Archive for July, 2017


Read Full Post »

Mrs Brown thinks Malaysia is her kitchen…


 Mrs Brown waves her rolling pin at thambi Arul: “Out of my kitchen, you piece of Indian prick!”


Arul is never going to be prime minister, for better or for worse. After many years his party has one seat, won under the banner of PKR.

But S Arutchelvam is very welcome to his purist views. He is the sort of person who might have remained a consciencious (sic!) objector, refusing to take up arms against tyranny in the Second World War.

We understand the determination of those who are willing to always remain on the sidelines and tick off others for their imperfections – we need to be reminded always there are better and worse ways of doing things.

However, in times of clear and present danger, in the face of impending tyranny, such as Malaysia now encounters, the rest of the people have to make a decision and take a stand.

Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) leader S Arutchelvam will be in the opposition today and he will be in the opposition tomorrow – what is worrying Malaysians is who is in government today and whether he will still be in government tomorrow.

If people do nothing like Arul, unless it is done by his chosen book, Najib will remain that person. — Mrs Clare Rewcastle Brown, Sarawak Report (alternate site).

You’ve got to hand it to that White piece of nanny from London: After calling the Malays ‘Comical Alis’, she has now turned to Indians, specifically Arul. Being white and English, she knows name calling better than all Pakatan Harapan Anglophiles stacked up, and these are her words:

Arul is “the sort of person, for better or for worse”…

  • a purist,
  • never prime minister material,
  • an objector,
  • refusing to take up arms against tyranny, and
  • person who do nothing.

This piece of white Mrs Brown, lecturing Malaysians about how to deal with Najib, draws from the same sort of culture and morality once used by her predecessors when they sailed into Asia, collected countries like they collect stamps, and now, without an empire, they still lecture from afar like an ISIS nut head screaming Caliphate, Hallelujah and Allahuakbar over the Internet.

Mrs Brown thinks she is the only one who knows the “better and worse ways of doing things” so that all her references to the state of Malaysia is about this — War!

  • clear and present danger,
  • impending tyranny,
  • take up arms.

And, to take up arms and all the other yada, yada, what does Mrs Brown proposes to do? Why, she says, you sign up Hitler against Germany!

What a piece of motherfucker. Perhaps she suffers repressed anger or, as a child, was sexually molested by a Catholic priest, a haunting memory without an outlet until now. Here she is below with the Hilterian fascist extraordinaire. Wonder what’s in it for her, now that she is running amok in the kitchen named Malaysia. God or gold? Or maybe both, for the English they always come together.


From Clare to RPK with love

Cease and Decease Order in Manchester

When white people — one English, one Welsh — fight, they bring in the wife and daughter, below.

Related image

Here’s a picture to send back to the kampung coconuts: Whoa, I went to omputih university la! Even at her age Sara is already looking like the mother, like Rosmah, very round. Look at those muscles! At that tummy! After the next elections, they would be indistinguishable.

Above, Exhibit A. Below, Exhibit B: evidences that to be Malay you aren’t necessarily Malaiyoo, so not always can you get away with duplicating the fake. In that situation, when Umno says, ‘No’, there is always Tan Keng Liang’s makan dedak, five stalks party.

Image result for sara petra kamarudin

What a fucked up Malaixia… and that Hannah Yeoh naughty-twinkle grin.

It’s the inevitable outcome when the stupid do politics, because you have to wonder what grand ideological design is she looking at, what great political philosophy can a coconut head possibly hold?

Read Full Post »

Before politics, here’s something you are unlikely to see, a tweet from people in finance…



CreditSights is a finance research company run by a bunch of White people and Anglophiles. When they try to spread Chinese ideas, that, above, is the result.

Cina @ YouTiup says CreditSights (anonymous tweeted it) is wrong:


Who then is right? Because, if Cina is right, what then explains the term which in its script (versus etymological) origin is, technically, correct. It is a composition of two terms, (亻being the short-hand variant — also called a ‘radical’ — of 人):

ren, person + 呆 dai, stupid = bao, ‘guarantor’



Anglo Copycat Khoo

Is he preaching or teaching?

Khoo Kay Kim, the UM man above wants Chinese schools abolished because, according to him, those schools produce copycats and idiots who can’t think. That’s from a man who hadn’t sat a single day in a Chinese class and evidently hadn’t heard of Pisa. How could such a stupid man end up as a professor? Only in Malaysia.

An Anglo version of the Muslim Ridhuan Tee, Khoo is representative of Anglophiles in Malaysia (Lim Kit Siang, Liew Chin Tong et al, mostly Christians) who think the world of the English, English custom, thought, education, history, snow, sheep, Scottish farms, Thomas Hardy pastors, pedophile priests, scones and marmalade.


CreditSights: White, Finance People Teaching Chinese


… then discovering profundity that kids grow up with.


By the time a Chinese student finishes six years of primary school (particularly in Taiwan, HK or China Mainland) the child would have picked up 3,000 characters, sufficient to read from front page newspaper to the last page. In Malaysia, because of Malay encroachment, heavy syllabus requirement in multiple languages, and motherfucker Anglophiles like Khoo Kay Kim (above), the child’s vocabulary is probably down to fewer than 2,500 words. In comparison, the English dictionary has something like 200,000 words.

What makes for Chinese usability — and this is derived from the multiplicity in the Chinese language or hanyu 汉语 — is its flexibility which, when passed on into Anglophile Khoo racist language, is termed the ‘pragmatism’ of the Chinese. To express a meaning or an idea shouldn’t need any more words than necessary. That’s pragmatism. Our ancestors took it and went further, one single word/character could produce multiple meanings but one closely associated with the other. String two together produce a sentence and this delivers an incredible result because each word/character is the engine to a train of history trailing behind.

Engine of a train?

Yes, because each word/character is a standalone idea, hence the term ideogram. At most times it expresses a picture which is called a pictograph (or a ‘pictorial-gram’). An ideogram is harder and this is an example: 天 tian, day/sky/heaven, is comprised of the number yi, one 一 plus 大. In this ideogram-idea, the sky is one enormous, gargantuan firmament. And not just that. Da 大 has 15 adjectival meanings from big, vast to deep, wide, great and older person.

Alternatively, you could read 天 tian as the number one 一 written twice, one on top of the other, after which add the character for person 人. This is the actual correct written sequence: 一 + 一 + 人. What does that idea present, ‘one’ plus ‘one’ plus ‘person’, 一 + 一 + 人?

No answer will be provided. The point instead is to show how a single word/character, either stitched/bound together from its components or strung into two or more words, produces a profusion (and a profundity) of multiple concepts. It’s fantastic intellectual training, unavailable in any other language (except maybe kanji 漢字).

We are now ready to return to Cina and CreditSights.

The CreditSights tweet decomposition of bao is correct, 亻ren + 呆 dai. But does 呆 dai mean stupid, although you might find that translation in some dictionaries. One simple test, which you can conduct on your own, is to take its etymological construction because 呆 is itself composed of 口 kuo or mouth and 木 mu or wood or tree, the first on top of the second.

Question: what was the ideogram-idea in that combination? We ourselves are not sure. As a guess it could mean, logically, the act of feeding out of trees or the woods. Rarely do dictionaries give its meaning as ‘stupid’ which can only exists as a consequence of a mental state. But the ideogram speaks to, and of, a physical state, referring to someone unable to care for himself. Meaning, stupidity is not even inferred. In general and common usage, therefore, 呆 dai refers to the simple-minded or dull-minded, someone, as Cina says, ‘mentally challenged’ which affects the physical ability to be independent or self-sufficient.

