It seems not unusual for some Asian operators to request runway 27 (the shorter runway at ML) for landing under strong crosswind conditions simply because it has an ILS, even though the weather is clear and the longer runway is into wind.
Runway 34 was into wind today and is much longer than 27 but does not have an ILS , only a PAPI. These operators do not like visual approaches on a clear day unless an ILS is there to help them. Interesting mindset?
A similar incident occurred a few years ago on Melbourne 27 to a Malaysian Airlines A310. Again a strong crosswind. In this incident the ATSB report revealed that at the flare the captain applied full wrong rudder in his attempt to touch down without drift. Damage to an engine pod and flap area occurred. It was not reported by the crew (loss of face?) but fortunately an alert ground staff member spotted the damage and the aircraft was grounded. A video of the Thai A340 "landing" appeared to show a wrong rudder input as well
Makes you wonder if simulator time could be better spent on practicing crosswind landings than box ticking regulatory exercises on autopilot.