SEPANG, April 30 — A housewife pleaded not guilty in the Sessions Court here today to a charge of making false content relating to fuel price increases in the country via social media.

Siti Nor Sayikilla Mohd Azhar, 31, is accused of knowingly creating and initiating the transmission of false communications on March 31 with intent to annoy others, using @cek_apple95 account on Threads.

According to the charge sheet, the post was detected by an officer from the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) on the same day.

She is charged under Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, which carries a maximum fine of RM500,000 or imprisonment of up to two years, or both, as well as an additional fine of RM5,000 for each day the offence continues after conviction.

The court allowed Siti Nor Sayikilla bail of RM4,000 in one surety and set June 4 for mention and document submission. — Bernama

KUALA LUMPUR, April 30 — CARiNG Pharmacy has launched the “Empowering Women, Inspiring Wellness” campaign to encourage women to take a more proactive and holistic approach to their health.

The initiative, introduced together with Georgetown Pharmacy and Wellings Pharmacy under the BIG CARING Group, aims to position the group as an accessible and trusted community healthcare partner for women at every stage of life, the company said in a statement.

“The reality is, most women are not ignoring their health because they don’t care, but simply because every day, they are moving from one responsibility to another, balancing work, deadlines, family and everything in between,” said BIG CARING Group chief marketing officer Wong Siew Lai.

She said many women only seek help when they feel unwell, although more are beginning to ask questions earlier and take a more active role in their wellbeing.

The campaign focuses on integrating wellness into daily routines through categories such as vitamins, supplements, skincare, NMN and probiotics, supporting women across different needs and life stages.

BIG CARING Group head of product marketing Lim Chee Mun said the new campaign takes a holistic approach to women’s health, linking inner wellness, outer wellbeing, and mental health in daily life. — Picture courtesy of CARiNG Pharmacy

CARiNG Pharmacy said the initiative emphasises the link between inner wellness — including nutrition, hormonal balance, energy and immunity — and outer wellbeing such as skin, hair and confidence, alongside mental and emotional health.

A network of health and personal care brands, including Herbs of Gold, VitaHealth, Kinohimitsu, BiO‑LiFE, PureMed, La Roche‑Posay, CeraVe and Cetaphil, will support the campaign with a range of products spanning supplements, nutrition and skincare.

The campaign was launched at CARiNG’s women wellness event “Reset Your Me‑Time,” which featured a panel discussion with BIG CARING Group’s head of product marketing Lim Chee Mun, Dr Amanda Elli and DoubleWoot co‑founder Helen Tan, followed by a runway showcase.

BIG CARING Group head of product marketing Lim Chee Mun, Dr Amanda Elli (Dr Unicorn) and DoubleWoot co‑founder Helen Tan discuss health, confidence and self‑expression during the panel session. — Picture courtesy of CARiNG Pharmacy

NeeDoh is the latest squishy sensory toy to go viral. Social media is reporting how these blobs of gel are flying off the shelves, and are in short supply.

But squishy sensory toys have been around much longer than this latest fad. You might remember putty, slime or stress balls.

So why are these products so popular? And when are sensory objects more than just toys?

What are these products?

NeeDoh is one of many stress-ball-esque, pliable, squeezable products.

They’re mainly made from a type of rubber or polymer. And their composition affects their consistency, pliability, texture and ability to form shapes.

For instance, they can be soft, stretchy and oozy while still being able to hold a shape. Some form into a ball and can bounce.

Often, the products are said to be non-toxic, durable and satisfying to squeeze repeatedly.

Why do people like them?

People find such products appealing for a number of reasons. This might depend on their personal preference, sensory sensitivity among neurodivergent people, energy levels, or a combination. They might:

• enjoy the tactile experience

• find it makes them feel calm

• allows them to focus more easily

• use these products to avoid other behaviours, such as nail biting.

Neuroscience helps explain some of this.

Brain regions associated with planning and emotional regulation are activated when adults squeeze a soft or medium density stress ball. This might explain why some people can feel calm or say they can focus on a task more easily.

The brain also wants fingers and hands to fidget and tinker, even when doing sedentary activities like reading. So rather than using hands for less accepted behaviours, such as skin picking or nail biting, they can be used to squish these objects. It can be comforting when we see others fidgeting too as it makes it more socially acceptable.

But not everyone likes how these squishable objects make them feel. Others find the sensation unpleasant or even painful.

