Archive for May, 2010

On a Crusading Political Party

& the Collected Works of Hannah Yeoh

The Great Anti-Democratic Alliance


With so much spewing from both her ears, you’d hope Hannah Yeoh has profound or illuminating things to instruct Malaysia, the world even. Here is an anthology of her works, with responses:

  • H: A miracle has taken place! Thank God.
  • A: Wrong! – just Sibu folks fooled by conjurers.
  • H: Prayers do move mountains.
  • A: Now, we know who’s behind the killer earthquakes, Hannah and her vindictive god.
  • H: I use words to talk to God.
  • A: Words? Hallelujah: Hannah has a tongue! God? Better yet, use your tongue on a wall. It’s in Jerusalem.
  • H: One day in the House of God is better than a thousand elsewhere.
  • A: Anywhere, absolutely anywhere, for ten thousand days but not the voodoo house.

Those are the exact same kind of inanities – Hannah’s stupidities are irrational, syllogistic, fallacious – that spew from the brains of Ridhuan Tee and Ibrahim Ali (“mass communication” graduate). This is why the like of Hannah are reluctant, and they are the last, to criticize Ridhuan because they see themselves in him. Hannah is Ridhuan’s mirror image. While Ridhuan is converted to the Arab, Mohammedan cause, Hannah is converted to the Orang Putih, Jesus cause.

She also exemplifies the Malaysian urban Anglophile lovers of White man, of White culture, adoring an imported Western value system, on a narcissistic guilt trip, and simultaneously self-hating, she’d latch herself to anything that doesn’t look Chinese, preferably gweilo but since none is around she’d have to settle for the next available – reminds of Mkini’s Joshie? MT’s Thomas Lee? DAP’s Teresa? Betty? “Yo-hoo…. Rama … where’re you? I’m ready… hurry honey pie, I must get up early tomorrow for the Dewan, you know?” (Elizabeth Wong probably said all that – the same – in her sarong, bamboo mat on the floor.)

“Be fruitful and multiply,” says Hannah, never pausing even to think of the vomit she throws daily into her mobile from regurgitating the bible, the only book she’ll ever need. Or read. Hannah bragging about her church attendance was intended to flaunt to the “flock” (they actually call people, “sheep”) her peacock feathers – that is, she made it. So, then, politics was never a matter of public good, 为人民服务, wei renmin fuwu as the Chinese say. In Umno, politics is for the government contract; in the DAP, it’s a job creation programme and being a legislator takes Hannah to an apex of a career. Predictably, numerous DAP legislators are typically “mass communication” graduates, unemployable elsewhere.

What Hannah oozes out with her ear wax is, of course, her business. She might treat sex as a personal matter of privacy, but she won’t leave her religion at home. Emulating PAS, she and the DAP are all out on Christianity, dragging out their god, flaunting it, invoking it, while eyes are on the ultimate seat of power, Putrajaya. Not long ago, the DAP would say god, like sex, is a private matter not just because it is but especially because the consequences of lacing it into politics would be too disastrous to contemplate (witness the Islam-Christian fight in January). Now, it’s fair game to Hannah et al, a political expediency, with apologists in tow, the runaway Anglophile Petra Kamarudin foremost among them (is there a Petra-god fest going on at MT?).

Hannah Yeoh: In her, in DAP and PAS, Malaysian politics is a earful of religious talk and injunctions. Latest is this. One more reason for the DAP rank and file to revolt against these evangelists and after that better their cause, beginning with a rural alliance with Hindraf. But sssssh … quietly. Remember, always, what Mengzi has taught about timing.


What’s to come out of this, now that the DAP has joined PAS?

The case of Bung Mokhtar of Kinabatangan sent to jail for unauthorised polygamy is instructive. The woman hurt most by Mokhtar was Fong Po Kuan of Batu Gajah, yet she was silent mostly. Instead Hannah and Teresa Kok went to town with the news, pontificating about the sanctity of marriage (and Teresa is not even married). Noteworthy wasn’t their morality, which all know. Rather, what was predictable (because of their Christianity and their vindictiveness), was the melding of their religious creed into law, topped by demands for more jail time for Mokhtar (flogging may or may not be included). It’s no more a private matter now – marriage – so that in the god-inspired Pakatan new world order Eli would have to go to jail for premarital sex (but, once in Putrajaya, the cohorts of Anwar Ibrahim will find a way to shield her from the law).

All this reflects, in part, not just the hypocrisy and the totalitarian essence lurking beneath the DAP-PAS religious politics, but they are also the types who can’t think straight. The poor folks of Subang – Selangor, Malaysia, by extension – must endure a third rate, bigoted mind. Another example: When Hannah says she lives for “God”, what then of public welfare? Which comes first? What’s to become of people who refuse and who reject her god? No roads, no money for schools? No selling beer? No cybercafe licences?

More evidence:

Everyone wants Hindraf/HRP to subsume their interests in favour of the larger goal of reaching Putrajaya. And in that process become a PR Mandore. That is a sure way of neglecting Indian marginalisation issues once again. No more!! We have already seen that a change of government in Penang, Perak and Selangor DID NOT bring the required changes. The loss in Hulu Selangor too did not bring about a change in Selangor policies. It took Kamalanathan just one week after winning to connect water supply to a school after 53 years! What did PKR do in 2 years? Therefore it is Pakatan and DAP leadership that must change, not Hindraf/HRP. I am waiting for Anwar to be jailed for sodomy. Then we can surely discuss.

In Hannah’s imported ethical system, you must take sides: either you are with her or not (evidence again: Rony Tan of Singapore). This is how the bible describes those who refused Hannah’s god, her politics by extension:

“They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.” (Psalm 14:1)

For punishment:

“If his sons break my law and do not follow my statutes, if they violate my decrees and fail to keep my commands, I will punish their sin with the rod, their iniquity with flogging… (Psalm 89:30-32)


Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. (Deu 13:10)

Familiar? Read that anywhere? And, here’s intolerance and vindictiveness in Hannah’s god and religion:

“But if you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands, and if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant, then I will do this to you: I will bring upon you sudden terror, wasting diseases and fever that will destroy your sight and drain away your life.” (Lev 26:14-16)

“If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, … I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters. I will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars and pile your dead bodies on the lifeless forms of your idols, and I will abhor you. I will turn your cities into ruins and lay waste your sanctuaries.” (Lev 26:27-31)

That, above, is what SUPP’s George Chan would have to mean when he warned of “barbarians at the gates” of Miri because that’s what barbarians do. There is more than a metaphorical reference into the psychological profile of DAP people like Lim Kit Siang, Tony Pua (a failed, philistine businessman who could never understand culture) and others. Chan’s use of the word ‘barbarian’ – a rampaging, crusading horde – would be literally true on two counts.

