Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Steven Gan, Pakatan’s apologist extraordinaire:

DAP vice-chairperson Teresa Kok would be made to apologise if anyone can prove that her Chinese New Year message video was anti-Islam or anti-Malay, said DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang.

Got proof but no payment, no money … please buy me a brick. Or else a ‘shining’ lamp.

***

林吉祥先生:

This letter to you is in English because your hanzi is elementary although your English is worse. Unless Steven Gan and his Malaysiakini editors don’t know their English, were they right to say you had asked for “proof” — proof as in verifiable evidence? Or was that your word? This matter of ‘evidence’ is strange because, as the Englishman says, the proof is in the pudding. That is, it is in the result. Teresa Kok’s 2014 chunjie video clip is the result — hence the evidence.

Perhaps what you need are specifics; in other words, exactly which part or segment of the clip’s content is anti-Malay or anti-Islam. In the clip Teresa, herself, spoke to her Chinese audience while referring to the Malays as malai 马来. Here, is to repeat (because of your elementary hanyu): Teresa did not address the Year of the Horse as 马年. She said malai 马来. And the Chinese, both in Malaysia and the motherland address the Malays as malai. (Not your motherland, of course; you have no motherland; maybe not even a mother. Here, it means the motherland of the shuzheng authors.) After which she goes on to list how the Malays — meaning the Umno government — are 犀利啊, in Cantonese saile ah!, a colloquial expression intended as the opposite of its literal meaning, great or fantastic.

This has to be its backwash inference, a throwback, because Teresa cannot mean the malai to be great or ‘hebat’ (Teresa’s word) if, after saying it, she goes on to list all those pathetic things, starting with the ringgit’s value. Check the ringgit: who’s the face on it? Dare you say, because of Malaysian First, it’s not a malai face? Teresa could only have meant the Malays and not even the Barisan Nasional government because, as your Son in Heaven Guan Eng says, the MCA (and the MIC and everybody else) are just Umno’s running dogs, subservient to a master*. For a detailed explanatory (‘proof’), check this out: DAP’s New Year Festival of Mockery.

Now that proof is shown: slap that bitch. Please…. Why? The ringgit has little value (so says Teresa), her spit worth much less, she might just refuse to obey you, and apologies aren’t good enough.

*Endnote: Since you’re so ready with apologies, see this other letter; it offers a case to apologize to the MCA as well. (In your footsteps everybody has taken in to ‘open letters’, like yours to Najib Razak. Three in a month? Holy Moses!) BTW: 肏你妈.

Yours sincerely,

小弟

***

For 马来 malai:

Teresa Kok’s Chunjie & the Chinese

Yi people, top; Han old style, middle; Han new style, below.

***

Is Teresa Racist?

Often in China and occasionally in Taiwan and Hong Kong, the question that is directed at the Malaysian Chinese goes as follows: “So you’re 马来人?” Or simply 马来. In pinyin, the hanyu phrases read, respectively, as malairen and malai, either of which means Malay.

On nationality terms the description is correct — malairen being short form for Malaysian — but incorrect ethnically. Umno and Anglophilia Malays, the Malaiyoos, would like the term to work on both counts, nationality and ethnic, and we shall return shortly to this issue that’s at the heart of the Teresa Kok chunjie or CNY video. DAP’s Hannah Yeoh (herself an Anglophile and Christian to boot) and Lim Kit Siang’s Malaysian First would, on the other hand, disown both; they being non-existent; there are no Chinese or Malays, only Malaysians. It reads in pinyin as malaixiya, adding the suffix ‘xiya’ to ‘malai‘.

