Archive for the ‘Culture & Politics’ Category

Hey, keling! Watch this…Nah!


Banana Republic

What’s a banana republic? It’s one ruled by bananas, or coconuts as the case may be, people brown and yellow outside but white inside.

Yellow or brown, they are the same, Anglophone education, English-speaking, think the world of white England (Singapore ministers call it ‘first world’ standard; Hannah Yeoh, DAP et al call it ‘high class’) western culture, walk-on-water voodoo, unemployable, rootless, liberal, racist, loud-mouth, judgmental, tyrannical, dogmatic, narcissistic, duplicitous, meddlesome, can’t read and write hanzi but hate Chinese for absolutely no reason. (What did we steal from them? Or even said a single bad thing?) In a word they are, Anglophiles.

To say they ‘hate Chinese’ because we — me, Jian (although she doesn’t live here), China, Chinese culture, progress, civilization and the way we think and live our lives — are the opposite of everything they stand for. Everything. Down to the dots and ts.

Malays, Anglophiles can walk over. But Chinese won’t bend and take our hats for them because we wear no hats. Worse for their condescending ways and their tyrannical dogma, they find us near impossible to convert, to speak their language, to believe in their beliefs. Anglophiles especially know we are a culture superior to that which they had copied from England. And this needles them to no end. It means frustration.

We will not be turned into bananas, made into a banana people, run by bananas in a banana republic. Mahathir with the DAP will produce a banana republic.

Singapore is the world’s first banana republic run by Anglophiles: rich yes but for no purpose, philistine and without culture; toilets are clean yes but out of fear not volition; hands are clean yes, only because they transact with gloves on; educated and clever, seemingly, and only because you understand their language — English (whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent).

Above all, a banana republic appears democratic and free because, its forms, the elections, the campaign after that and the vote finally dispossesses you of — you surrender to it — your ability to act and especially your capacity to think, to evaluate and to judge. And with such a people they — i.e. the ruling party — can then do what they please.

In their hands, and without ethics, without culture, without a distinct existential philosophy nor a historical guide, the instruments of the state can be deployed any which way they want. Anglophiles need only to give the justifications — in English, of course — never mind the reasoning. Arguing is enough, after all, since it is Reason that follows the Will.

It is no accident the PAP ruling party is full of English lawyers and its society attract the Jho Low MBA types. It is no accident the DAP is the same.


Saying Kuan Yew did the “impossible”, Francis Lim Guan Eng didn’t merely buy into the official Singapore ‘Jesus-is-Savior’ narrative fiction of a fictional superman Lee, he is actually one of them: speaking English, thinking in English, and being English, with all the attributes of Englishness that lead to greatness, supposedly having achieved the ‘impossible’.

It is this kind of historical distortion, actually lying, that is the stuff of Anglophile propaganda.

Chinese thinking (Daoist especially) about greatness is the opposite: the great leader does his job well, quietly with no fanfare then disappears for good so the people will say to themselves, ‘we did it ourselves’. That is true public service. Which is why you can’t name one person in Chinese history, 5000 years old, who could make the claim, ‘I did it all’. Nor could you find one — ‘the impossible achiever’ — in Hong Kong or Korea or Taiwan, any of which was then far, far, far more disadvantaged (wars, famine, natural disasters, social upheavals) than was Singapore in its beginnings.


Some favorites of Jian, another ultra Chinese among 1.4 billion.



Blackie keling racist: When was the last time you tried to lick a white arse? Your keling wife know?

P Gunasegaram’s GST masturbation

The premise of that keling’s entire argument is that only China benefits from the ECRL, meaning Malaysian taxpayers had been taken for a ride, and, to do that, the BN government is in cahoots with the main Chinese contractor.

And the basis for that premise? It is the one, below, one line stuck somewhere in his diatribe (“we will show without any doubt“, See-To’s “spin“, “toxic China connection“):

The contract price (dated Nov. 2016) must have included the GST then (April 2015).

How does the keling know the contract ‘must have’ included GST? He has seen it? He drafted it? He knows how to draft this kind of contracts? Does he even know how to count, use a calculator? Does the keling know better than the contractor, told in advance ECRL would be tax-exempt? The keling knows that the government hid this fact from the contractor, allowing it to inflate the price? What is Guna suggesting: this GST is some sort of backhand bribe?

It’s thankless for See-To or anyone else to have to explain because rationality, mathematics and economics are not what motherfuckers like Guna want to hear, even if he is capable of simple arithmetic.

Those are not their primary issues of concern; fixing Najib Razak is. And to bring down Najib any tool will do. Guna the keling, like his boss Malaysiakini’s Steven Gan, like Husam and like Mahathir have demonstrated — repeatedly — they are happy to use those tools.

To attack ECRL, this is the bonus: because it uses a Chinese company, attacking it continues where Mahathirism and Anglophiles have left off in their Anglo prejudices — Chinese being a greedy, money-grubbing people and so they cheat at every opportunity.

Such an accusation is not a matter of interpretation nor opinion. It’s about Anglophile morality and their English racism. You have only to go back to the Mahathir days and even long after that, say, a year ago, to the infamous Petra Kamarudin, to Ahirudin Attan, and to Kadir Jasin (the first two are Najib supporters, by the way; Kadir is with Mahathir) and especially to Anglophiles and Christians, the like of Charles Santiago and DAP/PKR politicians (Wong Chen in particular) they’d say the same thing: Chinese are an evil lot.

Good and evil, right and wrong are determined not by ethical considerations — truth much less — but those are matters solely of political allegiance.

Back to Guna: he spins but says he will “show without any doubt“. He lies but say it is See-To who spins. All major government projects are GST-exempt, but Guna et al will say there has been preferential treatment — the back story of which is, kickbacks. 2+2 = 4?

It is like the Equanimity affair: there is nothing criminal in its ownership, declared an independent court (in Jakarta) no less, hence, must be let go. How do Anglophiles respond? Which is also to say, it is pointless answering the like of Guna. For one thing, if that keling and assorted others were shown to be wrong, “without any doubt“, they will apologize and rewrite all their slanders?

These are, after all, hatchet men. And you never, never answer the hatchet men. You….

See-To wastes his time. Better for him to say to Guna, “Fuck you. So what, blackie keling? Go fuck your daughter.”

This way for example.

Hey, keling! Once again…Nah!

Jian would show him this:



Read Full Post »

Ubah the Lie

If everyone always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but that no one believes anything at all anymore — and rightly so, because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, to be ‘re-lied,’ so to speak.

— Hannah Arendt, 1973 interview

That, the above, is today’s (bloated) face of the DAP.

One GE ago, she was promoted, by Malaysiakini in particular, as that pretty ‘anak Malaysia’ face who was then considered liberal and ‘beyond race’ politics, willing to marry into another race, qualities being synonymous with beauty, sophistication, smart, overseas and English educated hence Anglophile and meritocratic (photos below).

But, as you would peel an onion, that new face reveals an Anglophile fascism, not just as anti-Chinese and anti-Malay (read for example some of Yeo Bee Yin’s condemnation of the Malay). But it especially had all the characteristics of western Kiplingsque bigotry to bring civilization and culture into the ‘Asiatic’ societies.

Now, picture all those Hannah-like prejudices into politics and after that imagine political and Malaysia life post GE14 under DAP rule.

Aged, bloated, pockmarked, and Hannah having served the party purpose, the DAP now uses Michelle Ng (third photo below) — one more round to give the impression she is the DAP politics of youthful beauty, sophistication, Christian charity and cleverness.

Should anyone be impressed? Those are, after all, the same people selling politics who, skilled in misrepresentation, deceit and lying, used to market Colgate, Milo and Jesus Christ.



Bananas of the world: Michelle Ng above, like Hannah Yeoh, like Francis Lim Guan Eng, like Tony Pua, like KangarooTemoc, like Stevie ‘Wonder’ Gan…banana, banana, banana, and more bananas. Now, name the first country ruled by bananas? (Hint: It’s nearer than you think.)


Update: That, above, should be the Pakatan Harapan GE logo, in particular wherever there’s a DAP. Because it’s ‘correct, correct, correct’. If they won’t use it? BN could. Otherwise, consider this, below.


No, you don’t want to try this…

Image result for banana


A lying politic pursuing shifting goals has to ceaselessly rewrite its own history, leaving people not only dispossessed of their ability to act, but also of their capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please.


Why, How is Hannah Dangerous?

We could go down with a list of reasons but what would be the point? That the DAP are wrong and we are right. And, after that? They would give up their fascistic dogma, be rational, and to live and let live?