  • (a) Having convinced themselves of the superiority in their Judeo-Christian-based Western ethical system, DAP leaders are without the native Chinese culture and its attendant restraining and refining characteristics. The consequence – and it’s one reason you see them everywhere (Hannah, LKS, SMS, Mkini, Twitter…), and that on a daily basis – badgering, spitting, vomiting, hankering, threatening, quarrelsome, aggression. For decades, and they still do, Malays mistook these characteristics as inherently Chinese when they are, in truth, Anglophile. Thus, when Haris Ibrahim, the apologist extraordinaire helping to camouflage Pakatan totalitarianism, preaches non-communalism he is in fact avowing political ethics to be drawn from the only communal source that’s left with nobody in Malaysia but a ghost: the colonial White man.
  • (b) Taking a cue from the crusading nature of Christianity and which they’ve bought into, the DAP today adopts a self-righteous, war-like manner in their politics (they call it a “movement”), to wit, good v evil; righteous DAP v infidel Umno, infidel MCA, infidel SUPP; us v them. Therefore, “Change! “Conquer!” “March!” to Putrajaya are characteristic of their slogans and electoral refrains.

In her daily doses, whispering good nothings onto her mobile, and in her religious bigotry, Hannah mirrors Lim Guan Eng et al, and so exposes the inner-workings of the DAP, helmed by bigots and fascists, self-hating and without culture (being Anglophile, she would not have heard of the junzi). An eye on the road to Putrajaya, the Hannahs of the DAP and Hadis of PAS, exemplify respectively the Evangelist and Ustaz types, the two beside each other, oozing power in mutual masturbatory work. “Putra!” Hannah cries out at last. “I’m coming!

Tian-ah! Save us from them….

DAP’s Jesus Politics: If you’re not with us, you’re against us. Hang that witch! Therein is Hannah’s god and religiosity, in tandem with the Islamists, below. See the similarity? From Hannah’s god: (Heb 2:31) “It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Rev 19:3) “And, again, they shouted: ‘Hallelujah! The smoke from her goes up for ever and ever.’” Afraid?


Read Full Post »

Replaying May 13 Remembrance:


Song From a Fisherman’s Boat at Sunset

(shuzheng translation)

红日照海上, 清风晚转凉 Crimson glows in the Rizhao sea; pure is its evening breeze.
随着美景匆匆散 But, hurry before the splendor breaks in its wake;
钟声山上响 mountain bell rings out the hour,
海鸥拍翼远洋 seagulls wing across the open sea.
要探钟声响处 Bells ring from the homes. Depart now
无奈我不知方向 I must but which way?
人象晚钟一般愤 Indignation comes late to the heart,
美景不可永日享 eternal beauty outlives not the day.

船划破海浪, 终于也归航 Boat may break the waves, but submit it will in the end.
无论我多依恋你 What regrets I have in our parting,
苦于了解情况 and the pain; but the circumstances you know.
归家怨路长, 痴心却在远方 Complain not the long journey home. Distant is the yearning heart.

谁遇到风浪, 多少也惊惶 Who comes to meet the stormy sea? For sure there’s fear,
无力再收痴心网 but the heart lacks no valor.
心中急又慌 Only never lose heart to press on,
涌出眼泪两行 like streaming paired lines of tears.
向晚景色碎 Late is the evening, the scene is breaking;
红日向山边降 and the mountain falls to the crimson day.
前路也许昏昏暗 Perhaps, too, the road ahead is lost,
天边总有月光 but somewhere, always, there’s moon, light.

含泪看彼岸, 不知你怎样 Tears held back on the other shore. How goes with you my dear?
来日也许可相见 Surely we shall meet, days permitting;
相见止于梦乡never halting, in the land of dreams.
相思路更长, 心曲向谁唱 Though the road may be long, the heart chants to its song.


  • The tune, including the title, is a signature piece in Chinese classical music. Its origin is Tang dynasty (c.600 AD); composer unknown.
  • Almost certainly the tune was rendered originally with a guzheng 古筝 (with as many as 23 strings during the Tang era). Here, however, it is delivered by an ensemble (in order of importance): guzheng, flute (very probably the transverse type known as dizi 笛子), erhu 二胡, and pipa 琵琶.
  • The poetry above that is adapted to the tune is rendered in Cantonese by 童丽 Tong Li, a contemporary mainland Chinese singer.
  • Remarkable for her crystalline, penetrating vocal quality, Tong’s repertoire and the rendition is characteristically Chinese, one unadulterated by Western musical influences, without chorus for instance.
  • Rizhao in the northern Shandong peninsula of China faces the Yellow Sea.


Below, the guzheng in its original, predecessor pre-Qin era construction, seven strings and no bridges (Confucius is said to be a master with it):

The  guzheng today, with bridges arranged diagonally (for a wider range in musical notes) and 15 to 44 strings (typically 15 for beginner classes).

A performance in Beijing, 2008:

Another rendition below, adopting again the same technique – coupling classical poetry as lyrics to another enduring instrumental piece (composer unknown), also Tang era and which is as famous as the Fisherman Boat Song.

  • Music: 春江花月夜 Moonlit River in Spring (also see Performing Arts, right hand column).
  • Poem: 张若虚 Zhang Ruoxu (c. 660-720 AD).
  • Present day singer: Tong Li.
  • Primary instrument: guzheng.

The original piece is almost 9 minutes long, with title taken from a poem by the composer’s Tang contemporary, Zhang. Tong Li’s sung version is about 5 minutes, reflecting the immense difficulty of writing strict, classical poetry form into an equally ancient, 1,300-year-old musical, then singing it. This music-poem-vocal amalgamation is without parallel in the art world, a feat not repeated since.