Here’s the problem with the terminologies: it isn’t in how Malaysians of different stock see themselves, which is after all subjective; to each his own. Rather it is how others, the foreign nationals, see Malaysians. Why? Why do the Chinese (in China) see a compatriot Chinese as Malay? This question is to suggest that they tended to subsume ethnicity into nationality or, in another phrasing, ethnicity is a matter of nationality. Hence, Han Chinese (98 percent of China’s population) and the Yi peoples of Yunnan and the Miao of Sichuan are Chinese in nationality and racial terms, but they are culturally different. This means that, in China, culture is altogether a different thing from ethnicity although in Malaysia the terms ethnicity and culture are synonymous: Lim Kit Siang (also DAP) is Chinese culture and Najib Razak (Umno) is Malay culture.

A Han Chinese is a Chinese by culture and only different from the Yi people by some facets of their cultures — that is, differing in mundane things as village customs, diet and spoken language — but not in other, fundamental ways. Han Chinese and the Yi would therefore share common attributes which are Confucianist in outlook, upbringing, and in Daoist world view; for example, the family comes first, land is important, proper, well-defined social etiquette is indispensable, and hierarchical customs are prevalent and the same across China.

One conclusion to be drawn from this comparison says that China’s way of viewing peoples, which separates ethnics and culture and nationality, is realistic in its root form and therefore more accurate than it is in Malaysia. Hannah and Kit Siang may be Chinese ethnically (they may even speak hanyu and observe chunjie), but their sensibilities are entirely western, the product of the La Salle schools, the Bible, PPSMI, Reuters and the BBC, any of which would extol the English way of life, its god and Christianity in particular. This is not without a counter-effect because, if the West is the preferred way of life, something else, Confucianism and Daoism in the Kit Siang case, has to give way.

Petra Kamarudin exemplifies this western acculturation, the conversion from Malaysian to English, when he, on account of a morality principle, refused to pay off a policeman to get his son out of lockup. On the contrary, he bragged about it to Malaysiakini, Pakatan’s mouthpiece and expert apologist, inferring inter alia that his western morality, that is zero corruption, is greater than his paternal obligation to his son, which is also Confucianist. Hannah’s Christianity calls this conversion, the rejection of an existing set of values for another set as being ‘born again‘; it’s a new life wherein the existing one is spurned, made to look inferior and so spit out.

This explains why, on the first anniversary of Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa’s death by murder, Tian Chua, ethnically Chinese but like Hannah also an Anglophile, had no problem conducting a public ritual display of invoking the dead woman’s memory, and that was complete with joss sticks and offerings. Tian Chua was all too willing to abuse a Sino-Buddhist ritual for a political cause even though Buddhists don’t do such things. The latter eschew all earthly ambitions and symbols, but if it has to be done then the ritual is held in complete privacy usually at home because invoking somebody’s memory is an intensely personal affair.

Likewise Teresa Kok has no qualms invoking chunjie (CNY), feng shui, shengxiao 生肖 (of which the Year of the Horse is a part) so as to mock and ridicule DAP’s political opponents (who are not only the Malays). This suggests Teresa, like Tian Chua, rejects virtually all vital facets of Chinese culture, think they are voodoo practices that have no place in her Christian life, political or personal, hence fair game for exploitation. Recall, she did not use the day of Christmas to mock the Malays or Najib Razak because Christmas to her is a solemn occasion, a sanctity not to be misused.

Although Teresa’s video presentation might have surprised the party’s heathen rank and file or her constituents — it might instead earn her praise for so-called ‘creativity’ — it follows closely the exploitation of Chinese traditions for a political end by DAP senior echelon, most of who reject Chinese manners and way of life in preference for a western one. Hannah Yeoh is an example. Instead of staying in bed for post natal care or to nurse her six-day-old infant, as Chinese custom would dictate, she was willing to toss out and launder Shay Adora’s diapers in public to score a political and a morality point that the civil service under the Umno government are all racist. When, in countering those who had criticized her clip, Teresa says “we are better than that“, she means exactly it: the DAP leaders with their English Christian ways are morally superior to others, whether Chinese or Melayu.

The above is, as they say, where Teresa comes from in making the clip. Now to her intent….