Stupid, on the other hand, is always rendered not as dai but as 笨 ben or 蠢 chun.

Now, return to the Chinese word ren 人 or 亻. A person beside dai 呆, that is, one person beside another person who is physically dependent has to connote some kind of support. This then gives rise to the sense of, ‘to protect, to safeguard, to defend, to care for’.

Those are verb ideas, arising from the acts or intentions of protecting something but, more likely, caring for someone. Because these verb ideas don’t denote a personal noun, the term 保 can’t mean ‘guarantor’ which is a third person reference. Guarantor is instead written as 担保人 danbaoren, and note the repeat of the pronoun word ren.

Cina is therefore correct. So that CreditSight is actually a bunch of assholes who have managed through their stupidity to insult all the world’s insurers, in Chinese 保险公司, baoxian gongsi (notice the word bao again) from AIA to CIMB Life as a bunch of morons.

This is the trouble when Anglos and Anglophiles try to lecture Chinese from the outside. They, including people like Khoo Kay Kim, know so little and each time they open their mouths, and even if we grant them the logic employed on western terms, they have only utter idiocies to show. They don’t even know their English, or histories. Here they are, right on queue:


老外混蛋 laowai hundan: Want an accurate translation, boys and girls?


Below is another of their attempts: These snake oil salesmen, running around in Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia, using (and abusing) the Chinese hanzi language in order to make themselves look profound.

They succeed only because they preach to the equally ignorant. Small wonder Tim Leissner and Goldman Sachs got away with selling USD6.5 bn worth of useless bonds. That’s billions of useless — literally, if you were to think it through — completely useless bonds.

We aren’t bothered to tell them anymore where they are wrong. It isn’t just bad language but that their faulty, perverse analytical method is identical to that employed by  Sumisha Naidu and Hannah Yeoh, both of who equated black and racism but not when white people want to have tanned or black skin. No, for white people that isn’t racism; it’s liberalism. What a motherfucking lot.


Why reject the Opposition

The smartest person in the room speaks softly and intelligibly, no need for chest beating because the force of the argument is not in the sound but in the substance. Thus Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj (clip below) comes out immensely sensible but he’s well received for the wrong reasons — it is about Mahathir Mohamad.

Return to the clip. Out of five minutes, four are devoted to explaining one crucial problem among the Malays that underlies the failure of the Mahathir’s NEP, along with a host of other failures: the subsidy-schemes don’t make economic sense. And Jeyakumar was very specific about what’s wrong with those schemes, rubber, padi, fertilizers and so on. But, all these, too remote for Harapan to tackle, too much trouble to figure out, taking too much work, they go for the easy thing at which they spend endless hours — 1MDB.

Why is 1MDB easy? Lots of morality, especially Anglophile morality. With morality, you could beat Najib till kingdom come but the subsidy scheme will probably continue to rot under a Harapan government. That is precisely the likely result from Zaid Ibrahim’s position when he says: 1MDB is the best thing to beat up Najib Razak. For Mahathir, the same idea, although his determination to remove Najib precedes the 1MDB.

For further evidence into the stupidity of the Opposition, consider the Malaysiakini headline and report. Again, it’s about Mahathir. Not one word on the fucked up subsidy scheme.

To Haris Ibrahim. Five years ago, he went on and on about ABU — Anything but Umno. Thus was PAS catapult into power and influence then. ABU five years later and, Mahathir is not Umno. What now?

The contradiction stares in his face and Haris cannot see the problem in his slogan: it isn’t about Mahathir and Umno but Harapan. Which is why, we, the Chinese, will hold Lim Kit Siang and the DAP to account not because they support Mahathir but because they have demonstrated to be completely untrustworthy. They won’t have our votes nor our support. More than that, we’ll skewer the fucker.

In combination, Jeyakumar and Haris reveal several things about Harapan: as incompetent as Umno, as opportunistic as Umno, as duplicitous as Umno, out of all of which emerges the most prominent characteristic — a bunch of lying motherfuckers. They will pay, and we pray Najib locks them up and throw away the key.


Tun Mahathir Fascism, Kit Siang U-Tun Politics

Mahathir Mohamad spent decades, indeed devoted his entire life, all 70+ years of his adult life, cultivating a fascism called Ketuanan Melayu, so that in his twilight years he is still saying this…

Malays are in control

And Lim Kit Siang devoted his entire life and all of DAP’s resources for 50 years to harvest Chinese votes in order to fight Mahathir fascism and, now, in his twilight years he finds himself agreeing to it.

Is there a greater betrayal? Is there a greater hypocrite? And Haris Ibrahim and Zaid Ibrahim, these models of liberalism and real politics, the Third Force, have nothing to say? The DAP in the like of Hannah Yeoh have nothing to say about their New Politics, their politics beyond race?

All these cunts and motherfuckers…. No wonder there is a simmering revolt within the DAP and it has already lost 20 percent of votes without even the general elections. Truly, a fucked up country. Good riddance.


Somewhere in my Motherland…





People at QQ circulating the photo above are calling that man, president of the world’s oldest civilization, stupid, chun 蠢, standing there looking like a helpless idiot when he should be seated beside her, one arm over the shoulders, and giving her hugs.


Read Full Post »

We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. — George Orwell


False Choices:


How Thaya Got It Wrong


This responds to S Thayaparan who wrote Why vote for the Opposition?

Thaya’s case is persuasive but still doesn’t convincingly say why, why, why the Opposition? All that Thaya has dealt with is the fact that, given the two sides are quite nearly the same, an overbearing Barisan has done more than the Opposition to alienate itself from the populace: You could trust it no more.

Yes, and true.

Follow that Thaya line of thought arrives at his ultimate proposition, there is a chance — and it’s just a chance — the Opposition could go a little side way. A “little better,” he says. A little better here, little better there.

Malaysia’s political pathway, already paved and set in concrete, (meaning, for example, the Constitution) would however stay the same. But — and this is where Thaya detours — change the politician tour drivers, you might find the baggage different, perhaps lighter, less antagonistic, less poisonous, more useful, a little better to travel with.

All that, mind you, is a just a hope — Harapan. Hoping is good, but wait a minute….

Where would they take us? Thaya doesn’t say, and doesn’t need to. Remember the road is already paved. But, wherever it takes Malaysia, keep your eye on the politicians. Thaya:

Vote because you hope that regime change will make it possible, easier for actual change to happen….

‘Hope’ for a ‘possible’? What gobbledygook is that because Thaya is actually saying, let’s hope on a hope!

More to the point, Thaya’s terms constitute the entire electoral vocabulary of the Opposition and he, stepping right into it, could ignore and then threw out an established fact he started out with, which is, the two sides are the same color, only shaded differently.

Put it another way, a vote for the Opposition, since it being fundamentally the same as Barisan, is basically a bet. And it is not even a calculated bet. It’s a throw of the dice — betting on one number only, going one direction only, and stopping at only one color .

Thaya bets that things might — this is, may — be a ‘little better’. He’s not even hoping for ‘much better’ or a turn around, instead just ‘a little’.