春江花月夜 Moonlit River in Spring

Read Full Post »

The Jesus Talibans of Sibu

Already this, below, has been interpreted as a Chinese victory of the DAP. Lim Kit Siang, the DAP man of high IQ that he claims he possesses and who might even believe himself to be the next messiah, has said the win is a “miracle”. That’s biblical language: something like Jesus’s second-coming.

Anglophiles aplenty, yellow outside, all white inside: the little Messiahs of Malaysian politics.

No, the Chinese did not win. The evangelical Christians did.

That explains why and how during the campaigning Lim Guan Eng et al had to bring up that “Allah” thing in “An Evening with Christian Pakatan Leaders”. Addressing the electorate as “my fellow Christians (read Chinese)”, they talk about the “hand of God” and to “go forth and spread the gospel” – the exact same things that Ridhuan Tee, the PAS ustaz and the Umno ulamas would say to the Malays. In step with Anwar Ibrahim and all the ustaz of PAS who imported Islam to seize power, the DAP today brings Christianity into the Chinese mainstream polity.

(Here then a banner-slogan tip for the next battle: The Wu Sangui of Malaysia = Lim Kit Siang; or, in hanzi 林吉祥 = 吳三桂. Mr Chua Soi Lek, infidel president, you do know what Wu Sangui truly signifies, don’t you?)

The Sibu result is therefore tragic: the DAP pushing and pulling the Chinese into a religious fight – Christianity vs Islam – so that at some later stage they will made Christianity synonymous with the Chinese. That’s one highly inflammable gas in Malay vs Chinese.

So much talk of Beyond Race Politics, Middle Malaysia, inclusiveness, Malaysian first and religion second, yet none is to be seen in Sibu. The DAP was even willing to betray its declared secularism, now Christianity first instead – hallelujah – or as PAS members would say, allahuakbar.

No, DAP did not take Sibu. The Jesus Talibans did.

Look again at the photo: there are the ex-La Sallian Guan Eng, good Christian wife Betty; there are Ho-ly-Eng, Teresa the Sassy, the God-first Hannah Yeoh. Before it’s too late, for everybody, the DAP rank and file must revolt against this bunch of little Napoleon messiahs, now washed ashore into Sarawak, Sabah next. DAP members owe it to the country to revolt before the self-destruction engulfs all, Chinese, Malay, Indian.

Read Full Post »

Extremist to Extremist: A Letter

Who are the Extremists & their True Enemies

史记, shiqi: Records of History by Sima Qian


Xiaode addresses the honourable Dr Mahathir Mohamad:

Early this year Michael Chick, an actual name it seems, wrote of a certain White man, an anthropologist named Timothy Barnard studying the ethnological and etymological origins of Malays. White people shout into our ears many things and we endure to listen.

Essentially, Chick said the Malay is an invented class, not ethnic in the ordinary sense of the word. Extrapolated, the Malay is today also a political class, supremacist and, thanks to you, blasphemous to challenge. Chick’s article was dated Jan 21, more than three months after Perkasa exploded into the national headlines but which you point to as evidence that Chinese “extremists” (chauvinist is the preferred word of the Anglophile Siew Eng reporters) was the first to provoke, and so gave rise to Malay extremism in groups like Perkasa. That is, Chinese extremism caused Malay extremism.

Then there is also the counter-factual evidence personified in you, Dr Mahathir. Surely, given your age and given you have been an extremist – however defined – all your life, how could the Chinese be the first?

Elsewhere, reaffirming the idea of an invented Malay, there were more talks of how, for example, the Malay “special position” was actually appropriated and was never before a “right” as would be legally defined. Proof of the fiction: the special position has a used-by date, to be exact, no later than 15 years to 1971. Hindu Indians in Hindraf have now gone further, saying Umno – that includes you – actually stole the Malay special position idea to enrich themselves, as bogus “owners” of the land. Proof of theft: the Orang Asli, the original inhabitants, got only dirt in their faces – nothing, no mention in Article 153. That being so, the Article has not only to be questioned; it must be scrapped.

In all these instances of “extremist” talk that you said had come from “Chinese extremists”, there were a White man, a Malay, an Indian, and there is you, invoking May 13 every four years.

Can you see the multiply layers of lies in your ultimate statement: there is a thing call Chinese extremism and Chinese extremism caused Malay extremism. In it there is a sameness of assertion flaunted in The Malay Dilemma – the Chinese are out, again, to cause trouble. In the meantime, along comes Azhar Ibrahim, one of your Umno mates, threatening May 13; in other words, killing Chinese, the identical sort of threat you used in general elections newspaper campaigns in 1999 and before.

In a few days, it will be exactly 41 years to the date people were killed; to be truthful, killed because they were Chinese so that to be Chinese second or Malaysian first would still have counted for nothing. Even that, Chinese as second and contrary to the banalities of DAP’s Lim Kit Siang (the Father), was not the point in being murdered.

This time, how many Chinese do you wish to see dead on the streets and burned in their houses? That’s unlikely to be your wish, but your racist hatred of Chinese is so plainly evident it gets transmitted to your sons – what’s the name of that kid of yours at Perkasa?

But these matters shall not detain the purpose of writing to you…, so being affront in the beginning – to which xiaode regrets because it appears out-of-place – was purely a topical addition. More could have been said, but it would pointless. You hate and you envy the Chinese. Tell us, tell this country, what did the Chinese do to you or your family to deserve your hatred? It’s obvious how Mukhriz came to be Sinophobic. But who raised you with such values?


It is unlikely you would have heard of the Chinese named Sima Qian (司马迁 145-86 BC). He served emperor Wu (Han Wudi 汉武帝, reign 141-87 BC) when the Han dynasty, in land mass (map), approximates China’s size today, extending from present-day Kyrgyzstan to Mongolia in the north, Korea east and Vietnam south. That’s quite a territory – the size of Europe – for one man to govern but there was already an administrative apparatus for the purpose. (Did you know the Han dynasty conducted the world’s first national census? Population then: 50 million.)