On accusations she had incited racial hatred against Malays, Teresa’s primary defense, something repeated by Kit Siang, is that of language: the parody had employed Mandarin (i.e. hanyu putonghua) and the Cantonese dialect, although English subtitles were used. (This is for the obvious reason she wanted to rope in the non-Mandarin speaking Chinese, such as Hannah Yeoh and Tian Chua, and they’re numerous.) Such a defense is both curious and disingenuous because, although the contents of the parody are a mimicry on Malaysian hence Umno Malay governance, the parody is on the Chinese, mimicking their chunjie culture and ridiculing feng shui. If she had used, say, English, the parody would fail completely because only in Mandarin (which she calls ‘tiong hua‘; see clip below) can she bring to the fore her mockery of the Malays.

Malai 马来 is, after all, the only phonetic transliteration of the word Malay, just as Malaysia is phonetically rendered in hanyu pinyin as malaixiya written 马来西亚, in literal translation horse/come/west/ya. (Ya is phonetic used as a part of compound words like Asia or yazhou 亚洲.) Any hanyu-conversant or Cantonese-conversant person cannot help but associate malai to the Malays. No matter how much Teresa twists her tongue to escape possible prosecution, malai remains, as it is understood in Malaysia, an ethnic term that refers to Malaysia as a country but not the Malaysian public or nationality. Trying to wriggle herself out of a spot, she gave malai 马来 its conflated and literal translation ‘horse comes’. But, other than coincidence with the Chinese zodiac Year of the Horse, the phrase is rarely, if ever, used. For reference to this lunar new year she could just as well use, without controversy, ma nian written  马年 or ‘horse year’.

All this leaves one question to be answered: what did she say of the Malays or of Malaysia that might be considered seditious? Of Malaysia, its ringgit is cheap, inflation is galloping away, and crime is rampant, all re-hatched stories. Of Malays, the incriminating words are these 马来犀利啊, in pinyin ‘malai xili a!’ Google’s translation: ‘Malaysia is sharp’.  Teresa’s translation: Kuda datang hebat. Common meaning translation: Malays are gungho.

In the last is the catch because Teresa rendered xili 犀利 in Cantonese (malai saile ah!), adding the exclamation 啊 (a!), both for dramatic effect. Hiding behind the Chinese zodiac Year of the Horse, the phrase malai saile ah! was evidently intended as sarcasm with an opposite meaning — the Malay government is useless — because what flows from the phrase clearly backs up a malice in the intention: the ringgit’s depreciation, galloping higher prices and so on. Hence, the opposite of saile ah! — that is, trashy — can only elicit its effect if the preceding phrase malai refers to Malays and not to the noun-verb, ‘horse comes’, which is instead her claim.

Teresa was evidently mischievous in her chunjie parody, but was she malevolent with the intent to cause racial animosity? In other words, did she intent to wish hatred towards Malay?

Because the question stems from a (bad, white man’s) law, the answer is as evasive as it is elusive: on the one part, it depends on who feels injured and, on the other, it is so difficult to verify ‘intent’, unless Teresa admits to it. Chinese (but not Anglophiles) ought to be injured because here is a Christian conducting a travesty of Chinese culture which, ordinarily, no Chinese would commit to. Yet few Chinese are offended. They may dislike it but they (unlike Christian Spain) won’t burn her on the stake; Chinese culture is far, far more tolerant than Teresa’s Christianity. Chunjie is also a joyous time for celebration, yet here is a Seputeh DAP Christian witch who turns it into a Festival of Mockery and then is shielded by the like of Steven Gan and N Surendran, all Anglophiles pretending in their CNY wishes for peace and harmony among peoples.

Malays? Only they alone can sort out their own emotions….

Two paradoxes arise. (a) Although Chinese culture is abused, the Chinese, as represented by Teresa and her portrayal of Chinese culture, are interpreted as spitting at Malays. The Christians win. (b) Although the Malays are not the only target of Teresa’s spite, the Malays retaliate which, in turn, are interpreted by the Chinese as touchy and malicious. The DAP wins.