Within the Christian evangelist backbone of the DAP — hence Pakatan Harapan — their arguments were never reasoned in and so can’t be reasoned out: Garbage in, garbage out.

DAP the past decade had climbed on the stairway steps of the countless dead and bones of the vanquished, beginning before that with Lee Lam Thye. Ably aided by Steven Gan’s Malaysiakini, the party has had and will continue to destroy lives if its leadership, Lim Kit Siang before and now Lim Guan Eng, ruled that you are not in the ‘party interest’, that is, not in conformity with their dogma: in Perak Hew Yit Foong 许月凤, in Selangor Jenice Lee 李映霞, KL Kua Kia Soong 柯嘉逊, in Malacca and Penang, today Sim Tong Him 沈同钦 and 3 others (Malacca), Tan Seng Giaw 陈胜尧 (KL), Boo Cheng Hau  巫程豪 (Johor).

When Sim and three others quit in Malacca, Malaysiakini, on DAP prompting, labelled them the ‘Gang of Four,’ the metaphorical idea from the post-Maoist days that was intended to cast aspersions on their personal character and, especially, of their betrayal.

Yet, they were the people who stood for, if not diversity of opinions, then of reason and fairness and circumspection within the party ranks and who represented the benign face of a tyrannical party.

Today the face of the DAP appears as Liew Chin Tong, Tony Pua, Anthony Loke, Ong Kian Meng, Lim Guan Eng. Coming up for GE14 Hannah Yeoh, Yeo Bee Yin and, along with them, the like of Michelle Ng (whom Malaysiakini is actively promoting in the same way Steven Gan once promoted Hannah).

Seeing this party history, it is as if the Bolsheviks would destroy the Mensheviks with propaganda, purges and with sham trials conducted in newspapers and in the courtrooms, known today as the Moscow Trials (Leon Trosky was hunted down by Bolshevik agents and in every publication painted as a traitor). That the DAP adopts communist rule tactics beneath the gracious, liberal face of democratic socialism is not new. Cambodia’s Pol Pot had identical beginnings. In the early days of Germany’s Nazi party, and once elected to the Reichstag parliament with under 15 percent of seats, Hitler made deals with the Church, opening the way for its control of the state and thence to the annihilation of the Jews.

Kit Siang made deals with the church, too, then packed the senior and middle echelons with the like of the Liews, Ongs and Yeohs. All those named above are, without exception, so-called ‘born-again’ Christians, meaning evangelical Christians — the last persons in the planet to accept rationality and reason as the basis for decisions and to act humanly, much less to govern moderately.

Of course, intra-party purges were justified on the need for ‘discipline’ and ‘unity’. Yet what these principles are meant to serve are also clear, and which Kit Siang, Guan Eng et al have repeatedly stressed, also in the name of unity.

They would reorganize society along new rules, their rules, DAP rules: Anak Malaysia being classic because of its wide-ranging implications. Under it, all personal and ethnic identities are subsumed to just one bangsa Malaysia. Bangsa Malaysia is the eradication then complete conversion of your personality to a single party mold and single dictate, much like being a ‘born again’ Christian.

All that, and more, are the dangers represented by the DAP and which Tengku Adnan warned of but had articulated badly (that man is just a third-rate foot lance soldier). Naturally it had to be Hannah Yeoh who made the rebuttal. And notice, for good reasons, the rebuttal hadn’t come from Guan Eng or its token keling vice-chairman M Kula Segaran. (On the term ‘keling’, even Mahathir had to bend to DAP’s will to portray Harapan as some sort of righteous, benign force.)

That those dangers will surface in post GE (if Pakatan wins) are a given; they are already manifested in countless cases, beginning in most part with Shay Adora Ram. Consider, next, the DAP superman Hew Kuan Yau who can most galvanized the Chinese. He is also a Christian, with a leaning towards Pentecostal evangelism. But, like Hannah and Guan Eng, so skillful is he in the art of duplicity that not once in all his endless 24/7 campaigning — yes, not once — does he admit to that fact.

Against their internal enemies, they, like Najib Razak, know that Cash is King, they are quite willing to use money to break any dissenting opinion.

The Chinese, far, far more than the Malays, are a docile and tolerant lot. It is in our cultural DNA, littered in our (thankful) godless lives. Which explains why the PAP had it easy in Singapore and why the Malaiyoo wog Mahathir Mohamad could walk into Malaysia and made Malay political hegemony the prima facie basis for exclusion of Chinese and supreme Umno rule. He used the exact same claims that Pakatan made today — then to save Malays, at present to save Malaysia. At the time the Chinese gave up without a fight and the DAP exploited that frustration for the past two GE, going into the 14th.

Does this mean the Chinese and all Malaysia are done in? Hardly. The Chinese, an ethical people very attuned to duplicitous conduct, are beginning to sense DAP bigotry and fascism. (See, for example, Stanley Thai of Supermax, testament of a Chinese business class sub-set even though good at making money but are utterly stupid in political philosophy. Robert Kuok is another.) In response to the prospect of losing the constituents, Kit Siang would, rather than change party policies, overrule all objections and adopt the PKR logo for its electoral purpose. Deceit, anyone?

More to the point, it is not our station in life to answer the question above. But, knowing the essence of the threat, it is for BN, the MCA in particular, to deal with it. If Umno is to save itself from Mahathir and the DAP, it must go back to the Chinese they had disenfranchised. And they are more than a dozen ways to do that — but one ‘big one’ is enough — and still keep the Malay vote.

Electoral gerrymandering is not that ‘big one’ and just might turn out counterproductive. Nor should the focus fall on DAP Chinese ‘chauvinism’ because the party, although it taps on Chinese dissatisfaction, is an entirely different creature from the past and is not Chinese at all. It is, look at anyway you like and from any direction, Anglophile. Hannah Yeoh is simply representative of the new face in the DAP.

Sino-Malay relationship is not a mutually exclusive affair, and Pakatan Harapan’s existence proves it.


On a personal note, how I wish Jian were with me if, for nothing else, just to help me get through the days in this shit hole named Malaysia. And, confronting Hannah Yeoh, woman to woman, Jian would know exactly with what and where to prick that piece of bloated balloon and deflate her for good. She would know where to put away that piece of cunt.




Read Full Post »

You got mail! From Beijing…Dear Dr M,


To the Pakatan Harapan Presidential Council

(excerpted points)

According to Mahathir Mohamad, Rais Hussin, DAP, et al,

  • (a) China is in cahoots with Najib Razak, almost certainly bribing him in order to gain contracts;
  • (b) China is turning Malaysia into a colony, causing it serious indebtedness, financial and other losses; and
  • (c) China has violated Malaysian sovereignty, seizing land and other property and, furthermore, will attempt to influence the GE14 outcome in Najib’s favor.

These are serious allegations.

We, China and the Chinese, challenge Pakatan Harapan not only to shut down all China-related projects post GE14. But then, why bother waiting if Malaysia’s life is at stake? We further challenge Pakatan to right away add to its manifesto that it will, upon taking Putrajaya, cancel all contracts with China, seize all China assets, expel and/or arrest all Chinese nationals and, best of all, declare war on China.

Those three grounds given above should be sufficient cause, especially for war.

We are so scared we are trembling. Can you hear our knees knocking?

Indeed, we welcome you to act on those declarations and, before that, to put them on record so as to hold you to your word, that your accusations are true, your Save Malaysia campaign is genuine and in good faith, and, therefore, you will do as you say, and you are not some forked-tongue snake oil salesmen. Above all, your manifest declarations will show you have the balls to match your whining and bitching.

Remember, Save Malaysia. Declare war on China. We challenge you to it!

So, cease with your pussy footing. All that you do so far is to spit in the wind. If, on the other hand, you won’t put your money where your mouth is, we might then do it for you, just for the heck of satisfying your allegations.

Mahathir, podahand, 肏你妈.


Pakatan’s accusations against China are numerous, of all sorts, coming from north, south, east, west. Bundled together they say this: Chinese money, our people and workers should not be in Malaysia because we Chinese are up to no good, colonizing Malaysia in particular.

Below are cases of millions of foreigners in Malaysia and Mahathir doesn’t say if they shouldn’t be in the country because they are…working for Malaysian companies? Or because the companies are foreign? Or both? Or, is it because they simply shouldn’t be in Malaysia — at all — whether building or occupying land being irrelevant.