A little? Is our vote so pitiful because, if things turn out going the opposite direction, what then? This is entirely possible. The Middle East is up in flames today on the same bet: an existing regime is so useless and corrupt, everybody — from Americans to Arabs and English girls — fell for ISIS and variants thereof.

Orwell was right:

One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship.

In that situation, Thaya regurgitates the Opposition apologia: should things fail to turn out as ‘hoped’ for, vote them out the next time. Vote them out? Like trying to vote out Barisan in 2008 and 2013? He means like vote back in Najib because Thaya is today going to vote for Mahathir Mohamad!

There is, of course, nothing good to be said about Barisan. But this is wrong! It’s not Barisan. In the Peninsula and in Sabah, there’s only Umno. It is, after all, the only thing left inside Barisan so that, really, the dilemma — Harapan or Barisan — that Thaya has presented is essentially a false dichotomy.

Or, look at Harapan now.

Using seats, using numbers, two-thirds of Harapan are ex-Umno. If you add PAS, which was born from the rib of Umno, the proportion rises to four-fifths. (Which explains why Thaya sees, rightfully, that there is little or no difference between the two coalitions.) Mahathir, equaling all the Malays present in Harapan, represents the start of that trajectory downwards.

A vote for Harapan is a vote for the back to the beginning of Malaysia’s problems. In that, Thaya refuses to say, or he simply doesn’t see. (Maybe his mustache is getting in the way.)

This raises the question: If the Barisan is not the problem central, what is it about Umno, as the nation’s driver, that makes it so despicable since, as it is established, the road is already set? The answer, really, is simple: It represents all the things that showed Malaysia has had a wrong driver for 60 years.

The operative word where Thaya is concerned is, driver — not the driving.

Therefore, as Thaya suggests, keep an eye on the driver-politicians. But, if he were to replace one bad driver for another, what hope is there? This is where Thaya mistakes one tree for the forest: it is not the driver per se but what the driver represents that’s utterly wrong with Umno — whether the wrong is inside Umno or outside is not the point. Outside would include Harapan.

In another manner of speaking, we are, when voting, looking for traits in driver not looking for driver. Here’s a suggested list of traits:

  • bigotry, via religious & race morality,
  • duplicity,
  • lying,
  • fraudulent conduct, and
  • stupidity.

Note that race per se or religion per se aren’t present in your vote considerations. Note also that all the above are negative qualities for the obvious reason the positive can only be known by its opposite, which is easier to discover.

We all like fault finding. How to find fault? Answer, listen to what they say and see what they do. Also recall the dictum, we are known by the company we keep: God keeps Satan, Angel Gabriel keeps Serpent, Ong Kian Ming keeps Yeo Bee Yin, Najib Razak keeps Hadi Awang, Lim Kit Siang keeps Mahathir Mohamad. You know God for what Satan is. You know Lim Kit Siang because of Mahathir, both opportunistic for power.

Start, therefore, with the first of the five criteria and the rest falls into place. Seeing that as the first criterion in your decision, you simply vote for its opposite, regardless if that’s a Harapan logo on the ballot or a Barisan flag.

[Example: In a Selangor constituency where it is Yeo Bee Yin (DAP) versus Siti Zabedah Kasim (Independent), I’d pick Siti, without much thinking because Yeo and Siti have already made my decision. No need to attend ceramahs, no need to listen to speeches because those are created only for the moment.

[Example again: Between Najib and Mahathir, your choice seems befuddling but it can’t be Mahathir using the five-point trait list. If, however, there is a third candidate then your decision clears up immediately. In another situation that’s a contest among PSM, Harapan and Barisan, fault finding and the principle of association will again help. Pick PSM obviously. Between PAS and Umno, choose Umno because, adopting negativity as a principle, you don’t want PAS to win.]

Like the inevitability that morning will happen when you go to sleep, so too it is with political characters. When Yeo’s fraudulent character shows up on the ballot, you will see her contestant-opposite. If still in doubt, two weeks after the candidacies are announced, then go home. Do nothing. Either way, you aren’t betting, and the vote is too precious to make a Thaya bet. Nothing is lost. Nothing. Nothing can get worse than it already is. After that let the dice find its place. Embrace anarchy, embrace uncertainty. Let the river flows where it wills. Your vote done, you are free from the false Thayaparan dichotomy — Harapan or Barisan — free from two equally bad options.

The point in all that is not to let Thayaparan and a two-sided, Barisan v Harapan contest narrow down or, worse, negate your choices.

That’s what a Thaya false dichotomy leads to, it cuts down your options to just one and so explains why the Opposition refuses to tolerate a third party in a contest. This refusal is against everything democracy stands for. So, in pleading language, it says give Harapan a chance. And how to give it chance? Thaya adds: Let’s go back and begin from the same point in time, the same spot that led to Malaysia’s ‘failed state’ (Kit Siang’s words) — Mahathir! After that, let’s hope about Mahathir even though the man is a matter of written record, in book-thick sizes. This utter illogicism is incredulous and that’s coming from some mind called ‘Commander’.

Pray tell, Thaya, what happened? Got up from the wrong side of bed? Missed your daily Masjid India goat’s milk? Or age catching up fast. You poor fella; you should change your reading list. Orwell:

If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.


Here’s something youthful to wake you up, Commander.

Within two days 2 million hits and that’s just outside China mainland.


Read Full Post »

 The Fraudulent Life:

Sister in Christ, Sister in Deceit

Image result for Yeo Bee Yin

Chinese, fresh-faced, English-speaking, Anglophile, very political, evangelical and buck-toothed with a silver tongue, Yeo Bee Yin, above, represents a new urban generation of DAP insiders skilled in the extraordinary gifts of duplicity and lying. More than 12 years ago, Lee Kuan Yew had warned about the like of Yeo surfacing in Singapore society. But, in Malaysia and in 2013, nobody warned the Chinese electorate.


Mattala, Rail & the DAP


Why Yeo Bee Yin?

Selangor’s legislator in the DAP for Damansara Utama, Yeo, age 34, is representative of countless anti-China tirades that has come out primarily from the west. In her case, the rhetoric centers on accusations that China is out to undermine Malaysia’s welfare. Through China’s investments, the prime example of which is the East Coast Rail Link (ECRL), Yeo sees an insidious plot to defraud Malaysia — this is what her accusations amount to.

Yeo’s accusations are outrageous. It parallels how Mahathir Mohamad once painted the Chinese as usurpers of Malay power. As Mahathir is to Malay welfare, Yeo projects herself on media platforms and in public representations as the protector of Malaysian interest.

China has not, even until now, mounted any defense against such accusations, in the western media especially. Partly this is because of language inhibitions. Partly also because it doesn’t make much of nor does it take in Yeo’s kind of criticisms, so it simply isn’t bothered nor is it bothered to countermand the attacks. This attitude is not indifference. To respond is to, in the first place, assume China has some American/Anglophile beggar-thy-neighbor policies. But it doesn’t think in those terms. Americans and Anglos would do so naturally, such thinking being rooted in some ‘us versus them‘ dichotomy. (The origin of which is biblical: good v evil, God v Satan, Adam v Eve and so on.) From this way of thinking are the results mercantile in policies and actions, the world is a zero-sum game, my welfare can’t be yours, and so on.

China simply doesn’t think in these terms.