***

Putar belit? Really? 谁扭曲, 郭素沁?

If Teresa is guilty of racism, Ridhuan Tee, below, would be equally guilty, a man who has made anti-Chinese polemics and racism into an academic specialization and a mini industry (Peter Petra the Piper is the online MT promoter).

Believing Chinese culture to be inferior to Islam, Ridhuan launders his racism with virtual impunity because of his use of the Malay language, his protection by the Malay establishment and his Islamic credentials and because his target, Chinese group is easy to pick on and can’t get even with him — and that he knows.

Teresa, on the other hand, would abuse her Chinese MP position and background to ridicule Chinese traditions as voodoo (by playing on chunjie or CNY; playing on feng shui culture; playing on the Chinese shengxiao 生 肖 or Chinese zodiac, the Year of the Horse) and so exploiting Chinese ways to mock Malay power as superior in spite of the economic record in recent years (the ringgit, inflation, crime, etc). After which, the Malaiyoos would attack the Chinese in revenge; Chandra Muzaffar’s peace plan would be shot to pieces, never mind its good intentions, because he attributes way too much to economic causes for inter-ethnic harmony rather than the other way around.

In this way, slicing and dicing ethnicity, DAP politics, mirroring Mahathir politics, would triumph in a land that its honcho Lim Kit Siang, an Anglophile like Teresa, says should eschew race politics. Kit Siang’s duplicity is incredulous: promoting Malaysian First while openly backing his underlings to offend anything and everything Malaysian: Chinese customs, the malai word, even the hapless ringgit. All this explains why Ridhuan, Teresa and Kit Siang (count in their apologists Steven Gan, Josh Hong, KTemoc) are alike in countless ways although their names differ linguistically and all, according to Malays, are Chinese.

Ridhuan and Teresa So Sim: two names, two religions, two languages, one bigotry.

Jeffrey Kitingan, Anwar Ibrahim’s political playmate in Sabah, wants Malaysia’s federal government to explain Chinese ship “incursion” (Jeff’s word, with full report at the bottom) into James Shoal (closer to Malaysia than the Spratly islands group). Here’s the suggested explanation Jeffie wants: Fuck off, boy.

Jeffie’s main contention is this:

If the Malaysian navy cannot even react when the Chinese naval ships are 80 km. from Sarawak’s coastline, it will be too late if a serious incursion were to take place. Like in Pearl Harbour in World War 2, foreign ships could have entered the shores of Sarawak, done damage and landed at beaches in Sarawak.

Like many western news reports (Reuters, its Arabic copy, Al Jazeera), Jeffie’s words are just that, words with assertions without the need for truth and reality: (a) “the Malaysian navy did not react,” (b) “if a serious incursion takes place”, and (b) Chinese ships might ‘enter, do damage, then land”.

Reaction? Did or did not the Malaysian Navy react? But, reaction in this context, whether negative or positive, requires that the navy be surprised. It presumes that the Chinese ship sneaked in one morning, did whatever it did, and took off. In short there was “incursion”, which in its turn presupposes that the water sits on Malaysia territorial property.

Accept Jeffie’s claim that the Chinese ships were 80 nm km (50 miles) offshore Sarawak. Yet international sea law permits every country to own no more than 12 nautical km (12 km because that’s within firing range using old canons). Exclusive economic zone or EEZ is not sovereign property. It merely allows a country, over and above others, special but not exclusive rights to use an area extending 200 nm km from the coast baseline as an economic resource. For example, US aircraft carriers can sail up and down outside the 12 km exclusive marker and within the 182 km EEZ zone (200-12km) and there’s nothing to be done.  This is why Malaysia’s EEZ easily overlaps the Philippine claim as well as Vietnam’s.

Hence, claimants over James Shoal, as they are over the Spratlys group further north, are not in sovereignty or property disputes but they fight over rights: who can fish or pump oil in these places? Malaysia, like China, has been in such situations countless times; Malaysia versus Thailand in oil mining offshore Kelantan. EEZ commercial resources are not properties to fight over, nor worth fighting over, and Malaysia’s policy, like China’s, is simply to share it with fellow claimants.

Presumably Jeffie would have understood the benign nature of such disputes, so why is he beating the war drums comparing the Chinese Navy in James Shoal to the Japanese invasion of Pearl Harbour? Japan didn’t claim Hawaii; they blew it to smithereens. If the Chinese Navy had wanted to surprise Malaysia with an invasion, then it has been doing a bad job, visiting the shoal in 1983, 1994 and 2013, all without creating a conflagration despite Tang Siew Mun’s attempt to make an “incident” out of one visit in 2013. Again, hence, why is Jeffie war mongering? Because of Anwar? Because the Yankees had paid him off or instigated or prodded him to open up China to fight a third country within Asean (after the Philippines and Vietnam)?

Jeffie’s stupidity is astonishing because he has suggested that the Malaysian Navy send in the Scorpene into waters 22 meters (27 feet) deep (pix below), a sure way to ground and ditch submarines that need at least 300 meters deep to work and dive. Here’s the Borneo Post, more idiot journalists, writing what they don’t know because Jeffie said so, and regurgitating the man. Americans would be rubbing their hand in glee because the Chinese story in James Shoal has been galloping away.

China’s position in the South China Sea has been stated countless times: peaceful co-existence with its neighbours and mutually beneficial collaboration. But the like of Jeffie and Reuters (plus the Malaiyoo dog named BigDog) has regularly attempt to paint China doing the opposite instead, acting belligerent and imperialistic like the US and the West, while ignoring or ignorant of the history that China has sailed up and down the South China Sea and the Malacca Straits without ever once, not once, taking other people’s property.

Palace records in Beijing further report of Chinese, Tangren (唐人), in ‘Malacca’ 500 years before Parameswara, suggesting that the South Sea silk route was already well mapped out. After that Zheng He’s visit to Malacca four times since 1411 (a century before Portugal), with 60,000 men and more than 300 ships each occasion, would have taken the peninsula without a shot. The Chinese didn’t. Instead Zheng He, on behalf of some ‘sultan’, had one of his generals capture a chief pirate, a Chinese, who had been doing extortions. The man was shipped back to Beijing where they cut off his head from his shoulders. Is Jeffie a 21st century white man’s pirate? And an Anglophile one at that?

Dr Jeff Beats the War Drums

The federal Government and the Defence Ministry must be prepared for all consequences for their failures to treat lightly the intrusion by the Chinese navy into the James Shoal, 80 km. from Sarawak’s coastline” said Datuk Dr. Jeffrey Kitingan, STAR Sabah Chief referring to the recent incident where China’s naval warships carried out an exercise there and its subsequent denial by the navy chief.

The federal government should explain the incursion incident to all Malaysians and take the appropriate action to secure the security and sovereignty of Sarawak territorial waters and 200 nautical miles Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

The China naval incursion and potential claim over the James Shoal and the Spratlay Islands have serious dire consequences for Malaysia and Sarawak.

At stake is Sarawak’s security and sovereignty as well as the EEZ and exclusive rights that goes along with it, fishing and tapping of marine resources, seabed mineral exploration including oil and gas exploration and other economic exploitation.    It also has to be remembered that the boundaries of Sabah and Sarawak as declared by the Queen in Council in 1954 extends to the continental shelf which is in most parts beyond the EEZ.

With its French-built submarines, the least the Malaysian government and the Navy could have done was to position the submarines near James Shoal as a show of its naval power.    Its failure will show that Malaysian naval capabilities are weak.   It will also reinforce the perception that the submarines were defective, could not dive or purchased as a museum piece to line the pockets of cronies with ill-gotten gains amounting to hundreds of million.

