana kepentingan politik luar negeri AS mendikte kebijakan ekonomi Malaydesh.
4. Visi Industri: Hilirisasi vs. Penyedia Bahan Mentah
Indonesia: Memaksa AS mengakui kebijakan Hilirisasi. AS secara resmi menghormati hak Indonesia untuk memberikan nilai tambah pada sumber daya alamnya di dalam negeri.
Malaydesh: Ditekan untuk menjadi penyedia mineral kritis yang stabil bagi industri AS tanpa jaminan pengembangan industri pengolahan lokal. Malaydesh diposisikan sebagai "pelayan" rantai pasok global Amerika.
5. Filter Keamanan & Kesehatan (BPOM/SNI vs. Adopsi Otomatis)
Indonesia: Mempertahankan peran lembaga negara (BPOM, BSN, SNI) sebagai filter produk impor. Standar teknis diselaraskan, tetapi pengujian tetap di bawah otoritas nasional.
Malaydesh: Dipaksa melakukan Adopsi Otomatis terhadap standar keamanan dan kesehatan AS. Hal ini melumpuhkan badan pengawas lokal dan berisiko membanjiri pasar domestik dengan produk yang dapat mematikan petani serta pengusaha kecil lokal.
________________________________________
Kesimpulan
Indonesia menjalankan Diplomasi Transaksional-Strategis yang cerdas, di mana setiap dolar yang dikeluarkan menghasilkan proteksi hukum bagi kedaulatan nasional. Sebaliknya, Malaydesh terjebak dalam Diplomasi Defensif (Desperate), di mana mereka mengorbankan kemandirian legislatif hanya untuk menghindari tarif hukuman, yang pada akhirnya menjadikan negara tersebut sebagai entitas yang menjalankan mandat eksternal dari Washington.
MALAYDESH SHALL = GADAI KEDAULATAN
BalasHapus-
Klausul "Malaydesh Shall" dalam konteks ini adalah bentuk instrumen hukum asimetris yang mengubah perjanjian dagang menjadi "remote control" kebijakan domestik. Berikut adalah penjelasan mendalam mengapa hal ini dianggap sebagai titik jatuhnya kedaulatan Malaydesh:
-
1. Legislasi yang Didikte (Legal Mandate)
Kata "Shall" dalam hukum internasional bersifat imperatif atau wajib. Melalui klausul ini, Amerika Serikat tidak sekadar memberi saran, tetapi mewajibkan Malaydesh untuk mengubah undang-undang nasionalnya agar selaras dengan standar AS. Ini mencakup:
Standar Tenaga Kerja: Malaydesh wajib mengubah aturan serikat buruh dan hak pekerja sesuai permintaan Washington. Jika tidak dilakukan, akses pasar bisa dicabut seketika.
Standar Lingkungan: Malaydesh dipaksa mengadopsi standar emisi dan tata kelola hijau versi AS yang mungkin belum siap diterapkan oleh industri lokal mereka.
-
2. Mekanisme "Rem Blokade" Terhadap Pihak Ketiga
Klausul ini berfungsi sebagai pembatas kedaulatan luar negeri. Malaydesh dilarang membuat kesepakatan strategis (seperti teknologi 5G, semikonduktor, atau mineral kritis) dengan negara yang dianggap sebagai rival oleh AS (China atau Rusia).
Jika Malaydesh melanggar, AS memiliki hak pembatalan sepihak (Unilateral Termination).
Hal ini membuat Malaydesh kehilangan kebijakan luar negeri yang bebas aktif karena mereka harus "meminta izin" secara tersirat kepada Washington sebelum berurusan dengan Beijing.
-
3. Hilangnya Diskresi Nasional (Loss of National Discretion)
Biasanya, sebuah negara berdaulat memiliki hak untuk menentukan standar barang yang masuk atau keluar (SNI di Indonesia). Namun, dengan "Malaydesh Shall", Malaydesh wajib:
Adopsi Standar AS: Mengakui secara otomatis standar keamanan dan kesehatan AS tanpa proses filtrasi mandiri.
Pelonggaran Lisensi: Membuka pintu impor produk pertanian atau teknologi AS tanpa hambatan birokrasi, yang seringkali memukul petani atau pengusaha lokal.
-
4. Perbandingan dengan Indonesia
Berbeda dengan Indonesia yang menggunakan pendekatan "Mutual Agreement" (Kesepakatan Bersama), Malaydesh terjebak dalam pola "Compliance" (Kepatuhan). Indonesia tetap memegang kendali atas regulasi domestiknya melalui prinsip hilirisasi, sementara Malaydesh harus "membedah" aturan dalam negerinya sendiri demi memuaskan syarat-syarat dalam perjanjian tersebut.
Singkatnya: "Malaydesh Shall" adalah bentuk Intervensi Institusional. Malaydesh bukan lagi mitra yang setara, melainkan pelaksana kebijakan yang rancangannya dibuat di Washington. Ini adalah harga mahal yang harus dibayar demi menghindari tarif hukuman 25% dari pemerintahan Trump.
MITRA SETARA versus VASAL EKONOMI
BalasHapus-
perbandingan strategi diplomasi antara Indonesia dan Malaydesh dalam format daftar sistematis:
-
1. Perang Diksi: Kedaulatan vs. Subordinasi
Perbedaan penggunaan kata kerja operatif dalam dokumen hukum menentukan posisi tawar sebuah negara:
Indonesia (Mutual Recognition): Menggunakan diksi seperti "Agree to", "Promote", dan "Acknowledge". Ini menciptakan hubungan koordinasi di mana hukum nasional (NKRI) tetap menjadi otoritas tertinggi.
Malaydesh (Mandatory Compliance): Terjebak pada diksi "Shall" dan "Automatically recognize". Ini menciptakan hubungan subordinasi (atasan-bawahan) yang memaksa perubahan hukum domestik demi kepentingan asing.
-
2. Efisiensi Transaksional (ROI Diplomasi)
Indonesia membuktikan bahwa diplomasi cerdas jauh lebih berdaya guna daripada sekadar "membeli" akses:
Indonesia: Mengeluarkan investasi USD 22,7 Miliar untuk mengamankan tarif 0% bagi 1.819 produk.
Malaydesh: Terpaksa membayar "upeti modern" sebesar USD 242 Miliar (10x lipat lebih mahal) namun hanya mendapatkan tarif 0% untuk 1.711 produk.
-
3. Geopolitik: Bebas Aktif vs. Izin Eksklusif
Kemandirian dalam menentukan mitra dagang menjadi pembeda utama:
Indonesia: Menjamin hak untuk berdagang dengan pihak ketiga (China/Rusia) tanpa intervensi. Diplomasi Prabowo memastikan Indonesia tetap menjadi jembatan antara Barat dan Timur.
Malaydesh: Wajib berkonsultasi dan mencari "restu" Washington sebelum berhubungan dengan negara Non-Market Economy. Ini merupakan penggadaian kedaulatan politik luar negeri.
-
4. Visi Ekonomi: Hilirisasi vs. Penyedia Bahan Mentah
Arah pembangunan industri jangka panjang ditentukan dari klausul sumber daya:
Indonesia: Berhasil memaksa AS mengakui hak Hilirisasi. AS secara resmi menghormati kebijakan nilai tambah domestik Indonesia.
Malaydesh: Ditekan untuk menjamin pasokan mineral kritis tanpa henti ke AS, memposisikan diri sebagai "pelayan" bahan mentah bagi industri Amerika.
-
5. Perlindungan Industri Dalam Negeri
Indonesia: Mempertahankan peran BPOM, BSN, dan SNI sebagai filter produk impor. Standar diselaraskan, bukan diterima mentah-mentah.
Malaydesh: Melumpuhkan badan pengawas lokal melalui pengakuan otomatis terhadap standar AS, yang berisiko mematikan petani dan pengusaha lokal.
________________________________________
Kesimpulan Akhir:
Indonesia menjalankan Smart Diplomacy yang bersifat transaksional-strategis, memosisikan diri sebagai "Mitra Setara" yang menang secara kuantitatif maupun kualitatif. Sebaliknya, Malaydesh terjebak dalam Desperate Diplomacy yang bersifat defensif, menjadikannya sebagai "Vasal Ekonomi" yang kehilangan kemandirian hukum dan sumber daya.
Perbandingan anggaran militer saja sudah cukup menjelaskan siapa yang serius bangun kekuatan dan siapa yang sekadar menjaga penampilan.
BalasHapusLihat saja keseriusan Indonesia berinvestasi pada Kapal Permukaan, Kapal Selam & Peperangan Bawah Laut, ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) serta kemampuan serangan presisi.
Mantap sekutu FPDA..... yang MISKIN NGUTANG LENDER terusss tu tepi sikit... 🔥🔥🤣🤣🤣
BalasHapusART ..........
HapusSMART DIPLOMACY VERSUS DESPERATE DIPLOMACY
-
1. Perang Diksi: Mutual Agreement vs. Mandatory Compliance
Kedaulatan sebuah negara dalam perjanjian internasional ditentukan oleh kata kerja operatif yang digunakan.
Indonesia (Prinsip Kesetaraan): Menggunakan diksi seperti "Agree to", "Promote", dan "Acknowledge". Dokumen hukum Indonesia menekankan pada koordinasi di mana Undang-Undang Nasional (NKRI) tetap menjadi filter tertinggi. Standar internasional diselaraskan melalui proses adopsi mandiri.
Malaydesh (Klausul "Shall"): Terjebak pada diksi imperatif. Kata "Shall" dalam hukum internasional berarti kewajiban mutlak. Ini menciptakan subordinasi yuridis, di mana parlemen Malaydesh kehilangan hak veto karena harus menyesuaikan aturan domestik dengan standar Washington demi menghindari sanksi.
-
2. Efisiensi Transaksional (ROI Diplomasi)
Data menunjukkan ketimpangan yang mencolok dalam efektivitas negosiasi kedua negara
Nilai Komitmen Investasi
Indonesia: USD 22,7 Miliar (Investasi strategis yang efisien).