Authors at shuzheng (just two) don’t pretend, therefore, to speak for China. We have, however, as ‘ultra Chinese‘ — and China is motherland after all — live sufficiently long in the country and worked long enough with its authorities to know what goes into their thinking and ideas; they’re our compatriots. This post is also not a defense of Najib Razak’s government. They don’t need our defense, and we don’t presume to know what they want because, really, what they want cannot make us any worse off. (For students of economics, this is called the Pareto optimality). The way things work is this: we, China and us, present our proposals. Take it for whatever it is worth, deliberate on it and after that lets see how the idea might look, good or better or to be thrown out.

This post, split into three parts, starts with the ECRL and ends with Yeo Bee Yin in person because therein, with her, with the DAP and with Mahathir Mohamad are the sources of the poison they have introduced into public debate and then spread especially via Malaysiakini. That online publication is, to all intents and purposes, the Opposition’s most prominent public propagandists no matter how much Steven Gan says he is ‘independent’, whatever that is. Realistically, he can’t be independent when he depends so much of his salary, and the staff as well, on the Opposition, its supporters and their advertising. To underscore this point, you have only to look at the Christians who write for it, the like of Josh Hong and Liew Chin Tong for example.

As reader you are most welcome to contest the rebuttals against Yeo and the DAP. Only be specific and be clear, not meandering, and stay away from polemic. If you are not up to the task then finish reading, go back to your meal and run over in your mind the arguments. This, after all, is an obscure blog against the pervasive might of DAP online propaganda, a David versus Goliath contest, if you will.


Image result for Port of Hambantota

Related image



1. ECRL in DAP Christian Economics


The series of maps above begin with China’s shipping lanes and these are identical routes used by others, Japanese, Korean, European and American ships. For our purpose, we’ll ignore them.

Twenty odd years ago, China had in mind financing and building the Kra Canal. Straight, narrow and unencumbered, it still looks the better option today than the ECRL. The problems with Kra are security and after that economic viability and the two affect each other closely. A way to describe Kra is, it’s just a short, expensive canal. Given the precedent of the Suez and Panama canals, you can see why nothing much is going happen between the two ends of the Kra.

Now, move the Kra idea south, not north because it defeats the core purpose. Note this is about idea, not whether the thing is a canal or not a canal. Kelantan to Penang would have been nice, but nothing goes on in between except monkeys, the rain and the mountains and we should leave them alone. It would have been nice if Kuantan-Klang doesn’t sit at the widest part of the peninsula. But, and here is how Chinese thought processes differ from Anglo-Saxons and their Anglophile cultures: wide is good because where there is life, there are possibilities.

The starting point about the ECRL was, therefore, to make it more meaningful than Kra, that’s to say, better than simply to move goods, better than merely connect two coasts, east and west. This idea isn’t new, so that, more than merely acting as a physical connection, an infrastructure like the ECRL ought to have the ultimate purpose of harnessing and mobilizing human activity.

In that, there is actually a precedent.

China had the Grand Canal, 1,800 km long, first built in parts, then completed 1,500 years ago during the Sui dynasty and last rebuilt and refurbished during the Mings. Today it is still widely in use. Of course, a canal is not a rail line and there were no railroads then. But the idea contained in both is the same, inland transport of goods and people. The bonus from the endeavor was this: between the two ends, Beijing and Hangzhou, passing four provinces, hundreds of towns sprung up on both sides of the canal, the largest, and most famous and most populated today are Tianjin, Jining, Wuxi, Suzhou and Yangzhou.

The seed of the ECRL idea is identical. Win or lose, who knows. Success or failure is not for history to determine but lies in the hands of humanity.


Jinghang da yunhe 京杭大運河 is what we call the Grand Canal

Related image



Farther above, the Grand Canal passing Huai’an 淮安, south of Shanghai, where pound locks, later modernized, was in use 1,500 years ago to overcome differences in elevation. Immediately above, a narrow point at Tongli, 25 km south of Suzhou, where a canal offshoot, equivalent to a rail loop, passes homes and shops. And directly below, is the same canal idea updated: simply put in steel tracks and electric locomotion in place of running water.


ECRL in Bee Yin Racist Bigotry

This, choosing between infrastructure and people, is an eternal chicken and egg problem about which comes first. No resolution is ever possible so one does not waste time even thinking it.

But Yeo Bee Yin’s condemnation of the ECRL was entirely based on that supposition — and it’s just a supposition — the chickens (assuming, people) must come before the egg (infrastructure).

By way of diluting the pain in the dilemma, China offered to build and finance the ECRL, with repayment stayed for 7 years, then spread over 20 years from Year 8. Repayment is closely attached to economic activity and so to kick start that China also offered to locate industries in Kuantan’s Malaysia-China industrial park, buy those products, and commit to trans-shipment, some ships stop over, pick or unload cargo, and then move on.

China have no need for the ECRL and this is the fact of the matter. It could go with the Kra, failing which it could go on with life as normal, using Singapore, and China could better put to use the MYR46 bn elsewhere — especially back in China. That it is willing not only to finance and build, but also to seed key industries, offer markets and buy things, is a measure of its commitment to ensure project viability. China’s method is unlike conventional World Bank-style financing in which Malaysia as borrower gets X amount of money, almost always with political strings attached and, when that’s done, the project, make or break, is your problem. Only pay up or else….

Yeo Bee Yin compares the cost of shipping through Singapore versus the ECRL, a comparison based entirely on a Singapore newspaper report, which cannot be without vested interest. Take that as it may, how does Yeo know that the costing is accurate or even reliable? Here she is:

The Strait Times in its news report “Malaysia’s East Coast Rail Line touted as game changer” has given an interesting calculation based on the information from Malaysian government officials (see picture). It compares the cost of the route from Shenzhen to Port Klang via Kuantan Port and the ECRL and via Singapore and the Strait of Malacca. It was said that the Kuatan-ECRL option will take 135 hours at a cost of USD 56 per tonne of bulk cargo whereas Singapore-Strait of Malacca route will take 165 hours at a cost of USD 50 per tonne of bulk cargo.

The Kuantan-ECRL option is about 10% more expensive with a time saving of 30 hours. However, is the saving of 30 hours worth the additional cost in transport and the hassle of loading and unloading?

What’s wrong with the passage above?

  • (1) Yeo uses bulk cargo ships for comparison. Who says and where did she get the idea that ECRL is purely for bulk cargo?
  • (2) What about transporting people?
  • (3) Nine of ten ships passing Malacca, total 50,000 a year, are container ships, what about those? Each year about 16,000 ships anchor at Port Klang, of which 12,000 are container ships and only 1,600 are bulk cargo. Container and passenger vessels don’t count?
  • (4) What about the savings in transporting cargo northwards from Singapore?
  • (5) What about the economic activities along the entire route? Those don’t matter? For people to have a stab at bettering their lives, this don’t matter, only immediate dollar and cent calculations?
  • (6) Why is loading and unloading, Yeo says with just that tinge of condemnation, a “hassle”? Why, loading and unloading means plenty of ancillary facilities, cranes, buildings, warehousing, offices, the like; it means more construction and transport; it means jobs, lots of honest, dock work, feeding families and more families; it means a new fire station, a new hospital, schools and so on; it means a whole new life for hundreds of thousands. It means economic activity. Why is she against all that?

After all said and done, the central plank in Yeo’s bitching has to do with her short-sighted, myopic view of money, money, money. Never the future, never truly about people and about lives. Grant money (how cheap it is) as the terms in arbitration, she then uses railroad price comparisons with the poorest, cheapest countries on the planet, Ethopia and Bangladesh.