More importantly, the federal government must show its commitment to protect the territorial waters of Sabah and Sarawak and provide the security that were promised to the Borneo States during the formation of Malaysia in 1963. The promises of the then Malayan leaders to provide security for the Borneo States was one of the fundamental basis to persuade and induce Sabah and Sarawak to form Malaysia in 1963.

If the Malaysian navy cannot even react when the Chinese naval ships are 80 km. from Sarawak’s coastline, it will be too late if a serious incursion were to take place.    Like in Pearl Harbour in World War 2, foreign ships could have entered the shores of Sarawak, done damage and landed at beaches in Sarawak.

Will the federal government need another Kg. Tanduo intrusion to happen in Sarawak before it takes the necessary action to safeguard the security and sovereignty of Sarawak?

Acting feebly and lying saying that the Chinese naval exercise took place 1,000 nautical miles away and that no such incursion took place when it was widely reported internationally is to deflect criticism.  It will not portray the Najib administration as being capable of defending Malaysia from external threats.

If any foreign power is allowed to claim ownership of James Shoal, which is 80km. from Sarawak’s shores, Sarawak’s territorial boundary may be reduced to its shorelines and coastal waters.   Sarawak will then be reduced to a smaller territory and probably lose all its existing oil-wells and oil-rigs and its oil and gas resources.  If the Malaysian government cannot protect Sarawak and to provide the necessary security, there is no reason for Sarawak to continue to be in Malaysia as the basis for the  1963 agreement to form Malaysia has failed.

The federal government need to face the truth and explain the James Shoal incursion and show its commitment that it is able to defend Sabah and Sarawak’s security and sovereignty.   If it does not, there will be another failure in the basis of the formation of Malaysia.

Umno and its online minions fail to get this, always: the contempt suffered by Najib Razak, et al (Mongoloid, kangkong) pales in comparison to the attacks against the Chinese, the MCA leaders in particular. In the opening clip segment, below, Teresa Kok‘s remarks lined up almost all the MCA leaders, past and present, for the ridicule; their family names dragged through the sewer. Then she made a mockery of a facet of Chinese culture, feng shui: nothing, nothing at all, in the made-up interview had to do with feng shui but Chinese culture is that tolerant of cynicism and ridicule. May 2013 was simply payback time, the MCA to the DAP.

So when Zainuddin Maidin, repeating Najib, accused the Chinese of betraying the Malays in an electoral tsunami, also against Malays, he wasn’t just erroneous, one, about the political diagnosis of the tsunami. He was also, two, egging the Kajang Chinese electorate still further from the MCA by equating Umno and Malays, hence DAP equals Chinese. Teresa Kok employ of Cantonese does not make her Chinese any more than Najib’s son speaking hanyu make him Chinese in an existential and cultural sense.

This explains why Lim Kit Siang could get away with his jingoistic Malaysian First, Chinese Second, among the Chinese but not Melayu. But Malaysian First was dead at the starting point so Lucky Jixiang Father Lim and English Son Guan Eng never shouted that slogan in May 2013: culture is deeply rooted in individual Chinese culture and existence, saved for those lost to the La Salle schools and St Xavier’s church.

The mob in the (next) video clips further below isn’t merely a fascist product of Lucky Father Lim’s Malaysian First; Bangsa Malaysia, the Malaysian First equivalent from Haris Ibrahim amd Ambiga, should be held equally responsible for that dangerous, racist mentality shouting the ‘Bersih’ slogan not in Cantonese but Malay. They were asserting Malaysian First fascism, clearly a throwback on the Malay ketuanan. Which is also to say that the DAP, Pakatan by extension, has now in its pockets the Bar Council, the Church, PPSMI parents and schools, big business (Gardenia and YTL are examples), the professional class, the middle class, the PAS ulamas, and virtually all the major cities. Only one thing stands in its way to Putrajaya: the indigenous cultures of the Melayu, Chinese and Indians.

