Archive for June, 2012

DAP’s David Nga: Of what use are Saints, those individual ‘excellent characters’, and the Hannah Yeohs?



Steven ‘Wonder’ Gan’s Malaysiakini says it’s a debate – ‘Is Democracy Moving Forward’ – and that was, of course, a front for a lie.

Listening to David Nga of DAP Perak (clip above) you can tell: you’ve heard it all before. The spiteful, egotistical, religious tone is the same and so, too, the conceit, the belligerence, and in particular the condemnations.

His thoughts and words are spit out in staggered, staccato rounds like the wild, aimless burst of machine gun fire. His linguistic style is purely adversarial and Anglophile, like a preacher straight out of a Hawthorne novel, breathing Christian fire and brimstone on a Sunday morning. He has not the smooth, incisive, rich, metaphorical language of the junzi political class, and Chinese culture much less.

A lawyer wearing the hat of a politician, he pulls the same rabbit from his past hustings: Malaysia is finished under Umno;  BN is a coalition of dogs and frogs; multi-racialism; corruption; education is in doldrums; Malaysia raises clever kids for the Singapore labour market (see the contradiction?); and, he goes on and on in the same self-possessed, invective vein.

Nga, really, was just hustling, like lawyers are wont to do once they turn courtroom into political pulpit speeches.

David Nga [in translation, excerpt, from time marker 51:42]:

“They say vote individuals not the party. Now, if you vote the person, doesn’t that person follow a set of party platforms and principles? For 55 years Malaysia has had party electoral politics and parliamentary partisan rule. Mahathir Mohamad is like that as well. He turns up at a Gerakan general assembly and straight into the faces of everybody declares (his party position), Malaysia is an Islamic state. Who dares to oppose him? What’s the use of opposing? Vote persons not parties, but can the individuals change another party’s platform? What Malaysia needs today is a two-party system….”

Yet… why, continuously, is he so over-rated? Like Mahathir or Chandra Muzaffar.

That man is pathetic.



Read Full Post »


Above: the great, glorious Malay identity.

Who wants it? Anybody?

Or maybe, like DAP’s Bangsa Malaysia, it’s just a forgery, a counterfeit and a fake.


Chandra Muzaffar’s grand theorising – that everybody master Malay – admits what the fascist, Anglophile Satu Sekolah Malaiyoos wouldn’t or dare not: take up a Malay identity.

It is on this plank – masuk Melayu, and this alone – that he says national unity (whatever that is) becomes possible and he goes on to give the example of the Indonesian Malay language as the penultimate mould for a highly diverse and complex country called Indonesia. In short, Chandra says, follow the Indonesians.

What, therefore, would be the purpose of this single Malay identity? Or this forging? Or unity? People quarrel less? Hence, the end of the Opposition? The end of Anwar Ibrahim? Barisan can be disbanded? All vote Umno? The rise of a new golden Malay age? Chandra becomes the next PM? In the footsteps of Mahathir Mohamad, he becomes the Father of United Malaysia?

They say, the question is always half the answer… meaning, the first is always self evident to the second.

Chandra isn’t saying anything new, therefore. His racial, linguistic, political, educational model, all rolled in one and copied from Indonesia, has been tried there. Malaysia has experimented with a single language, one vision, one language system called kebangsaan schools – no thanks to Anwar Ibrahim.

And the results? In Indonesia, a single language school has been followed by anti-Chinese racial cleansing pogroms every dozen-odd years since 1948. In between they’d kill Christians in the Mollucas and Sunda islands, and blow up Hindu Bali. Today Indonesia’s Malay education quality in the world ranking is at the bottom of the pile. (See PISA.)

And in Malaysia? The kebangsaan schools are a disaster so that while everybody studies under the same roof, the ethnic division widens. Teachers and school principals in Kedah, Johore and Sarawak periodically and verbally attack students on the basis of race – pendatang, etc. That is, while a single language made intimidating and killing Chinese and others convenient in Indonesia, it made insults and intimidation easier in Malaysia.

National ‘unity’ results have seen nothing but attempts at ethnic pacification coupled with a disastrous education quality and mediocre economic and cultural output.

Chandra is an individual example of this intellectual mediocrity, wanted by nowhere else and nobody else. Hadi Awang and Anwar Ibrahim are example-results of the Islamic bigotry tending to replicate instability among Arabs. And Lim Guan Eng and the DAP are proof of what an English language system has delivered, yet touted, paradoxically, by Malaiyoos and Chinese Anglophiles (only in different proportions) as the thing to do to pull Malaysia back from the brink.