Further suppose we, Malaysia and China, cut the price down to Ethopia levels, would that still appease her?

Of course, Not, because her criticisms on the surface might be about morality and about getting value for money, but where is the economic welfare in that stance: Where’s the economic future, and development and progress? Dig a little deeper, you will find something else in those criticisms and these are pretty obvious: From Day One of her time in the DAP, she has been all about politics so that if her attacks on China makes no sense, it didn’t matter. Only setting up China as the target matters.

Then, push back far enough, you’d see in her politics her anti-Chinese racism and her imitation of the white man’s religiosity. Like Charles Santiago, like Josh Hong, and like every Christian evangelical DAP leader without exception, Yeo despises China because, there, Christians aren’t allowed to go about as they like, preaching voodoo and breaking up families into those ‘sinful’ and those ‘born again’ categories, or between those destined for heaven and those condemned to purgatory.

Add that to her anti-Malay, anti-Umno, anti-establishment stance, we can see where, as they say, she is coming from: like Hannah Yeoh, an utter, detestable fucking cunt, the like of who Malaysia has never before witnessed nor produced.


2. Mattala in Bee Yin Immorality


In this Malaysiakini report, and even before that, Yeo equated Sri Lanka’s Mattala airport to ECRL, one because it is completed, empty and useless, and the other because it is not built and, therefore, certain to be empty and useless. Put this way, it sounds strange but that’s what it boils down to. Because it is so bizarre you immediately sense something isn’t right, not only in Yeo’s arguments but also in that woman herself.

Sri Lanka’s Mattala airport was opened in 2013. Three years later its government offered to sell it, asking for interest to bid from as far away as London.

Twelve years earlier, in 2000 or thereabout, and under competition pressure from the binge of airport construction in Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong, Sri Lanka also wanted a second airport. China at the time was not in the picture.

In 2010 when the Chinese completed the Port of Hambantota, we still had no interest in Mattala for obvious logistical and practical reasons.

Hambantota port had to do with sea traffic not air. Against IATA advice, which the Chinese had seen, Sri Lanka pressed ahead with Mattala nevertheless. This was on the suspicion that what’s good for sea is also good for a neighbor airport. They were wrong. Measured against China’s economic interest, Mattala offered next to no benefit — for both parties. Sri Lanka is small and didn’t need two airports (look, too, at this map). If Mattala comes up, the old Colombo airport ought to go, as it happened with Subang. If not, Chinese airlines had to choose between flying either to Colombo or Mattala, and they have no commercial rationale nor benefit to do both.

In that time and having done the port, China, worried at giving offense, gave in to Mattala. After all, it merely required transferring the entire construction team to a nearby site. Its financial term structure was the same as that with Hambantota.

Since Mattala’s failure, every motherfucking western reporter, every Anglophile in Malaysia blames China. Mahathir Mohamad leads the way, talking about Chinese colonization but ignores the more than 2 million foreigners illegally in Malaysia. The DAP, eager to chart its own political, Malay baiting agenda, has in the person of Yeo Bee Yin to do the Mahathir work; she being completely duplicitous and venomous in spitting at China from the same platform. While the latter adopts bigotry and racism, Mahathir’s trademark politics, she employs Anglophile morality, DAP’s trademark politics.

Now, consider Hambantota. It is a sea port, also built by China, with Chinese finance and debt. As you would examine the ECRL, start with geographic location.

Related image

Image result for Port of Hambantota

Between Europe and Malacca passing the Indian ocean are two vast water stretches, the Arabian and the Andaman seas. Sri Lanka sits in the middle, a location necessary for refueling and to take in fresh water without the need of ships to detour because if you missed the port, your chance to restock is going to cost you. Every ship heading east or west passes within 9 nautical miles of port at the tip of Ceylon (below). Stand there, you can see those ships on a clear day so that it is Hambantota that is better than Colombo where few will stop unless to load and unload. Because of Hambantota’s strategic location, it produced the results in the traffic statistics further below.

Image result for Port of Hambantota

Image result for Port of Hambantota

Below is Yeo cited in Malaysiakini with her charge sheet against Mattala but omits Hambantota:

Malaysia must learn from Sri Lanka’s experience before it is too late, and ensure the feasibility of all mega projects are thoroughly studied and they are awarded through open tender, said DAP’s Damansara Utama assemblyperson Yeo Bee Yin today.

Citing the huge debts incurred by Sri Lanka after taking in money from China to fund underutilised mega infrastructure, Yeo said there are chances that reckless mega infrastructure constructions will send Malaysia into a deep debt trap.

(For an impartial, objective indictment read this, Why Mattala couldn’t take off.)

But the evidences Yeo presented are so incredulous as to be unbelievable:  (a) huge debts? (b) under-utilised mega infrastructure? (c) most of its revenue? (d) from ports to airports? (e) reckless? (f) a trap?

There are a total six accusations and not a single number; not one digit to back up the charges. Yet editors lapped up all that, cover up these fraudulent assertions as news, and she gets away with it, while Malaysiakini subscribers sympathetic to the DAP can gloat: ‘truly the party looks after our interests, and they are so clever’.

Mattala is, of course, a representation of selective prosecution by DAP, the thing it perennially rails against Malaysian authorities. Hambantota is the opposite of Mattala precisely because it is also a ‘mega infrastructure’, also build by China, also with its financing. But, looking at the port statistics for the first three operational years, you must wonder, where’s the recklessness, where’s the trap, where is the under-utilised?


Mattala isn’t a Chinese airport

Once Yeo Bee Yin chose to look at a Mattala but not Hambantota, she has no problem fitting a square peg into the round hole she has constructed. Indeed, not once, not even in her own blog where she has all the space to whine, has she referred to Hambantota that’s actually a part of the China Belt and Road initiative and where business is booming and debt repayment has presented no problem. So, why?

We know, why, of course.

Unlike ECRL or Hambantota, Mattala was never a Chinese offer; it was done at Sri Lanka behest but Yeo Bee Yin made sure it’s China that gets the blame. She needed justification for the script, already written by Mahathir: China as aggressor and as colonizer.

To do that she linked money spent needlessly on the now empty airport that, she says, could otherwise have been used for health and education. That statement is utter Bee Yin fart which George Orwell would characterize as ‘political language designed to make lies sound truthful and respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.‘ How so? How is a lie made to sound truthful? How to see Yeo for what she truly is? The answer is simple: a statement like that is, at one level, a matter of pure statistical veracity:

  • (a) Have there been, in the last three, four years, a decline in Sri Lanka’s budget allocations towards health and education? Grant that there is, is that decline traceable to Mattala’s repayment as the cause?
  • (b) Have there been in that duration more children dying, more children ill, without school and undernourished? And, if there is, is it because of the budget decline and because of Mattala?

At another level, her argument can be gauged for its veracity by pure analytical logic: Is it rationally deductible and therefore universally applicable enough to see if she actually makes sense.

  • (a) If something is under-used and therefore morally reprehensible, then would Yeo throw open her under-used house to receive all those homeless in Damansara? She won’t off course.
  • (b) If something that’s empty is also useless, therefore no good, she should then splay wide her legs and permit her cunt to receive the penis of men, all strangers, all customers, at 50 quid per shot, and then to pass the money to the Damansara Utama Full Gospel church where she sometimes preaches. Again, she won’t off course — or maybe she has — even though Bee Yin’s cunt is nothingness but cavity and completely under-used. (Is she a virgin? So obsessed with money, perhaps she has a secret, prostitute life? Who knows….)