CNY Wishes for Mother Teresa, Kock ‘Seeping 沁’ Soh:   郭素沁 肏你妈!

(Don’t be angry Melayu; it is actually funny, but to display your anger simply shows you don’t understand and you lack the finesse of the ‘new’ politics. Learn from it, beat it; the parody works after all. And she is very good, employing near classical Chinese. Teresa can give as much flak as she receives; at the least she doesn’t pretend, wearing that Hannah tudung like that Eli ‘Sarong’ Wong. BTW, we’ve gotten even for you. See above title in hanzi.)

***

A response to Zaid Ibrahim: The Chinese will make the Malays stronger

on Cultural Change

Zaid: What the Malays need is a huge cultural and outlook change in life. Malay leaders must energise this movement of cultural change so that Malays and Muslims are better equipped to face challenges.

Ans: What the Chinese need is a huge and deeper introspective change in life. Chinese leaders must invoke this movement of inward-to-outward change so that the Chinese are better equipped to live among Melayus.

Zaid: The Chinese are known for treating everything as a business, for attaching an economic value to their relationships with others and for not yielding an inch unless they have to. Instead of being angry with those who have this philosophy of life, the Malays should emulate this business approach. They should abandon their own laidback and trusting outlook and be more business-like. The Malays need to foster a suitable dose of competitive spirit within themselves, and learn the art of weighing their options in a manner that’s smart and well-informed. I believe the Malays will be stronger if they focus their energy on being competitive instead of being angry.

Ans: The Malays are known for treating almost everything with suspicion, so relying on guanxi (关系), on personal relationships, on attaching a private value to their relationships with others and for not yielding an inch unless they derive benefit. Instead of being cynical with those who have this philosophy of life, the Chinese should understand this personal approach. They should abandon their own cynical and distrusting outlook and be more amiable. The Chinese need to foster a suitable dose of generosity in thinking about the Malays, and learn the finer art of guanxi, which is after all a part of their traditions before liberalism poisoned it. One believes the Chinese will be accommodating if they redirect their energy to being reachable instead of being contemptuous.

Last year, Malaysia and China agreed to hold military cooperation, specifically covering military assistance and rescue in times of disaster. And such cooperation might or might not lead to the diplomatic euphemism for joint military exercises or drills. Hence when Chinese ships showed up near the coasts of East Malaysia, you’d think back to the agreement.

But Reuters, under the cover of independent journalism, and a propaganda font of Anglo-Saxon racism in the East, would say otherwise. And why would they not? Especially since an opportunity is presented to drive a wedge among the Far East countries in order to make space for American bigotry and dominance from the Indian Ocean to the East China Sea, and onwards across the Pacific which they think they own (Okinawa, Subic Bay, Guam, Australia, Hawaii).

The Reuters lie is innocent enough: “Chinese ships patrol area contested by Malaysia”. But the implication is clear: Chinese ships have incurred (Reuters word) into an “area contested by Malaysia”.

Then the Malaiyoo ‘Another Brick in the Wall’ thought he made a grand discovery, repeating in full a Chicago report that had itself repeated Reuters:

“(While) the public is too busy watching the political circus of internal political manouvring (sic!) by Pakatan Rakyat and the clueless ruling party BN keeping quiet upon beseiged by various administrative and leadership problems. … That has affected our military readiness.”

In effect, the Malaiyoo brick head actually says local politics is distracting the military and, worse, the Malaysian Navy is asleep on the job.

More errors follow from the Malaiyoo:

#1: The Chinese diplomat talks a different language than the People’s Liberation Army.

#2: The military controls the party and could over ride the government.

Here is a Malaysian report, citing the Navy:

Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) chief Abdul Aziz Jaafar said China was actually holding a high-level maritime exercise in the northwest of the Nansha islands (regarded by the Philippines as Spratly islands), which was far away from Malaysia’s 200 nm exclusive economic zone, according to the New Strait Times Wednesday.