From the Chinese cultural viewpoint, the Han era is more instructive than the predecessor Qin (from which Qin Shihuang is notable), in part because an academy was created in the palace to train public officials. Other than astronomy, military affairs and agriculture, Confucianism was also in the syllabus.

In the Han court, Sima Qian (picture below) – he might have been trained in such a place – held the position called taishiling 太史令 which in translation is Grand Scribe. ‘Scribe’ is an English misnomer sometimes used to mean historian, and ‘grand’ is because he would be in charge of a department responsible for calendaring (when agriculture was a seasonal affair) and the preparation and upkeep of palace and court documents (written in bamboo strips, sometimes silk).

That position gave him direct access to the emperor, appearing with the ministers when all were in conference. Sima’s reputation in Chinese history and among the Chinese (for this letter, the Chinese definition is by historical and cultural attributes and so excludes the Anglophile Guan Engs and the White God-serving Hannah Yeohs) came not from that position however. Rather, it was on the book titled shiji (史记, worked from 104 to 91 BC) which runs to 130 chapters; in English 3,000 pages if counting the explanatory notes made during the Song era. (There is a short 1958 Burton Watson translation with little of the notes).

To see the shiqi’s significance, think of the Sejarah Melayu (John Leyden trans. 1821) to Malay genealogy but multiplied many fold in scale, in page numbers, in the depth of literary form, and by multiply subjects – and this encylopedic quality was delivered at a time of writing with a tipped brush on bamboo, not pencil, typewriter or keyboard.

While Confucius and Qin Shihuang pretty much constructed the ethical and political foundations of modern Chinese society, Sima went deeper and farther back. He collated and synthesized the records for the period of about 1,000 years before his time. From those records he produced a systematic, independent and impartial account of Chinese historical roots, ethnography, genealogy, sociology, and political and economic events, even diplomacy, that is, Chinese relations with the marauding bands of tribesmen north of the Great Wall (those barbarians…). With his writing style and form, a certain type of literature too was born. All this meant he might have singularly defined what it is to be Chinese and to be Chinese in culture. This would be quite a credit….

One other thing survived Sima: a personal letter, about 2,800 character-words, long even by today’s standard. The latter court historian Ban Gu 班固, documenting Han history about 100 years later, had found the letter and so attached it as addendum to his work the hanshu, Han History (汉书, 111 AD, of which Ming printed copies may be accessed in the Ningbo archives today).

Sima Qian (145-86 BC)

It might be boring, but please bear with xiaode about Sima….

His reason for the letter can only be inferred from the content and title, Reply to Ren’an (报任安书 bao ren’an shu) written after the shiqi. Ren’an is the informal name of the person Ren Shaoqing 任少卿, governor of present day Sichuan; so their informality suggests the two men were close colleagues. Both had spent time in jail; Ren’an subsequently executed and Sima castrated. We shall skip the circumstances leading to Sima’s fate, or Ren’an, but this will be said: those circumstances are in ways not dissimilar to that which befell Anwar Ibrahim. (But it would be preposterous to compare the two; they are in completely different leagues.) Sima was accused of betraying the emperor, put on trial, then punished. To Ren’an, he said:

When one is in a compromising situation, it is not easy to justify oneself; the world is always ready to misrepresent one’s motives.

In another revealing passage, he wrote (edited from translation by James Hightower, Harvard Univ):

A man dies only once, and whether death to him is as weighty as Mount Tai or as light as a feather depends on the reason for which he dies. (That’s a famous line, which in hanzi reads: 人固有一死,或重于泰山,或轻于鸿毛,用之所趋异也。And Mt Tai would be Taishan 泰山, Shandong province.)

The most important thing is not to disgrace one’s ancestors, the next oneself, the next not to disgrace one’s principles, and the next not one’s manners. Next worse is the disgrace of being put in fetters, the next is to wear a prisoner’s garb, the next is to be beaten in the stocks, the next is to have the head shaved and a metal chain fastened around the neck, the next is mutilation, and the very worst disgrace of all is castration.

Note the order of ethical priorities in “the reason for which one dies” – as opposed to what you and La Salle school graduates are raised and taught to emulate: the reason for which one lives, serving god and all. By Sima’s time, the reason for which one lives was already well-established which, in Confucian terms, sourced in turn from the pre-Qin, Zhou, era was singularly about the cultivation of man. That is, to be human, not godly. You hear this often – how to be human – from the Chinese in, for example, Lim Kit Siang (he hadn’t realise it then) shouting in Parliament at the semen leaking maniac named Bung Mokhtar Radin of Kinabatangan.

Following the passage, Sima proceeds to name names of people who live hundreds of years before him: King Wen in prison (in one of several states), Confucius in exile writing the Spring and Autumn Annals, the chunqiu 春秋, Qu Yuan, Sun Zi, Zuo Qiu, and so on.

In White man’s culture, evil has its punishments and good has its rewards (always after death when its pointless). In citing history and naming names, Sima reiterated what is today a standard Chinese ethical precept which in modern parlance is that being upright is never cost-free. Hence, being upright, requires a rationale that looks into the consequences, which must be valued more. Who and how that is to be valued is entirely up to an individual to establish. Sima’s:

“I wish to understand the world of heavens and man, the changes of the past and present, to establish a unique school of thought on history. … I do wish to complete the books, and store them in great mountains, pass them onto the like-minded, and let them be read in all cities. By so doing, I would wash away all my shame, and even should I suffer ten thousand times of humiliation, what regret would I have?”

In Sima’s inversion of purpose – reason of death rather than reason to live – you will also find countless references in the Chinese idea of human-ness, humanity: Daoist and popular literature, palace and court documents, history books, Tang poetry and so on, even military annals.

Sima narrating history to put across an ethical point is similar to the stories Chinese mothers tell their kids of, for instance, Chinese women, usually daughters drawn not from the emperor’s family (which is the popular myth) but from officers of senior court ranks (one to a Malay, remember? and one to a barbarian Mongolian tribal chief). The daughters are told it is for the sake of peace for the Chinese. Or, it would stories of betrayal like that of Wu Sangui 吳三桂 or of heroines such Fa Mulan. You yourself might have heard from third parties of these Chinese narratives and the story telling. But in your illiteracy – from your so-called “writings”, one can tell your understanding of culture is as good as your economics – you might think they are just so-so stories. Not so in Chinese culture.

