Letter to Editor, Malaysiakini
Dear Sir,
Malaysian First for Dummies
At the risk of being repetitive, below are the fundamental points raised in the Malaysian First article published in Malaysiakini:
- Lim Kit Siang is vague about what the Malaysian First encapsulates but is clear into what it rejects.
- Malaysian First is a negation on a negation (here, read U-En Ng’s exposition on that notion; clever fellow).
- Malaysian First creates two classes of citizenship and identity (here, with interpretation by Naragan of Hindraf).
- Ridhuan Tee is a prototype, even ideal, Malaysian First that Kit Siang’s ideology cannot match nor does he dare to take it up (expounded in detail here).
- Malaysian First is Kit Siang politics played out only among the Chinese (and Indians).
- Malaysian First is DAP politics intended to bring Malays into its constituency, to wit PAS members.
- Malaysian First renders the Chinese (and Indians) as lesser beings. It exchanges the Chinese (and Indian) identity for DAP’s Putrajaya crown – a new social contract deal offer which the Malays are not accepting. Neither PKR nor PAS leaders have much to say in support, if anything.
- Malaysian First is an appeasement to Umno tyranny and PAS supremacist religiosity and bigotry.
- Malaysian First is an Anglophile moral farce, and deceitful because DAP evangelical legislators have no need to renounce their Christianity as second.
- Malaysian First does nothing to resolve outstanding Malaysian social, economic and political problems, and only exacerbates them. It recognizes no collective or group interest. For example, there are no vernacular schools to protect or preserve because, under Malaysian First, the Chinese are second. Or, they don’t exist; there are only Malaysians. Estate Indians are subjugated not because they are Indians but because they are poor, individually. Malaysian First tells why Lim Guan Eng is bigoted towards Hindraf people and it tills the ground for doing away with Chinese schools eventually because, pushed to its logical end, Malaysian First is one bangsa, one school, one system. This is the same call from Perkasa.
Take anyone of those points, then ask the question: has KTemoc’s two letters (Letter #1, Letter #2) offer a modicum of a reply? Or, even to pretend to dispel the doubts?
What Malaysiakini readers got instead are the same anglophilic KongTemoc Kong platitudes repeated before: he is proud this, he is proud that; he goes on and on about some dead Americans; he fawns over Kit Siang, variously calling him ‘giant’ (wow!), ‘visionary’ (second wow!), shoulder to shoulder with even more dead Americans (third wow!); and then more yada, yada, yada before he finally settled on some plagiarized perversion of a nursery lala song (clap, clap). Where did he go for kindergarten?
All this means that, after tilling through 4,000 Konvoluted Kong words, one is no wiser for the time spent and the effort wasted. What on earth was all the letters about – two from him, one from Helen Ang – you’d have to ask? Below, in shortened Q&A form and with concision is a dummies guide to those damn letters and Malaysian First:
Has shuzheng and KTemoc a ‘feuding history’?
Ans: Feuding? Sometimes Helen Ang’s words go straight from her tongue into her fingertips without passing her brains. For KTemoc it is all the time. There has been a long, running debate. Yes.
Where, what about?
Ans: At their respective blogs, starting months back when KTemoc accused Kadir Jasin of being ignorant as to who might be considered a Malaysian, as well as apologizing for being one. Kadir said no such thing, shuzheng responded; the inferred question was, what makes for a Malaysian, not who.
Round Two. KTemoc said (a) all Jews are fascists. Mahathir has said (b) all Chinese are like Jews. Therefore, extrapolating (a) and (b) KTemoc would produce the conclusion (c), all Chinese are fascists. This is outrageous, of course, but that’s Kong Temoc Kong.
Has Helen Ang been partial throughout?
Ans: No. She had been impartial.
But impartial until Malaysian First?
Ans: Yes.
Why?
Ans: Why not? In a discourse, you take the side of reason, of argument, not the person. KTemoc, incapable of reason, only knows how take the side of the person (Lim Kit Siang) and has said so repeatedly. This accounts for his sometimes convoluted, mostly meaningless letters. No arguments there, just wow, wow, wow. Then it’s Kit Siang this and Kit Siang that. After which he goes on some lullaby song he probably heard from Dimpled Cheeks.
Dimpled Cheeks?
Ans: Some kid-girl he has been dreaming about.
You are also saying someone is playing ad hominem? Being bigoted?
Ans: Yes, the answer, two rungs above, explains it. We’re all ad hominem now.
But Malaysian First is not bigoted?
Ans: Worse than that. Its falsity is advanced by bigots.
How so?
Ans: Go back to Helen’s reply to KTemoc’s first letter. The details are there: why it is false, how.
So what are the quarrel details?
Ans: Depends on who you’ve read. KTemoc is like a carousel night janitor singing Snow White tunes when nobody’s around. Day time he sounds like a reasoned man, playing with 13-year-old Dimpled Cheeks. There’s more in his blog (here). Helen is clear, and the gist of it: Malaysian First is untenable. Simultaneously DAP is playing up to PAS Islam.
But, what has KTemoc said, his counter-arguments?
Ans: What counter-arguments? Ask him yourself. Or, wait till his third letter, then the fourth, and the fifth – five wows in one. Maybe a spark will turn up, you never know.
What’s with these wows?
Ans: Don’t know. They sound like the curses of an insane woman running down the street.
You’re saying KTemoc swears?
Ans: Worse than that.
Meaning?
Ans: Find out for yourself. It’s in his blog. You’ve a computer with an Internet connection?
Don’t be sarcastic.
Ans: It isn’t sarcasm. It’s a requisite for self-discovery these days, knowledgeable if you prefer.
How is Helen clear and KTemoc insane?
Ans: I know this is supposed to be a dummy’s guide, but is the reading to be done for you as well?
Three letters, what’re we to do? Besides, it saves time; a pair of eyeballs to read for a million. No?
Ans: Yes, point conceded. You’ve also been anticipated. And it’s typed out and ready – the main points I mean. Go back to the beginning.
But that’s Helen’s interpretation of your case? KTemoc’s?
Ans: KTemoc? The Kong Kali Kong of Malaysian First. He is a write-off. What does he know? He spends his days dreaming of 13-year-old girls in marketplaces and nights singing Snow White songs. Get the drift? Franz Kafka, you know Frank Kafka? No, you don’t. He’s the real K. To the insane woman K says, ‘Give up! Give up!’