Malaydesh: USD 242 Miliar (Beban biaya 10x lipat lebih besar).
Cakupan Produk (Tarif 0%)
Indonesia: 1.819 Produk (Akses pasar lebih luas).
Malaydesh: 1.711 Produk (Akses pasar lebih terbatas).
Rasio Biaya per Produk
Indonesia: ± USD 12,4 Juta (Hasil maksimal dengan biaya rendah).
Malaydesh: ± USD 141,4 Juta (Sangat mahal dan tidak efisien).
Status Hukum dan Posisi Tawar
Indonesia: Mutual Agreement (Hubungan setara sebagai mitra).
Malaydesh: Mandatory Compliance (Hubungan subordinasi/kepatuhan).
Kedaulatan Industri Nasional
Indonesia: Hilirisasi tetap diakui dan dilindungi secara mandiri.
Malaydesh: Wajib adopsi standar AS secara otomatis (Kehilangan filter lokal).
Kemandirian Kebijakan Luar Negeri
Indonesia: Bebas Aktif (Mandiri dalam menentukan mitra dagang).
Malaydesh: Terikat restu pihak ketiga/AS (Kehilangan otonomi geopolitik).
3. Geopolitik: Bebas Aktif vs. Izin Eksklusif
Perbedaan ini menentukan seberapa besar ruang gerak negara di panggung dunia:
Indonesia (Smart Diplomacy): Tetap menjalankan prinsip Bebas Aktif. Indonesia berhasil mengamankan kesepakatan dengan AS tanpa harus memutus hubungan strategis dengan China atau Rusia. Hilirisasi nikel dan kerjasama teknologi tetap berjalan mandiri.
Malaydesh (Remote Control): Melalui klausul pembatasan pihak ketiga, Malaydesh secara implisit harus mencari "restu" Washington sebelum bertransaksi dengan negara yang dianggap rival oleh AS. Ini adalah bentuk Ekstertorialitas Hukum, di mana kepentingan politik luar negeri AS mendikte kebijakan ekonomi Malaydesh.
4. Visi Industri: Hilirisasi vs. Penyedia Bahan Mentah
Indonesia: Memaksa AS mengakui kebijakan Hilirisasi. AS secara resmi menghormati hak Indonesia untuk memberikan nilai tambah pada sumber daya alamnya di dalam negeri.
Malaydesh: Ditekan untuk menjadi penyedia mineral kritis yang stabil bagi industri AS tanpa jaminan pengembangan industri pengolahan lokal. Malaydesh diposisikan sebagai "pelayan" rantai pasok global Amerika.
5. Filter Keamanan & Kesehatan (BPOM/SNI vs. Adopsi Otomatis)
Indonesia: Mempertahankan peran lembaga negara (BPOM, BSN, SNI) sebagai filter produk impor. Standar teknis diselaraskan, tetapi pengujian tetap di bawah otoritas nasional.
Malaydesh: Dipaksa melakukan Adopsi Otomatis terhadap standar keamanan dan kesehatan AS. Hal ini melumpuhkan badan pengawas lokal dan berisiko membanjiri pasar domestik dengan produk yang dapat mematikan petani serta pengusaha kecil lokal.
________________________________________
Kesimpulan
Indonesia menjalankan Diplomasi Transaksional-Strategis yang cerdas, di mana setiap dolar yang dikeluarkan menghasilkan proteksi hukum bagi kedaulatan nasional. Sebaliknya, Malaydesh terjebak dalam Diplomasi Defensif (Desperate), di mana mereka mengorbankan kemandirian legislatif hanya untuk menghindari tarif hukuman, yang pada akhirnya menjadikan negara tersebut sebagai entitas yang menjalankan mandat eksternal dari Washington.
INDONESIA = BATAS LIMIT 60%
HapusGOV. DEBT : 40% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 16% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 2,9%
GDP = USD 1,44 TRILIUN
=============
=============
MALAYDESH = BATAS LIMIT 65%
GOV. DEBT : 69% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 84,3% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 3,8%
GDP = USD 416,90 MILIAR
5X PM 6X MOD = 2026 FREEZES - 2023 CANCELLED
-
KEY FACTORS CAUSING INEFFICIENCY AND DELAYS
• Political Interference and Weak Governance: The defense procurement process is often influenced by political agendas rather than strategic military needs. Contracts are frequently awarded through direct negotiation to politically connected companies, bypassing competitive bidding. This practice can lead to the selection of unqualified contractors who lack the technical expertise to complete the projects.
• Lack of Project Management: Many defense projects suffer from poor administration, insufficient oversight, and a lack of a clear, single-point of accountability. This results in a breakdown of communication between the Ministry of Defence, the contractors, and the military end-users. The National Audit Department has consistently highlighted these weaknesses, citing issues such as improper planning and inconsistent monitoring in its reports on public projects.
• Financial Mismanagement: Projects are often plagued by budget overruns due to poor financial estimation from the beginning. Inaccurate cost calculations and the inclusion of unnecessary "agent fees" can inflate project costs significantly, leading to a financial shortfall that causes further delays or requires additional government bailouts.
Case Studies of Gross Inefficiency and Delays
1. The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Project 🚢
The LCS project is the most prominent example of military procurement failure in Malaydesh .
• Delay: The project, to build six ships for the Royal Malaydesh n Navy (RMN) at a cost of RM9 billion, has been severely delayed. Not a single ship has been delivered, despite the project being over a decade behind its original timeline.
• Cost Overrun: Over RM6 billion has been paid to the contractor, yet the first ship is still incomplete. This massive budget overrun is a direct result of poor management and alleged financial misappropriation. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) found that funds were used for purposes other than the project itself.
• Disregard for User Needs: The Royal Malaydesh n Navy's preference for a specific ship design was ignored in favor of a different, unproven design chosen by the politically appointed contractor. This decision led to further technical complications and delays.
2. The Skyhawk Jets Fiasco ✈️
This is a historical but still relevant example of poor decision-making. In the 1980s, Malaydesh purchased 88 second-hand Douglas A-4C and A-4L Skyhawk jets from the United States.
• Inefficiency: Despite the seemingly "cost-effective" nature of the deal, only a small fraction of the aircraft (40 out of 88) ever became operational with the Royal Malaydesh n Air Force (RMAF). The remainder were left in storage, a complete waste of public funds. The King of Malaydesh has recently referenced this historical "flying coffin" mistake as a warning against similar procurement failures.
3. General Infrastructure and Construction Projects
The inefficiency is not limited to major hardware. Even smaller projects, such as military housing and training facilities, are affected. The King of Malaydesh has publicly expressed frustration over a delayed combat diving pool at a Special Operations Group (GGK) camp that was supposed to be completed in 2022 but remains unfinished. This highlights that poor project management and delays are not isolated to large, complex projects but are a pervasive issue across the board.
=============
GOVERNMENT DEBT : 69% of GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 84.3% of GDP
Federal Government Debt
• End of 2024: RM 1.25 trillion
• End of June 2025: RM 1.3 trillion
• Projected Debt-to-GDP: 69% by the end of 2025
Household Debt
• 2025 : RM1.73 trillion, or 85.8% of GDP GDP
INDONESIA = BATAS LIMIT 60%
HapusGOV. DEBT : 40% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 16% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 2,9%
GDP = USD 1,44 TRILIUN
=============
=============
MALAYDESH = BATAS LIMIT 65%
GOV. DEBT : 69% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 84,3% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 3,8%
GDP = USD 416,90 MILIAR
5X PM 6X MOD = 2026 FREEZES - 2023 CANCELLED
-
SYSTEMIC ISSUES
Several factors contribute to this entrenched problem:
• The Role of Middlemen and Agents: A key feature of the Malaydesh n system is the reliance on middlemen, or "agents," who are often politically connected. These individuals or firms insert themselves into deals between the government and foreign arms manufacturers, adding unnecessary commissions and inflating the final price of the assets. As Malaydesh 's King Sultan Ibrahim recently pointed out, this system allows agents to profit at the expense of national defense.
• Political Influence and Cronyism: The awarding of contracts is frequently influenced by political interests rather than the actual needs of the military. Projects are often given to politically connected firms, some of which have no prior experience in defense manufacturing. This leads to a vicious cycle where a lack of capability and experience results in project delays and failures.
The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Scandal: A Case Study
The LCS scandal is a prime example of the deep-seated issues within Malaydesh n defense procurement. The project, intended to build six ships for the Royal Malaydesh n Navy (RMN) at a cost of RM9 billion, has been a complete failure.
• Misappropriation of Funds: The government has already paid over RM6 billion, but not a single ship has been delivered. Forensic audits and a Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report revealed that funds were allegedly misappropriated, with payments made for "fake services" and a significant portion of the money disappearing without a trace.
• Ignoring User Needs: The scandal also highlighted a critical breakdown in communication and a disregard for military expertise. The RMN initially recommended a Dutch-made design (Sigma class), but the Ministry of Defence, under the advice of the main contractor, Boustead Naval Shipyard (BNS), chose a different, unproven French design (Gowind class) instead. This decision was made without the navy's consultation.
• Gross Inefficiency and Delays: The project has been plagued by delays due to BNS's poor financial management, lack of skilled labor, and failure to follow design specifications. The company, which is a subsidiary of a conglomerate with close ties to the Armed Forces Pension Fund, was in a "weak and critical" financial state, yet was still awarded the massive contract. This showcases a complete breakdown of due diligence and project management.
Other Notable Scandals and Issues
The LCS scandal is just one of many that have plagued the MAF.
• Submarine Procurement: A previous submarine deal was also marred by allegations of corruption, with reports of exorbitant commissions paid to local agents.
• Aircraft and Patrol Boats: The MAF has a history of acquiring assets that are either not fully operational upon delivery or are poorly maintained due to a lack of spare parts and technical expertise. This has led to a high number of non-flying aircraft and inoperable patrol boats, essentially leaving the military with expensive, but useless, equipment.
• Lack of Accountability: Despite multiple scandals and reports from the Auditor-General and PAC, there has been a notable lack of accountability. Few, if any, senior politicians or high-ranking military officials have been held responsible for the failures and financial losses. This has fostered a culture where such misconduct is tolerated, and a cynical public has grown desensitized to the issue.
=============
Federal Government Debt
• End of 2024: RM 1.25 trillion
• End of June 2025: RM 1.3 trillion
• Projected Debt-to-GDP: 69% by the end of 2025
Household Debt
• 2025 : RM1.73 trillion, or 85.8% of GDP GDP
INDONESIA = BATAS LIMIT 60%
HapusGOV. DEBT : 40% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 16% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 2,9%
GDP = USD 1,44 TRILIUN
=============
=============
MALAYDESH = BATAS LIMIT 65%
GOV. DEBT : 69% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 84,3% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 3,8%
GDP = USD 416,90 MILIAR
5X PM 6X MOD = 2026 FREEZES - 2023 CANCELLED
-The Malaydesh n military, also known as the Malaydesh n Armed Forces (MAF), faces several significant challenges, which can be categorized into three main areas: procurement and modernization, human resources, and defense policy.
Procurement and Modernization 💰
A primary issue for the MAF is its aging and obsolete equipment. The country's defense spending has historically been low, and while recent budgets have seen increases, they are often insufficient to cover the extensive modernization needs.
• Financial Constraints: The 1997 Asian financial crisis had a lasting impact, forcing a de-prioritization of defense spending. Despite recent budget increases, competing priorities like healthcare and education often limit the funds available for military upgrades.
• Corruption and Inefficiency: Past procurement projects, such as the Littoral Combat Ship program, have been plagued by delays, cost overruns, and allegations of corruption, which have wasted funds and resulted in a lack of operational assets.
• Aging Inventory: The MAF relies on a mix of equipment from various countries, making maintenance difficult. For example, the Royal Malaydesh n Air Force (RMAF) has struggled to maintain its Russian-made Sukhoi Su-30MKM fighter jets due to sanctions and a lack of spare parts. The country also retired its MiG-29s without a timely replacement, creating a significant capability gap.
Human Resources 🧍
Recruitment and personnel issues are another major problem for the MAF, affecting its overall readiness and capability.
• Recruitment Challenges: The military has difficulty attracting and retaining high-quality personnel. This is partly due to low wages and poor living conditions. The quality of candidates has been a concern, with a declining pool of eligible recruits.
• Ethnic Imbalance: There is a significant ethnic disparity in the armed forces, with a very low percentage of non-Malay recruits. This could affect national unity and the military's ability to represent the country's diverse population.
• Personnel Well-being: There are ongoing concerns about the well-being and welfare of military personnel, including work-life balance issues and the need for better mental health support.
Defense Policy and Strategic Challenges 🗺️
The MAF operates in a complex regional environment with evolving security threats.
• South China Sea Disputes: Malaydesh has overlapping territorial claims with China in the South China Sea. China's increasingly aggressive "grey-zone" tactics—using coast guard vessels and fishing militia to assert its claims—are a major challenge that the MAF is not fully equipped to handle.
• Non-Traditional Threats: While traditionally an army-centric force due to a history of internal counter-insurgency, the MAF must now pivot to address maritime and cyber threats. This requires a re-calibration of its force structure and a focus on new technologies like drones, cyber warfare, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities.
• Political Instability: Frequent changes in government have led to a lack of continuity in defense policy and the slow implementation of key reforms outlined in the country's first Defence White Paper. This political instability can stall long-term projects and strategic planning.
=============
GOVERNMENT DEBT : 69% of GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 84.3% of GDP
Federal Government Debt
• End of 2024: RM 1.25 trillion
• End of June 2025: RM 1.3 trillion
• Projected Debt-to-GDP: 69% by the end of 2025
Household Debt
• 2025 : RM1.73 trillion, or 85.8% of GDP GDP
INDONESIA = BATAS LIMIT 60%
HapusGOV. DEBT : 40% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 16% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 2,9%
GDP = USD 1,44 TRILIUN
=============
=============
MALAYDESH = BATAS LIMIT 65%
GOV. DEBT : 69% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 84,3% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 3,8%
GDP = USD 416,90 MILIAR
5X PM 6X MOD = 2026 FREEZES - 2023 CANCELLED
-
OVERLIMITS DEBT = MELARAT SEKARAT = SEWA
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT = PER PEOPLE : RM 36,139
HOUSEHOLD DEBT = PER PEOPLE : RM 45,859.
GOV + HOUSEHOLD = PER PEOPLE : RM 81,998
--------------------
1️⃣ DATA YANG DIGUNAKAN
• Utang akhir 2024: RM 1.25 triliun
• Utang akhir Juni 2025: RM 1.30 triliun
• Jumlah penduduk Malaydesh 2025 (perkiraan pertengahan tahun): 35,977,838 jiwa
2️⃣ Perhitungan utang per penduduk
1.30 triliun = 1,300,000,000,000
Per Orang = 1,300,000,000,000/35,977,838 : RM 36,139 per orang
--------------------
1️⃣ DATA YANG DIGUNAKAN
• Utang rumah tangga (akhir Maret 2025): RM 1.65 triliun
• Persentase terhadap PDB: 84.3%
• Jumlah penduduk Malaydesh pertengahan 2025: 35,977,838 jiwa
2️⃣ Perhitungan utang per penduduk
Utang per orang =1,650,000,000,000/35,977,838 : RM 45,859 per orang
-------------------
KEY FACTORS
1. Direct Negotiation and Lack of Open Tenders
A major problem is the frequent use of direct negotiation instead of open and competitive tenders. This practice, often justified under the pretext of national security, limits competition and reduces transparency. By bypassing the tender process, the government loses the ability to secure the best value for money, and it creates a fertile ground for corruption.
• Example: The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) scandal is a prime example. The multi-billion ringgit contract was awarded through direct negotiation, with a parliamentary inquiry later revealing that the decision ignored the navy's preference for a different ship design.
________________________________________
2. The Role of Middlemen and Agents
The procurement process is often riddled with intermediaries or agents who act as go-betweens for the military and foreign contractors. These middlemen, often with political connections or being former military personnel, add significant markups to the cost of equipment. This practice inflates prices, wastes public funds, and has been a major source of controversy. The King of Malaydesh himself has publicly criticized this issue, warning against the influence of "agents and salesmen" in the Defence Ministry.
________________________________________
3. Financial Mismanagement and Weak Oversight
Government audits have consistently revealed systemic financial mismanagement.
• Failure to Collect Penalties: Audit reports have shown that the government failed to impose and collect penalties for delayed deliveries from contractors. In one case, a contractor for armored vehicles did not face a penalty of over RM160 million despite significant delays.
• Contract Splitting: To avoid the scrutiny of larger contracts, some projects are broken down into smaller ones, a practice known as "contract splitting." This allows them to bypass the open tender threshold and be awarded through less rigorous methods, raising concerns about accountability.
• Misappropriation of Funds: In the LCS scandal, a significant portion of the project's funds were allegedly used to pay off debts from old, unrelated naval projects, showcasing a severe lack of financial discipline.
=============
GOVERNMENT DEBT : 69% of GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 84.3% of GDP
Federal Government Debt
• End of 2024: RM 1.25 trillion
• End of June 2025: RM 1.3 trillion
• Projected Debt-to-GDP: 69% by the end of 2025
Household Debt
• 2025 : RM1.73 trillion, or 85.8% of GDP GDP
INDONESIA = BATAS LIMIT 60%
HapusGOV. DEBT : 40% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 16% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 2,9%
GDP = USD 1,44 TRILIUN
=============
=============
MALAYDESH = BATAS LIMIT 65%
GOV. DEBT : 69% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 84,3% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 3,8%
GDP = USD 416,90 MILIAR
5X PM 6X MOD = 2026 FREEZES - 2023 CANCELLED
-THE MALAYDESH MILITARY HAS A SIGNIFICANT CAPABILITY GAP IN ITS COUNTER-INSURGENCY (COIN) AIRCRAFT FLEET, PRIMARILY DUE TO THE AGING AND LIMITED NUMBER OF LIGHT COMBAT AND SURVEILLANCE PLATFORMS SUITABLE FOR THIS TYPE OF ASYMMETRIC WARFARE.
1. Lack of Dedicated COIN Aircraft
Unlike a dedicated air force built for large-scale conventional warfare, a successful COIN force requires aircraft optimized for a unique set of missions:
• Low and Slow: COIN operations often occur in dense jungle or urban environments where fast jets are ineffective. They require aircraft that can fly low and slow to provide close air support and accurate surveillance.
• Persistent Presence: COIN aircraft must be able to loiter for extended periods to track insurgents and provide sustained support to ground troops.
• Cost-Effectiveness: Using expensive, high-performance fighter jets like the Su-30MKM for COIN missions is a significant waste of resources.
The Royal Malaydesh Air Force (RMAF) lacks a dedicated fleet of such aircraft. Its existing fleet is more suited for air defense and conventional warfare, creating a mismatch between its capabilities and the specific demands of counter-insurgency.
________________________________________
2. Aging Fleet and Reliance on Other Assets
The RMAF's current inventory is not well-suited for the COIN role, forcing it to rely on a mix of aging platforms and less-than-ideal helicopters.
• Retired Aircraft: The RMAF has retired dedicated COIN aircraft like the Canadair CT-114 Tutor. This leaves a major gap that has not been adequately filled.
• Helicopter Gaps: While the Army operates light attack helicopters like the MD530G, these are limited in their range, endurance, and payload. This places a heavy burden on a small fleet to support ground forces over vast and often difficult terrain.
________________________________________
3. Delays in New Acquisitions
Malaydesh is actively trying to address this gap, but procurement has been slow and challenging.
• FA-50M Purchase: The RMAF is acquiring 18 FA-50M light combat aircraft from Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI). These jets are intended to fulfill both a fighter lead-in trainer role and a light combat role. However, deliveries are not expected to begin until 2026. This leaves the RMAF with a capability gap in the interim.
• Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs): Malaydesh has made some progress in acquiring drones for surveillance, but these still do not fully replace the role of a manned COIN aircraft, which can provide more direct and immediate fire support.