Penang Bridge. At the peak of its construction between 1982 and 1985, main contractor Hyundai Engineering and Construction, a brigade of 300 Korean workers worked on the far more difficult main span of the cable-stayed bridge. These are manual workers, not sophisticate engineers. They’d get up early in the morning, a makeshift canteen supplied breakfast and in groups of 20-to-30 march to the site, then split off to their respective sections.

All day, several groups do nothing but tie together ends of the hundreds of strands of steel bars used in T-beam reinforcement. After that they prepare formwork. All this must be done by afternoon before the conditions are so hot you can do nothing. By late afternoon, a portion of site must be ready for the concrete pour. Miss the schedule by an hour because of one man or two, the whole process has to be put off to the next day, and the next day’s work to the third day and so on.

You can train a brick layer or if someone is needed to dig a ditch. But you can’t train the sort of bridge discipline in two months to produce precision, speed, and synchronous effort. It takes a culture, a generation to produce these kinds of results.

Petronas Twin Towers. 1993-1996. At Tower One, foreign contractors, Japan’s Hazama Corporation, J.A Jones Construction of Charlotte, North Carolina, and Mitsubishi Corporation. Tower Two, South Korea’s Samsung Engineering and Construction, Kuku Dong Engineering & Construction, and the French Dragages and Bachy-Soletanche. Total construction workforce, 7,000. More than 60 percent were Indonesians and Banglas.

Putrajaya. Scheduled construction period for main buildings, roads, utilities, landscaping, municipal services: 15 years. Initial estimated cost: US$20 billion in 1999; present value, assuming no extra cost, no inflation, 80 billion ringgit. The PM’s office Perdana Putra alone cost US$1.3 bn. Estimated total number of hire over construction entire period: 20,000 – 30,000. Foreign portion: Banglas, Indonesians, Nepalis, actual number unknown.

Registered foreign workers. Sample in 2016:

  • Indonesia 749,266
  • Nepal 411,364
  • Bangladesh 237,991
  • Myanmar 140,259,
  • India 121,430

Foreign workers in plantations. Sample sizes in 2016:

  • Sime Darby, 30,000 (of company total 101,818);
  • Felda FGV, 29,000 (at the time wanted another 5,000 more);
  • Felcra, 13,600 (in 2015);
  • IOI, 12,000 (in 2015);
  • Sabah IJM, 3,500;
  • KLK, 8,000 (in 2015); and
  • All plantations total foreign workers, 2015: 317,410 .

Other notes

Mahathir nationalized the plantations in the 1980s, Guthrie, Sime Darby, Harrisons & Crosfield and Boustead over the same arguments he has against China today: he doesn’t want foreign domination of local resource, especially landed resource.

Within five years of nationalization, foreign workers, aided by a cheap labor-import scheme, began arriving by the boatloads. Tens of thousands of Indian plantation workers lost their jobs as a direct consequence. With foreign workers available, the nationalized Sime Darby would stop giving Indians life-time employment, permanent housing and job security on the plantation site. The Indians became dispensable, lost their jobs, moved to the towns, became disenfranchised from the economy, leading thus to the rise of Hindraf.

Foreigners are so cheap to sustain — low salaries, minimum medical benefits, no hospital, no housing — that when the Mahathir-era levy of 50 ringgit per foreign worker was raised in 2015 to 640 ringgit, Felda could afford more foreign workers. It wanted another 5,000 Indonesians and Banglas.

It is the same story in construction. In order to boost the bottom line, crony companies (the Anwar faction) such as UEM and MRCB began labor import by the tens of thousands — doing menial work, of course. This did not help the companies prosper and UEM had to be bailed out and absorbed into Khazanah.

Up and down the country, the forked-tongue Mahathir spreads doom and gloom, warning of a foreign (China’s) takeover of the economy that are precisely the same failures he had been personally and directly responsible. And all in the same sectors, from construction to heavy industries and plantations.

Technology-transfer? Yes, of course. It is the same tripe in Mahathir’s heydays. Three decades of technology transfer and he’s still after it, as if those decades had transferred nothing. Petronas technicians acquired a technology skill called, lepak: They leave their jobs, sub-contract the same job back to Petronas at the inflated three times the actual work piece rate, then phone an out-of-work American roughneck in Kertih to complete the task. Not true? Walk into any Petronas office and ask for the supplies, engineering, and maintenance department.

It’s the same story in Proton and everywhere you go.

So, the question: why is Mahathir and his mouthpieces banging over and over again on China?

But, because there is simply no rational explanation for his accusations, one has to go back to the empirical evidence to see if his claims have any merit. Even there, worse than finding none, the evidences point to the opposite of his accusations (look below for Sidebar), which is this: On the basis of his criteria that Najib undermines national sovereignty and subverts the economy Mahathir would stand guilty as charged. All charges.

If, therefore, there is neither rational nor empirical evidences in Mahathir’s accusations, then what is the point of them if not because (a) he is an anti-Chinese racist, has been before and still is today, and (b) because the Chinese is always a convenient bat to beat up Najib. He has used the Chinese as a political baiting and beating tool from Day One as politician.

That raises another point, why are mouthpieces like Malaysiakini and Dennis Ignatius pretending they are offering impartial backing and arguments to those accusations? This is asked because without rational basis and without empirical support as news, all the echoes of Mahathir in Malaysiakini are no longer opinions nor in Steven Gan’s reckoning ‘views’. Take, at random, this claim:

It’s unheard of for foreign contractors to bring in their workers from their own countries. If that’s the way, how can a client country benefit from the project? Do we have to create employment for other countries?

A remark such as ‘unheard of’ is either true or false and can be verified without even an internet line or access to a library. Walk out the house and who do you see across the road working on the roof top? Or painting the walls? Pick up the newspaper and what do you read about the latest MRT passing your neighborhood? If there is no benefit, what happens to property prices? (For the answer, see Fig. 4)

All of which says that such a Malaysiakini remark is neither a mistaken ‘point of view’ nor a fact stated erroneously. If neither fact nor opinion, what then is it if not propaganda? Which is to say, such a statement was faked for a specific purpose.

That conclusion loops back to the originally implied question at the beginning in Pakatan’s China-bashing: Why pick on China when the record shows clearly

  • (a) large infrastructure have always gone to foreign companies,
  • (b) direct foreign labor involvement is inevitable, and
  • (c) the country has never lost its sovereignty no matter how much debt had been incurred and no matter how many Indonesians and Banglas and Burmese populate the kitchens, the plantations and the construction sites.

Or in restating this China-bashing racket, no amount of empirical evidences, no amount of rational explanations can do anything to push back the assertions for the like of Mahathir and Steven Gan to admit they were wrong all along, and are still wrong.

All that leaves the entire matter as this: They are out to fix Najib and if their anti-Chinese racism will help the objective then so much the better.

Since the racism in Mahathir, in Ignatius and in Anglophiles like Steven Gan were never reasoned in then it can’t be reasoned out. Without rationality, without evidential basis for their claims, there is just power left. That is, power alone decides if they are right.

If Mahathir and Pakatan gets Putrajaya then Najib will be wrong and they are right. In another manner of speaking, power alone will decide we, China, are innocent of all the accusations. If Mahathir gets Putrajaya then China is guilty as charged.

If they win GE14, then we, China and the Chinese, challenge Pakatan to shut down all China-related projects. We even challenge them in the South China Sea and in the Spratlys: send in your best regiment to take the islands from us since, as they insist, we are on a path of conquest in the Southeast Asia and for world domination!

Better yet, stop all our ships from docking at Malacca and along all points in the East Coast, including Kuantan. If that’s not enough, and Malaysian sovereignty is still at stake because we are and have colonized Johor, we Chinese challenge Pakatan to declare war on China.

Stop whining and make your intentions plain in your manifesto — if you are convinced you are right, that China have evil intentions against Malaysia and you are willing to put money where your mouth is.



Fig. 1


Fig. 2


Fig. 3


Two strands of argument underlay the accusations against China, most prominently at Malaysiakini:

(a) First strand. China’s project expenditures in Malaysia and Najib Razak’s acquiescence are too much, raising suspicion, therefore subject to future scrutiny because there may the ulterior motive to make the Malaysia economy subservient to it. How much in the projects are considered too much?

Dennis Ignatius puts it at 500 billion ringgit, contracted and planned. If true, he says, then China has too much at stake to let the government fall to Mahathir and Pakatan, hence China is likely (or probably?) to interfere then hijack GE14 to favor Najib Razak.

The argument is premised on money, and that 500 bn worth of projects are at stake. That is, the projects have to be completed, China had and will spent that kind of money and these are eventually unrecoverable.