We have neural circuits in our body and brain responsible for perceiving and processing incoming sensory information from the world around us, such as light, sound, pressure and temperature.

These circuits form a loop between our brain and body to work out if we find these sensations pleasant or unpleasant. If there is too much sensory input at one time, we can even find these sensations painful.

The serious side of sensory products

Sensory objects are more than a marketing gimmick. They are increasingly used in schools, but with mixed results.

There have been no formal studies on the educational benefits of NeeDoh. However, we can look at studies on fidget tools, such as fidget spinners or fidget cubes, in the classroom.

Some studies in primary school-age children show fidget tools increase on-task behaviour, decrease hyperactivity movements for children with ADHD (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder). However, the results differ based on the type of fidget tool. There’s also limited evidence to show these tools help students accurately complete school work, such as answering a maths question.

Different children may also benefit from different types of fidget tool, depending on their needs and how stimulating their environment is. So it’s best to consult a health-care professional who will usually recommend a specific tool for a specific therapeutic purpose.

For instance, a wobble stool may be recommended to reduce hyperactive movement for one child or to increase movement and energy levels for a different child.

But the real benefit from the increased use of sensory objects in classrooms is this can increase acceptance of neurodivergence and make it more acceptable for those who once felt they had to mask their use.

Sensory tools are also being trialled in higher education. Our first-year students at Bond University set up “sensory toolboxes” to help the on-campus experience for neurodivergent students.

These boxes included items in a variety of textures and pliability. Items were “no sound” to reduce noise reverberation, which some people find unpleasant. Items included those that were smooth, bendy, stretchy, tactile and squishy. NeeDoh cubes were the most popular.

But these items weren’t only popular with students. Some educators said they also enjoyed the sensory stimulation of holding items from the box as they taught classes.

In a nutshell

If you enjoy their texture, and how they make you feel, there’s no harm in using squishable objects like NeeDoh.

These remind us that people experience textures and use their hands in different ways, and for different reasons.

But if you or your child want to use sensory tools therapeutically, check in with a health professional and your child’s inclusive-education teacher to match you with the right type. This may not be a squishable one.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has promised no new taxes on Australia’s gas exports in next month’s federal budget, saying the government “will not undermine existing contracts”. Questioned further, he said future gas tax changes aren’t being contemplated either.

That hasn’t stopped the growing calls for higher taxes on gas exporters, with an unusual coalition of the Greens, One Nation, independent Senator David Pocock and others arguing the industry has been paying far too little for too long.

Responding to those criticisms, the oil and gas industry has pointed out it is among Australia’s highest corporate taxpayers.

That’s true: the Australian Tax Office reported late last year that oil and gas companies paid A$10.4 billion in company tax in 2023–24, or 10.9% of the total corporate tax levied in that year.

But it’s also true that Australia doesn’t get as much back for gas extracted offshore and sold overseas as you might think – especially when gas prices are high.

If the federal government is willing to rethink gas taxes in future, Queensland’s Liberal National government has already shown there’s another way to get a better return for natural resources.

How Queensland got more for less gas

The Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) is a federal tax first set up in 1988, used to make companies pay to extract a finite natural resource owned by the Australian people.

Since then, gas has grown to become Australia’s third biggest export earner, worth more than $67 billion in 2024.

Gas extracted from Commonwealth waters accounted for 70% of Australia’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports in 2024–25, while Queensland shipped the remaining 30% from within the state.

Yet surprisingly, gas and oil exporters actually paid less tax on the gas and oil extracted from the larger areas under the federal government’s control in 2024–25. The federal government received $1.42 billion in PRRT, while the Queensland government was paid $1.69 billion in petroleum royalties, including gas converted into LNG.

How much more Queensland is earning for gas

Queensland taxes its gas, oil, coal and other natural resources extracted within the state using royalty payments. For oil and gas, when prices are low, companies pay less; when prices rise, the companies pay more.

My colleague, industry analyst Josh Runciman, has shown that when global prices soared over recent years, such as after Russia invaded Ukraine, Queensland actually did a better job of getting a fairer share of those higher profits than the federal government. As his submission to the current Senate inquiry on gas taxes said:

From [financial year] 2018–19 to 2023–24, PRRT payments per gigajoule (GJ) of sale gas ranged from A$0.21–AU$0.41, well below royalties in Queensland, which were A$0.19–AU$1.57/GJ of gas over the same period. Queensland’s royalty revenues increased materially in years where LNG exporters earned windfall profits.