=============
GOVERNMENT DEBT : 69% of GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 84.3% of GDP
Federal Government Debt
• End of 2024: RM 1.25 trillion
• End of June 2025: RM 1.3 trillion
• Projected Debt-to-GDP: 69% by the end of 2025
Household Debt
• 2025 : RM1.73 trillion, or 85.8% of GDP GDP
INDONESIA = BATAS LIMIT 60%
HapusGOV. DEBT : 40% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 16% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 2,9%
GDP = USD 1,44 TRILIUN
=============
=============
MALAYDESH = BATAS LIMIT 65%
GOV. DEBT : 69% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 84,3% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 3,8%
GDP = USD 416,90 MILIAR
5X PM 6X MOD = 2026 FREEZES - 2023 CANCELLED
-
THE MALAYDESH MILITARY FACES SEVERAL CRUCIAL, INTERRELATED PROBLEMS THAT AFFECT ITS OVERALL READINESS AND CAPABILITY. THESE ISSUES STEM FROM A COMBINATION OF CHRONIC UNDERFUNDING, A COMPLICATED PROCUREMENT PROCESS, AND A FRAGMENTED APPROACH TO MILITARY DEVELOPMENT.
1. Inefficient and Opaque Procurement
The most significant problem facing the Malaydesh military is its procurement system. It's often criticized for a lack of transparency and a reliance on middlemen or agents, which leads to inflated prices and projects that fail to meet the military's actual needs.
• Cost Overruns and Delays: Projects, most notably the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program, have been plagued by severe delays and massive cost overruns. None of the six ships have been delivered, despite significant payments. This has left the Royal Malaydesh Navy (RMN) with an aging fleet, as many of its vessels are over 40 years old.
• "Middlemen" and Corruption: King Sultan Ibrahim has publicly criticized the involvement of agents and salesmen in defense deals, stating that these practices lead to "unreasonable" prices and purchases that don't fit the military's needs. This has raised concerns about corruption and inefficiency within the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF).
________________________________________
2. An Aging Fleet and Logistical Challenges
The Malaydesh Armed Forces (MAF) operates a mixed fleet of military assets from a wide range of international suppliers. This lack of standardization creates a logistical nightmare.
• Fragmentation of Supply Chains: The military has equipment from various countries, including Russia, the United States, Poland, and China. Each platform requires different spare parts, tools, and maintenance expertise.
• Low Operational Readiness: Many of the Navy's vessels and Air Force's combat jets are well past their service life, leading to higher maintenance costs and a lower operational readiness rate.
• Reliance on Foreign Support: Due to a lack of local expertise, Malaydesh is highly dependent on foreign suppliers for critical maintenance and spare parts, making the military vulnerable to supply chain disruptions, such as international sanctions.
________________________________________
3. Capability Gaps and Lack of Specialization
The MAF has key capability gaps in crucial areas due to its historical focus on counter-insurgency and a lack of a unified doctrine.
• No Dedicated Marine Corps: Malaydesh lacks a dedicated Marine Corps. Its amphibious capabilities are fragmented and distributed between the Army and Navy. This creates coordination problems and limits the ability to rapidly project power and respond to maritime threats, a significant vulnerability for an archipelagic nation.
• Limited Tank Fleet: The Army's tank force is limited to approximately 48 PT-91M Pendekar tanks. This small number restricts their strategic deployment and makes them less effective in a large-scale land conflict compared to neighbors with larger tank fleets.
• COIN Aircraft Gap: The Air Force lacks a dedicated fleet of Counter-Insurgency (COIN) aircraft. It's forced to use expensive multi-role fighter jets for low-intensity conflicts, which is inefficient. While a new batch of FA-50M light combat aircraft is on order, deliveries are not expected for several years.
=============
Federal Government Debt
• End of 2024: RM 1.25 trillion
• End of June 2025: RM 1.3 trillion
• Projected Debt-to-GDP: 69% by the end of 2025
Household Debt
2025 : RM1.73 trillion, or 85.8% of GDP GDP
INDONESIA = BATAS LIMIT 60%
HapusGOV. DEBT : 40% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 16% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 2,9%
GDP = USD 1,44 TRILIUN
=============
=============
MALAYDESH = BATAS LIMIT 65%
GOV. DEBT : 69% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 84,3% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 3,8%
GDP = USD 416,90 MILIAR
5X PM 6X MOD = 2026 FREEZES - 2023 CANCELLED
-
⚔️ Key Problems of the Malaydesh n Armed Forces
________________________________________
1. Outdated Equipment → Modernization Delayed for Decades
• Air Force (RMAF):
o Retired MiG-29s in 2017 due to high costs.
o Current frontline jets: Su-30MKM (2007) and F/A-18D Hornet (1997) — small fleet, aging, and expensive to maintain.
o Still waiting for FA-50 light combat aircraft, deliveries only starting in 2026.
o Weak surveillance capability → lacks modern maritime patrol aircraft and AWACS.
• Navy (RMN):
o Many ships date from the 1980s–90s (Lekiu-class frigates, Kasturi-class corvettes).
o Only 2 Scorpène submarines, insufficient to cover Malaydesh vast waters.
o Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) scandal froze modernization — billions spent, no ships delivered.
• Army:
o Still operates Condor APCs from the 1980s.
o AV8 Gempita is modern but only partially deployed.
o Lacks modern long-range artillery and medium/long-range air defense systems.
Impact: The MAF has been stuck with aging platforms, while neighbors upgrade to Rafales, F-35s, Gripens, modern submarines, and frigates. Malaydesh risks being outclassed in any regional confrontation.
________________________________________
2. Low Defense Budget → Insufficient for High-Tech Upgrades
• Malaydesh spends only 1.0–1.5% of GDP on defense.
o Singapore spends ~3%, Vietnam ~2.3%, Thailand ~1.5%.
• Of this budget, more than half goes to salaries, pensions, and operations → leaving little for modernization.
• Modern assets (jets, ships, submarines) require long-term investment, but Malaydesh often cuts or delays purchases due to economic pressures.
• Example: MRCA fighter program (to replace MiG-29s) has been delayed for over a decade.
Impact: Malaydesh cannot keep pace with regional military spending. Modernization becomes piecemeal, leaving gaps in readiness and deterrence.
________________________________________
3. Maritime Security Challenges → China & Piracy Overstretch the Navy
• South China Sea (SCS):
o China’s Coast Guard and Navy frequently intrude into Malaydesh EEZ, especially around Luconia Shoals.
o Malaydesh has overlapping maritime claims with China, Vietnam, and the Philippines.
• Strait of Malacca:
o One of the busiest shipping lanes in the world.
o Vulnerable to piracy, smuggling, human trafficking, and illegal fishing.
• Navy Limitations:
o Small, aging fleet cannot patrol both SCS and Malacca Strait effectively.
o Relies heavily on offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) that lack strong firepower.
o Only 2 submarines → insufficient deterrent against China or other navies.
Impact: Malaydesh struggles to enforce sovereignty over its waters. The Navy is stretched thin, unable to cover vast sea areas against both traditional (China) and non-traditional (piracy) threats.
INDONESIA = BATAS LIMIT 60%
HapusGOV. DEBT : 40% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 16% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 2,9%
GDP = USD 1,44 TRILIUN
=============
=============
MALAYDESH = BATAS LIMIT 65%
GOV. DEBT : 69% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 84,3% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 3,8%
GDP = USD 416,90 MILIAR
5X PM 6X MOD = 2026 FREEZES - 2023 CANCELLED
-
⚠️ Crucial Problems of the Malaydesh n Armed Forces
________________________________________
Outdated Equipment & Modernization Delays
• Many of Malaydesh major platforms are 30–40 years old:
o Army still operates Condor APCs (1980s).
o Navy relies on Lekiu-class frigates (1990s) and Kasturi-class corvettes (1980s).
o Air Force’s frontline jets are limited to Su-30MKMs (2007) and F/A-18Ds (1997).
• Modernization plans like the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program and MRCA fighter jet replacement have been delayed for over a decade.
• Result: MAF cannot match regional peers who are buying F-35s (Singapore), Rafales (Indonesia), Gripens (Thailand), and new submarines (Vietnam).
________________________________________
Low Defense Budget Compared to Needs
• Malaydesh spends only ~1.0–1.5% of GDP on defense.
o Lower than Singapore (~3%), Vietnam (~2.3%), Thailand (~1.5%).
• Budget prioritizes salaries and pensions, leaving little for modernization.
• Procurement of high-tech systems (jets, frigates, missile defense) is constantly delayed due to lack of funds.
• Result: MAF struggles to maintain readiness and replace aging equipment.
________________________________________
Maritime Security Challenges in the Strait of Malacca & South China Sea
• Malaydesh has one of the largest Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) in Southeast Asia (~334,000 km²).
• Challenges:
o China’s Coast Guard & Navy regularly intrude near Luconia Shoals.
o Piracy, smuggling, and illegal fishing in the Strait of Malacca.
o Overlapping claims with neighbors (Philippines & Indonesia).
• Navy and Coast Guard (MMEA) lack enough ships to patrol effectively.
• Result: Malaydesh struggles to enforce sovereignty over its maritime territory.
________________________________________
Recruitment & Retention Issues
• Active personnel: ~110,000, but facing manpower challenges.
• Problems:
o Low pay and benefits compared to private sector.
o Younger generation less interested in military careers.
o Difficulty retaining skilled personnel (pilots, engineers, cyber specialists).
• Aging force → fewer young recruits, some early retirements.
• Result: Talent drain weakens technical arms of the military.
________________________________________
Weak Inter-Service Integration
• Army, Navy, and Air Force often operate independently.
• Malaydesh lacks a strong Joint Command system like the U.S. or Singapore.
• Limited ability to conduct complex, multi-domain operations (e.g., joint land-sea-air campaigns).
• Training and exercises are improving but still service-centric.
• Result: Reduced efficiency in responding to hybrid or conventional threats.