Ringgit 500 bn is about US$125 bn. Now, consider Figure 3. Or consider Figure 2. Applying the premise above, both the US, the UK, Singapore and Japan have reasons to influence GE14. Dennis does not think these countries would do so? Why not? Because, like him, they are good Christians, considerate, do not lie and do not scheme? Only China will interfere because…what?

(b) Second strand. China’s human presence in Malaysia, as well as undermining sovereignty (whatever that is), also brings ‘no benefit’ to Malaysia, especially to the local workforce. This is to say that if China withdraws from all the projects, or if Pakatan cancels them, then there will be benefit to Malaysia? And the local workforce will be better off?

Construction is worth about 40 bn to 50 bn ringgit annually, the equivalent of 5 percent total GDP (see Figure 1). China’s 500 bn contribution alone will push that figure up 10 times, lifting GDP, if all else remains the same, to half of GDP in the final accounting year. So if Dennis isn’t lying with that number, then that kind of money is a suspicious thing?

Sovereignty or not, better for locals or not, Mahathir’s accusations against Chinese participation in the domestic sector raises the question: why single out China? After all Japan and Singapore have more at stake; see Figure 2.

Today’s construction industry employs about 1 million. Fifteen years into Mahathir’s rule, some 700,000 permits had been issued for foreign construction workers, nearly equal the 800,000 local labour force then. For Mahathir at the time, and even today, Banglas and Indonesians and Nepalis won’t undermine Malaysia. Only Chinese will? Why? For the sake of taking over Putrajaya? Because Putrajaya is filled with bottomless wells of gold?



Fig. 4




Don’t ask where I am from
My old village is far away...


Read Full Post »

…in China

Part 2. The Last Chinese in China continued.

Above, received from a Beijing compatriot on Christmas eve. In translation:

Safeguarding our security and peace isn’t some Santa Claus old man, but our brothers and soldiers.

Hercules power: Our men stand guard, our women build houses, below, for this is what we do in China. We will protect with all our powers at hand and at all cost that which we built with the labor of our hearts. This is why Umno’s Red Shirts never got pass the gates of Petaling Street.

This time a year ago… 姐姐 应该早完成了吧



In ancient Chinese text, the standalone script word hua 华 or means, ‘accomplished’. Today, it has become the derivative of many compound noun words, guanghua 光华 (brilliance, splendor), haohua 豪华 (luxurious), jinghua 精华 (essence of, fundamentally of) and huaxia 华夏 (Cathay; old name for China). Then there is huaren 华人, the Chinese. The Chinese were an accomplished people — and we still are.



I Am China!

Qinhuangdao was minus seven in the morning yesterday, minus twelve before that. When the wind sweeps in, it feels like minus 20. Such days are best spent indoors and Jian, positively, refuses to go out, not even for cigarettes and wine. Weather forecasts expect snow this Saturday, three inches thick. Last week’s snow is still around, on the streets, on the ledge of our windows, rooftops, treetops, everywhere.

Jian hadn’t been back home for the last three chunjie 春节. For missing those days, she has nothing but tears. We talked about the times we went mushroom hunting but found honey instead; lucky thing there weren’t many bees around when we fished it out of the thicket. Soon, though, she shall return for spring’s reunion dinner next month; the flight is two hours; by train 42. Mama, she was told, would be back as well. But not her brother because his Tianjin restaurant is going to be opened until the eve of chunjie so he will be catering to the reunion of Others. This is the second year in a row he skipped dinner with the family.

This might read like a sign of the times, the breakup of the family. On the contrary; modern life strengthens the institution.

As for me…? Just to think of Malaysia, that steamy, great decrepit, stinky Islamic mosquito infested jungle swamp, built on the sweat of infidels and our money, makes me want to throw up. If only Najib Razak and the Malaiyoo pirates would loot the country dry and empty. That will be the day Malaysia is saved — from Allah, from PAS and Umno, the muftis, Mahathir Mohamad, and the DAP Anglophiles.

Some years back I heard for the first time in China the following words paired — ‘motherland’ 租国 and ‘compatriot’ 同胞. This was at the public security bureau, but where it shall not be named:

“The matter concerning (your friend), it is in good hands,” said the officer. “We’ll do everything in our powers to resolve it. Trust us. Is this not your motherland? Are we not your compatriots?”

In China, I had never felt like a Malaysian, not even for a single day, and don’t wish to feel like one. None of which is, of course, helpful to be specific about what it is to be Malaysian. A Malay may go to Mara, believes in Allah, eats with his fingers and live in a kampung coconut tree, but there’s still trouble describing a Malaysian on terms that are not exclusively Malay (which is problematic enough), and on terms neither Indonesian nor Arabic. The difficulties are all too apparent: Malaysia is, after all, an artifice on paper and the Malaysian is most times a motherless bastard and other times an orphaned child.

Anglophiles like that Christian mouthwash named Joshie Hong or that kangaroo baby girl fantasizer KTemoc might claim Malaysian identity but that’s just talk — words, and English words at that. As it was with the sycophants Kadir Jasin and Mahathir, Annie of the Valley has repeatedly questioned Chinese loyalty to Malaysia although, by that, she means loyalty to Malaiyoos in the way her Chinese mother gave herself to a Malaiyoo (and getting fucked by him).

Only Malays question the loyalty of the Chinese because, in asking, (a) it puts them as guardians of patriotism, hence, in control of nationality status and the passport, and (b) it keeps up with their pretense and the facade that there is thing called Malaysian and the Malay is some rojak three-in-one Milo cum: bumi, passport and loyalty. Worse for it, Annie judges loyalty — and hang on to your seat — on the basis of social media comments.

Here, therefore, is a key defining characteristic of Malaysia (that includes Annie’s little horde of coconut heads, fancying themselves as ‘Gladiators’): Stupid.

The longer one stays in Malaysia in the company of Malaiyoos and Anglophile thambis, the more moronic one becomes. Must be the kampung goat milk they drink with their mushy rendang. That or the Malay DNA.

Being Chinese has no need for constitutional definitions: one is either Chinese or not; there is no debate; no questions of patriotism; and no hankering over the IC. The passport may be something else though, so that being a Chinese in China transcends nationality; your IC doesn’t count. This situation arises not necessarily because I speak the language or because everywhere I’d go I had been fortunate enough to be welcomed and well-received. So the words of the security officer was revealing not just for their reassurances, which weren’t needed, but reaffirmation that a Chinese everywhere is a Chinese anywhere.

Collectively, we are in possession of a common consciousness, binding us not by skin color, which is fickle, nor by nationality, which is artificial, but by a set of linguistic, humanistic culture and values system that has taken more than 3,000 years to evolve and then to perfect that it’s near unshakeable.

China never — not to my knowledge, anyway — claims the rights of Chinese overseas, unlike say, India claiming rights of thambis in Malaysia and elsewhere. What it claims are fair and decent treatment, the same values that are pivotal to Sino-Confucian ethical culture. Which is, to treat others as you would like to be treated. Or, to be put it negatively, not to treat others in the way you wouldn’t want to be treated.

That isn’t too hard to ask and it’s simple to follow. But Malaiyoo and Muslim politicians couldn’t do this easy thing. When the security officer reaffirms my status as a Chinese compatriot by virtue of China being my motherland, she reiterates the long-standing virtue in Chinese thought: not special treatment but plain fairness.

I am, you see, the last Chinese from Malaysia in China.

Things here are not postcard picture perfect — and who says it must be — but we are working at it, all of us.

China’s nationwide economic or political or social policies are never issued out of a whim, driven by some attitude, or proclaimed through some ideological and religious filters. That’s how the West governs itself and so, too, Malaysia.

We don’t live a life with a baggage that today formulate and drive western policies and governance. Umno carries a ketuanan baggage, PAS an Islam baggage, Pakatan an Anglophile baggage, Helen Ang Hannah’s baggage, and Annie? An existential angst. Instead we Chinese do what works.

Take, for example, the problem of the wealth gap between the village and the city. China’s policy making body the National People’s Congress had for years been deliberating this: What to do?

Some ten years ago, the NPC began to free the counties to alone decide how villages under their purview should develop. It recognized that the local authorities alone ought to know best what’s for the best. Along with that freedom, the NPC offered some suggestions for development — and they are just suggestions, they say — such as cultural tourism, agri-business and handicrafts. The point was to exploit local resource and local resourcefulness, local ingenuity, and their individual drive to go forward.