Tinkering with the PRRT hasn’t worked

Gas advocates point out that oil and gas companies have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in setting up Australia’s gas industry, without such large direct contributions from government. For instance, the Gorgon LNG project off Western Australia’s coast cost more than $50 billion alone.

That’s in contrast to some other countries, such as Norway, where the government took on more of the upfront costs and risks to get the gas industry going.

That’s why some – including the prime minister – argue Australia shouldn’t change its approach on gas taxes. On Wednesday, Albanese said:

Australians also have every right to expect a fair return for our country’s resources. And that’s why we reformed the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax.

Two years ago, Labor acknowledged the PRRT needed to “deliver a fairer return to the Australian community”. Labor’s reforms were meant to bring in a further $2.4 billion over the following five years.

But even since then, expected PRRT revenue has been continually revised down, as last December’s official mid-year budget update noted:

Petroleum resource rent tax receipts have been revised down by $0.5 billion in 2025–26 and by $2.5 billion over the four years to 2027–28.

Reforms to the PRRT are yet to translate into significant change. It’s time to consider other options.

How coal royalties offer a model for gas

Four years ago, in the face of strong opposition, the Queensland government changed how it taxed coal.

Like former Reserve Bank deputy governor Stephen Grenville, I believe Queensland’s approach on coal royalties is worth considering as a future replacement for the PRRT.

When the average price of coal is very low, at $100 or less a tonne, companies are charged just 7% of its value. But as prices rise, so does the royalty. If the price of coal is above $300 a tonne, companies pay up to 40% on those super profits.

Of course, a royalty-based approach is not the only option the federal government could consider. As the table below shows, there are pros and cons to other options too, particularly the widely-supported tax on gas profits.

But Queensland’s approach on coal is worth looking at: it’s a proven solution, which strikes a balance between ensuring Queenslanders get more when prices are high, while also providing greater investment certainty when prices are lower.

Kevin Morrison is also an energy finance analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, an independent think tank. He did his masters research on resource taxation in Australia.

Thirteen Australian women and children linked to ISIS have reportedly been blocked from leaving Syria again, with the Syrian Foreign Ministry blaming the Australian government, saying it had “refused to receive them”.

The ministry said the group was turned back before reaching Damascus International Airport to make their way back to Australia.

Earlier this year, a larger group of women and children attempted to leave their detention camps in Kurdish-controlled northern Syria to make their way to Australia, but they, too, were turned back by Syrian authorities.

At a press conference on Thursday, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke reiterated the government’s stance that returning women who broke the law would face arrest. He added they may be “weighing up whether they want to come back to Australia ever”.

This comes after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said earlier this week Australia would provide “no support for repatriation and no assistance for these people”.

This is not an isolated development. Australia now appears to be moving towards an approach where repatriation is not formally undertaken, nor is it fully prevented.

Staged disengagement

At first glance, this latest case may appear to resemble an “independent return”. This means the women and children left the detention camps to try to return to Australia outside formal repatriation frameworks.

There have been rare precedents elsewhere. In the United Kingdom, Tareena Shakil famously arranged her own escape from ISIS-controlled territory in Syria and returned without government extraction. Similar cases occurred in Europe in the early years of the Syrian conflict.

But what is happening with the Australian women and children is different. They are not simply trying to escape on their own. They are attempting returns through complex and often opaque pathways, facilitated by a combination of local authorities, informal networks and pre-existing administrative processes.

Australian officials established the administrative groundwork to make these returns possible years ago when they visited detention camps (such as Al-Roj in northeastern Syria) to conduct identity checks. And in November 2022, the Albanese government conducted a one-off repatriation mission.

Now, however, the government is taking a hands-off approach until a return is already underway or inevitable. Only then is it issuing travel documents or processing individuals once they arrive.

This creates what might be described as a form of staged disengagement. The state withdraws from the politically sensitive act of “bringing people home” and instead threatens legal action if the women and children return. Any real action is deferred until the group is actually on a plane.

This approach raises a deeper question: is Australia merely outsourcing the risks and logistics of return?

Instead of managing repatriations directly, the government is placing the burden onto the women and those helping them to navigate uncertain and potentially dangerous pathways out of detention camps.

This has important consequences.

A coordinated repatriation process allows governments to control timing, gather information and prepare legal and rehabilitation responses in advance. In contrast, a fragmented and reactive return reduces visibility and limits the government’s ability to shape outcomes.

The result is a shift from proactive governance to selective engagement and prolonged inaction.