Here, however, to let you in on a secret. The Chinese idea of being human, an idea transmitted at school, in homes, person-to-person, book-to-person, is direct, linear, pervasive, and has not stopped. Sima, four or five thousand miles away, 2,100 years ago, is identical in Chinese cultural and ethical attributes to the man hunted down by KL municipal officials for selling oranges on the wayside because he had lost his bus driver job, or the man pulling a cart in a Batu Gajah new village selling peanut broth because he lost his tin mine job, both cases no thanks to you. (By Chinese attributes we, again, shall not mean them in the person of Lim Guan Eng – the Son – because, as you would say, he’s a White man’s poodle dog.) A Singapore Chinese minister (don’t you despise them?), George Yeo perhaps, calls this identical Chinese quality cultural DNA.

This truth of cultural DNA has wide ramifications.

One, to live, which is how to conduct oneself, is based on rationale, not on a blind leap of faith. Chinese morality is, therefore, reasoned not “divine”, which, if you were to think it through, is purely a fictional word representing a non-existence. The White man, in the German philosopher Immanuel Kant for example, came only to understand ethics as a reasoned activity 2,200 years after Confucius. In Critique of Pure Reason, Kant came away with the idea of the “categorical imperative”: there is good reason to be good, hence duty.

This – Chinese morality as reasoned activity, and duty – merits repetition owing to its corollary, which in popular phrasing is called the Middle Path. It says that to do anything, even to do good, do so in moderation. Any other way leads to disaster.

This is because you can never tell what comes out at the end of actions taken today. Take your NEP. The more you press it, the more goods, positions and cash you spread around, the opposite to the intent results: the Umno Malays don’t have to work. Your Umno underlings have only to sit at home, waiting for the next discounted IPO allotment or the next import licence with which they pay with a loan arm-twisted out of a bank, at discounted interest. Then, the Malay boys and girls don’t even have to study hard. There is a quota to fill and, if that doesn’t get them in, the university qualifying bar is also lowered for the purpose, to which your party hacks give the fancy word, “matriculation”. So, why bother?

You know all that, of course.

What you then see around you and everywhere is not just mediocrity in Malay lives – you and your bogus sociology are the most important causes – prominent of whom is that Ibrahim Ali, a “mass communication” third-rate mind. Only the like of him could have been taken in by you. Or, for further evidence into this phenomenon, known today as “dumping down”, take that Ridhuan Tee who went from Chinese to Malay (so he says he is) in one leap – down the ladder. Have you read him in Mingguan Malaysia? If being Malay isn’t enough, he flips Chinese tolerance into intolerance. And then claims ketuanan, that is, he is among supreme stock. Only the feeble and the weak feel the need to shout supremacy. After which, life’s degradation follows – and I apologise beforehand to say that, therein is fruit again of your past policies.

See how this Malay life you instigated and then fashioned as Prime Minister is so antithetical to reason? Such a life makes no sense, not even – or is it especially? – with religion at the core. It doesn’t matter if it’s Islam (among Malays in Malaysia) or Christianity (among Malays in the Philippines), the effects are the same. Absent of reason but rife in contradictions, such a life – no responsibility, no struggle, burdens lifted, most cares looked after, rewards after death in a fictitious place called heaven – finds only incongruity, purposeless-ness (recall Sima’s letter) and deep, internal antagonism ending up in a 14-year-old boy gallivanting in town and an incompetent and the idiot police shooting him dead because that’s all they know: fire away. That was no accidental fate of sudden death. The disharmonious life is a mess, losing the only thing it possesses, an ability to reason and reason clearly.

What keeps up with this degeneration, the downward spiral, that takes with it the Malay life?

Chinese culture has a mechanism, rooted in its ethics, to reinvent the priorities of its people, that is, life. Upon second reading, you should be suspicious of such a statement. Why? Because, from your worldview, ethics (as in religious ethics) is for eternity. This is not so in Chinese societies since fluidity – the Dao – is the only constant. (We shall not go into this, not here.)

For Malay culture on the other hand the conduct of life is today fixed in law, which are always religious in origins. When Ibrahim Ali, like you, claims Malay “rights” as constitutional law (Article 153), he is merely confirming that the Malay life is an ossified creature, chiseled forever in stone like it were the Ten Commandments. What comes of this ossified life? Answer: all the manner of things that contribute to the degradation mentioned earlier. For you to argue that, in the balance of things, some Malays falling off from the NEP onto the wayside (Amirul?) is an inevitable price to pay, you are then reaffirming that the Malays are weak, and getting rich is an end in itself. Small wonder PAS people abhors you, probably because they suspect – and feel amiss – about your rojak perceptions of the Malay life.

The Confucianist Chinese since the Warring States period called the system that makes life and life’s conduct subservient to legal precepts, fajia 法家 – Legalism. And they despise its self-perpetuating quality and for its insistence of going against human nature which is better managed, rather than controlled, by a certain but not legalised set of imparted ethics. Once perfectly, ordinary human functions are codified in law, then that law inflates and extenuate the gravity of those functions. That is, it is self-inflating. Most obvious of the examples is, premarital sex scorned by both the Islam of PAS and the Christianity of DAP. Once treated as illegal, it gives the incentive to throw out the one-hour-old baby if it came to that. Two crimes result: sex and infanticide, three for adultery, four if girl is underaged, five if woman is also married, six if woman is paid for services.

Chinese culture has since the Han era saw Confucianism overcome Legalism. We shall skip the details and the reasons behind this triumph, but suffice to say that Chinese ethics made imperative the conduct of each person responsible to the other (as oppose to stand-alone, independent conduct in Western systems). This is to say, an individual conduct is made relational to, not independent of, family members at home, the colleague, friend, or the government bureaucrat. Those relations are woven from a set of Confucianist ethical fabrics, read readily in history such as the shiqi, and threaded together by virtues such as moderation and reason.