INDONESIA = BATAS LIMIT 60%
HapusGOV. DEBT : 40% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 16% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 2,9%
GDP = USD 1,44 TRILIUN
=============
=============
MALAYDESH = BATAS LIMIT 65%
GOV. DEBT : 69% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 84,3% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 3,8%
GDP = USD 416,90 MILIAR
5X PM 6X MOD = 2026 FREEZES - 2023 CANCELLED
-
Dependence on Foreign Defense Suppliers
• Malaydesh imports nearly all high-tech defense equipment:
o Jets from Russia, U.S., South Korea.
o Submarines & ships from France.
o Armored vehicles in partnership with Turkey.
• Spare parts and upgrades depend on foreign suppliers, making maintenance costly and vulnerable to sanctions or political disputes.
• Example: MiG-29s retired early due to lack of spare parts.
• Result: Malaydesh has limited strategic autonomy in defense.
________________________________________
Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities
• Malaydesh faces cyber threats from state actors, hackers, and extremist groups.
• Weaknesses:
o Limited investment in cyber defense.
o Few trained cyber specialists.
o Weak integration of cyber defense with traditional military operations.
• Rising threat of hybrid warfare (information warfare, disinformation, espionage) in South China Sea disputes.
• Result: Malaydesh risks having its critical systems disrupted in a conflict.
________________________________________
Corruption & Procurement Scandals
• Defense procurement plagued by corruption and mismanagement:
o Scorpène Submarine Deal (2002): RM 500 million in commissions.
o Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) scandal (2011–present): RM 9 billion spent, no ships delivered as of 2025.
• Middlemen and commissions inflate costs, reduce the number of assets purchased.
• Political interference often overrides military requirements.
• Result: Billions wasted, modernization delayed, public trust eroded.
________________________________________
Overstretch Due to Non-Traditional Roles
• MAF frequently tasked with:
o Disaster relief (floods, earthquakes).
o Border control (illegal migrants, smuggling).
o Counterterrorism (Abu Sayyaf threat in Sabah).
o Pandemic support (COVID-19 operations).
• These tasks divert focus and resources from conventional defense.
• With limited assets, balancing both traditional and non-traditional roles is difficult.
• Result: Military readiness for external threats is weakened.
________________________________________
✅ Summary
The Malaydesh n Armed Forces face nine interconnected problems:
1. Outdated equipment → modernization delayed for decades.
2. Low defense budget → insufficient for high-tech upgrades.
3. Maritime security challenges → China & piracy overstretch Navy.
4. Recruitment & retention issues → talent drain in technical fields.
5. Weak inter-service integration → poor joint operations capability.
6. Dependence on foreign suppliers → costly, politically risky.
7. Cybersecurity vulnerabilities → exposed to hybrid threats.
8. Corruption & scandals → billions wasted, modernization crippled.
9. Overstretch from non-traditional roles → weak focus on external defense.
INDONESIA = BATAS LIMIT 60%
HapusGOV. DEBT : 40% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 16% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 2,9%
GDP = USD 1,44 TRILIUN
=============
=============
MALAYDESH = BATAS LIMIT 65%
GOV. DEBT : 69% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 84,3% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 3,8%
GDP = USD 416,90 MILIAR
5X PM 6X MOD = 2026 FREEZES - 2023 CANCELLED
-
✈️ REDUCED AIR POWER
Malaydesh ’s Air Force (RMAF) is falling behind in Southeast Asia’s fast-changing air combat environment.
Current Situation
• Retired MiG-29s (2017) → left a gap in frontline fighters.
• Su-30MKM (18 units) → capable, but plagued by low serviceability due to reliance on Russian parts and high maintenance costs.
• F/A-18D Hornet (8 units) → effective, but small fleet (from 1997).
• Transport & surveillance aircraft → aging Hercules C-130s and very limited maritime patrol capability.
• Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) → Malaydesh ordered 18 FA-50s from South Korea, but deliveries will only start in 2026.
Problems
• Fighter fleet is too small and partly obsolete.
• No long-range air defense systems → vulnerable to modern missile and drone warfare.
• No modern AWACS (Airborne Warning & Control System).
Regional Comparison
• Singapore: Operates F-15SGs and F-16Vs, ordered F-35Bs (5th-gen stealth).
• Indonesia: Ordered 42 Rafales and 24 F-15EX jets; also considering KF-21 future fighter.
• Thailand: Operates Gripen C/D jets with modern datalink capability.
👉 Malaydesh ’s Risk: Falls behind in both numbers and technology. In a regional conflict, its Air Force could struggle to defend airspace, provide close air support, or deter aggressors.
INDONESIA = BATAS LIMIT 60%
BalasHapusGOV. DEBT : 40% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 16% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 2,9%
GDP = USD 1,44 TRILIUN
=============
=============
MALAYDESH = BATAS LIMIT 65%
GOV. DEBT : 69% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 84,3% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 3,8%
GDP = USD 416,90 MILIAR
5X PM 6X MOD = 2026 FREEZES - 2023 CANCELLED
-
Dependence on Foreign Defense Suppliers
• Malaydesh imports nearly all high-tech defense equipment:
o Jets from Russia, U.S., South Korea.
o Submarines & ships from France.
o Armored vehicles in partnership with Turkey.
• Spare parts and upgrades depend on foreign suppliers, making maintenance costly and vulnerable to sanctions or political disputes.
• Example: MiG-29s retired early due to lack of spare parts.
• Result: Malaydesh has limited strategic autonomy in defense.
________________________________________
Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities
• Malaydesh faces cyber threats from state actors, hackers, and extremist groups.
• Weaknesses:
o Limited investment in cyber defense.
o Few trained cyber specialists.
o Weak integration of cyber defense with traditional military operations.
• Rising threat of hybrid warfare (information warfare, disinformation, espionage) in South China Sea disputes.
• Result: Malaydesh risks having its critical systems disrupted in a conflict.
________________________________________
Corruption & Procurement Scandals
• Defense procurement plagued by corruption and mismanagement:
o Scorpène Submarine Deal (2002): RM 500 million in commissions.
o Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) scandal (2011–present): RM 9 billion spent, no ships delivered as of 2025.
• Middlemen and commissions inflate costs, reduce the number of assets purchased.
• Political interference often overrides military requirements.
• Result: Billions wasted, modernization delayed, public trust eroded.
________________________________________
Overstretch Due to Non-Traditional Roles
• MAF frequently tasked with:
o Disaster relief (floods, earthquakes).
o Border control (illegal migrants, smuggling).
o Counterterrorism (Abu Sayyaf threat in Sabah).
o Pandemic support (COVID-19 operations).
• These tasks divert focus and resources from conventional defense.
• With limited assets, balancing both traditional and non-traditional roles is difficult.
• Result: Military readiness for external threats is weakened.
________________________________________
✅ Summary
The Malaydesh n Armed Forces face nine interconnected problems:
1. Outdated equipment → modernization delayed for decades.
2. Low defense budget → insufficient for high-tech upgrades.
3. Maritime security challenges → China & piracy overstretch Navy.
4. Recruitment & retention issues → talent drain in technical fields.
5. Weak inter-service integration → poor joint operations capability.
6. Dependence on foreign suppliers → costly, politically risky.
7. Cybersecurity vulnerabilities → exposed to hybrid threats.
8. Corruption & scandals → billions wasted, modernization crippled.
9. Overstretch from non-traditional roles → weak focus on external defense.
Saya tanya siapa ANTEK ASING sebenarnya..... 🔥🔥🤣🤣🤣
BalasHapusPrabowo sepakat transfer data pribadi warga Indonesia ke AS – Apa saja datanya dan apa risikonya?
https://www.bbc.com/indonesia/articles/c1jwjz15l5wo
ART ..........
HapusSMART DIPLOMACY VERSUS DESPERATE DIPLOMACY
-
1. Perang Diksi: Mutual Agreement vs. Mandatory Compliance
Kedaulatan sebuah negara dalam perjanjian internasional ditentukan oleh kata kerja operatif yang digunakan.
Indonesia (Prinsip Kesetaraan): Menggunakan diksi seperti "Agree to", "Promote", dan "Acknowledge". Dokumen hukum Indonesia menekankan pada koordinasi di mana Undang-Undang Nasional (NKRI) tetap menjadi filter tertinggi. Standar internasional diselaraskan melalui proses adopsi mandiri.
Malaydesh (Klausul "Shall"): Terjebak pada diksi imperatif. Kata "Shall" dalam hukum internasional berarti kewajiban mutlak. Ini menciptakan subordinasi yuridis, di mana parlemen Malaydesh kehilangan hak veto karena harus menyesuaikan aturan domestik dengan standar Washington demi menghindari sanksi.
-
2. Efisiensi Transaksional (ROI Diplomasi)
Data menunjukkan ketimpangan yang mencolok dalam efektivitas negosiasi kedua negara
Nilai Komitmen Investasi
Indonesia: USD 22,7 Miliar (Investasi strategis yang efisien).
Malaydesh: USD 242 Miliar (Beban biaya 10x lipat lebih besar).
Cakupan Produk (Tarif 0%)
Indonesia: 1.819 Produk (Akses pasar lebih luas).
Malaydesh: 1.711 Produk (Akses pasar lebih terbatas).
Rasio Biaya per Produk
Indonesia: ± USD 12,4 Juta (Hasil maksimal dengan biaya rendah).
Malaydesh: ± USD 141,4 Juta (Sangat mahal dan tidak efisien).
Status Hukum dan Posisi Tawar
Indonesia: Mutual Agreement (Hubungan setara sebagai mitra).
Malaydesh: Mandatory Compliance (Hubungan subordinasi/kepatuhan).
Kedaulatan Industri Nasional
Indonesia: Hilirisasi tetap diakui dan dilindungi secara mandiri.
Malaydesh: Wajib adopsi standar AS secara otomatis (Kehilangan filter lokal).
Kemandirian Kebijakan Luar Negeri
Indonesia: Bebas Aktif (Mandiri dalam menentukan mitra dagang).
Malaydesh: Terikat restu pihak ketiga/AS (Kehilangan otonomi geopolitik).