When law becomes the first response

The legal implications of this shift are significant.

When returns are unmanaged, the legal system effectively becomes the first point of state control. Rather than being one component of a broader repatriation framework, criminal law is pushed to the front of the process.

Members of the Albanese government have repeatedly stressed this fact in recent months, saying the returning women will face the “full force of the law”.

This compresses decision-making timelines and places greater weight on prosecutorial responses, often in the absence of complete evidence from conflict zones. Authorities are required to make rapid judgements about risk, culpability and prosecutions without the benefit of a structured pre-return assessment.

As a result, these ad hoc returns blur the line between policy and criminal justice. The legal system begins to absorb the functions of the government agencies that would ordinarily handle coordinated returns.

This means the law is no longer responding to policy. It is standing in for it.

Returns are happening, whether planned or not

The key takeaway is that the returns of these ISIS-linked women and children are no longer a hypothetical policy question. It is an ongoing process.

Australia’s current approach does not prevent return. Instead, it reshapes how returns occur, deflecting government responsibility.

In that sense, the issue is not simply a question of whether Australia should repatriate its citizens. It is whether a reactive, outsourced model can provide a coherent or sustainable basis for managing their returns.

Se Youn Park does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

GEORGE TOWN, April 30 — The Penang state government is working well with its coalition partners, said Penang chief minister Chow Kon Yeow.

He said it is still status quo in Penang at the moment.

“But we must always take cognisance of the changing environment but it is still too early although it is still not too early to start preparing and thinking,” he said after launching the Penang Autoshow 2026.

He said the state legislative assembly will still be held as scheduled on May 8.

Chow was commenting on the political crisis in Negeri Sembilan following the withdrawal of support from 14 Umno assemblymen.

He said in today’s political scenario in Malaysia, every party needs to look at their coalition partners.

“And coalition partners here are not so rigid that it must be the same nationwide and every state,” he said.

He said every state may have its own alignment.

“So it is getting the reliable coalition partners to contest as a team in the respective state,” he said.

He believed that each state will try their level best to choose a coalition of like-minded political parties with the same political agenda, development plan and trajectory to the state and country in the coming election.

“As to what will be the eventuality, it all depends on state and national election, whether they are held together and all that,” he said.

In Penang, one of the Umno assemblymen, Datuk Rashidi Zinol, is a state exco in charge of the rural development, agrotechnology and food security and entrepreneurship.

ISKANDAR PUTERI, April 30 — The Johor Regent, Tunku Mahkota Ismail, has again reiterated his call for the return of 25 per cent of the state’s income tax revenue.

His Majesty said the return of tax revenue would enable Johor to not be too dependent on the federal government and also ensure the development and welfare of the people. 

Tunku Ismail said Johor is one of the main contributors to the country’s revenue, but the revenue does not commensurate with the development and welfare needs of the people.

“Therefore, I would like to urge the federal government that it is time for at least 25 per cent of the tax revenue generated by Johor to be returned to the state. 

“This is important so that Johor can manage the needs of the people more efficiently without having to rely entirely on the lengthy approval process,” he said when officiating the Johor state legislative assembly’s new session at the Sultan Ismail Building in Kota Iskandar here today. 

Tunku Ismail hopes that Johor can stand independently in line with its role as a major contributor to the country’s economy. 

He said Johor has successfully attracted investments totalling RM272 billion, including creating history last year when it recorded RM110 billion in investments, the highest ever achieved by any Malaysian state.

“This achievement has opened up more 80,000 job opportunities for Johoreans and Malaysians.

“I was also informed that Johor’s state revenue will continue to increase to RM2.6 billion. This shows the strength of the state’s economic fundamentals as well as the state government’s efficiency in managing its resources and revenue,” he said.

Last year, Tunku Ismail had raised the same issue when he was reported to have requested the federal government to consider the return of 20 to 30 per cent of the state’s tax revenue.

JOHOR BARU, April 30 — The Johor Regent, Tunku Mahkota Ismail, today congratulated Hospital Sultanah Aminah (HSA) in Johor Bahru for being recognised as one of the World’s Best Hospitals 2026.

He expressed confidence that the achievement was the result of joint efforts by the state and federal governments in improving healthcare services, facilities and overall efficiency, with Johor’s health system now on the right track.

“At the same time, various initiatives such as improving facilities, implementing digital systems and innovative approaches to reduce congestion in hospital services have also succeeded in improving the experience and comfort of patients,” he said when officiating the Johor state legislative assembly’s new session at the Sultan Ismail Building in Kota Iskandar here.

The recognition of HSA was awarded by Newsweek and Statista.

In a related development, Tunku Ismail also called for staffing and equipment issues at Pasir Gudang Hospital to be resolved immediately without delay.

He said this was necessary as the health sector is a critical area that cannot be delayed.

“I want the full operation of the Pasir Gudang Hospital to be expedited,” he said.

On June 29, Health Minister Datuk Seri Dzulkefly Ahmad reportedly said that the Pasir Gudang Hospital, which was officially handed over to the Health Ministry, will operate in phases starting August 1, 2025.

However, the opening of the new hospital was postponed to this year due to several technical issues including a shortage of health workers, especially doctors and nurses.

The Pasir Gudang Hospital began operating in phases starting late last year with several initial facilities and services to meet patients’ healthcare needs.

TOKYO, April 30 — A man wielding a hammer wounded five people in Tokyo, including a teenager who was allegedly struck in the face, local media said Thursday.

Violent crime is rare in Japan, which has a low murder rate and some of the world’s toughest gun laws.

The 44-year-old suspect, who is on the run from police, attacked two teenage boys near his house in Fussa city in the Japanese capital on Wednesday.

One victim sustained a severe facial injury, while the other suffered a minor shoulder injury, according to NHK and Kyodo News.

Police officers rushed to the scene, where the suspect sprayed them with an unknown substance and fled, Kyodo said.

Three officers were injured in the attack.

Tokyo Metropolitan Police declined to comment to AFP on the case. — AFP

KUALA LUMPUR, April 30 — Malaysia has made a major breakthrough in badminton with the launch of the world’s first AI-powered instant review system (IRS) to receive Badminton World Federation (BWF) approval.

Developed by Malaysian sports-technology firm Revealtek Sdn Bhd, the system was deployed at the PETRONAS National Under-18 Badminton Championship in Selangor from April 22 to 27, bringing elite-level line-calling technology into grassroots competition.

It was previously used at the Affin 100Plus Junior Elite Tournament (Leg 2 — Group B) earlier this month.

Players can challenge line calls using AI-powered cameras, with match footage reviewed and decisions delivered within seconds on whether a shuttle lands in or out. The result is displayed on screens visible to players, officials and spectators.

Revealtek Sdn Bhd is a sports technology company providing digital officiating and broadcast solutions for badminton tournaments.

The system is deployed through the company’s Reveal Digital Badminton Suite, which integrates the Reveal Lens Instant Review System (IRS), a digital scoring platform for umpires, and a live streaming system with real-time score overlays for stadium displays and broadcast audiences.

Reveal Lens is one of only four systems globally approved by the BWF and is designed for rapid deployment across courts of varying sizes without fixed infrastructure. It can be set up in under an hour and operates fully wirelessly.

A look at Revealtek’s Reveal Lens Instant Review System. — Picture courtesy of Revealtek

Chief executive officer and co-founder Nizam Mohamed said the system was developed to address cost and infrastructure barriers that have traditionally limited instant review technology to elite tournaments.

He said comparable systems used at international events typically require fixed installations, specialist crews and operational costs that can exceed US$100,000 (RM396,750) per tournament, placing them out of reach for the vast majority of competitions worldwide.

“Until now, this level of officiating technology has largely been limited to international tournaments with significant resources. With Reveal Lens, a junior tournament in Selangor can have the same officiating standard as a world-tour event in Denmark and we welcome organisations ready to take that step with us,” he added.

The system also provides video replay data for use in performance analysis by players and coaches.

Nizam said it is designed to operate on any court with minimal setup, reducing technical requirements and making it accessible to national associations, state bodies and tournament organisers.

Beyond line calls, it helps maintain match flow through faster decisions, reduces disputes through visual evidence, and supports post-match review for training purposes.

Revealtek CEO Nizam Mohamed received a token of appreciation for deploying the world’s first AI-powered instant review system at the Petronas National Under-18 Championships 2026. — Picture courtesy of Revealtek

“We have received positive feedback from players, coaches and officials, who noted clearer line calls and an improved match experience even at junior-level competition,” he added.

Revealtek aims to make its officiating technology accessible across all levels of badminton, including international tournaments, state associations, private clubs, social events and recreational matches, supported by flexible pricing for wider adoption of professional systems.

This positions Malaysia as a global supplier of badminton technology.