Sima’s reason to live made dependent on ‘the reason for which one dies’ enters into this interlocking web of relationship: what does a man leave behind upon and after each relationship, or upon death? Sima choosing castration over death was the choice of reason between one ethical precept, obedience to father, over another, which is shame. On those ethical precepts, moderation and reason are also deployed to oil and to manage those human relations.

From the woven fabric of Chinese culture has produced ideas such as tolerance and respect for others because each individual life is unique to the family or community from which an individual grows and is fashioned. This tolerance have, at times, bordered on indifference in attitudes such as: Malays can treat each other any way they want; only leave us, the infidel Chinese, alone. Contrast that to your own worldview: you purposefully intrude into the Malay psychology which you then pit against the Chinese, many of who respond by leaving the country.

So you see, the Chinese and their culture (again not the Anglophile Father and Son) is not what you think they are. On the contrary, they have been tolerant to a fault.

An extremist Chinese producing samizdat literature: Siew Eng, you yellow piece of chauvinist Anglophile, third rate, white-lover twerp, did you call me chauvinist?

Now, given this is the extreme Chinese position – the more Chinese is a person the greater is his adherence to his humanist ethics – is that then the extremist Chinese? The extremist Chinese would be somebody like Sima Qian, conscious never to disgrace one’s ancestors, one’s self, principles, manners, and so on. The extremist Chinese would be in the junzi class, always weighing his conduct in consideration of those around him, a pole star for others to emulate. The extremist Chinese would be the last person on earth to be bother whether the Umno Malay gets his AP licence or company directorship with one of your White culture lover-Christian buddies Francis Yeoh.

Who then is the extremist Chinese that’s the flip side of Ibrahim Ali who says he is devoted only to one thing – Malay rights – but then goes around like an insane woman loose on the street demanding to boycott the Chinese? And how does Chinese Press respond? They interview him!

When was the last time Utusan gave newspaper space to an “extremist” Chinese, assuming one can be found. Ibrahim, like those Umno and newspaper hacks (Zaini Hassan) of yours, think the Hulu Selangor Chinese are ungrateful for going against Barisan. Wrong. Their decision had little to do, if any, with the MCA or DAP, to either of which Chinese culture pledges no allegiance. Instead their decision was prompted by what they saw: a certain Kamalanathan bowing and kissing another man, who need not be Muhyiddin or a Malay – he could even be Chinese. Chinese history is replete with lessons in ethics about the spineless, bundled with their stupid ideas, so that in Kamalanathan was an exact copy of Wu Sangui (xiaode regrets that explaining who he is will burden your reading).

How then could Kamalanathan ask for endorsement to be leader when he exhibits the exact opposite qualities desired of Chinese culture? And then the gall of him to boast of his action, Malaysian first, bangsa Malaysia? Kamalanathan is judged in Chinese culture by what he exhibits, his speeches, acts and not by whom he is aligned to, political class, and the money he’ll bring. You see, the Chinese worldview that originates from his culture has no mechanism to recognise skin colours or money. It values intelligent virtues above all. Such a culture accounts not only for Chinese tolerance but it’s also a strength: politics is judged through the character of the person, the individual, not ideology, not religion, not ethnicity, and not wild claims of supremacy.

These are the underlying reasons why the Chinese have no problem accepting, tentatively, Anwar Ibrahim in spite of his Malay supremacist past, Nizar of Perak, Zaid of Kelantan, but not a Kamalanathan or Kit Siang, the latter, if you recall had been rejected many times before in Penang and Perak. In this respect – culture’s judge of character – the Malay mind is less sophisticated (you call it, “simple”) in part because Islam, like Christianity, is absolutist: it instructs the Malay how to judge, no two ways about it. White man’s culture, pivoted on Christian values, is like that, too – undemocratic – which should tell you why the Anglophile DAP is today the Catholic side of PAS. For this reason, those least virtuous, or least democratic, finds the need to shout hardest. Under Guan Eng, few party members can go up without two important credentials: a La Salle education and Christianity. Hee Yit Foong of Perak had none of the two and that drew contempt from her party seniors. She wisely left (and they promptly called her names).

This should tell Umno or MCA something: that, for example, Teresa Kok, in spite of her enormous majority in a so-called Chinese “extremist” Seputeh (you had before attributed foul things to such constituencies – remember?), can be defeated. But this MCA can’t do because you always get it wrong by failing to distinguish between the culture of the Chinese electorate and that of MCA’s opponents. The enemies of Perkasa can’t be the Chinese extremist in Chinese culture that has no cause or ambition to influence, to dominate or to convert. The DAP’s ambition, on the other hand, is today motivated by its proselytizing evangelical faction in the leadership – Teresa, Anthony, James, Hannah, et al – to whom Jesus is first, Malaysian second, Chinese third, Malay last – perhaps.

The ideological and political polar opposite to the Muslim-Malay is, therefore, the Anglophile Christian DAP – the Arab Islam vs Europe Christian fight replayed in Malaysia. It can’t be the Chinese who, if they were extremist, couldn’t care less. DAP’s alliance with PAS, united by a hatred of Umno, may veil the cause but doesn’t alter the motivation – recall, Jesus first. DAP’s Hannah Yeoh said so herself, although obliquely and note the urgency in the imperative: “must serve Him; never stop living for God.” And by God she hadn’t mean Allah.

What do you see then in this range of religious and ideological forces arrayed against Barisan and personnified in Hannah, Teresa, Zulkifli, Ibrahim, et al? Answer: a self-fulfilled prophecy of extremism you’ve cultivated from Day One and which you maliciously and falsely pinned on the Chinese. Among the DAP Chinese in these forces are the evangelicals, the fajia, the absolutists, many of who – and here is the irony – can’t even write their fathers’ names in Chinese. On your son’s F1 circuit, they, like PAS, are more than likely to insist Chinese girls wear a nun’s garment than expose their navels.

Your politics, Dr Mahathir, is outdated. It’s time to reclassify your enemies.