That is, it is as if something else, not Malay, not English, not Chandra, not Anwar, not Mahathir Mohamad, and certainly not their stupidities, is holding back Malaysia’s standing in the world from disappearing into a blip in the South China Sea. Like the Philippines is sinking. What? Why? And how?

Maybe it is the Chinese schools. After all they produce the best students even compared with the UK or the USA, that is, the world’s best minds. (See OECD global test results, for example, PISA 2009) Chandra doesn’t know this: the Chinese invented the world’s first school system. It was used to cater to a bureaucratic examination system, also the first, that was copied by the French in the 1800s and spread from there.

Because the independent Chinese schools account for under 6 percent of the national, primary and secondary student population – hardly a significant number to cause division – why does Chandra pick on the Chinese?

He doesn’t say, for example, to borrow his words:

If a Malay Malaysian can pursue his entire education in Malay, from primary to university level, how much exposure would he have to Malaysian students and teachers from other communities?


If a Malaysian can pursue his entire education in English (like Chandra and Mahathir did), from primary to university level, how much exposure would he have to Malaysian students and teachers from other communities?

It is same song sung by the Ahi Malaiyoos, the Syed Akbar Alis and the Pure Shits

Of course, Chandra invokes the constitution, the Razak Report of 1956, history, ethnography, and ‘Malay’ (he actually means the foreign language called Indonesia, the “region’s lingua franca for centuries”). But, those are purely the apparatus for the larger goal which, he admits and the Malaiyoos won’t. It is to masuk Melayu.

Further suppose his dreams come true. After a Chinese, like Ridhuan Tee, has masuk Melayu, what then? Heaven descends to Malaysia?

What exactly is this single, forged Malay identity Chandra pontificates in the name of ‘unity’? For specific examples into this great, glorious Malay identity, here there are.

  1. Chandra himself – racist, bigoted, mediocre, unreliable, one day with Anwar, great buddy, next day enemy.
  2. Mahathir Mohamad – enemies everywhere, inept, a failure, with a fractious country for a legacy.
  3. Anas Anus Zubedy –  half Arab, convoluted, loves English, consulting bigotry for ‘marketing communications’ like Hannah Yeoh.
  4. Ridhuan Tee – from Chinese temperance and reservedness to a great foul Malay mouth.
  5. Anwar Ibrahim – sex, sex sex, sex, sex.
  6. Haris Ibrahim – English schooled, I-have-a–white–man’s-dream and Anointer of Anglophile Saints.
  7. Peter Petra the Piper – royal patriot, of course, so he says, but patriotic from motherland UK.
  8. Ahirudin Attan – heart is for Umno, head pretends to be politically neutral – we don’t care, he says – but has no problem stabbing another Malay in the back, Abdullah Badawi.
  9. Syed Akbar Ali – contradictions, contradictions, contradictions.

So, who wants to be Malay? Who wants to be a Muzaffar? Or an Ahi?

Closer to the truth, Chandra’s grand theorising boils down to this: like Mahathir before him, he is a racist bigot who can’t see beyond Malay ketuanan. Which is, the Malays have all that they want for themselves, in politics, in economics, in the bureaucracy and so on. What more do they want from the Chinese? Become like a Ridhuan Tee? Why?

But, if he, like the Malaiyoos, would push hard enough, then Lim Kit Siang turns up with this rebuttal: no Melayu but Malaysian First. Beyond race, you see. So righteous. And neither Chandra nor the Malaiyoos has an answer.

Chandra’s racist bigotry also prevents him from seeing a fundamental fact of Malaysia’s beginnings. Malaysia doesn’t need unity or more unity; it already has that in 1957.

Yet, why is being Chinese such a problem to the Malays? Or is it just Chandra and others like Mahathir?

Mahathir loves that Francis Yeoh with his Pavarotti et al crooning songs nobody understands – or could appreciate. Chandra loves his English replica called JUST. Anwar loves Jefferson and Haris Ibrahim, Martin Luther King’s Christian-inspired ideology.

So, why are the Malays so willing to tolerate and accept Anglophiles and something so foreign and colonial as white people but can’t accept the Chinese for who and what they are?

The answers point, again, to Chandra’s Malaiyoo fascism.

Further evidence to this bigotry is found in his theory’s premise. Which is this: to transform the national education system, convert Chinese schools into Malay.

This is an odd remedy – using ethnic language pacification – in order to improve the quality of a decrepit system introduced by his old buddy Anwar. Why wouldn’t he leave the Chinese alone and do what’s needed for the kebangsaan, Malay schools?

Chandra’s premise says, in effect, the Chinese language is the cause of the present education malaise – therefore scrap it – although the language has nothing to do with the kebangsaan schools. This remedy is so weird as to be incredulous.

Further comment, and it is the only meaningful one among millions in the Anglophile site Malaysia Today. Jallian:

Chandra always says that there is no need to fear China as a world super power or the Chinese ascendance. In Malaysia, Chinese ascendance is through the education system, and this will be linked to a powerful relationship with China in terms of promoting China-Malaysia economic ties. The Chinese who have been denied self respect over the years will have it now through the rise of China as a world super power.

You didn’t want the English medium schools which were running well at one time, and so here we have the Chinese school system as the closest alternative. The National school system has lost its credibility, and can never hope to take the place of the English schools. They could only take over the buildings but could not take over the standards established by some of the the best educators in the world. They could only destroy, but not create. The best of teachers migrated.

The hasty education policies of the 1970s are to blame. After the riots of 1969, as the Malay saying goes, instead of killing the mosquitoes the authorities had decided to burn the entire mosquito net. What we now have is the price of blind anger.

In another manner of speaking, the like of Chandra and Mahathir are the causes of Umno’s present political predicament, begun when Anwar was brought into the party. Chandra now seeks to find another scapegoat – Chinese schools – and he says he is being apolitical so as to blunt and veil Mahathir’s political errors and personal idiocies.

Always picking on the Chinese. Always. So Mahathiristic.

And perhaps he is doing the Mahathir thing: stab that Bugis in the back. He ain’t Malay enough, a standard and quality typically defined by half Indians (Chandra, Mahathir) and half Arabs (Anas Anus, Syed Akbar). When will the true Melayu stand up? Or perhaps that doesn’t exist; it’s only on paper.

Najib, you’ve been warned – something from our sages: “The sea that raises the boat also swallows it.”


Read Full Post »

Should Najib Fail, Who’s the Boss?

Lim Guan Eng wants to know who takes over to become the conservative, extreme boss.

This man…

So says the Father Lim Kit Siang

Read Full Post »

Postscript Note to the Letter to Mahathir Mohamad

Xiaode addresses the Honourable Mahathir Mohamad

This year 端午节 duanwujie falls on June 23 in the Gregorian calendar. Chinese commonly know it by its scheduled calendar date – double five – fifth day of the fifth month. Duanwu is a national holiday in the China mainland (3 days), Taiwan and Hong Kong. Not even the Buddha has this honour. Why?

You probably know duanwu by its related terms, dragon boats and zong 粽, or rice dumplings wrapped and steam-cooked in bamboo leaves.

Duanwu commemorates the death of Qu Yuan 屈原 (above, c.339-278BC), an actual historical figure mentioned in Han dynasty, palace and subsequent records. Like yourself he was a top public official, but in the palace, and is better known to the Chinese (extremists, if that pleases you) for his literature and poetry compositions.

On duanwujie, visit the Chinese villages in Perak and flats in Penang. This is for your Malay compatriot Najib Razak.

In your visits, tell the Chinese about what Najib has done and is doing for the sake, welfare and harmony of Chinese-Malay relations which you yourself had failed.

Tell them about the pair of pandas and your hopes that they be placed in Genting where the weather is more suitable. Tell them why the pandas are a thousand years late in coming. Tell them what they mean to the relations between two lands and two peoples begun more than 1,000 years ago during the Song dynasty, but interrupted and broken up after that for 500 years by the orang putih bringing in their European laws and Christianity, a process continued today by Anglophiles (Bernard Khoo, Shenaaz Khan, FMT, Malaysiakini editors, Lim Guan Eng, Anwar Ibrahim, Malaiyoos).

Najib and Muhyiddin Yassin don’t need your advise; rather, it’s your sincere, personal assistance. If all that you say is true (essentially, be brutal and get tough), then Kedah would still remain with BN, DAP wouldn’t triumph, your imaginations of racial tensions won’t become its own self-fulfilling prophecy, and Najib’s reforms unnecessary. Being “firm” (you mean use force) merely produced a stifling culture of fear and intimidation that the racist western media once talked about. People then leave.

The self-conceit in your intellect’s capability has got cause and effect the back way around.

Your earlier, prime ministerial notions of Chinese-Malay relations were to grant big project deals to YTL and the like of Vincent Tan and Francis Yeoh (a Christian bigot who has only contempt for such expressions of Chinese culture as the duanwujie). Those efforts not only fail to lift the relations to a new level but they especially have nothing to do with people on the ground and so fostered instead envy from persons like Ibrahim Ali and Perkasa. The proof of this failure was the political swing in March 2008.

Najib is on the right track to involve the masses (abolishing PPSMI, vernacular education, naming the pandas). He needs to put back the pieces – and, remember, wrought by you – and, so must you if you are to assist him. Those pieces are vital to Chinese-Malay relationship which is, in turn, a cornerstone about everything Malaysia, past, present and future.

Xiaode bows to you.


Here is one of the most famous of Qu Yuan’s poems. The Lament

离骚/離騷:  亂曰 已矣哉

lisao, epilogue segment





Since in that kingdom all my virtue spurn,

Why should I for the royal city yearn?

Wide though the world, no wisdom can be found.

I’ll seek the stream where once the sage was drowned.


Dedicated to Mahathir


Read Full Post »

The Beginnings of Animal Rights Politics from Pakatan

Non-Native Pandas in the Making of the Penultimate Malaysian First Fascist 

Of New Pendatang Species: a Vatican Dog Named Bernard Khoo & a Temenggong Indian Bitch Named Shenaaz Khan


Because of its black-white furry beauty and rarity, under 2,000 in the wild, all in China’s bamboo forests, the panda has become a mascot to the World Wildlife Fund.

In captivity, there are fewer than 300 in China’s conservation parks (pandas  being solitary are easily lost and many mothers, for reasons still unknown, reject their babies), two dozens in zoos scattered around the world. In Asia, but outside China, the only pandas are found in Singapore, Thailand (Chiang Mai), Japan (Kobe), and Taiwan. No panda is given, money or no money paid. They are only on loan, in pairs, for a 10-year duration after which the pandas must be returned.

To find a pair of pandas in Malaysia isn’t just unique, therefore, having the WWF emblem in a fauna-rich habitat such as the Malaysian jungles.

They also symbolise a culmination in a long history of association between two countries: today their two-way, import-export trade is near USD100 billion, less than USD1 billion 20 years ago; China is Malaysia’s biggest market; 10,000 Chinese nationals study in Malaysia, and so on. All of which adds up to the provision of hundreds of thousands of jobs (transport, food, forwarding, shipping, groceries, trading, etc). That meant, in turn, salaries and income – on both sides, of course.

All this suggest that the presence of the pandas in Malaysia – like gifts on a person’s birthday – might be long overdue, way behind Singapore and Thailand.

Their symbolism towards China-Malaysia relations is especially important because of the local Chinese population and the panda’s hold over Chinese culture – the bamboo, the forest, a reserved nature and deep insularity. Written mention of pandas first appeared in China during the Han dynasty.

That the Pakatan horde, in the circumstances, should turn the pandas into a political sideshow is expected: anything, even remotely, associated to the Barisan government is to be denounced.

What’s new with the pandas is this: Animal rights activism has arrived to Pakatan politics.

It fits the PKR penchant for name-calling their political opponents and it combines with the DAP’s Anglophile proclivity to distinguish things in black or white, in Christian or evil terms, in Malaysian First or Last. In this ranked Bangsa order, the pandas would be last – a position clearly stated in the Pakatan mouthpieces Malaysia Today and Malaysiakini.

Hence Sheenaz Khan, aided by FMT editors, campaigns for Pakatan under a moral Christian cloud and in unadulterated animal politics lexicon:

  • preposterous and superfluous
  • economic imbecility
  • political pandering
  • greedy
  • guise of conservation
  • baffling
  • abuse animals
  • registry of crimes
  • appalling
  • routinely orphaned
  • victimised

It goes on and on and on and on. And you know you’ve read it somewhere before.

Puff, puff: Grandpapa Bernard ‘Zorro’ Khoo (centre) with right hand man Haris ‘Bangsa’ Ibrahim.

They were on their way to make the world, he tells his grand kids (Ryan, Patrick and Bernard the Second), a better Catholic fascist place.

Shenaaz Khan: No, she doesn’t play politics. So what does she play? St Bernard dogs? Or flying rockets?

Here is the list of Shenaaz’s play activities found beside her fat cat photo in Facebook: Centre for Independent Journalism, Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (Kuala Lumpur), Traffic Southeast Asia, Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia in Australia, Animal Liberation Unite…


More than the political capital to be harvested, the two pandas expose, inversely, a standard Pakatan trait: their anti-Chinese, anti-Malaysian racism veiled in NGO and civil society pieties. This is on a full display.

Again, Shenaaz Khan in her invited letter to Free Malaysia Today (FMT):

  • Pandas are a “non-native species”, therefore undeserving of “obscene amounts of money.” [In Pakatan animal rights politics, even animals have Malaysian First or Anak Bangsa  status. This has become so perverse that, by the same token of Shenaaz’s logic, half the animals in Malaysian zoos ought to have less money – meaning eat less – because they are “non-native”.]
  • “Ruthless” greed is exclusive to Chinese, for their ivory demand is the ultimate cause of “dwindling world elephant numbers across the world.” [She doesn’t say that (a) elephants need not be killed for their ivory; (b) European-African ivory trade had gone on for 300 years to made piano keys and billiard balls; (c) today it is an international, regulated licensed trade insisted upon by South Africa, Namibia, Botswana; and (d) China is not a licensed market destination whereas Japan is the biggest importer.]

This moral equivalency (between the elephant and the panda), this bigotry and racism, and the lying and exaggeration over the two pandas, continue with the FMT editors:

  • The pandas, wrote FMT, “will live, quite literally, in the lap of luxury and comfort with round-the-clock room service”. [FMT’s anthromorphism is, of course, a regurgitating of Shenaaz Khan and that is to suggest, conversely, the pandas should not have “room-service”.]
  • While pandas get luxury, FMT complains that “conservationists are fighting an uphill battle to protect and bring the Borneo rhinoceros back from the edge of extinction.” [This righteous indignation harks back to the Shenaaz’s theme about who is the native and the non-native, the Malaysian First and the Malay Second, and the deserving and the non-deserving.]

In the same bigotry, the Temgongs and the Temenggongs of Malaysia Today continue the racial assault in this way, plainly and clearly:

The Cina Kuai’s are really very bad people, making use of the stupid Umnomelayus. [In this MT’s Temgongs are suggesting that the gweilo Anaks of Bangsa Malaysian First are really very good people making use of the clever Pakatan Indians.]

In this propaganda campaign, the one that takes the cake comes from Bernard Khoo aka Zorro. In the vein of Shenaaz Khan, Bernard calls the pandas pendatangs.

This was a labelling that exposes a deep-rooted racism underlying Haris Ibrahim’s Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM) because the panda is not merely Chinese representative. It also bears that intrinsic Chinese quality so hated by them.

Khoo’s labelling also unveils the depth of bigotry in DAP’s jingoist politics: even a vegetarian bear will not be spared their denunciation because it is not a Malaysian First and because it can’t fight back.

This Nazism, packaged to the Christian, Anglo notions that being poor equals righteousness and money is the root of all evil (sic), produces a political cocktail so vile that even animals get thrown in. (But count on Bernard Khoo to pocket money Peter Petra is distributing from the 1 million ringgit SABM account.)

For the Ahi and Ali Malaiyoos, the episode reaffirms a lesson they have been agonisingly slow or hesitant to pick up: their anti-Chinese racism returns so every often to bite at their Malay leader Najib Razak. It is time to reclassify your enemies, Ahi.

Attacking the DAP as chauvinist Chinese, the Malaiyoos not only miss the truth in the fulcrum of Pakatan political campaigns, their rebuttals and counter-campaigns become ineffective and lazy. DAP apologists in persons such as Bernard Khoo aren’t just wrong or merely anti-Chinese. They are anti-Malay, anti-Indian; in effect, anti-Malaysian.

One thing, and only one thing, can and will win their favour and endorsement. It is  when you are Anglophile; English is your mother-tongue; you come from a La Salle school; a Bar devotee; preferably you read only the bible – and Malaysiakini, of course.

And note the indistinguishable difference between Bernard Khoo calling somebody, even an animal vistor, a pendatang and, in parallel, the Malaysian First who says Malaysia is mother land.

What’s the rebuttal to Bernard? That he must take his father’s bones and his grandchildren’s Anglo datang skulls and get out of Malaysia? Where to? The Straits of Malacca? It’s just an hour’s drive away. Vatican Rome is 8,000 carbon miles.

Here’s the other point. Steven Wonder Gan is having a field day regurgitating the western press (Telegraph, Western Australian) in order to help poison his two pet western hates: Malaysia and China.


Read Full Post »

Send Pendatang Bernard Back to the Vatican!


The Pendatang Species: Bangsa, Petpositive, Anglo Datang and Bigoted


Name a Native Bangsa Contest: Sponsored by SABM

Above, grandpiggies for granddaddy Bernard ‘Zorro’ Khoo: Zo (left) and Ro, just mothered by Petrina, fathered by Kevin, blessed and baptized by Bishop Paul Tan.

What would Eli ‘Environment’ Wong say, St Bernard? Save the Planet, Free the Animals. Quit smoking Bernard boy; you’re polluting.


St Hannah of Adora

Hello, everybody. Praise the Lord. And welcome to the Name a Native Bangsa Contest. I’m pleased to announce this piece of Anak has been named ….

Dora? – Wrong.

Sham? – Wrong.

Dorim? – Wrong.

She-Ram? Wrong. Last chance. Anybody else?

Chibai Khan?


Chenaaz the Khan, Sheba of the Kongs

You’ve been talking about me, Shenaaz? Animal welfare, you say? Nah… up your aaz.


Read Full Post »

Kit Siang is trying to string a noose around Mahathir’s neck. Why?

I am not interested in getting rich or living a life of luxury. What I have now is far more than I had hoped for when I was dreaming as a student. I am grateful to Allah for what I have and for sparing me to live this long. I am ready to go when my time comes. I am conscious that all that I have will not accompany me to the grave.

— Mahathir Mohamad, 2012 June

A man dies only once. His death may be a matter weighty as Mount Tai or light as a feather. It all depends on the reason for which he dies. The best of men die to avoid disgrace to their forbears; the next best to avoid disgrace to their persons; the next to avoid disgrace to their dignity; the next to avoid disgrace to their word.

— 司马迁 Sima Qian (c.145 – 86BC) in 报任安书 Letter to Ren’an


Xiaode addresses the Honourable Mahathir Mohamad

Lim Kit Siang’s veiled threat against you was also specific: open up investigations into the Bank Negara’s forex losses incurred between 1992 and 1993. It contains nothing else. And the sums, you must admit, are astronomical given especially Malaysia’s relatively low financial standing globally.

In an American university, a segment of a macroeconomics course (ECN 160B) is dedicated to learning a lesson from that forex trade: governments have no business to be in business. In your time, your money market trading was on top of other scandalous financial conduct, speculating on forward tin contracts, for example. Remember Maminco? Guthrie? Sime Darby?

Given this past, Kit Siang’s threat was probably conceived not on the spur, one night, his head resting alone on the pillow. For sure, they must have talked about it, heads nodding as they exchange notes about you.

If any of that is true, then your reply to Kit Siang – that you’re as clean as a whistle – xiaode regrets to say, misses the point. It has little or nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

To also say you are only afraid of charges fabricated against you, you are tacitly conceding that this has been a norm in Malaysian polity. And it is; face it.

Therefore, Kit Siang’s fundamental basis in his threat couldn’t have been about abuse or corruption of authority nor could it be specific to the forex losses only. Why? Because Anwar’s own hand in the affair is also severely tainted.

Recall, sir, Anwar imported into Malaysia American high finance, Paul Wolfowitz, and he loved those fancy financial derivatives in which the Bank Negara sterling forward contracts were just one of those things that impressed him and which he would have liked even if he wasn’t directly involved: deals that do a 1 billion ringgit paper trade on the back of a 2 dollar company.

Remember Nick Leeson who in 1992-94 (same time as Anwar) lost the entire capital base of Barings PLC after more than USD800 million in derivative trading losses just next door, Singapore. Those were trades that even the bank’s board of directors couldn’t understand. From people like Leeson, Anwar learned the Orwellian newspeak phrase, ‘paper loss’. But, he was a kampung Malay with a big ego who wanted to impress and get on in the world like dozens of others you tried nurturing.

Even though you’ve just a plumber’s knowledge of economics and international finance, those Leeson type of deals ought to, intuitively, alert you. They just don’t make sense but, still, you probably couldn’t care less because American ‘financial engineering’, sold by the like of Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, got what you want with money the Treasury didn’t yet have. They got you roads, airports, power plants, Twin Towers, Putrajaya, Hicom, Perwaja….

Also recall Anwar was finance minister at the time, and more than anybody, even yourself, he brought in and fostered an entire western, commercial, Wolfowitz kind of financial culture that altered the way Malaysia made money, finance projects, conduct banking services, and in creating debt. Growing rubber trees and mining tin might not be sexy and fanciful but those were honest, decent work. You completely ignored these qualities and went with Anwar instead.

Xiaode regrets to have to remind you of this unhappy past. But it helps to give context to Kit Siang’s resurrecting the forex debacle as well as that little show they had in Penang talking about a Bank Negara Gang of Four, Anwar excluded of course. If it isn’t solely about you what then was his threat about?

Very probably, it is multi-angled.

At an individual, personal level, it is about getting even. It is about what you had put Kit Siang through over the years. And not just him but also his entire family. Anwar, for sure, thinks the same. So too Nik Aziz.

Sino ethical culture informs the Chinese to always allow your enemies an escape route once cornered 围兵必阙. That’s for a good reason which won’t be elaborated.

You weren’t just the opposite – taking no prisoners. Your annihilating the enemy surpassed its ruthlessness when it made no distinction between the enemy and the friends, people who might just be onlookers or bystanders compelled to take sides because of old, family, personal or professional loyalties. Remember Salleh Abbas? You went beyond him and the whole Bench got it.

Although Kit Siang’s threat was nebulous and superficial (in your abuse of power and especially monetary corruption), you immediately jumped into the defence as if you are already on trial. Here, in your own words:

  • I had always been careful not to abuse the power.
  • I have not taken anything that is not mine.
  • I didn’t allow my children to do business with the Government.
  • Except for Mirzan, my children did not get any scholarships.
  • Whatever money I now have is from savings.
  • My salaries were not big.
  • I am not interested in getting rich or living a life of luxury.

If you recall, the near exact same things were said by Anwar Ibrahim when he stood in the dock against a set of sodomy and corruption charges. That is, your government couldn’t find a single, dirty sen on him that had been stolen.

But that wasn’t the point, was it?

Now, if you knew that, if Anwar also knew, and if Kit Siang knew, why then did you go on and on with that infantile, ingratiating mollification trying to sedate the looming spectre of yourself standing in a dock and before a whole nation of judges?

The truth? You really want to know the truth?

You were toadying for a purpose. And it is this: you are trying to get on the right side of a humanity called Malaysians. The Chinese call this ‘right side’, 清白 qingbai, literally clear white.

No god can help you now but only people: Malaysians. If people – as a collective – can bring down Gaddafi and Mubarak, they could also have saved them as well. Or they could save you. And this is the problem, isn’t it? Will they, the people, or will they not lift a finger in your name?

If you’re not confident people will, then surely you must ask why…?

While as PM you often spoke, on the one hand, about bringing pride to the Malays, about building towering Malays, about how refined a people they are. Yet those speeches and words translate to the opposite results in your personal actions (Anwar’s treatment, the monarchy, Tunku Abdul Rahman) and in your public deeds (forex, Tajudin et al). The list goes on and on.

Then, on the other hand, you malign the Chinese – for no good reason at all – pitting the Malays against them and calling them names.

This brand of politics, if you still don’t know it, had bred two generations of bigots (Ibrahim Ali, Apanama, Hannah Yeoh), after which they were recast and tutored into fascists (Anas Anus Zubedy, Lim Guan Eng, Pure Shiite) under a ‘vision’ school curriculum of Anwar Ibrahim who you, unfortunately, made education minister in 1986. Anwar et al are, xiaode is sorry to say, your creatures.

In sum, your failure begins once you poisoned a long amiable history of Chinese-Malay relations, on the back of which you then rose to the position as prime minister. Once in position the same method is applied. You turn to persons like Anwar so as to hoist up a shining, pedestal model of a clever, modern Malay no longer tied to rivers and padi fields. Francis Yeoh, Christian, Anglophile and completely at odds with being Malaysian, was your contrasting idea of an Anwar opposite number among the Chinese.

Umno’s Nazri, your party mate, was only half right when he once called you the Father of Racism in Malaysia. You’re the Father of Bigotry.

Against this background – especially since you are a liability to Umno – Barisan now has to worry about the effect of your track record on its electoral performance. Tell us, therefore, how are the people – unless you don’t count Chinese as a Malaysian people – to rise up in your defence against Pakatan?

But not to worry, sir.

Kit Siang’s threat is pivoted on the assumption Pakatan takes Putrajaya. He is being overly confident and conceited. He assumes the Chinese chauvinists (the non-Francis Yeoh types), so often derided by you, won’t come together to give Najib Razak a chance, thereby saving you from any further humiliation.

All that says that while Anwar et al are going to make the coming elections a referendum on Najib and Umno, they, using the same brush to tar you, will turn their campaigns into an indictment against your person. Kit Siang will go around the country to say this: for those who want Mahathir investigated for past sins, vote Pakatan.

Should that happen, what shall you do?

Xiaode bows to you.



(Because the letter as an essay form is the same, the earlier post addressed to Najib is reproduced below, also for comparison purposes between two prime ministers, their personality characters and their politics.)


Xiaodi addresses the Honourable Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak

Xiaodi brings you fraternal greetings in the name of our forefathers and in everlasting friendship between our peoples, the Melayu and the Chinese.

Before proceeding, apologies are in order – for this is our custom -especially for the audacity and the impudence to have to bring this memorial to you in such a manner. Xiaodi has no great deeds to be entitled any privileges, even to be deserving of a hearing. But, as Sima Qian has well advised, “A man has only one death. That death may be as weighty as Mount Tai, or it may be as light as a goose feather. It all depends upon the way he uses it. …

Some time not long ago when Wen Jiabao visited he asked to host a dinner in your honour and then dropped this request: would you be so kind as to bring your mother along.

You’re right to think the Chinese have a long, long memory and they especially remember a good deed and feel compelled, until eternity, to repay a gratitude. Your father was, of course, the beginning source of that memory that will endure the next ten generations and beyond.

This deep sense of indebtedness stems, paradoxically it seems, from the Chinese sceptic view of the world.

But, still, it makes sense if one were to look at the correlation closely and bypass the interpretation, held by bigots, that the Chinese are racist all because they, in their business dealings, for example, prefer the insular familiarity and security of each other. This is also to suggest that the Chinese don’t trust easily and their loyalties have to be earned – any of which couldn’t have anything to do with skin colour but a man’s display of character in words and matched by deeds.

You have travelled and seen much so you must know what all that means.

Scepticism has, as you would say, its “downside”. Since the Chinese owes few loyalties outside the family, it makes for being a politician to the Chinese that much harder, whether Malay or Chinese. The DAP, for example, did not arrive at its present pivotal point on the back of the Chinese vote until almost 40 years later.

This single fact alone has profound implications, affecting some myths that have to be debunked and unlearned if Barisan is to to move ahead in the coming general elections.

Only two would be cited, without elaboration. Myth 1: The Chinese vote is a bloc vote on racial lines. Myth 2: Treating problems dear to the Chinese as issues of race (education for example) rather than of justice and fairness.

In contradiction to those assertions is the MCA survey that Chua Soi Lek says show the Chinese, like Malays and Indians, to always revert to their ‘ethnic cocoons‘.

On the surface, this conclusion appears true perhaps because ethnicity in survey forms is interpretedly primarily on skin colour terms. But the Chinese see race as formed by ethical culture – included in which are character and individual values. That is to also say ethics inform an ethnicity: for example, a Chinese generally sees and judge a person on account of such and such a conduct or attitude.

Likewise the Chinese perception of the Melayu, and this is pivoted on a known set of values, Islamic in Malaysia, without distinction whether this might be agreeable or not agreeable. Christians would say any values sourced outside the bible or the Church is not agreeable; they are instead the pathway to damnation. The Chinese have no such concept, and they oppose it.

Instead of contradictions, Chua’s claims of the MCA survey reaffirms instead the Chinese sceptical worldview: be cautious with loyalties, trust the familiar and the proven, be careful with the words of strangers.

Extrapolate from this worldview is a range of ramifications affecting how you and your political colleagues might approach the Chinese electorate.

1. Visit them as a friend seeking friendship. This is more effective than visiting as a prime minister bringing cheques to schools because the problem for the Chinese after receipt of the cheques is that their votes won’t commensurate with the debt repayment. Those are two different things. Friends do not give away money for no reason so that the act casts suspicion rather than win trust. Moreover – and this is equally important – money for Chinese schools is Chua Soi Lek’s job, not a Malay’s even if prime minister. Go to their temples and schools, enter their homes and their villages and enquire about their welfare. Even without promises, those visits would be good enough because that’s what friends do.

2. Visit them as a Malay, the head of a Malay kingdom seeking the collaboration with a Chinese population and not their acquiescence. Malaysia is many nations under one flag. Your standing says much about mutual respect which is demonstrated as sincerity and honesty if you, sir, wear a Malay baju. This outward appearance reflects who and what you are internally, without the make-belief that you merely want Chinese favours by wearing red clothes or by giving away angpows. The Chinese, like Malays, like yourself, value genuineness because it is a foundation for a lasting relationship coming especially from a person different from those you visit. The DAP Anglophile women wearing shawls into mosque might impress Malays, but the Chinese see them intuitively as phoneys.

3. Visit them as a public official of some standing within the Chinese community and not as an Umno Malay or Barisan politician. The Chinese view of a Malay public official is severely handicapped by a legacy which one does not need to elaborate. This is something to overcome, but it is not an improbable task and the Chinese have a long history in coming to regard a public official. The junzi class is the highest order. He is fair-minded, given to reason, never arbitrary and is well-informed by a set of humanistic ethics that supercede and is better than any strict application of the law.

4. Visit them as MCA’s political kin not as a partner because the latter infers a legacy of unequal relationships. Kinship says instead that your interest in the Chinese community stems from your old, family bonds with the MCA which, for whatever reason in the past, had been unable to do its best. You are there on a higher authority and by virtue of your familial ties with other bodies or institutions within which you have influence.

In this letter – and this is borrowing from Sima Qian again – xiaodi has not been able fully to convey what is in the mind, but xiaodi has tried to lay forth a crude outline, ill expressed as it has been.

With deep respect, xiaodi bows to you.


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »