Archive for June 21st, 2010

In Paris, Race-Inspired Crime

Arabs and Black Africans attack the Chinese and other Asians in Paris – that is, race-inspired crime; snatch thefts, robberies – so the White French police and the White Western media pretend nothing and look the other way (so very Nathaniel, Nattie) …

People’s Daily report:

Reports of Chinese nationals in France being robbed have become more common in recent years.

In May, Wuyun Qimuge, vice-chairwoman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, experienced an attempted robbery in her car on the way to airport in Paris, but with the protection of her security staff suffered no loss or injury, China News Service reported.

Jin Chunlei, press counselor with the Chinese embassy in France, told China Daily that the underlying cause of the demonstration is poor public order in French society, and “the most recent trigger is the Zhong Shaowu incident,” Jin said.

On the night of June 1, when a group of local gangsters cornered and robbed some Chinese nationals who were leaving Chinatown Belleville after a wedding, Zhong grabbed a gun and wounded a gangster, reported Nouvelles D’Europe, a Chinese language daily newspaper in Europe.

Zhong, a Wenzhou businessman, was later taken away by police and is still under arrest, according to the newspaper.

Blogger News:

So profound is the hypocrisy of the mainstream media in the English-speaking world that racial violence against a significant but still small minority in a major Western city has been ignored. The big rally against persecution by Chinese in Paris and its unpleasant aftermath seems not to have attracted a single report in English. ….

There is quite a lot that is “politely” ignored (in the report above by Agence France Presse). That it is overwhelmingly blacks and Arabs who are the attackers, for instance. A really gross omission however is that, after the rally, Asians were attacked throughout the city on their way home — by blacks and Arabs.

Also see Global Times


Read Full Post »

For DAP Legislators

Draft of a Reply

To: The Central Executive Committee (CEC)

Democratic Action Party (DAP)

Petaling Jaya Headoffice


Dear Honourable CEC Members,

Xiaode Addresses Members of the DAP CEC

This letter replies to your “Letter of Demand” dated DK July, 2010, to which xiaode accepts in grief and in all humility.

Honourable CEC Members might know the statistics, but it’s worth repeating here:

  • present Malaysian GDP income is 1,000 ringgit per head per month;
  • monthly household income averages 3,700 ringgit; and
  • basic remuneration to the ADUN is about 4,100 ringgit (?).

To raise 5 million ringgit to pay your demand will require services of an ADUN long after natural death – 112 years in total – assumes no expense meanwhile and also assumes, which Honourable CEC Members of the Christian faith do, there is “eternal life”, economically and productively. To take the household income measure, hence, payment takes 139 years.

Your Letter of Demand does not care therefore for the ability to pay, but to make extortionately punitive and excruciating painful to resign from the party, to which I have done so and without regrets. Members come and go, as is permitted, so why make a punitive exception of an ADUN?

All know the heart of the answer. But you want no answers from the heart. Instead you prefer to be legalistic, pointing, as you have, to the Agreement as an instrument of law with which you now invoke and say was after all entered into voluntarily and willingly.

We shall therefore begin on the points of law that you so preach.

I shall first refer you to the Constitution of Malaysia, Article 10, wherein Clause 1 says in the last part (c):

“all citizens have the right to form associations.”

If 1(c) is to be valid, applicable and true, then the flip side of it – to disassociate oneself from an association – has to be equally true. A person wishing to change to an association holding philosophical, ideological or religious positions opposite or different to the demands of an existing membership cannot do so without resigning from the latter. Or, very simply, if an existing member wishes to give up his existing political position, the Constitution permits it. Right to associate equals the right to disassociate.

Honourable Members say of course the right is not denied, not in absolute terms anyway. Rather, you’d say pay 5 million and you are free to go.

You could have asked for 1 ringgit or for the party to be reimbursed the 26 months of remuneration to an ADUN serving the present assembly under its flag so that either option would be the end of the matter and we to go our separate ways.

But whether 5 million or 1 ringgit that is precisely the point in your violation of Article 10. Honourable CEC members have no jurisdiction nor power nor right nor obligation to waive or to make conditional or contingent a constitutional clause, upon which they then fudge its meaning and intent. And 5 million ringgit – 112 years, or 139 – is more than conditional; it is outright chattel bondage the like of which has never been seen, not even under colonial administration forcibly importing labour. You beat even the colonialists. You, I should add, do not own the Constitution in the way you have made it serve your wishes and desires, that is, to be legalistic, using a “contract” instrument to browbeat an individual.

To emphasize, as you had and will again, that I had entered into the 5 million Agreement willingly and voluntarily is to equate it with the free will of entering into a housing mortgage.

At one level no Will is free from all or any influence; if it were, we would have no need of the Constitution that now guides and determines individual conduct, yours and mine

At another level, the free Will of entering into a bank loan is predicated on known conditions extrapolated to the future: a given stream of income, lifespan of a house, property free of outside intervention, your God included – which is to say an established existence in spite of myriad uncertainties. Such a Will is therefore exercised conditionally, not free perpetually and not without encumbrances. Rather that’s on performances between two parties, usually more. This is why many loan agreements are individually insured. Did you know that?

If such an Agreement is like a housing mortgage, where is the guarantee that the DAP, to which Honourable Members claim to represent, has not changed in the last two years? Five? Or ten? Where is it that the DAP has never changed and therefore itself broken no part of the Agreement? How have you, in the name of the party, kept your part of the bargain?

In violation of the constitutional principle of freedom, you treat the Agreement like it is a one-way street: no exact terms specified, made as vague as possible yet you alone dictate all the rules. And don’t we know from where you had copied the idea: from the religious injunctions of Parti Islam seMalaysia or PAS to which you had before denounced regularly and now you sleep with everyday. You, I dare say, have cheated and lied to the members of the party and to its constitution and philosophical positions, to which they first signed up for some 20 years ago, others like I more recently.

Free will? Agreement? No, I should claim from you, from each and every CEC Member 5 million ringgit. I should give you seven days to respond, failing which I shall see all of you, each and everyone, in the court of law that you love so much to invoke and to visit.

But what’s the point? I might be 50 million ringgit richer tomorrow, and some of you could even be bankrupted so losing your parliament seats, but you will be around the country, visiting rallies, halo over your head, shouting martyrdom and insanity, masking (in your Christian terms) your evil with righteousness. The people of Malaysia, specifically in Perak, who are mostly decent, naive perhaps, might even believe you and that’s the tragedy, the tragic end of our hopes.

You want 5 million? No! You shall see not one sen and you can sue as it pleases you. As for I, there’re more important things to do than to scrub your “hand of God”.

In short, my answer to your demand is this: 放屁.




Read Full Post »