Back then to your assertion: who’s the extremist Chinese? The Chinese have nothing to be extreme for. On the way up, the Chinese are advised instead, never claim leadership. They understand why. You don’t. You once labeled the suqiu and the dongjiaozong extremists and chauvinist. How so? Because they stuck to Confucius and to Sima Qian, and because they know the lessons of Wu Sangui and Fa Mulan – most of whom you haven’t even heard of. You don’t even know what it is you say. And you’ve unnecessarily made enemies out of the enemies of the Anglicised DAP.

You had been wrong, and you’re still wrong about the Chinese (again, not the Father and Son types). The Chinese don’t aspire supremacy; if it comes, it comes. What do you do with it, anyway? Malaysian Anglophiles want it – power. Like them, and like your Umno hacks and the Jesus Talibans, you know of no other way to govern, or to move ahead and to prosper. Power is all that you know. The “extremist” Chinese prefers, however, virtue encapsulated in this line 为人民服务 wei renmin fuwu which PAS borrows today. Know what it means? Guess from where and whence had this line come? And why?

You see, Dr Mahathir, most Chinese-educated just want to get on with their lives, hoping to see the next generation better off, and it doesn’t matter who owns the HSBC or Stanchart because they still have to pay the damn interest on the loan but those banks are more efficient than Maybank, treat people as customers first – humans therefore – and not as Chinese second. Admit it.

What they aspire as a matter of virtue is to get their lives right – their human-ness calibrated right, in ways they’d learned from Confucius and from Sima Qian, et al, handed down from history. In English, it is sometimes called appropriate, rather than righteous, conduct.

You once wrote about the gentility of Malay culture, making it appear as if Chinese culture is its irreconciliable, hostile opposite and in confrontation. That is, Chinese and Malay cultures will always be at odds. Similar to Ridhuan Tee, you may have bought into its Arab religion and this is true. But culture? Like Ridhuan Tee you speak in the name of the Malays, exploit that constitutional and religious position, but where are your exhibited qualities of Malay gentility you speak of? Recall your cruelty towards Anwar, and look at those Umno hacks outside the PKR and Selangor government offices. No, it’s Chinese culture which is tolerant while Malay culture – better exemplified among PAS people than in Umno – continues to put up with the like of you and Ridhuan.

If, indeed, the Chinese are “ungrateful” and “extremist”, two in one, here’s an idea for you: have your son table a parliament bill that will strip all extremist Chinese of their Malaysian citizenship forthwith. End your belly-aching once and for all. In that way, too, the road ahead for these Chinese will be clear; they’ll correct a mistake of their forefathers for coming to this hot, sweaty, mosquito swamp, today populated by a pseudo-literate barbarian culture personified in you; they’ll know what’s to be done, where to go; and, they will be finished with you and need not be held to ransom – no more! – because they’ve been tolerant of your ways for too long. After that the barbarians can help themselves to Guan Eng’s bank account, daughters, to Ridhuan Tee, the Elizabeths and the Hannahs. Rest assure the extremist Chinese won’t blink.

To repeat then, there are no extremist or chauvinist Chinese like they are chauvinist Anglophiles – yellow outside, white inside – or extremist make-pretend Malays and so have to be extremist. Chinese culture is the opposite. He is Chinese culture or he isn’t, no shades in a spectrum. The Engs, the Elizabeths, the Thomases, are not. He is if he knows his history from Sima Qian on, if he had understood Confucius, and their mothers had raised them with stories infused with humanity. How so?

This is because we, the Chinese, are a people who, because we refused to believe God, taught and learned ethics in our history upon which they were written since Confucius.

What does that – Chinese learning ethics in their history – mean?

This has been a long letter, necessitated by the nature of the subject but explanations are possible only up to a point. To those who understand no explanation is necessary. To those who don’t, no amount of explanation will do. Sima:

This is something I can confide only to a person of intelligence; it would not do to speak of it to the vulgar crowd.

Xiaode bows to thank Dr Mahathir.

孔子 The Extremist Chinese

Read Full Post »

Snippets from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon:

Observe developments soberly, … hide our capacities and bide our time, remain free of ambition, never claim leadership.

We will cross the river by touching the stones. We will not get ourselves drowned, and we will cross the river.

Liberal democracy is not as universal a model for the world…. Westerners support government and democracy, the Chinese build roads and dams.

We used to see the US as our teacher but now we realize that our teacher keeps making mistakes and we’ve decided to quit the class.

Market capitalism is so yesterday….







Though you may be clever and wise,

The time of the season is what you must know.

Though you may farm with the blade of a hoe,

The fortunes of circumstance are better to ride.


道可道, 非常道 – dao ke dao, feichang dao

名可名, 非常名 – ming ke ming, feichang ming


With every passing day and without end, Sinophobic racism – spread of rabid hatred and contempt, even when the Chinese mind their own business – assumes ever greater intensities and heights. It is all over American campuses, the Western media, Reuters, the New York Times,  among Anglophile Malaysians, the Malaysiakini Joshies, the PKR Eli Wongs, the DAP evangelical politicians, lately the pendatang Zaini Hassans – What more do the Chinese want? Make more money, Stupid – and the Umno and Utusan Malays. Then, in this Anglo saturated cesspit blows in fresh air which is not even pro-Chinese but simply wise.

Rein Mullerson is Estonian (bio page, pdf) – it could not be otherwise, that is, for clever, original thought to come from an Anglophile America or Anglo-Saxon world. But it is 5,500-word article. From Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon that has lessons for Malaysia, the Chinese especially, and note in particular the opening lines; excerpts and pertinent points:

Deng Xiaoping:

It was pragmatic Deng Xiaoping who, after the Tiananmen tragedy in 1989, when China was ostracized by the West, called his countrymen to

  • observe developments soberly,
  • maintain our position,
  • meet challenges calmly,
  • hide our capacities and bide our time,
  • remain free of ambition,
  • never claim leadership.


The reason democracy is an obstacle to economic progress, former mayor of Shanghai Xu Kuangdi says, is that:

The poor people want to divide the property of the rich people […] If we Chinese copied the direct election system today, people will say, ‘I want everyone to have a good job’. Someone else will say, ‘I will divide the property of the rich people among the poor people,’ and he will be elected. It is useless: parity will not solve the problem of economic development. That is why we are taking a gradual and step-by-step approach in reform. As Mr Deng said, we will cross the river by touching the stones. We will not get ourselves drowned, and we will cross the river.