A village in, say, Chongqing or Lioaning isn’t a collection of lazy kampung huts like those in Kelantan or Kedah that Anglophile idiots associate their western, city bias with an idyllic, rural life. The reasons for this difference in perspectives are rooted in the realities of history, geography, civilization and culture. Malaysia has no history, civilization much, much less, because 60 years is not history; it’s the drop of a cow dung.

Jian’s family are on official written record to be resident in their village for 46 generations. Give and take, that’s more than 1,500 years, long before there was even a Malacca named river mouth that Malaysia say birthed so-called Tanah Melayu civilization. (It was, of course, just Malaiyoo claptrap.) Over time, Jian’s family came to own a few mountains where she and I would go foraging for mushrooms and wild flowers. These mountains sit atop valleys, so that looking down produce a vista of unrivaled splendor that would shame Genting or Cameron and render them third rate by any standard.

Could something, economically viable, come out of this combination of geographical beauty, historical backdrop, present agriculture, and Chinese ingenuity?

Next, consider in the photo, further below, the bridge over a lake by a mountainside forest of pine decked in winter snow. That’s from a village in northeast Jilin. It’s near identical to a lakeside home that belongs to my cousins, excepting that their houses are pretty run down and the winter winds creep in through the cracks and there is no central heating.

Many villages still keep the architecture from a thousand years ago. To see what I mean go to Dali in Yunnan. At the old part of the town, roughly a rectangular plot 2km by 2km, is an example of what a county could do with its run down places. With government support, it was resurrected. Bathed in neon lights, the buildings, canals and streets, the place is today breathtaking in its beauty — like a fairy land, if there is such a thing. Thousands of Chinese tourists go there daily just for the heck of walking on its cobble streets and to stay in those tiny hotel rooms. Beyond Dali, and as bonus to the visitor, is longxue shan 雪山 that looks like something out of the Shangri-La movie. 

But, something else happened. Five years on, some counties were turning themselves into Shenzhen look-alike. Which would have been fine if that’s what they wanted, except that nobody live in those high-rise, property existed for speculative purposes, and the villages are not being repopulated because there’s nothing worthwhile and financially sustaining to go back to. Infuriated, central authorities dispatched officials to audit the work then put a halt to the self-governing plans: You give them the freedom to work as they please, and those county fellas fucked it up.

Now, it’s back to the drawing boards.

All told, do you see any governing ideology or bumiputraism in town planning? Or, in what China does to itself?

South China Sea is another lesson in history that today drives China’s policies.

For a start, look at the map: To the west, desert and more desert. North of China is nothing but stretches and stretches of ice and snow in winter. The so-called Silk Road was short lived, 100 odd years and thereabout. By the Song dynasty it was entirely abandoned because it was simply too much trouble, too much work for too little value. Paradoxically, for more than a thousand years, China’s safety was threatened time and time again coming from the west and north, the marauding Mongols, Manchus, Turks, and those fucked up Tibetans.

Why won’t they leave China alone is no mystery: the wealth and abundance of the Chinese.

Something else happened. By the 1500s, China’s primary threat came from the sea, from the east, the Japanese, and from the south, White people. Our ancestors, the Mings and the Qings, failed to see the dangers ahead, with the result that the plunder and the killings that accompanied the arrival of foreigners were unprecedented in scale in China’s 5,000 year written history, so that the so-called Portuguese ‘conquest’ of Malacca is, really, a dog’s piss. Some 30 million are dead from direct causes — the entire population of Malaysia today.

We aren’t going to let it happen again, even if the Denis Ignatius and Rais Husin of the world shout their voices hoarse about an ‘expansionist’ China. We’ll secure the places from the east to the south, all the way around Singapore and onwards to the Malacca. Pakatan doesn’t like it, take us on. If America’s intent is good, we have no problem letting its Seventh Fleet pass; they piss in our backyard, we’ll cut off their motherfucking prick. Japan? Step aside, boy; we deal with only men, like Uncle Sam.

Now, do you see any doctrine, Monroe or whatever, going with China’s island reclamation?

Jian and I shall return to our apartment after the spring new year. That is, after she had completed her 老家 laojia obligations and mine for mine. For the time being, there’s just the one life we now share between us. Nothing is going to separate us anymore, not Malaysia, not a passport, and certainly not money nor poverty; we’ll see to it. We toyed with the idea of doing diving in the Spratlys islands. This year, there has been too much snow. But, we must first leave it to Mao yeye to straighten out those Vietcongs and Yankees and then we’d go in — maybe even hop island to island and then enter Sandakan.

I recognize that our circumstances are far, far better than millions of others although Jian makes a problem out of it, something like, ‘I won’t go back without 30,000!‘ She had started with forty. Later, it went down to twenty. Life, you see, is negotiable.

Poverty is a perennial Malaysian mythology. Here, we think nothing of it because there is one born into it every minute, naked, penniless and helpless. People are instead classified as those ‘with money’ and those ‘without’. Those ‘without’ knows the pleasures of those ‘with money’ and how that opens the possibilities closed to them. That is, they know money is a service, not the ultimate object. At home, at chunjie, it helps to lift Grandma’s spirits, banish Papa’s worries, and to repay the relatives a debt of gratitude. All of which constitute ‘face’  面.

Only Anglophiles, carrying with them their Jesus Christ baggage of sins, think of money as a corrupting power, a force of evil.

Beholden to the word ‘poverty’, Mahathir has led the Malays to be dependent on an external agency, if not some contract then some job, and the NEP. Malays think of money purely in terms of extraction as opposed to earning it. It’s a loser’s attitude, which is what made Umno, ultimately, and made Najib Razak — like Allah and the Arabs make their consciousness. Malays are losers because Mahathir made them, yet he is not even sorry he did. He never did realize it, and still doesn’t — how could he, a man fed on Anglophile culture? — not even Malaysiakini, both of who are still beating on China for lending money to Najib. If the money was lend to Anwar Ibrahim, they would sing the praises of China.

Anglophile inability to see beyond money’s ostensible value is why Malaysia is such a flop in every facet of life. (Anglophile because they lead society for the stupid — and only — reason they speak English.) That has, in turn, led to every kind of failure, as a unified state, as a progressive society and as a common people. They can’t see that money calibrates capability; it is better than Allah as a source of motivation to excel. That, with money, each person begins to find the need for the Other because an individual is his own market. Alone, no person could satisfy all his needs, not even if you are a monk. The love of money would have meant that they learned to live and let live.

This is why, at the airport shops, Jian and I are going to splurge on all the fine liquor, fine cigarettes, expensive herbs and medicine, winter overcoat, Birkin bags and all the Belgian chocolates that money will afford.

We want diamonds, too…. We are Money!


This winter overcoat is so appropriate for someone tall and slim. And it doesn’t cost an arm and a leg to own one. China’s factories are so good with garments, coming out not just with inexpensive material but highly cost-effective design that needs people like Jian to showcase and sell their wear locally.

Malaiyoo girls won’t need it. Duduk kampung la and feed the mosquitoes.


If Fate’s only wish is Love



The cell phone revolutionized not just photography but the ideas behind it: beauty and art. More than most, the Chinese are enthralled by the arts and its expressions thereof. Below, graduating students make faces for selfies. Why? Answer, recall the monkey king and the Beijing opera mask, above, beside which two Chinese eat out in Japan.



World Risk Areas for Overseas Chinese



The map above was prepared at sina.com after a large number of Chinese were rounded by Nigerian police. The reason? It doesn’t matter: they want Chinese, they will cook something up.

The color-coded map is titled 海外华人安全地图 which speaks of ‘World risk areas for overseas Chinese’. The darker the color the riskier the places. Red is red alert. This doesn’t necessarily mean risk in a racial sense, for example, the Middle East is included because it is dangerous to everybody. But Indonesia is red because the risk, purely on racial grounds, remain racist. Malaysia is close behind.

Overseas Chinese gathering; note the sign bearers in traditional Chinese clothes and hairdo.


应警惕! 是的: Yes! As more and more Chinese travel abroad, always be vigilant. Girls: On the street, keep the men by your side. Always. Any Ali Malaiyoo touch you, you know what to do….

Better yet, don’t bother and don’t waste your money going to Malaysia. It has no snow, never can, never will. All it has are Chinese bananas and Indian coconuts, lots of Malaiyoos and mosquitoes, and their stinking sweat.


These days, China has too much snow, above. Yes! No Christmas for Chinese! (Fuck that motherless Jesus.)