All this also says that Yeo would happily set the Principle of Utilitarianism as the determinant of spending money and of welfare, only if it is applied to other people. On herself, No, and this is characteristic of Christians: they preach good when it fits them.

In plain parlance, she is an utter self-centered bitch, and stupid to boot. Yet, she is endlessly bragging about her Cambridge degree; exactly like Khairy J and like Kamarul Zaman, both of who she detests. Her legs won’t be able to prop her up if she isn’t worshiped, below.

Drugged by the adulation (above), she boasted about it and posted the photo in her blog pages. In the kingdom of the blind, indeed the one-eyed is Queen. Her lying and duplicity hadn’t ceased since she joined the DAP five years ago.

But, how to stop her when the innocent youths are so taken in? Against her fraudulent character, she has absolutely no counterweight because nothing like her type has ever existed in Malaysian politics — until now.


Image result for SJK (C) Hwa Nan

3. Born Again Bee Yin:


Saved by the Son, Fucked by the Father


In hanyu pinyin Yeo Bee Yin’s name 杨美盈 reads, Yang Meiying. She has so far said nothing about her background other than born May 26, 1983 and growing up in Batu Anam, Segamat. Nor has she said anything about her parents. Like many ‘born again’ Chinese Christians, they tend to be ashamed of their pre-Christian infidel family past especially if Yeo’s parents never came round to accepting her Christian dogma that they be ‘saved’, like she was ‘saved’, like Hannah Yeoh was ‘saved’, and like ‘Save Malaysia’.

Not until 18 was, she said, ‘born again’ meaning ‘saved’ by, supposedly, some Son of God. That, although a white man’s voodoo, became her entry ticket to the DAP in 2012 because Ong Kian Ming, a fellow Christian, had got her in. (She says, instead, that it was the work of God. Transcript of her words, below.)

That her primary and secondary schools, SRJK (C) Hwa Nan (pix above) and SMJK Seg Hwa respectively, should deliver such a character as Yeo Bee Yin is not an aberration. Her virulent, poisonous character couldn’t have been the result of Chinese education that encourages self-cultivation, deep introspection and individual responsibility. What she wants to become is her decision and only she has to answer to it. This needs some elaboration, even for Chinese educated readers…

Thanks to its Confucian beginnings, its Daoist characteristics and its deep historical roots in China, Chinese education (meaning formal teaching and learning in hanzi) is the most secular, the most ‘liberal’ (in inverted commas, for lack of a better word) you will find anywhere in the world. Anywhere. Imagine, at age 7 or 10, you are reciting poetry that concerns a man drunk beside a stream under the moonlight (clip below). Where in the world can you find such a curriculum — drunkenness? Yet, perhaps because of this laissez faire regiment, layered over its strong analytical and reasoning applications, Chinese education also produces among the world’s finest scholars and the smartest children. (If in doubt, check Pisa scores.)

The clip above is one of Li Bai’s poems put to music. It’s about drinking. Nothing like this exist elsewhere, in any other culture.

In logical methods, the clip below talks of one, though the presenters don’t realize it. This method is called Multiplicity, in which terms and expressions in Chinese are so flexible they can be flipped around at will and still be understood. This has the effect of giving the speaker or writer multiple ways of thinking over the same thing, event, ideas or a mathematical problem.


For evidence into DAP’s notoriety and the people driving it, examine Yeo’s record, written in her own hand.

Bee Yin’s lunatic dogma. Below, her unreasoning, bible-inspired thinking will leave you speechless. Consider this:

If you walk in God’s Will and pray, He will do exceedingly abundantly. Time may delay the dream or desire in our heart. But if it’s God’s Will, He will give it to us at the right time in a right way.

In those lines you can see how Christianity has left her so fucked up. You can also tell how those lines were copied straight out from some biblical verses, chopped up, stirred and served. Replacing God with the word Allah then posted on a PAS website, you won’t be able to tell that it came from Yeo but from the son of Nik Aziz.

Where then, one might argue, is her independence of thought that Chinese education drills into student minds? It isn’t gone. On the contrary, she knows all about twisting and stirring if that’s necessary to advance the party’s Christian agenda. Below….

Bee Yin materialist, money-minded politics. By her own account, politics is not, in the conventional definition, about bringing together the disparate and disconnected parts of a society to serve the whole. Instead it is a matter of profit and loss. On the ‘Christianity Malaysia’ website from which the passage was extracted, they called Yeo (and don’t laugh) ‘savvy‘:

As a businessperson, I was thinking of maximizing my opportunity cost. So, I thought about joining politics,” said the savvy-minded Bee Yin who was open to the prospect of joining politics.

Bee Yin’s cocksure righteousness. Like her churches out to save Malaysia, Yeo, herself suffused in her own conceited self-righteousness, actually believes she is anointed by some voodoo on-high. Here again is Christianity Malaysia  with its interview. God, it said, had picked her up from among 27 million souls, Hallelujah!

(A DAP) leader (Ong Kian Ming?) told her that if she wanted to make an impact, she should join them. (So) God flung open the door and she was offered to join as a representative of her political party.

Bee Yin’s racist, anti-Malay politics. No God was needed to fling open a door for her. DAP alone was enough. It completely fitted her political prejudices, her condescending attitude (“they couldn’t even speak proper English“), her inflated sense of superiority and her bitterness at Malays. DAP’s Ong Kian Ming, Hannah Yeoh, et al made sure they fed her racism, fed her bigotry and her jealousy. In her own words:

(A) small incidence in the (Petronas) education unit made me utterly disappointed with how things work in Malaysia. While waiting at the lounge, I met two returning scholars from Nottingham University, UK. I started to talk to them. To my very surprise, they couldn’t even speak proper English! After a while, an education unit guy came and met them, I accidentally saw their results – one of them get second class lower and the another one a third class. That blasted my mind. Here I was, with a CGPA of 3.95/4.00 begging only for 1 year of deferment, not even a scholarship, but was denied. Here they were, spent 4 years in the UK fully sponsored and yet graduated with at most, mediocre results.

Bee Yin irrationality. Things that pleases her can be explained by God; but bad things happened because this is Malaysia. Yeo, again and, would you believe this, God, known the world over for only listening and never speaking, actually spoke to her:

Going to Singapore, I told God that I am not going far. But He told me, ‘isn’t it the same for you if you go to Singapore? Why don’t you just stay overseas?’ So, I started my social marketing media company … Everything would fall into place in the right timing. We just need to pray, work hard and wait patiently for his Sovereign Will to be done in this nation….

That passage is revealing in two aspects: (a) It shows that sitting in the Selangor State Assembly isn’t merely a motherfucking whore but also an utter lunatic, talking and listening to some non-existent thing, thanking God one minute for favoring her then turns around to break her bond, doing the exact opposite of her God’s direction given her. (b) “Sovereign Will be done in this nation”? If that is not confessional evidence of a DAP Christian agenda in Malaysia, what is?


Bee Yin & Hannah Yeoh: Sisters in Deception



Finding good about Hambantota couldn’t be more difficult than finding fault with Mattala. But Yeo knows what to look for, what to pick out, and what to speak out against.