3. Geopolitik: Bebas Aktif vs. Izin Eksklusif
Perbedaan ini menentukan seberapa besar ruang gerak negara di panggung dunia:
Indonesia (Smart Diplomacy): Tetap menjalankan prinsip Bebas Aktif. Indonesia berhasil mengamankan kesepakatan dengan AS tanpa harus memutus hubungan strategis dengan China atau Rusia. Hilirisasi nikel dan kerjasama teknologi tetap berjalan mandiri.
Malaydesh (Remote Control): Melalui klausul pembatasan pihak ketiga, Malaydesh secara implisit harus mencari "restu" Washington sebelum bertransaksi dengan negara yang dianggap rival oleh AS. Ini adalah bentuk Ekstertorialitas Hukum, di mana kepentingan politik luar negeri AS mendikte kebijakan ekonomi Malaydesh.
4. Visi Industri: Hilirisasi vs. Penyedia Bahan Mentah
Indonesia: Memaksa AS mengakui kebijakan Hilirisasi. AS secara resmi menghormati hak Indonesia untuk memberikan nilai tambah pada sumber daya alamnya di dalam negeri.
Malaydesh: Ditekan untuk menjadi penyedia mineral kritis yang stabil bagi industri AS tanpa jaminan pengembangan industri pengolahan lokal. Malaydesh diposisikan sebagai "pelayan" rantai pasok global Amerika.
5. Filter Keamanan & Kesehatan (BPOM/SNI vs. Adopsi Otomatis)
Indonesia: Mempertahankan peran lembaga negara (BPOM, BSN, SNI) sebagai filter produk impor. Standar teknis diselaraskan, tetapi pengujian tetap di bawah otoritas nasional.
Malaydesh: Dipaksa melakukan Adopsi Otomatis terhadap standar keamanan dan kesehatan AS. Hal ini melumpuhkan badan pengawas lokal dan berisiko membanjiri pasar domestik dengan produk yang dapat mematikan petani serta pengusaha kecil lokal.
________________________________________
Kesimpulan
Indonesia menjalankan Diplomasi Transaksional-Strategis yang cerdas, di mana setiap dolar yang dikeluarkan menghasilkan proteksi hukum bagi kedaulatan nasional. Sebaliknya, Malaydesh terjebak dalam Diplomasi Defensif (Desperate), di mana mereka mengorbankan kemandirian legislatif hanya untuk menghindari tarif hukuman, yang pada akhirnya menjadikan negara tersebut sebagai entitas yang menjalankan mandat eksternal dari Washington.
MITRA SETARA versus VASAL EKONOMI
Hapus-
perbandingan strategi diplomasi antara Indonesia dan Malaydesh dalam format daftar sistematis:
-
1. Perang Diksi: Kedaulatan vs. Subordinasi
Perbedaan penggunaan kata kerja operatif dalam dokumen hukum menentukan posisi tawar sebuah negara:
Indonesia (Mutual Recognition): Menggunakan diksi seperti "Agree to", "Promote", dan "Acknowledge". Ini menciptakan hubungan koordinasi di mana hukum nasional (NKRI) tetap menjadi otoritas tertinggi.
Malaydesh (Mandatory Compliance): Terjebak pada diksi "Shall" dan "Automatically recognize". Ini menciptakan hubungan subordinasi (atasan-bawahan) yang memaksa perubahan hukum domestik demi kepentingan asing.
-
2. Efisiensi Transaksional (ROI Diplomasi)
Indonesia membuktikan bahwa diplomasi cerdas jauh lebih berdaya guna daripada sekadar "membeli" akses:
Indonesia: Mengeluarkan investasi USD 22,7 Miliar untuk mengamankan tarif 0% bagi 1.819 produk.
Malaydesh: Terpaksa membayar "upeti modern" sebesar USD 242 Miliar (10x lipat lebih mahal) namun hanya mendapatkan tarif 0% untuk 1.711 produk.
-
3. Geopolitik: Bebas Aktif vs. Izin Eksklusif
Kemandirian dalam menentukan mitra dagang menjadi pembeda utama:
Indonesia: Menjamin hak untuk berdagang dengan pihak ketiga (China/Rusia) tanpa intervensi. Diplomasi Prabowo memastikan Indonesia tetap menjadi jembatan antara Barat dan Timur.
Malaydesh: Wajib berkonsultasi dan mencari "restu" Washington sebelum berhubungan dengan negara Non-Market Economy. Ini merupakan penggadaian kedaulatan politik luar negeri.
-
4. Visi Ekonomi: Hilirisasi vs. Penyedia Bahan Mentah
Arah pembangunan industri jangka panjang ditentukan dari klausul sumber daya:
Indonesia: Berhasil memaksa AS mengakui hak Hilirisasi. AS secara resmi menghormati kebijakan nilai tambah domestik Indonesia.
Malaydesh: Ditekan untuk menjamin pasokan mineral kritis tanpa henti ke AS, memposisikan diri sebagai "pelayan" bahan mentah bagi industri Amerika.
-
5. Perlindungan Industri Dalam Negeri
Indonesia: Mempertahankan peran BPOM, BSN, dan SNI sebagai filter produk impor. Standar diselaraskan, bukan diterima mentah-mentah.
Malaydesh: Melumpuhkan badan pengawas lokal melalui pengakuan otomatis terhadap standar AS, yang berisiko mematikan petani dan pengusaha lokal.
________________________________________
Kesimpulan Akhir:
Indonesia menjalankan Smart Diplomacy yang bersifat transaksional-strategis, memosisikan diri sebagai "Mitra Setara" yang menang secara kuantitatif maupun kualitatif. Sebaliknya, Malaydesh terjebak dalam Desperate Diplomacy yang bersifat defensif, menjadikannya sebagai "Vasal Ekonomi" yang kehilangan kemandirian hukum dan sumber daya
INDONESIA = BATAS LIMIT 60%
HapusGOV. DEBT : 40% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 16% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 2,9%
GDP = USD 1,44 TRILIUN
=============
=============
MALAYDESH = BATAS LIMIT 65%
GOV. DEBT : 69% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 84,3% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 3,8%
GDP = USD 416,90 MILIAR
5X PM 6X MOD = 2026 FREEZES - 2023 CANCELLED
-
DATA STATISTA 2029-2020 : INCREASE DEBT
DATA STATISTA 2029-2020 : INCREASE DEBT
2029 = 438,09 BILLION USD
2028 = 412,2 BILLION USD
2027 = 386,51 BILLION USD
2026 = 362,19 BILLION USD
2025 = 338,75 BILLION USD
2024 = 316,15 BILLION USD
2023 = 293,83 BILLION USD
2022 = 271,49 BILLION USD
2021 = 247,49 BILLION USD
2020 = 221,49 BILLION USD
-
DATA STATISTA 2029-2020 : DEBT PAY DEBT
DATA STATISTA 2029-2020 : OVERLIMIT DEBT
2029 = 69,54% DEBT RATIO TO GDP
2028 = 69,34% DEBT RATIO TO GDP
2027 = 68,8% DEBT RATIO TO GDP
2026 = 68,17% DEBT RATIO TO GDP
2025 = 68,07% DEBT RATIO TO GDP
2024 = 68,38% DEBT RATIO TO GDP
2023 = 69,76% DEBT RATIO TO GDP
2022 = 65,5% DEBT RATIO TO GDP
2021 = 69,16% DEBT RATIO TO GDP
2020 = 67,69% DEBT RATIO TO GDP
-
DEBT 2024 = RM 1.63 TRILLION
DEBT 2023 = RM 1,53 TRILLION
DEBT 2022 = RM 1,45 TRILLION
DEBT 2021 = RM 1,38 TRILLION
DEBT 2020 = RM 1,32 TRILLION
DEBT 2019 = RM 1,25 TRILLION
DEBT 2018 = RM 1,19 TRILLION
The Finance Ministry stated that the aggregate national household DEBT stood at RM1.53 trillion between 2018 and 2023. In aggregate, it said the household DEBT for 2022 was RM1.45 trillion, followed by RM1.38 trillion (2021,) RM1.32 trillion (2020), RM1.25 trillion (2019) and RM1.19 trillion (2018). “The ratio of household DEBT to gross domestic product (GDP) at the end of 2023 also slightly increased to 84.3% compared with 82% in 2018,” it said.
-
BNM = HOUSEHOLD DEBT IS ONE OF THE HIGHEST IN THE ASEAN ......
MALAYDESH household DEBT is one of the highest in the ASEAN region. Against this backdrop, Bank Negara MALAYDESH (BNM) safeguards financial stability by monitoring and regulating the lending activity of all financial institutions in MALAYDESH , among other things.
😝😝😝😝😝😝😝😝😝😝😝
KERUK SEHABISNYA... MANTAP TRUMP.... 🔥🔥🤣🤣🤣
BalasHapusFreeport Dapat Izin Tambang Usai 2041, Prabowo Jaga Hubungan Baik dengan AS
https://finance.detik.com/energi/d-8362435/freeport-dapat-izin-tambang-usai-2041-prabowo-jaga-hubungan-baik-dengan-as
MALAYDESH SHALL = GADAI KEDAULATAN
Hapus-
Klausul "Malaydesh Shall" dalam konteks ini adalah bentuk instrumen hukum asimetris yang mengubah perjanjian dagang menjadi "remote control" kebijakan domestik. Berikut adalah penjelasan mendalam mengapa hal ini dianggap sebagai titik jatuhnya kedaulatan Malaydesh:
-
1. Legislasi yang Didikte (Legal Mandate)
Kata "Shall" dalam hukum internasional bersifat imperatif atau wajib. Melalui klausul ini, Amerika Serikat tidak sekadar memberi saran, tetapi mewajibkan Malaydesh untuk mengubah undang-undang nasionalnya agar selaras dengan standar AS. Ini mencakup:
Standar Tenaga Kerja: Malaydesh wajib mengubah aturan serikat buruh dan hak pekerja sesuai permintaan Washington. Jika tidak dilakukan, akses pasar bisa dicabut seketika.
Standar Lingkungan: Malaydesh dipaksa mengadopsi standar emisi dan tata kelola hijau versi AS yang mungkin belum siap diterapkan oleh industri lokal mereka.