“There has been no act of provocation on the part of the Chinese or threat to our sovereignty,” said Aziz, adding that Malaysia and the United States was aware of this.

The navy chief said the RMN was informed of the maritime exercise through diplomatic channels, adding that there was no reason for alarm. Aziz spoke highly of the cordial relations between Malaysia and China, claiming it was China’s right to conduct the exercise.

Why are Malaiyoos such pig heads? Stupidity. Why do they so easily buy propaganda from the like of Reuters? Because their thinking is brewed in Anglo-Saxon Christianity? Or, is it because people like the Malaiyoo pig head just hate Chinese and can’t wait to do them in?

***

Meddling Christians

In Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism is further reaffirmation that the roots of Anglophiles (Anwar, LKS, et al), hence their liberalism (PKR’s equality, DAP’s socialism), had sprouted from the seedbeds of Christianity.

“…liberal thought is the offspring of Christianity….Liberalism rests on the moral assumptions provided by Christianity.”

It is not for us to say what the West, the Christian West and, by extension, their Malaysian cohorts (think Murphy Pakiam), choose to value. They have nothing to do with us, even if they choose to defend such values. But then comes this statement:

These are values that need to be defended when, in other parts of the world, different assumptions about the way society can or should be directed hold sway. In China, (Allen Lane, the book’s author) says, “the governing ideology has become a crass form of utilitarianism” that tramples on human liberty, and this “offends some of our deepest intuitions”.

The West (think of the nigger Obama) want to export their values because Eastern values “offend” them. The implication thus: since the West choose not to leave the East alone, one should therefore take them on, so that destroying liberalism requires first to pluck out its roots – Christianity.

***

Melayu! 〈我的好兄弟〉

wode haoxiongdi

..the long road we travel…

you tell me, we fit…

like a cup of wine, like an old song…

Below, version from Malaysia’s Angela Ching 安祈爾

Some of the Malaysian influences – influences? Hint, they’re not Astro commercials – show up in her post-modern pop art and its backdrops but Ching survived intact a product of Chinese culture: her vocals, language, and life. So enduring and vigorous is this culture that, outside Malaysia, she’s happy to remain anonymous, little of her background is told, and many of her Taiwan and mainland China fans could never tell she had been raised and taught among the bangsarized, Sunway-type, Anglo-stooge Malaiyoos (think Malay Annies and Mamak-tarik Kadirs.) They know her only as An Qier.

***

纳吉 〈十面埋伏〉

Najib, ambushed on all sides, which is to be expected. Recall, Sir, the wave that lifts the boat also swallows it.

But no worry. Those mamaks – you know who and what they are; apanama itu BokSyed? Spinners? – they aren’t smart enough to pull this off. How so? Wrong timing. They like to think they have influence and have culture. They don’t and can’t read Mengzi, and they showed their hand, too early. Besides, if they could do it they wouldn’t have said so — would they now….? — and telling the world, making threatening noises (‘you are going down‘) and pretending they speak for ‘the People’, on their behalf, as if they know what’s ‘hardship’ (they don’t even eat kangkung) and only they know ‘sentiments’.

They take your silence as weakness, but you know – and so, too, we – what’s to be done when the time arrives. Should and when you strike back, do spare them an exit; only one though, not more. That would be wise. The alternative is to hoist them onto a pedestal. Such types, these Anglo-Melayu imitations, these Malaiyoos, are always negotiable but paid-for things have no loyalty and none should be expected from them.

We’re however sorry we can only stand to one side to watch so that no hurt shall come upon you. This has to be your fight because only then is your victory honorable. After all this, perhaps peace and quiet will return (刘紫玲 further below). Perhaps.

Melayu! wode haoxiongdi.

Ambushed, 十面埋伏, below…

***

刘紫玲 〈珍惜〉 zhenxi

***

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.