Christians are hypocrites? Of course, it’s their DNA.

Opportunists? Of course. Look at how they celebrated Mahathir in Penang, the man Yeo herself has not too long ago railed against, over and over again. Her diatribes are so heavily peppered in the language of Hadi Awang, the two are almost indistinguishable so that you have to asked: Is she any different from this great Islam fraud?

Why, therefore, shouldn’t DAP Christians be wiped out? For one thing, it will Save Malaysia.

These detestable DAP Christian cunts (Yeo Bee Yin, left, and Hannah Yeoh), so relentless at preaching good over evil and then, when you don’t look into their accusations closely, they commit the same evil they rail against others time and again. Should they take over government or influence its future, it’s almost guaranteed they will commit the same thing as the things ISIS did to the Iraqi town of Qaraqosh.


The photos below illustrate Yeo Bee Yin’s DAP and the evolution of its opportunism — the in-your-face Anglophile culture, PAS, Christian agenda, Mahathir, in that order — and its predatory habits and its hypocrisy, all of which put together is without parallel in Malaysian political history.

Seeing these photos you begin to see why Malays so detest these DAP pigs, even for Mahathir when he doesn’t need them.

Image result for pas yeo bee yin





Like Gerakan’s Tan Keng Liang: buck-toothed, a shrieking monkey, Christian, an utter motherfucker. With the like of her around, Allah help us….


Read Full Post »

With one letter, Hadi Awang imagines himself sitting underneath that dome, above.


Dear Ustaz Hadi Awang,

Thank you for your letter and your offer.

Addressing us as non-Muslims, one must assume you are talking to us. But, you should never, never, never again address us as non-Muslims like you are fond of saying ‘non-Malay’ and ‘non-bumi’. If you are talking to Christians, you know you don’t stand a chance with your preaching. If you have a mind to speak to ‘infidels’ or ‘kafirs’ (and Christians in your Islamic lexicon is not ‘infidel’?) say so because those labels are the badges you pin on us.

Some of us might be Buddhists, others Hindus — who you treat not respectfully as humans but as targets for conversion, like the Christians do. Any which way you look at it, we are a people ultimately free from the shackles of your desert import and your kind of a God. Call us a Free People. You see, Hadi, in your manner of speech, even in your opening lines, you start disrespectful. Any wonder why we don’t give a fuck for your Islam? Allah or God or whatever you call ‘It’ — this Imagination — has been the curse of humankind.

Then there is the matter of language. Since you write and talk to infidels, here is what we suggest you do next time: Write in hanzi. Or get a translation and email it. Malaiyoo also boleh. Otherwise, I don’t see how we are going to talk fruitfully and productively. What’s this gobbledygook:

إِنَّمَا ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنُونَ إِخۡوَةٞ فَأَصۡلِحُواْ بَيۡنَ أَخَوَيۡكُمۡۚ وَٱتَّقُواْ ٱللَّهَ لَعَلَّكُمۡ تُرۡحَمُونَ ١٠ يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ لَا يَسۡخَرۡ قَوۡمٞ مِّن قَوۡمٍ عَسَىٰٓ أَن يَكُونُواْ خَيۡرٗا مِّنۡهُمۡ وَلَا نِسَآءٞ مِّن نِّسَآءٍ عَسَىٰٓ أَن يَكُنَّ خَيۡرٗا مِّنۡهُنَّۖ وَلَا تَلۡمِزُوٓاْ أَنفُسَكُمۡ وَلَا تَنَابَزُواْ بِٱلۡأَلۡقَٰبِۖ بِئۡسَ ٱلِٱسۡمُ ٱلۡفُسُوقُ بَعۡدَ ٱلۡإِيمَٰنِۚ وَمَن لَّمۡ يَتُبۡ فَأُوْلَٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلظَّٰلِمُونَ ١١ يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ ٱجۡتَنِبُواْ كَثِيرٗا مِّنَ ٱلظَّنِّ إِنَّ بَعۡضَ ٱلظَّنِّ إِثۡمٞۖ وَ لَا تَجَسَّسُواْ وَلَا يَغۡتَب بَّعۡضُكُم بَعۡضًاۚ أَيُحِبُّ أَحَدُكُمۡ أَن يَأۡكُلَ لَحۡمَ أَخِيهِ مَيۡتٗا فَكَرِهۡتُمُوهُۚ وَٱتَّقُواْ ٱللَّهَۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ تَوَّابٞ رَّحِيمٞ ١٢ الحجرات .

ٱتَّبِعُواْ مَن لَّا يَسَۡٔألُكُمۡ أَجۡرٗا وَهُم مُّهۡتَدُونَ ٢١ يس

You fill half of your letter with that worm-stuff and the other half explaining them, what then does it say of you, your intellect and your offer? Even my computer has trouble computing. I read that the only official Islam is the one written in Mecca; even translations won’t do, so have you written permission from those camel herdsmen?

Now to your talking points, which boil down to two because your letter is so filled with trash.

I borrow the first from Malaysiakini, in which you compare your kind of Islam with Karl Marx and Adam Smith. I assume you aren’t talking about Marxism or laissez faire market economics, but Marx as communism and Smith as capitalism. Those two broad categories, the latter as ideology, the former as disciplines of study, are different; you know that, of course, smart towel head like you.

Let me, therefore, grant you the validity of your comparison, but have you read the Das Kapital? How about The Wealth of Nations? Yes or no?

O! I see, you have read excerpts. Wonderful. Tell us then what do you understand by these books? (This is becoming tiresome, talking to you.)

Point Two, you say:

“Why can’t they give the Islamic approach to politics, economy and society, without any compulsion to leave their religions, a try?”

A ‘try’? Why don’t you instead give it a try, converting to Hinduism? It makes more sense, and you have nothing to lose, not even your head should you later change your mind, and Allah — and this is the god-damned divine truth — is worth losing. Compulsion? Leave my religion? But, Hadi, we have no ‘religion’ to leave, and we have no God to forsake. As for compulsion, you know what happens once we get into Islam; into it Yes, Out is only possible after detaching head from neck. Yet you have the nerve to lecture us on ‘compulsion’.

Let’s us grant your generosity — offering ‘no compulsion’ — but to accept the Islamic way is actually submerging our lives into your religion, that is, living the Islamic way of life. Are you a con artist, Hadi? Like Najib Razak?

You mentioned specifically three fields of endeavor in living but we’ll just forget ‘society’ because you don’t what you’re saying. Let’s talk politics and economics.

Pray tell, what is Islamic politics? Please explain. After that, also explain what’s Islamic economics? Even to grant you that these are disciplines in the Quran what do you understand by their modern-day terms, politics and economics?

We don’t expect you to answer though, Hadi, which are necessary to decide whether or not to accept your offer.

In truth of matter, then, we are wasting time even reading your letter and answering it. All you want is a Chinaman’s vote and you can’t even be straight and come out to say so. Instead, you go on and on and on about the Quran this and Quran that, then went on about no compulsion and yet want us to live the Islamic life you live.

Was all that necessary? Let’s not even talk about rationality, but do you think that’s argument? Meaning, is all that verbiage, your verbiage, grounds for accepting your offer? Next time, when the elections come and if you’re going to go down this road of asking for a vote, make it stick even if you can’t say why. If not, at least say, what’s in it for us?