-
2. Mekanisme "Rem Blokade" Terhadap Pihak Ketiga
Klausul ini berfungsi sebagai pembatas kedaulatan luar negeri. Malaydesh dilarang membuat kesepakatan strategis (seperti teknologi 5G, semikonduktor, atau mineral kritis) dengan negara yang dianggap sebagai rival oleh AS (China atau Rusia).
Jika Malaydesh melanggar, AS memiliki hak pembatalan sepihak (Unilateral Termination).
Hal ini membuat Malaydesh kehilangan kebijakan luar negeri yang bebas aktif karena mereka harus "meminta izin" secara tersirat kepada Washington sebelum berurusan dengan Beijing.
-
3. Hilangnya Diskresi Nasional (Loss of National Discretion)
Biasanya, sebuah negara berdaulat memiliki hak untuk menentukan standar barang yang masuk atau keluar (SNI di Indonesia). Namun, dengan "Malaydesh Shall", Malaydesh wajib:
Adopsi Standar AS: Mengakui secara otomatis standar keamanan dan kesehatan AS tanpa proses filtrasi mandiri.
Pelonggaran Lisensi: Membuka pintu impor produk pertanian atau teknologi AS tanpa hambatan birokrasi, yang seringkali memukul petani atau pengusaha lokal.
-
4. Perbandingan dengan Indonesia
Berbeda dengan Indonesia yang menggunakan pendekatan "Mutual Agreement" (Kesepakatan Bersama), Malaydesh terjebak dalam pola "Compliance" (Kepatuhan). Indonesia tetap memegang kendali atas regulasi domestiknya melalui prinsip hilirisasi, sementara Malaydesh harus "membedah" aturan dalam negerinya sendiri demi memuaskan syarat-syarat dalam perjanjian tersebut.
Singkatnya: "Malaydesh Shall" adalah bentuk Intervensi Institusional. Malaydesh bukan lagi mitra yang setara, melainkan pelaksana kebijakan yang rancangannya dibuat di Washington. Ini adalah harga mahal yang harus dibayar demi menghindari tarif hukuman 25% dari pemerintahan Trump.
MALAYDESH SHALL = GADAI KEDAULATAN
Hapus-
Klausul "Malaydesh Shall" dalam konteks ini adalah bentuk instrumen hukum asimetris yang mengubah perjanjian dagang menjadi "remote control" kebijakan domestik. Berikut adalah penjelasan mendalam mengapa hal ini dianggap sebagai titik jatuhnya kedaulatan Malaydesh:
-
1. Legislasi yang Didikte (Legal Mandate)
Kata "Shall" dalam hukum internasional bersifat imperatif atau wajib. Melalui klausul ini, Amerika Serikat tidak sekadar memberi saran, tetapi mewajibkan Malaydesh untuk mengubah undang-undang nasionalnya agar selaras dengan standar AS. Ini mencakup:
Standar Tenaga Kerja: Malaydesh wajib mengubah aturan serikat buruh dan hak pekerja sesuai permintaan Washington. Jika tidak dilakukan, akses pasar bisa dicabut seketika.
Standar Lingkungan: Malaydesh dipaksa mengadopsi standar emisi dan tata kelola hijau versi AS yang mungkin belum siap diterapkan oleh industri lokal mereka.
-
2. Mekanisme "Rem Blokade" Terhadap Pihak Ketiga
Klausul ini berfungsi sebagai pembatas kedaulatan luar negeri. Malaydesh dilarang membuat kesepakatan strategis (seperti teknologi 5G, semikonduktor, atau mineral kritis) dengan negara yang dianggap sebagai rival oleh AS (China atau Rusia).
Jika Malaydesh melanggar, AS memiliki hak pembatalan sepihak (Unilateral Termination).
Hal ini membuat Malaydesh kehilangan kebijakan luar negeri yang bebas aktif karena mereka harus "meminta izin" secara tersirat kepada Washington sebelum berurusan dengan Beijing.
-
3. Hilangnya Diskresi Nasional (Loss of National Discretion)
Biasanya, sebuah negara berdaulat memiliki hak untuk menentukan standar barang yang masuk atau keluar (SNI di Indonesia). Namun, dengan "Malaydesh Shall", Malaydesh wajib:
Adopsi Standar AS: Mengakui secara otomatis standar keamanan dan kesehatan AS tanpa proses filtrasi mandiri.
Pelonggaran Lisensi: Membuka pintu impor produk pertanian atau teknologi AS tanpa hambatan birokrasi, yang seringkali memukul petani atau pengusaha lokal.
-
4. Perbandingan dengan Indonesia
Berbeda dengan Indonesia yang menggunakan pendekatan "Mutual Agreement" (Kesepakatan Bersama), Malaydesh terjebak dalam pola "Compliance" (Kepatuhan). Indonesia tetap memegang kendali atas regulasi domestiknya melalui prinsip hilirisasi, sementara Malaydesh harus "membedah" aturan dalam negerinya sendiri demi memuaskan syarat-syarat dalam perjanjian tersebut.
Singkatnya: "Malaydesh Shall" adalah bentuk Intervensi Institusional. Malaydesh bukan lagi mitra yang setara, melainkan pelaksana kebijakan yang rancangannya dibuat di Washington. Ini adalah harga mahal yang harus dibayar demi menghindari tarif hukuman 25% dari pemerintahan Trump.
INDONESIA = BATAS LIMIT 60%
HapusGOV. DEBT : 40% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 16% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 2,9%
GDP = USD 1,44 TRILIUN
=============
=============
MALAYDESH = BATAS LIMIT 65%
GOV. DEBT : 69% OF GDP
HOUSEHOLD DEBT : 84,3% OF GDP
DEFISIT : 3,8%
GDP = USD 416,90 MILIAR
5X PM 6X MOD = 2026 FREEZES - 2023 CANCELLED
-
MALAYDESH = BATAS LIMIT 65%
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
OVERLIMIT DEBT = DEFISIT SEJAK 1998
MALAYDESH SHALL = GADAI KEDAULATAN
BalasHapus-
Klausul "Malaydesh Shall" dalam konteks ini adalah bentuk instrumen hukum asimetris yang mengubah perjanjian dagang menjadi "remote control" kebijakan domestik. Berikut adalah penjelasan mendalam mengapa hal ini dianggap sebagai titik jatuhnya kedaulatan Malaydesh:
-
1. Legislasi yang Didikte (Legal Mandate)
Kata "Shall" dalam hukum internasional bersifat imperatif atau wajib. Melalui klausul ini, Amerika Serikat tidak sekadar memberi saran, tetapi mewajibkan Malaydesh untuk mengubah undang-undang nasionalnya agar selaras dengan standar AS. Ini mencakup:
Standar Tenaga Kerja: Malaydesh wajib mengubah aturan serikat buruh dan hak pekerja sesuai permintaan Washington. Jika tidak dilakukan, akses pasar bisa dicabut seketika.
Standar Lingkungan: Malaydesh dipaksa mengadopsi standar emisi dan tata kelola hijau versi AS yang mungkin belum siap diterapkan oleh industri lokal mereka.
-
2. Mekanisme "Rem Blokade" Terhadap Pihak Ketiga
Klausul ini berfungsi sebagai pembatas kedaulatan luar negeri. Malaydesh dilarang membuat kesepakatan strategis (seperti teknologi 5G, semikonduktor, atau mineral kritis) dengan negara yang dianggap sebagai rival oleh AS (China atau Rusia).
Jika Malaydesh melanggar, AS memiliki hak pembatalan sepihak (Unilateral Termination).
Hal ini membuat Malaydesh kehilangan kebijakan luar negeri yang bebas aktif karena mereka harus "meminta izin" secara tersirat kepada Washington sebelum berurusan dengan Beijing.
-
3. Hilangnya Diskresi Nasional (Loss of National Discretion)
Biasanya, sebuah negara berdaulat memiliki hak untuk menentukan standar barang yang masuk atau keluar (SNI di Indonesia). Namun, dengan "Malaydesh Shall", Malaydesh wajib:
Adopsi Standar AS: Mengakui secara otomatis standar keamanan dan kesehatan AS tanpa proses filtrasi mandiri.
Pelonggaran Lisensi: Membuka pintu impor produk pertanian atau teknologi AS tanpa hambatan birokrasi, yang seringkali memukul petani atau pengusaha lokal.
-
4. Perbandingan dengan Indonesia
Berbeda dengan Indonesia yang menggunakan pendekatan "Mutual Agreement" (Kesepakatan Bersama), Malaydesh terjebak dalam pola "Compliance" (Kepatuhan). Indonesia tetap memegang kendali atas regulasi domestiknya melalui prinsip hilirisasi, sementara Malaydesh harus "membedah" aturan dalam negerinya sendiri demi memuaskan syarat-syarat dalam perjanjian tersebut.
Singkatnya: "Malaydesh Shall" adalah bentuk Intervensi Institusional. Malaydesh bukan lagi mitra yang setara, melainkan pelaksana kebijakan yang rancangannya dibuat di Washington. Ini adalah harga mahal yang harus dibayar demi menghindari tarif hukuman 25% dari pemerintahan Trump.
MALAYDESH SHALL ....
BalasHapus-
"Malaydesh Shall" terhadap kedaulatan hukum (Legislative Sovereignty) menunjukkan pergeseran dari negara hukum yang mandiri menjadi entitas yang menjalankan mandat eksternal.
Berikut adalah 4 dampak spesifik yang meruntuhkan kedaulatan legislatif Malaydesh:
-
1. Mekanisme "Remote Control" Legislasi
Dalam hukum internasional, penggunaan diksi "Shall" menciptakan kewajiban hukum yang mengikat (legal obligation).
Dampak: Parlemen Malaydesh kehilangan hak veto. Jika AS meminta perubahan pada Trade Unions Act atau regulasi lingkungan, Parlemen hanya berfungsi sebagai "tukang stempel" untuk meratifikasi keinginan Washington.