In that respect, it is important to note that what was going on in Tiananmen Square in 1989 was not the suppression of the shoots of Chinese democracy but a crucial choice between alternatives: on the one hand political “shock therapy”, which could have ended with the country in turmoil and free fall; on the other, the continuation of painful economic reforms that would have been impossible to carry out by democratic means. Amy Chua, analysing cases of the simultaneous spread of democracy and free market practices to the non-western world, exaggerates only slightly when she asserts that “the global spread of free market democracy has thus been a principal, aggravating cause of ethnic instability and violence throughout the non-western world”.


Many in Washington see the US trade deficit and dependence on Chinese credit as a national security problem, rather than an economic predicament. China, which emerged fairly unscathed from the global recession, clearly considers itself to be on a roll. One Chinese official was reported to have told the The Times: “We used to see the US as our teacher but now we realize that our teacher keeps making mistakes and we’ve decided to quit the class. Market capitalism is so yesterday, state capitalism so now.”

World Order:

Azar Gat, for example, observes that “authoritarian capitalist states, today exemplified by China and Russia, may present a viable alternative path to modernity, which in turn suggests that there is nothing inevitable about liberal democracy’s ultimate victory – or future dominance”.

The current crisis that started in the liberal-democratic West and spread across the world but affected China less than any other country gives additional weight to the thought that not only are there other ways of modernization and development, but that if they are to continue to prosper, liberal democracies may have to learn from China. In an article with the intriguing title “We need new capitalism to take on China”, UK journalist and economist Anatole Kaletsky writes:

As a leading US diplomat told me: Since the crisis, developing countries have lost interest in the old Washington consensus that promoted democracy and liberal economics. Wherever I go in the world, governments and business leaders talk about the new Beijing consensus – the Chinese route to prosperity and power. The West must come up with a new model of capitalism that’s consistent with our political values. Either we reinvent ourselves or we will lose.

John Ikenberry takes a relatively optimistic view of China’s rise. However, his vision is to a great extent premised on the assumption that unlike all earlier international systems, which were dominated by a single power that was always sooner or later forced to give up its leadership to a new power, the US has purposefully built up a worldwide system of international liberal-democratic capitalist states that is “hard to overturn and easy to join”.

This Hegelian, Marxist or Fukuyaman “the-end-of-history-and-the-last-man” vision of the evolution of the world towards a final universal model is, like all such projects, be they headed towards a worldwide Christendom, Islamic Caliphate, communist paradise or liberal-democratic free-market capitalism, doomed. The world is simply too big, too complex and too diverse to be governed from one centre or to evolve in a single direction. Moreover, the absence of competing models of development would inevitably lead to stagnation.

New Model:

Many China watchers have expressed positive views on the impact of China’s emergence on the world stage. Writing in the US weekly The Nation, Christopher Hayes says:

We tend to view China as posing an alternative and threatening model for the future, one that’s by turns seductive and repulsive, the source of envy and contempt. But after a while I wondered if we aren’t in some way converging with our supposed rival […] Perhaps we are moving toward the same end from a democratic direction, the roiling public debate and political polarization obscuring the fact that power and money continue to collect and pool among an elite that increasingly views itself as besieged on all sides by a restive and ungrateful populace.

David Brooks is also optimistic:

“The rise of China isn’t only an economic event. It’s a cultural one. The ideal of a harmonious collective may turn out to be as attractive as the ideal of the American Dream.”

It is not only that liberal democracy is not as universal a model for the world as believed by many in the West; in world politics, size does matter. The economic success of authoritarian Singapore, South Korea or Taiwan could not undermine the belief in the eventual triumph of liberal democracy mainly because they were too small to serve as models. China is in a different league.

The French scholar Dominique Moïsi makes a valid point when he says the US must start to take account of the views of those who are becoming their equals and learn to understand and recognize other cultures. The West, and especially Washington, needs much wisdom and even Chinese patience in its response to China’s “peaceful rise”.

Equally important is the other side of the equation: can the rising Dragon remain hidden and keep a cool head, as Deng Xiaoping advised? Although Deng Xiaoping advised his countrymen to keep a cool head, maintain a low profile and never take the lead when aiming to do something big, it is doubtful that a country which is becoming increasingly powerful in absolute as well as in relative terms, can keep a low profile and refuse to take the lead indefinitely.

Dao, the Chinese Way:

In some respects Beijing’s behaviour as a leading state may differ in a positive way from that of previous dominant powers. In the first place, there will be no return to colonialism and no new Chinese empire to compare with those earlier empires built by the British, Dutch, French or Russians. In the second place, unlike Christianity or Islam, Confucianism is not a proselytizing religion – some would not even consider it a religion.

European attempts to turn the entire world into liberal democracies is intellectually and emotionally based on Christianity’s universal call and the universal values expounded by the Enlightenment.

A dominant China, even if forcefully advancing its interests, would not necessarily try to convert its neighbours and western liberal democracies to Confucian values. As Buzan maintains: “Unlike the universalist pretensions of American liberalism, Chinese characteristics point to a culturally unique way of doing things that is not necessarily relevant to those outside Chinese culture”. This of course does not mean that “Chinese ways of doing things” will not influence other societies, especially those who are culturally and geographically close to the Middle Kingdom.


Read Full Post »

Reply to MP Kota Belud, Rahman Dahlan:

It isn’t just the Father and the Son; half the Chinese DAP MPs have never formally attended Chinese schools. What do you have then? Not just hypocrisy, mind you ….

  • They want the Chinese votes, but hold the Chinese educated in contempt and condescension. (See this.) They want the Indian votes but, in private, they probably think of them as an inferior bunch of voodoo idolators. Malays? Make a guess.
  • They actually believe the West is a superior culture with a superior religion, manifested in a superior liberal ideology and in the Christianity in Guan Eng, wife Betty, Teresa Kok, Anthony Loke, et al – all the quasi Chinaman gweilos. (See this, and this.)

What’s in it for Umno/Barisan?

Go to town with it:

  • The Father, the Son, and the Holy Kit.
  • Chinese second – Chinese school last.

Read Full Post »