Yes! Yes! Yes! Chinese! Be vigilant during Christmas (above).


We are so sick of western media distortions that this, above and below, have to be said. Distortion includes the like of Annie whose racist bigotry and idea of patriotism is to say all the good things of her Malaiyoo government, no matter its failings and even outright crimes.



How’re you, my Motherland





栾菊杰 Luan Jujie, above and below: Although a naturalized Canadian and fencing for Canada, her heart remained Chinese, a true huaren. Winning the first round match during the 2008 Olympics, she promptly pulled out and unfurled a banner written in hanzi, 祖国好. (Full sina article, below, in Chinese.)

Word for word the script translates as ‘motherland good’. In common day expression, for example, 你好 nihao means ‘how’re you?’ 祖国好 is therefore a greeting: ‘How’re you, my Motherland!’ She is also saying, I’m China!

The beauty of the Chinese language is that we can say the same things in English with the least number of words.



Annie, Malaiyoo, Where is Your Loyalty?

In her Valley of Bigots, Annie’s racism goes something like this: Matters of loyalty and patriotism are not to be judged on their merits but on the basis of skin color. If you’re Chinese, say nice things about her Malaiyoo government or else… She’ll go to the police?

To answer Annie’s case about unpatriotic Chinese, let this be said for the last time and for all time: The hearts of the Chinese and our devotion and loyalty and our love will always be, first and foremost, our Motherland. China.

You want loyalty to Malaiyoos and patriotism to Malaysia, Annie? Fuck you. Fuck Malaysia.

We owe Malaiyoos and Malaysia nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not money, not passport and not IC. No, on the contrary. Malaiyoos owe us, loyalty to the Chinese and to China. The like of Annie and Kadir Jasin and Ahi Attan are so lucky to have us pay for your fucking Mara tuition, for your stupid rendang, and now your ports and railways. So, show some gratitude…. Get it, Annie?



 Chinese Power vs Barbarians

No more are we to take shit from the like of fucks as Annie’s assholes. We’ll make China great again (link goes to a third rate article that Evan Onos gets wrong, talking about America’s failure more than China’s greatness). When we Chinese say we are going to be great again, we aren’t asking your permission nor America’s. If, however, Malaiyoos believe that raw power speaks then we’ll show you our fist. Just that alone will turn them into little pussy cats.

Malays and Barbarians don’t comprehend the true qualitative essence of power that the Chinese do: ‘Power does not always assume just one form and that, in virtue of this, a given form of power can coexist alongside, or even come into conflict with, other forms of power.’ (That was leaked by Michel Foucault. Spell it out in English and Anglophiles still scratch their heads, wondering what the sentence means. Stupid Malaysians.)

Hence, when we feted Donald Trump, we understood  what he didn’t, ‘barbarians respond well to receptions and entertainment, after which they have had a feeling of appreciation.’ The Chinese formula is simple when it comes to deploying power: ‘That which is ours, we will fight for it. That which doesn’t belong to us, we don’t want.’

But, how power is expressed and worked out, that’s a matter of culture, Chinese culture.

The movie above, Wolf Warriors II, was made in response to the threats and bigotry Chinese face overseas. Unpatriotic Malaysian Chinese should help our compatriots respond to such situations. We are, you see, experienced in and adept to the Valley of Bigots.


为救女儿她加入他国国籍 “祖国好”看哭许多人


栾菊杰曾是中国击剑队的一员,在国际上享有非常高的知名度,1989年退役之后, 栾菊杰本想跟随丈夫去外国做生意,而她也想成为一名裁判。但是1991年他们的大女儿出生不久后被告知有先天性心脏病,为了女儿能够健康成长,栾菊杰与丈夫选择移民加拿大,让女儿受到更好的医疗照顾。






Read Full Post »

Malaysia is a country of no stories but one; a country wrecked by that one story, manufactured in Umno party meetings then told and retold by the same man who having conceived it now wants to salvage it for reuse.


Objective = The Sum of Subjectives

We see how things are from a subjective point of view, and because they really are that way, a form of objectivity is achieved. This is a lesson that our present age needs to learn again. The most complete, objective point of view is not one that is abstracted from the subjective: it is one that incorporates as many subjective points of view as are relevant and needed.

This also provides the link between imagination and rationality. A detached reason that cannot enter into the viewpoints of others cannot be fully objective because it cannot access whole areas of the real world of human experience. [This is..] the importance of attending to the internal logic of positions, not just how they stand up to outside scrutiny.

In a pluralist world, there is no hope of understanding people who live according to different values if we only judge them from the outside, from what we imagine to be an objective point of view but is really one infused with our own subjectivity. Atheists need to know what it really means to be religious, not simply to run through arguments against the existence of God that are not the bedrock of belief anyway. No one can hope to understand emerging nations such as China, India or Brazil unless they try to see how the world looks from inside those countries. — Julian Baggini, Aeon 2017 November (emphasis added).



A Machiavellian? Or a snake oil salesman story teller that he is?


A Machiavellian Realist World by a Non-Machiavellian


Democracy is suppose to deliver a set of nice results and when that fails it becomes purely an end to itself — holding an election.

The trouble with democracy, and this happens not only in Malaysia, is that people wish for it to deliver things that can never, never happen try as you might, and even with elections after elections. One is left, as a result, holding bags of promises DAP and Umno politicians made.

Yet people remain hopeful and continue in their delusions. That Mahathir Mohamad did irreparable damage to everything becomes irrelevant but people still pine after him because the justification is, first get the power. Lim Kit Siang criticizes endlessly but when his turn came, the DAP repeat the same policy, administrative and ideological failures, in Penang for example; over the hotel tudung issue, another. (Those issues are stark revelations that the Pakatan can be equally stupid, no matter how they make of themselves. They are as quick to hang you as jihadists slice throats so that, for power’s sake, the liberal becomes illiberal, the godly the satanic, the national Destroyer become the Savior.)

Democracy was never a realistic proposition; if it were then life, to borrow Gabriel Garcia Marquez, would be a breeze.

What’s wrong with democracy? For the answer Niccolo Machiavelli is instructive, the infamous author of the ‘The Prince‘ and whose name is latched to the term Machiavellian. People (editors and columnists at Malaysiakini in particular) who use the expression have typically never read him — you can tell by their references to it — so that to describe Mahathir as Machiavellian is a fucking joke.

Below are eight talking points from and about Machiavelli. In it are described the fallacies of the republic, a democratic form, compared to, shall we say, an authoritarian regime (China is the current Anglophile favorite). This list was compiled by Erica Benner from her book Be Like the Fox: Machiavelli In His World (below).

Machiavelli, Benner wrote, was never even a Machiavellian. He was instead the first, true realist produced by the West. Yet delusions about his ideas persist to this day. Ideas cross oceans and leap over mountains. At the mosquito home of Kadir Jasin and the coconut tree offices of Steven Gan, you know they have arrived when they arrive, the same talking points, the same yada, yada:

Machiavelli’s realities aren’t just “hard facts” that anyone of sound mind can agree on. Historical memories are among the stubborn realities that can kick back against political ideals. So are desires, fears, and patterns of behaviour that seem rooted in unchanging human nature. “In any city whatever” and in states big or small, Machiavelli says, one sees frictions between two kinds of people. On the one side are those who aim to climb to high and higher up social and economic ladders. On the other there are people who worry that high-flying elites might end up controlling public life, monopolizing every advantage, and dictating terms of social interaction to everyone else. Realistic policies need to face these tensions head-on, Machiavelli says, and take both sides seriously. If you whitewash the conflict, suspicions fester. If you play one side off the other, democracies get sick, sometimes fatally.

Machiavelli knew that it isn’t easy to cultivate a sense of political reality. Doing so is less a matter of formal education or native smarts than of coming to understand the dire consequences of un-realism. People are so caught up in their present troubles, he says, that they’re easily “deceived by a false appearance of good” and moved by “great hopes and mighty promises”—even when “the ruin of the republic is concealed underneath.”

It might seem perverse to seek help from a man routinely portrayed in popular culture as an adviser muttering darkly in politicians’ ears, telling them to use shrewdly crafted appearances—lies and spin—to control people’s minds and actions. It’s true that Machiavelli sets out this arch-manipulator’s path to power in his Prince—but only to highlight its follies. The hyper-ambitious leaders who populate his book fly high for a while on big promises, popular fears, money, and foreign support. Then they crash, leaving their countries in a sorry mess. No wonder early readers were sure that far from being a treatise for would-be tyrants, the Prince was a brilliant exposé of princely stratagems: a self-defense manual for citizens. “The book of republicans,” Rousseau called it.



Here is Benner’s list of uncomfortable truths (some retitled) — the myths of, shall we say, Zaidgeist/Pakatan democracy:

Delusion 1: That (democracy or Save Malaysia) politics would unite citizens.
“Those who hope that a republic can be united,” Machiavelli says, “are very much deceived,” and want something harmful to freedom. Why: because one of the unalterable realities of political life is that people have different brains, interests, and values. Orderly clashes of rival political parties ensure that differences are represented and allowed to breathe freely. When one part of society—whether left- or right-leaning, traditional or progressive—tries to dominate the other and control public space, this infuriates the other parts, and threatens everyone’s freedoms.

Delusion 2: That equality once imposed, corruption ends, freedom prevails.
Machiavelli isn’t a strict egalitarian, but he does insist that personal and political freedoms are eroded when people lack the resources and social respect needed to enjoy them. To avoid corruption, democracies need to preserve “an even equality” among citizens. Excessive inequality destroys public trust because it makes it easier for the wealthy few to dominate the rest. It makes the less well-off feel that the system is stacked against them, and upsets the overall balance of freedoms that keeps democracies stable. 

Delusion 3: That strong leaders and strong states are all for the best.
Nothing could be less realistic than the idea that the powerful can do whatever they want with impunity. No matter how strong you are, in politics “one inconvenience can never be suppressed without another cropping up.” So realistic politics is the art of “choosing between inconveniences”—including the awkward fact that even much weaker people and states can find ways to upset your power. Those “who do not know how to measure themselves and put limits to their hopes” usually come to ruin.

Delusion 4: That leaders or the ‘system’, never the people, are the root of all problems.
Machiavelli has no time for this kind of easy blame-game. Bad leaders and corrupt institutions are symptoms of democratic ailments, not their root cause. In manically competitive trading and banking societies like Machiavelli’s Florence—which had much in common with commercial democracies today—corrupt leaders and the super-rich aren’t the only ones who make life harder for poor and middling citizens. People from status-conscious middle levels are often the fiercest defenders of social hierarchies. They can be ruthless about pushing ahead of the pack lest they fall behind, “since it does not appear to men that they possess securely unless they acquire something new.” Such people should ask whether the policies they support can sustain healthy democracies in the long run.

Delusion 5: That bad leaders/policies happen because of ignorant voters.
Machiavelli was brutally realistic about how easy it is to pull one over people. “He who deceives,” he observes, “will always find someone who will let himself be deceived.” But the deceivable aren’t necessarily uneducated, lazy, or stupid. In his day, Machiavelli points out, intellectuals and citizens of all social classes were among the devotees of Girolamo Savonarola, a rabble-rousing Dominican friar who claimed to get his political directives straight from God. It wasn’t ignorance that made people fall into his demagogic snares; he appealed to their longings for self-assured guidance in disorienting times. Citizens who “let” such leaders mislead them aren’t so much ignorant as impatient and irresponsible: too ready to put their faith in quack doctors of state instead of searching hard for better remedies. 

Delusion 6: That in troubled times (Malaysia), a Strong, Savior-Politician is needed.
When democratic foundations are cracking and political practices look rotten, it’s tempting to give audacious leaders a free hand to purge the rot, shake up the system, and save the nation. Machiavelli says: resist it. Frustrated citizens often “persuade themselves” that some leader’s lawless conduct and “wicked life can make freedom emerge.” They let him or her override constitutional checks on their power, trample on the laws in the name of safety or necessity or national greatness. But it almost never happens that someone who bolsters his power in these ways “ever wishes to work well, or that it will ever occur to his mind to use well the authority that he acquired badly.” A leader “who can do whatever he wants, unshackled by the laws, is crazy.”

Delusion 7: That to save a nation, first build walls.
Physical barriers against enemies and the movement of peoples are, in Machiavelli’s opinion, basically “useless.” Citizens who won’t talk to one another, corrupt practices of government, poisonous inequalities: these things make states vulnerable from within, while frail alliances and shoddy diplomacy weaken them from without. Walls and heavy policing just advertise your failure to deal with them. Massive migration has always caused turmoil, Machiavelli observes. But free countries can always find ways to manage the floods that are more effective than adding border guards and red tape, and that show more self-confidence. The ancient Romans were “so generous in admitting foreigners,” he says, “that Rome began to depart from its old customs.” So what did they do? Believing that free movement helped make their city great, they gave newcomers better representation so that they wouldn’t attack ancient Roman ways as outsiders.

Delusion 8: That crushing the defeated will save a nation. (Recall Mahathir’s 100 day in power pledge: pulverize Najib Razak.)

No fantasy beloved of powerful leaders, classes, or states is more damaging to their health, or that of their countries. Viewed realistically, power is changeable and relative. Today you might have oodles of it compared with your neighbour, but tomorrow theirs may wax and yours wane. You might find that your power rested on “very constant and unstable things” such as other people’s temporary misfortunes, or money and favours used to buy fair-weather friends. Real political power needs stable props, and the best props, Machiavelli tells us, are other people whose support you can count on through thick and thin. To get and keep them on side, you need to treat them reasonably well, even if you’ve just crushed them in a war or political campaign. After all, as we read in the reputedly amoral Prince, “victories are never so clear that the winner does not have to have some respect, especially for justice.”




Read Full Post »

Part 1/3 is here.

Behold your Merdeka…

60 Years On, Thought Slavery

Image result for sea games opening

The portrayal of Malaysia: Baju and songkok as if the Chinese (and Indians and others) don’t exist. It’s the same Malaysia, 60 times over, where Anglophiles pine after — ‘how much we love our homeland,’ yada, yada, yada — and we aren’t talking about what to wear for a ceremony. It goes deeper, and this is the thing motherfucking Anglophiles, bearing names like Josh Hong, Lisa Ng, Charles Santiago and Dennis Ignatius are incapable of understanding.

Then there are the Malay Anglophiles…, same kettle of fish, enslaved to the same thoughts, trapped in the same White man’s dichotomous world where if not Jesus it’s Allah.

If, in opening ceremonies like the SEA Games, Malaysian participants were to wear their traditional clothing, why would that be wrong? Why would it be politically incorrect? How could such outward expression of pluralism negate, even undermine, domestic Malay political power?

Below is a variation of the hanfu 汉服, the 2,000-year-old official history description of varied Chinese clothing designs dating from the Han dynasty. The two-piece design below used on the occasion of a Confucian ceremony follows closely ancient styles with a cross collar upper, outer garment, loose sleeves and a waist sash, but narrower than what’s seen.

Note men and women wear the same thing, again illustrating the origins of Chinese culture was never gender-specific nor ‘sexist’ even though 5,000 years behind, yet far more ‘progressive’ than the Christian West today trumpeting about their liberal achievements.



Thanks to Jian my Love for teaching me real fashion. Below, she, insulated, rightfully, from Western poison in ‘dictatorial, communist’ China,  is ‘multi-tasking’, a term that has caught on among HR managers and office department heads, those stupid Anglophiles again. She has far more freedom to do what she wants, believe whatever she wants, or not believe, think whatever she wants then say it. She is freer than Mahathir Mohamad 100 times over.


Chinese in Search of a Nation

For more than 3,000 years, China has had the characteristics that today define modern statehood: fixed geographical boundaries and formal institutions, in particular government, taxation, education, and military. It especially had a population who felt being part of the nation-state. Su Dongpo 苏東坡/蘇東坡, 1037-1101:

I face all these bound prisoners, helpless
little people scrambling for food, snared
in the law’s net, and no reason for shame.

Could I free them for the holiday at least?
I brood in shame before ancients who did.

People were identifiable by a particular era, such as tangren (唐人) or people of the Tang. Xinjiang, birthplace of Li Bai, was referred to in the historical records as the ‘western frontier people‘ or 西疆人 as opposed to 新疆 New Frontier that is today the Anglicized translation.

The same idea above — about people of a nation — is echoed in Pete Teo’s ‘Merdeka‘ short film and spoken of by James Chai in his letter to Malaysiakini.

This is a perennial, tiresome topic: 7 million Chinese in Malaysia who’s without a nation, one part stuck there, one part wondering when and how to quit it, another part gone, and others like James Chai pining over a non-existent nation.

The idea of a Chinese without a nation is quite the opposite of Singapore as a nation with 4 million citizens but no distinct Singaporean people. Asked them what is a Singaporean, their tongues warble and soon get tied into knots.

Singaporeans are identifiable only by a passport, nothing else, not genuine culture nor specific traits of a people. Its history is purely colonist British; it survives purely on western Law (Constitution), like America, that’s superimposed on the artificiality of its nation-state status, like America and Australia are artificial creations of White people, like Britian was created out of the rib of Romans. Take away the UN recognition and grant of legitimacy, Singapore ceases to exist. Remove the Queen, the Union Jack, the national anthem, and all that business about God saving the Queen, Britain ceases to be applicable. It dies an instant death.

China, in contrast, is independent of these external appendages. It is distinct Chinese, of Chinese ancestry, the inheritors of Li Bai, and has no place for Indians and Pakistanis (in Hong Kong) nor Africans (lodged in Guangzhou).

Conversely, nothing outsiders do, can or will affect China existential being. China is, consequently, superior to the nation-state artificiality; it is a civilization-state. It can’t be destroyed like the Roman empire was destroyed or broken up like Europe post-perestroika borders, or like Syria and Iraq; Japanese murdered 25 million Chinese, two times the population size of then Malaya, and China is still intact; its history still there and Su Dongpo is still our inspiration.

Thus, we don’t welcome immigrants because they are not Chinese. This means we are racist (says Wong Chen of PKR)? So what.

China is Chinese because it’s home, identity, and the ultimate source of the Chinese being.

You want a better life than in India? Want to escape ISIS in the UK? Want racist-free liberalism? Go to Australia or America. Or try Singapore or try moving to the Hadi Awang’s Kelantan or Wong Chen’s Selangor. There Arabs can kill all the British they want; it ain’t our business.

In Indonesia, the Hindu gods come and go, while Buddha is reduced to a pile of stones in Borobudur; to all of which the Indonesian soul is replaced by Allah.

In parallel, Malaysia exist purely by force of arms and by power, pure unbridled state — and religious — power. This artifice known as Malaysia had never, to begin with, existed as civilization and never will it become one. The White man’s legal and nation-state contraptions saw to it while the Abrahamic Gods had long ago dismissed any such potential of being a civilization when Mahathir Mohamad’s Allah (along with Hannah Yeoh’s Jesus) killed those other gods, such as those found in the Kerling rubber estates.

All the above is to serve as an answer to James Chai’s sentimental claptrap, pining to remain in Malaysia. He pretend he is some great patriot but it’s to an artifice he wants to return to. And for what? Over what?

Chinese being great patriots of China goes without saying. But we are patriots not to some flag or system of government (are these not pure artifice?). No, we are devoted to our land, our history, our way of life — it’s the best way — and why? Because it’s a population, a body of people, who ultimately makes up a nation, beginning with a family and onwards to a village, county, province and so on in a series of concentric circle relationship. A nation arises from an individual extended to family, which is the beginning of a political unit, so that the only way a nation flourishes is when the individual flourishes and families are preserved at all costs.

It’s never the other way around that the like of James Chai and Pete Teo talked about; they are a people looking for a nation to belong to and, therefore, could find none. (In Syria, a nation is destroyed once its families are uprooted. The families flee.)

Malays? They are a people trying to manufacture a nation, artificially, from a paper blueprint, drafted by foreigners, that instruct Malays how to be Malay; a nation constructed not bottom-up but from the top, the sultan, with a foreign God overlooking. Thus, when Merdeka came, Malay freedom was already prescribed; they would lose their freedom forever and don’t know it. The more the Malays drew from the blueprint to assert power, the more they find restrictions. In between, meanwhile, Malay families and kampungs were raped and plundered (think Hadi’s Kelantan or Najib’s Malaysia). So much for Merdeka, Malaiyoo….

When Chai and Teo talk of Malaysia and in terms of hope, what the fuck is this contraption called ‘Malaysia’ and what the fuck is this thing called ‘Hope’. Small wonder, Malaysia is so screwed up especially since Mahathir’s days when Malaysia was considered, and still is, as exclusively Tanah Melayu to which Lim Kit Siang’s answer is ‘Malaysian First’ as if that was never self-evident to begin with so he had to demand for it therefore.

These ignorant, stupid Anglophiles…. They are a people without a history, without arts and culture, other than to live by British Ceylon tea and an American-styled Constitution invented by self-serving Pakistani Anglophiles and White people; they are without a true family other than for sons and daughters going by the same surnames.

They are, in Plato’s words, a ‘cave’ people, thriving purely by punching on shadows so that each time Mahathir, LKS et al bitch about the local state of affairs, they merely reaffirmed the hollow shell of their own lives that produced all that they are complaining about: Mahathir wanting to destroy the beast named Najib Razak he personally and directly created; Kit Siang wanting the system replaced that wouldn’t have existed if not for DAP’s existence. (Daodejing: the tall and the short define each other, black and white made each other.)

Saying the same thing, S. Thayaparan’s ‘‘Citizen’, a Bitter Reminder of Merdeka‘ contains the same insight (but erroneously titled because Malaysiakini’s Anglophile editors are a pretty stupid lot and could never get it):

When the citizen gripes about corruption and racism, it is like the tantrums of a child unwilling to accept responsibility for his or her actions and blaming authority figures for all that it wrong. Typically, in this type of mindset, it is the authority figure that could have done better. That could have changed something. That could have lived up to expectations. The child/citizen merely makes demands but has no real idea of what it takes to fulfil these demands.

Give us a better country. Give us a system free of racism. Give us system free of corruption. Give us all of this and all we will do is vote for you. So, politicians say those things. They say they will give us a better country. They say they will give us a system free of racism. They will give us everything we claim to want. And in the end, they know that their lies serve our apathy…



After a stint in the UK, Ah Chai 吖菜 thinks he knows all there’s to know: notice how Anglophiles like him (or Hannah Yeoh) always picture themselves in some tie, in some foreign land with oak trees and farm cottages for background, not kampung paddy fields. It’s like bragging to everybody, ‘Look at me. I made it out of the swamp!’

Life — as a Malaysian — is conducted according to a fucking English degree. Those stupid Chais and Yeohs, slaves to the White man. Yet they talk about how they love Malaysia, shitting daily banalities. Along side which Anglophiles talk of ‘hope’ as if there’s no hope, not even for the Jameses schooled by White assholes. We, the Chinese, call their school experiences , ‘mind washed’.

Can’t find a home in Malaysia, Mr Chai? If you answer him to say, that’s because it isn’t there, he’d still scratch his head wondering, Why not? These pitiful Anglophiles, suffering their Satrean existential angst.







Read Full Post »


“Behold, the man!” by Mihály Munkácsy, 1896


Shortly before his crucifixion, Jesus was presented to a hostile crowd. Present was Pontius Pilate, serving emperor Tiberius and was the then governor of the province named Judaea and had in the trial of Jesus asked to spare the man’s life. Said Pilate in Latin: “Ecce homo.” — “Behold the man!”

That was one of the first western acts of populism. It suggests two things: (a) beware the populist, the man appeasing the crowd; and, (b) beware of god. Live by sword, die by the sword; live in god’s name, die in his name.

God’s murder of humanity has since taken many forms. Imported into Malaysia via Arabs and Indian Muslims this murderous God/Allah has filtered into the like of Hadi Awang, Mathathir Mohamd, Umno ustaz and Hannah Yeoh and Yeo Bee Yin.

The filtered down version still requires first, identification of enemy. Because, without one, who do you murder? Almost routinely, therefore, one finds in Muslims  — and Christians — this penchant for seeking enemies, and so filled them with the same god-murderous capacity that got Jesus himself killed — and that’s for no fucking good reason.

“Behold, the enemy of the Malay.”

Mahathir named the Chinese as the enemy of the Malays; Umno today named Mahathir; Syed Saddiq, Mahathir’s latest fanboy, says it is Najib Razak. All of them were wrong.

No; no Muslim (nor Christian) should lead Malaysia. They are dangerous when not useless. Confucius 400-500 years before Jesus was right: Beware the god! Beware even those who claim to represent God.

The Chinese stuck by this entreaty and it has stood them well for 3,000 years. Whereas Mahathir, Hadi, Hannah et al went on to embrace this Allah voodoo and ever since the NEP and racism flourished: more people die today on wars fought over principles than wars fought over food, territory and women.

The worse in all of that? God has never been made to account for killing Man. And especially for killing the humanity in Man. Friedrich Nietzsche tried unpacking this god-murderous capacity in the last of his books Ecce Homo after which he turned mad.

Beware the God. Beware Allah.



Read Full Post »

Older Posts »