Risiko: Munculnya fenomena Legislasi Bayangan, di mana draf undang-undang tidak lagi disusun berdasarkan aspirasi rakyat lokal, melainkan berdasarkan standar yang ditetapkan oleh United States Trade Representative (USTR) agar terhindar dari sanksi.
-
2. Hilangnya "Policy Space" (Ruang Kebijakan)
Kedaulatan sebuah negara diukur dari kemampuannya menentukan kebijakan publik demi kepentingan nasional (National Interest).
Dampak: Dengan klausul "Malaydesh Shall", negara kehilangan ruang untuk melindungi industri strategis atau UMKM. Misalnya, jika Malaydesh ingin memberikan subsidi atau proteksi pada petani lokal, hal ini bisa dianggap pelanggaran komitmen jika bertentangan dengan standar AS.
Konsekuensi: Kebijakan ekonomi domestik menjadi "Pre-empted" (terdahului) oleh perjanjian internasional, sehingga negara tidak lagi memiliki diskresi untuk merespons krisis domestik secara mandiri.
-
3. Erosi Otoritas Judisial dan Standar Nasional
Biasanya, standarisasi produk (seperti SNI di Indonesia) melalui proses filtrasi ketat oleh lembaga nasional.
Dampak: Malaydesh dipaksa melakukan Adopsi Otomatis terhadap standar keamanan, kesehatan, dan teknis AS. Lembaga sertifikasi nasional Malaydesh kehilangan fungsinya sebagai filter kedaulatan.
Yurisdiksi: Jika terjadi sengketa, penafsirannya seringkali merujuk pada standar internasional yang didominasi negara maju, bukan pada nilai-nilai atau kebutuhan spesifik hukum domestik Malaydesh.
-
4. Intervensi Institusional melalui Komitmen Pihak Ketiga
Klausul ini seringkali mencakup pembatasan interaksi dengan "Negara Non-Pasar" atau rival geopolitik AS.
Dampak: Malaydesh secara hukum dilarang membuat undang-undang atau perjanjian dagang yang menguntungkan pihak ketiga (seperti China atau Rusia) di sektor sensitif (5G, AI, Semikonduktor).
Analisis: Ini adalah Ekstertorialitas Hukum, di mana hukum AS berlaku di wilayah Malaydesh melalui instrumen perjanjian dagang, membatasi kemampuan Malaydesh untuk menjalankan kebijakan luar negeri yang bebas aktif.
________________________________________
Kesimpulan: "Malaydesh Shall" secara efektif mengubah status Malaydesh dari negara yang Berdaulat Hukum menjadi negara yang Patuh Hukum terhadap agenda global. Ini adalah bentuk kolonialisme digital dan legislatif di era modern.
MALAYDESH SHALL = GADAI KEDAULATAN
BalasHapus-
Klausul "Malaydesh Shall" dalam konteks ini adalah bentuk instrumen hukum asimetris yang mengubah perjanjian dagang menjadi "remote control" kebijakan domestik. Berikut adalah penjelasan mendalam mengapa hal ini dianggap sebagai titik jatuhnya kedaulatan Malaydesh:
-
1. Legislasi yang Didikte (Legal Mandate)
Kata "Shall" dalam hukum internasional bersifat imperatif atau wajib. Melalui klausul ini, Amerika Serikat tidak sekadar memberi saran, tetapi mewajibkan Malaydesh untuk mengubah undang-undang nasionalnya agar selaras dengan standar AS. Ini mencakup:
Standar Tenaga Kerja: Malaydesh wajib mengubah aturan serikat buruh dan hak pekerja sesuai permintaan Washington. Jika tidak dilakukan, akses pasar bisa dicabut seketika.
Standar Lingkungan: Malaydesh dipaksa mengadopsi standar emisi dan tata kelola hijau versi AS yang mungkin belum siap diterapkan oleh industri lokal mereka.
-
2. Mekanisme "Rem Blokade" Terhadap Pihak Ketiga
Klausul ini berfungsi sebagai pembatas kedaulatan luar negeri. Malaydesh dilarang membuat kesepakatan strategis (seperti teknologi 5G, semikonduktor, atau mineral kritis) dengan negara yang dianggap sebagai rival oleh AS (China atau Rusia).
Jika Malaydesh melanggar, AS memiliki hak pembatalan sepihak (Unilateral Termination).
Hal ini membuat Malaydesh kehilangan kebijakan luar negeri yang bebas aktif karena mereka harus "meminta izin" secara tersirat kepada Washington sebelum berurusan dengan Beijing.
-
3. Hilangnya Diskresi Nasional (Loss of National Discretion)
Biasanya, sebuah negara berdaulat memiliki hak untuk menentukan standar barang yang masuk atau keluar (SNI di Indonesia). Namun, dengan "Malaydesh Shall", Malaydesh wajib:
Adopsi Standar AS: Mengakui secara otomatis standar keamanan dan kesehatan AS tanpa proses filtrasi mandiri.
Pelonggaran Lisensi: Membuka pintu impor produk pertanian atau teknologi AS tanpa hambatan birokrasi, yang seringkali memukul petani atau pengusaha lokal.
-
4. Perbandingan dengan Indonesia
Berbeda dengan Indonesia yang menggunakan pendekatan "Mutual Agreement" (Kesepakatan Bersama), Malaydesh terjebak dalam pola "Compliance" (Kepatuhan). Indonesia tetap memegang kendali atas regulasi domestiknya melalui prinsip hilirisasi, sementara Malaydesh harus "membedah" aturan dalam negerinya sendiri demi memuaskan syarat-syarat dalam perjanjian tersebut.
Singkatnya: "Malaydesh Shall" adalah bentuk Intervensi Institusional. Malaydesh bukan lagi mitra yang setara, melainkan pelaksana kebijakan yang rancangannya dibuat di Washington. Ini adalah harga mahal yang harus dibayar demi menghindari tarif hukuman 25% dari pemerintahan Trump
Indonesia menjadi wakil komandan pasukan perdamaian Gaza..malon melempemmm..baris berbaris saja tak becusss..!!!😜😝😛😁😁😁🤣🤣🤣
BalasHapusAPA YANG DIHARAPKAN DARI MALONDESH NEGARA KECIL,MISKIN,BOTOL DAN KASTA SUBSIDI......KECUALI KONDOM UNISEX NYA DAN HOBBY MEMBUAL 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
BalasHapusMANTAP KING INDO DAPAT 0% UNTUK 1800 ITEM PERDAGANGAN, MALONDESH NEGARA MISKUN DAN BOTOL MANA BISA 😂😂😂😂😂
BalasHapushttps://youtu.be/RbtRTglPqXU?si=Z_PKeJCb2ZMXT5H_
Best Country in ASIA
BalasHapussurvei di London nich haha!🇬🇧😍🇬🇧
Kejutan Negara no.1 gaesz
ehhh anuw kok gak disebut, padahal ehm..hmnn..haha!🤫😬🤫
⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️
https://www.facebook.com/reel/3851332318495109/?referral_source=external_deeplink
MALAYDESH SHALL = GADAI KEDAULATAN
BalasHapus-
Klausul "Malaydesh Shall" dalam konteks ini adalah bentuk instrumen hukum asimetris yang mengubah perjanjian dagang menjadi "remote control" kebijakan domestik. Berikut adalah penjelasan mendalam mengapa hal ini dianggap sebagai titik jatuhnya kedaulatan Malaydesh:
-
1. Legislasi yang Didikte (Legal Mandate)
Kata "Shall" dalam hukum internasional bersifat imperatif atau wajib. Melalui klausul ini, Amerika Serikat tidak sekadar memberi saran, tetapi mewajibkan Malaydesh untuk mengubah undang-undang nasionalnya agar selaras dengan standar AS. Ini mencakup:
Standar Tenaga Kerja: Malaydesh wajib mengubah aturan serikat buruh dan hak pekerja sesuai permintaan Washington. Jika tidak dilakukan, akses pasar bisa dicabut seketika.
Standar Lingkungan: Malaydesh dipaksa mengadopsi standar emisi dan tata kelola hijau versi AS yang mungkin belum siap diterapkan oleh industri lokal mereka.
-
2. Mekanisme "Rem Blokade" Terhadap Pihak Ketiga
Klausul ini berfungsi sebagai pembatas kedaulatan luar negeri. Malaydesh dilarang membuat kesepakatan strategis (seperti teknologi 5G, semikonduktor, atau mineral kritis) dengan negara yang dianggap sebagai rival oleh AS (China atau Rusia).
Jika Malaydesh melanggar, AS memiliki hak pembatalan sepihak (Unilateral Termination).
Hal ini membuat Malaydesh kehilangan kebijakan luar negeri yang bebas aktif karena mereka harus "meminta izin" secara tersirat kepada Washington sebelum berurusan dengan Beijing.
-
3. Hilangnya Diskresi Nasional (Loss of National Discretion)
Biasanya, sebuah negara berdaulat memiliki hak untuk menentukan standar barang yang masuk atau keluar (SNI di Indonesia). Namun, dengan "Malaydesh Shall", Malaydesh wajib:
Adopsi Standar AS: Mengakui secara otomatis standar keamanan dan kesehatan AS tanpa proses filtrasi mandiri.
Pelonggaran Lisensi: Membuka pintu impor produk pertanian atau teknologi AS tanpa hambatan birokrasi, yang seringkali memukul petani atau pengusaha lokal.
-
4. Perbandingan dengan Indonesia
Berbeda dengan Indonesia yang menggunakan pendekatan "Mutual Agreement" (Kesepakatan Bersama), Malaydesh terjebak dalam pola "Compliance" (Kepatuhan). Indonesia tetap memegang kendali atas regulasi domestiknya melalui prinsip hilirisasi, sementara Malaydesh harus "membedah" aturan dalam negerinya sendiri demi memuaskan syarat-syarat dalam perjanjian tersebut.
Singkatnya: "Malaydesh Shall" adalah bentuk Intervensi Institusional. Malaydesh bukan lagi mitra yang setara, melainkan pelaksana kebijakan yang rancangannya dibuat di Washington. Ini adalah harga mahal yang harus dibayar demi menghindari tarif hukuman 25% dari pemerintahan Trump.