Now to the penultimate question: Why would you want our votes? So you can create a model Islamic universe in this shitty country call Malaysia? But you don’t need us, according to Helen Aku Cina Ang: You have all the Malaiyoos and all the kampungs under your thumb. Are you going to contest in Seputeh? Cheras? These are godless, filthy, prostitute-ridden infidel areas, according to Petra Kamarudin, the Moron of Manchester.

You know, Hadi, you aren’t a very good con artist. You might try learning from Najib Razak though. You know Najib? The man with a mighty fork tongue and a swift deft of hand.

Come elections, you want our votes, let us see you suck Najib’s dick. Meantime, Salam and fuck off,

Yours truly,






Read Full Post »

1MDB Ketuanan



USD18 bn at his feet, why wouldn’t Najib take it?

Pakatan Harapan’s seven-point political platform is broad-based, focused on institutions and ethics. Strange, therefore, that Mahathir Mohamad was willing, by removing Najib Razak, to cast aside his primary objective of restoring the bangsa, agama dan negara in the top place of Malay polity and Malaysian society.

Umno, through Najib in particular, is saying the Malay is already at the top, Felda being an example, so that his task ahead was ‘protecting’ that position. Indeed, Mahathir’s son Mukhriz agrees with Najib. Malay is top dog in Malaysia’s social, political and economic order. But so what? Says Mukhriz: “If we look at Felda, Mara, Tabung Haji, and all agencies linked to the Malays and Islam, all these are facing problems because of Umno leaders.”

Because of Umno leaders? That would count he himself, count Mahathir and Muhyiddin Yassin and so on.

Mukhriz and Mahathir just don’t seem to get it: nobody, the Chinese least of all, is in competition with the Malays as if Malaysia were a pie and unless Malays get to it first, there would be little or nothing left for them.

Since the beginning of time, Umno and Mahathir have sung the same song and then to the economic threat also added an existential (identity) threat. And, because of such threats, Malay needed protection. The like of Felda and Mara were launched on that underlying insecurity. On that, too, Mahathir molded his entire political career. The gains made by Islamic and Arab culture on Malay society is seen today in their entrenched position in government (Jakim, JAIS, etc), in schools and religious education, in Najib’s pro-Arab foreign policies. Those elements have today completely overtaken the Malay existential being.

In all that, 1MDB is hardly an aberration: Umno becomes chief purser. For funding, everybody in BN became dependent on Najib, Umno by extension. Its businesses had all the Arab, economic, and world conquest design elements and the Chinese (Jho Low, Yeo Jiawei), doing the dog-shit work, will even take the rap for Malays.

Indeed 1MDB is sine qua non, the finest expression in the development of the Malay ego: all of Malaysia’s banks and the rest of the world will throw USD18 bn at it and nobody blinks an eye. Why wouldn’t Najib take the money therefore?

So, adding Tabung Haji (religion) and the Saudis (foreign relations) to Felda (economics) and Mara (education), Umno’s march to top dog position, and in protecting, in molding and remolding Malay society is actually near complete.

Mahathir once despaired that he didn’t change Malay minds after a generation in power. He was wrong, of course. Instead he should sit easy because why else would he pine to return to the old days when the Malays were less materialistic and weren’t so preoccupied with watching FGV/Felda share prices? In the old days, Malays don’t ride submarines; in the old days few Malays gave a shit for the tudung or for Arabs.

So, you see, Malays have changed, Malays are top dog; and so what the fuck is Mukhriz bellyaching about? That’s what your father wanted after all. On the contrary, he should celebrate! All of Bersatu should sing the praises of Mahathir’s handiwork.

Here, however, is the straight answer to the question above: It is because Mahathir doesn’t like what he sees. And if that isn’t what he wants, then what the fuck does he want to see? That there’s no misappropriation in Felda, no thieving in 1MDB, no abuse of power by the police and so on?

But those are the demands for qualities of being, of the human character, the Malay mind and heart. Those have nothing to do with being top dog, with ketuanan, with economics and political power and with Malay special position. Those are qualities underlying the social, political and economic issues in the Pakatan seven-point plan.

The plan says, in effect, Mahathir got it wrong from the start. And, the biggest tragedy in Malaysia isn’t that Umno deviated (it accomplished what it set out) or that power was monopolized by Malays (under the mask of protection) but because Umno permitted no space for the Malay mind and heart to expand naturally, in different directions and to see life from the prism of light. It completely dismissed, in particular, how Chinese thought and ideas can contribute to different ways of seeing things, of governance. It gave in, far too much, to the Mahathir mentality that Malays were under siege from all directions instead.

It’s that mentality which hasn’t changed. Fittingly, therefore, while Malays have changed, Mahathir hasn’t.



These postscript lines take the above arguments a little further. That is, once Umno has served its purpose, what else is there for it? This is Najib’s predicament, a fact that points to why Malays should never govern Malays under an Umno or an Umno-like umbrella such as Berjaya. This Mahathirism is a contradictory and self-annihilating political model.

For the moment though, Najib’s only available answer to remain relevant — and also to stay the looming threat of Umno’s expiry and its self-destruction — is simply to bribe as many Malay votes as he can afford, the party rank and file, Felda, Tabung Haji, Jakim, and others. Political bribery is such a norm that Perkasa and Ibrahim Ali have no qualms demanding MYR1.4 trillion for Malays: ‘You owe us,’ is what the Alis are saying. It’s the inevitable consequence of Umno’s Mahathirism.

More pertinent to the future though is, What should be Pakatan’s answer?

It won’t be a bad idea to simply let Umno gorge itself to death. To let the Malays bring down each other would certainly rid the country, once and for all time, this Mahathir legacy.


Samuel Huntington (Clash of Civilizations), from 50 years ago, remains instructive. On countries such as Malaysia, his ideas are being revisited:

Across the developing world, Huntington saw “the dominance of unstable personalistic leaders,” their governments rife with “blatant corruption . . . arbitrary infringement of the rights and liberties of citizens, declining standards of bureaucratic efficiency and performance, the pervasive alienation of urban political groups, the loss of authority by legislatures and courts, and the fragmentation and at times complete disintegration of broadly based political parties.”

These self-styled revolutionaries thrive on divisiveness. “The aim of the revolutionary is to polarize politics,” Huntington explains, “and hence he attempts to simplify, to dramatize, and to amalgamate political issues into a single, clear-cut dichotomy.” Such leaders attract new rural voters via “ethnic and religious appeals” as well as economic arguments, only to quickly betray their aspirations.

Every line above holds true in Malaysia, and equally applicable in Egypt, Turkey and Syria to Acheh, Sumatra. On Islam, that “failed civilization”:

The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism,” he writes. “It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power. The problem for Islam is not the CIA or the U.S. Department of Defense. It is the West, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the universality of their culture and believe that their superior, if declining, power imposes on them the obligation to extend that culture throughout the world. …

While economic dynamism drives Asia’s rise, population growth in Muslim nations “provides recruits for fundamentalism, terrorism, insurgency, and migration.” Much as Trump mocks politicians who refuse to decry “radical Islamic terrorism,” Huntington criticizes American leaders such as Bill Clinton who argued that the West had no quarrel with Islam, only with violent extremists. “Fourteen hundred years of history demonstrate otherwise,” he remarks.

He does not regard Western values as universal. They are ours alone. …


Ketuanan Karma

Waiting for the Ketuanan self-destruction, we sing the blues…


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »