Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Culture & Politics’ Category

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).

*

https://i.malaysiakini.com/1142/41f285632bc47a956fbea8852bae51e8.jpeg

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.

https://politicalscience.yale.edu/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/pictures/picture-93-1362508820.jpg?itok=5XXzZq1n

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcThiXEjDdMOOSV0SyBYoA1gQGEAe0Ye5BN1M4HqimbPCF2cCCnlkw

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.”

***

Longing

 

Advertisements

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.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Xuanduan.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Ruqun.svg/650px-Ruqun.svg.png

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…

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/878033266783252480/Pw1n7FWy_400x400.jpg

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 »

https://shuzheng.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/a2df8-munkc3a1csyeccehomok1896.jpg?w=626&h=405

“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 »

*

Ten Reasons Why Mahathir is Unacceptable

*

1MDB is a very good reason to reject Najib Razak. But 1MDB can’t be the reason to accept Mahathir Mohamad in Najib’s place. Najib, it must be acknowledged, inherited the power and economic structures already paved in stone by Mahathir, leaving the former no room to innovate on policy ideas that won’t be self-destructive; Umno being prime example. It can’t be anything but the fascist party it was constructed to be.

A good orator by any (Malaysian only?) standard, Hew Kuan Yau is on the side of Mahathir Mohamad and Harapan. His ideas in the clip above calls for a reconfiguration of Malaysia power structure along a totally different line, with six deputies each reflecting the Malays, Chinese, Indians, Sabah, Sarawak and Women. He doesn’t say who sits on top, but that appears to be secondary.

The idea remains nebulous so needs work, which is to make Malaysia a better country, a better place than it is, and something for everyone to be proud of inside or outside the country. We’ve already wasted 60 years, along with all its natural resources wasted.

Twenty years ago, in the era of Mahathir, Hew would have been in certain trouble for saying the above. Someone like Kadir Jasin (pro-Mahathir today) or Ahirudin Attan (pro-Najib Razak) would have demanded for his head, before which they would be ten days of banner headline ‘news‘ in the New Straits Time, not to mention Utusan, denouncing him as a usurper of Malay power.

What makes the difference between then and now isn’t because a person such as Hew came out of the blue with some profound idea, which it is not, or because, as it’s popularly assumed, Najib’s influence has waned and Umno’s power is tottering at the edge of a cliff so anyone can say what he likes. If Mahathir, say, is in power today, and is confronted by similar circumstances, what might have been his reaction? History offers a good guide.

On that basis, here are 10 reasons why Mahathir cannot be counted on and, therefore to be rejected, along with Harapan if it amounts to that. The 10 reasons:

  1. Mahathir is less tolerant of political dissension than is Najib, having jailed far more people for political offenses in his first five years than in all the nine from Najib so far.
  2. Mahathir’s methods of oppression are as base and sordid as Najib’s methods are bumbling and inconsistent therefore reversible.
  3. Mahathir’s political culture strikes at the roots of a person’s humanity — instincts, fear and intimidation — whereas Najib wavers between legalism and persuasion, therefore, necessarily flexible.
  4. Mahathir’s national policies were paved on the basis of personal likes and dislikes, therefore totalitarian, whereas Najib is ad hoc and so susceptible to influences from all sides.
  5. Mahathir offers no coherent marriage of intellectual (science and culture) to progressive ideas (free market), he takes whatever fancies him; Najib is constantly exploring and so appears like he is uncertain.
  6. Mahathir is as materialistic as is Najib, differing only by outlook; Mahathir’s Vision 20/20 is a get rich scheme by another name, money for its own sake while Najib’s materialism aims to satisfy the personal.
  7. Mahathir, who once called AIDs as God’s punishment (sic) for the LGBT, interpret society values and cultures purely through the lenses of his personal biases; Najib accepts it on its own terms;
  8. Mahathir sees anyone and any society as deficient and defective primarily on material yardsticks (GDP growth, wealth, etc.) as opposed to physical necessity and advances; Najib’s view is far, far milder, you are what you make of yourself.
  9. Mahathir’s ethical values are bound to his own prejudices instead of any acceptance for natural human diversity; Najib’s laissez faire form encompasses a variety, Islam being primary for himself.
  10. Mahathir’s prejudices, mamak in quality and heavily western-influenced, are judgmental, so exacerbates his totalitarianism, therefore non-negotiable; Najib, the Malay that he is, is relaxed therefore subject to change.

From the same starting premise — the need for a new national partnership among its people — the above conclusion is entirely opposite to Hew’s who asked that the Chinese accept Mahathir. Hew argues that, at age 92, Mahathir can’t do anymore damage but Harapan needs him for the moment. Many things are wrong with the argument.

Be that as it may, Hew doesn’t see that, in post-Mahathir, there’s the thing called the Murti-Bing pill (farther below). It’s to be expected: Like Mahathir, like Umno, the rest of Harapan were never people of culture who like dancing and music for its own sake. They have only the Yeo Bee Yin doxology of politics and money that goes qing, qing, qing in Saddiq Rahman‘s pockets, yet another Mahathir fanboy.

***

A National Rejuvenation Agenda

Malaysia has nothing to lose: If we trust our peoples, the ordinary, if we set in place the minimum ground rules for policy, national and individual conduct, we could beat Singapore in ten years on most measures. Such are the possibilities with the internal dynamics and the innovation of our peoples.

Over-regulation, and this includes hudud, is a clear, unmistakable sign we got the wrong answers in the source of our problems which we first misidentify then made them worse. That or we simply don’t trust ourselves. Be done with Mahathir’s Murti-Bing pills and set our peoples free.

Six times one is not six, this is where Hew (above) is wrong; his calculation is too mechanical, inflexible. The answer is 12, wherein the whole is greater, far greater than the sum of the individual parts. Only this country in the world has such a potent combination.

*

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Fx9Pu2ZYcKQ/hqdefault.jpg

If you take care of freedom, truth will take care of itself. — Richard Rorty, 1931-2007.

*

Let’s Try Something Else

*

In the book collection, Interviews with Richard Rorty, the American philosopher (above) was adamant in his revulsion for conventional western philosophy and thought processes:

“I do not see that we do anything called “appealing to truth.” We appeal to the statements of the tortured, the records in the archives, the monuments of the past, the slides under the microscope, the images in the lens of the telescope, and so on, but not to “truth.” Insistence on the existence or the importance of truth seems to me empty, at least by comparison to insistence on the need of freedom.”

Forever the pragmatist-philosopher, Confucius will wake in his grave to scream: At last! At last!

There is in the Rorty’s insight, a new formulation for application in Malaysia: stop chasing after the truth about 1MDB (the Americans will take care of it, like Singapore did), that after Najib Razak is gone Malaysia is saved; of chasing twin towers and towering Malaiyoos, of chasing the fiction called ‘Malacca empire’; of chasing Malay rights, that Malays are the undisputed master of Tanah Melayu. To all that, and more, so what?

Sixty years of chasing these ‘truths’ have produced only anguish and disappointments, racism and more racism, more sickness in the mind and greater impoverishment, more dead fetuses in trash bins, more god, and, meanwhile, more Umno and more Mahathir Mohamad.

It is good enough, as Rorty suggests, simply to look after freedom, including freedom from God, freedom to eat, drink, think and talk, and especially freedom to be human. The rest will simply fall into place. And that — freedom — should be the only principle of the Rukun Negara. The existing ones are just pig shit, useless to boot.

***

Hope’s Murti-Bing Pill

Image result for Czesław Miłosz

Czesław Miłosz, 1911-2004:

He who has power, has it by historical logic.
Respectfully bow to that logic . . .
Learn to predict a fire with unerring precision.
Then burn the house down to fulfill the prediction.

*

Mahathir & Harapan’s Pill

After the bookZniewolony umysł’ (1953) was published in the English as The Captive Mind, its Polish author Czesław Miłosz was a marked man. Poland’s Stalinist rulers made sure of that: his name would never be mentioned again, even if it is for denouncing him. (Reminds of Annie of the Valley who has banned Helen Ang’s name from her blog, prohibited even to denounce Helen. One can suppose that Annie is entitled to be the Stalin on her turf but this is arguable.)

Milosz’s book begins with a discussion of Nienasycenie, ‘Instability‘ in the English, from which the term Murti-Bing first appeared. It is the fictional name of a Chinese/Mongolian ruler who having conquered Poland distributed pills to the population to limit their ability to think. The pill has a deadening effect, and it is these effects that’s the central theme in Captive Mind where Milosz’s greatly expands on, calling it ‘enslavement through consciousness’.

Under Milosz, the pill became a metaphor for deeds or policies or combinations thereof that enslave consciousness or thought or thinking. This enslavement isn’t too far-fetched. It’s actually a precise term to characterize how Mahathir Mohamad, since his early political days, issued Murti-Bing pills to the Malay and the general population. Representative of which are, Malays can only trust Malays, Malay welfare can only be served by Malay power (i.e. Umno), Malay progress and stability is possible only my Malay materialism first, plus variants of the above positions, collectively and commonly known as Malay ketuanan.

This ketuanan is Mahathir’s Murti-Bing pill. Its effects are widely seen today in Najib Razak type of entitlement, even to steal; in government ineptitude and institutional paralysis; in one commercial disaster after the next; in unthinking education; in Malay slavery to Islamic dogma and in making Islam the primary requisite of the Malay character and so on.

In this way and through the state, Mahathir plans the economy; decides who get rich, gets the business; names his industry ‘captains’ (called cronyism today); fixes prices; determines who is Muslim authentic who is deviant; who is to judge, who not….

Is there a similar Murti-Bing pill being distributed by Harapan? The answer is, Yes, definitely.

It’s called the Harapan Murti-Bing pill. It has the function of disabling anyone from thinking any way other than to see Harapan as Malaysia’s only hope. Just as Umno once posited itself as the only Malay savior, so is Mahathir and the rest of Harapan today. Should they succeed at Putrajaya, there is only one outcome: Harapan people, since they made the present, will be the only ones who will decide the future. You need not apply because you are quite happy to surrender the entire reconstruction of Malaysia into the hands of Mahathir, et al.

This deadening effect can be seen today: Anglophiles and the urban Harapan class queue up mindlessly and daily in Malaysiakini to sing Mahathir’s praises and to denounce Umno/BN. Certain of their winner, they call for a revolution and a revolution does not entertain dissension.

Thus, if a third candidate were to contest against PKR’s Seri Muda seat, the PSM is shouted down and accused of ‘splitting’ the votes, that is, robbing them of Mahathir’s righteous mission, making look as if the PSM candidate elect Abdul Razak Ismail were an ally of Umno evil. Harapan’s Murti-Bing consumers who, on the one hand, demand for democracy never, on the other, see their hostility towards PSM as anti-democratic.

Milosz’s explanation for this sort of conduct and attitude is contained in the four line poetry above. As Harapan would burn down the citadel of democracy, the Vote, in order to be democratic, Mahathir would burn down the house of Umno to fulfill his prediction that Umno has been destroying everything about Malaysia.

The greater danger is this: from Mahathir and Lim Kit Siang down, they see no contradiction in their destruction. Like Yeo Bee Yin bragging her righteousness, the two men see themselves as saviors and so see in their totalitarian methods a necessary, remedial value. Milosz:

Learn to predict a fire with unerring precision.
Then burn the house down to fulfill the prediction.

Mahathir’s Murti-Bing maddening consequences bring out the worse in people: they steal and then cry wolf; fathers rape nieces; girls toss out infant babies like used diapers onto rail track and stations; the dead are kidnapped, killed if they are not first dead — all unprecedented acts rarely seen in the world.

In the future, ‘saved’ Malaysia, peasants, believing they can squeeze money out of husks, go nuts. Intellectuals do nothing but write for the state. Abnormality will require statistical compilation just so as to give this new sweep of events a semblance of normalcy.

So debilitating are the effects of the Murti-Bing pill that when Harapan argues against chasing happiness to replace it with the cessation of pain, the public is contented to accept. For 40, 50 years there was never much to be contented with anyway; Harapan has promised instead some future La-la land.

Mahathir acts today as if he is redistributing Murti-Bing pills left from the past. The difference between then and now is only in the packing, a matter of casting racial morality: before it was Chinese greed, now it is Bugis in nature. And to drive home this point, Mahathir sycophants like Kadir Jasin calls Najib, Datuk Seri I Mappadulung Daeng Mattimung Karaeng Sandrobone Sultan Abdul Jalil.

It would be presumptuous to argue Mahathir wants nothing else other than for Najib out of the way and thence to return to some kind of status quo. If true, he is nothing but a contract assassin and Harapan is the hirer. Realistically, it’s probably the other way around — Harapan as hired killer —  because Umno, with or without Mahathir, was the sort of despised local thug who wreck cars and lives then goes round asking for protection money. You want him dead, therefore, and Mahathir is the inside man looking to sapu all of Umno’s accumulated wealth.

The beginning of Najib’s troubles was Mahathir who never understood what it is to respect nor to live and let live. He didn’t know how. Like Ahirudin Attan, like Kadir and like other apologists, his dogma proffered the idea that, since Malays are masters of Malaysia, then Umno can bloody do whatever it likes and however it likes. When Najib’s turn came, he pretty well said to Mahathir a/l Kutty:

Who the fuck are you to say I can’t take 2.6 bn? You’re not even Melayu!

Umno drugged and held captive under Mahathir’s Murti-Bing pill does make its own life easier, much like the character Naphta in Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain who despises freedom and condones dictatorship.

Today, Harapan, Lim Kit Siang et al repeat the same experiment, and doing it all over again.

***

The Najib-1MDB Combination Pill for Harapan

*

https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/simgad/14355483154735635245

When you read something like this, by Terence Netto — ‘Anwar is arguably the most intellectual of politicians to have put himself up for leadership of this nation‘ — you should be able to tell right off that Terence is, even by his own definition of intellectual, drugged day and night on the Mufti-Bing pill.

The like of Terence and, long before him, Mahathir and Anwar, hogged the public spaces of Malaysia’s intellectual environment, like a pair of pliers clipped to your nose. Nobody else could breathe. Philosophical and policy ideas were not debated to improve the conditions in which life is lived but these are trolled out instead as despairing jeremiads about the fate of Malays and the entire Malaysian humanity.

We could have been such a great nation. We could have been a world showcase of Asia’s varied cultures and civilizations, the ancient coming into modernity, coming together as partners instead of enemies, so that, really, this era is now our last stab at turning around all that has gone wrong.

***

Read Full Post »

Zahid’s Karma

Zahid Hamidi’s conduct (below) has the streak which we, in Chinese, say 没有底线 meiyou dixian — no bottom line. Umno has no bottom line; Zahid has no bottom line. If, from now on, anything goes then everything about Umno go, starting with that man.

https://i.malaysiakini.com/1136/49e63443e1ed9cb2e60401e22db20b31.jpeg

Perhaps, he believes such a thing will appeal to Umno members, their minds conditioned as they are. But we, who have been abused so much over our ICs, why don’t we feel vindicated?

On the contrary, should Zahid next pass by Bagan Datoh, might he please stop a moment so that we can shit into his filthy Javanese tongue. His Chinese foster parents will see they have a pig gone berserk in their house.

Even for prime minister material, supposedly, Zahid doesn’t seem to see the far-reaching consequences that will likely flow from his shock-and-awe, and how it will affect people from the Malay sultans down. At its dead-end, Zahid would be shoveling Arabic dung for the rest of his Umno days.

Has he no idea, or a vague idea, what it is he has done? Karma is a real bitch and, guaranteed, it will return to bite him — as it did to Mahathir Mohamad. Zahid has set in motion his own cycle of demise, and now there’s no going back.

The sting in Zahid’s attack wasn’t whether or not Mahathir was of Indian therefore pendatang ancestry (so what?) but it was in Umno’s self-annihilating fascism: only Malays will serve and ‘protect’ Malays. Standing on this racial platform, it was easy for Zahid to next step up and accuse Mahathir, by pretending to be Malay, of exploiting Malay power, position and Malay privileges. The Malay, because it is a political term, comes and goes.

Personal identity, as represented by an IC or not, blue or black, it doesn’t matter, has long been in Malaysia an instrument of oppression. Those who protest against Zahid, whether Mahathir in his own defense or others, have not pointed this out.

They complain instead about the meaning of names even though whether it is ‘anak lelaki‘ or ‘bin‘, Mahathir remains, as personal and historical fact, the child of a pendatang.

Why don’t they see it? Perhaps they don’t want to. To save Malaysia, removing that instrument of oppression must be a beginning step, after which the bone of contention over who will better serve Malays, and how, will fade away. And, along with it, the dichotomy of meritocracy vs privileges.

***


*

Good strategy has no plot, nor a man’s life.

善計,不用籌策

记的老子怎样教我们吗:

希言自然。
故飄風不終朝,
驟雨不終日。
孰為此者?
天地尚不能久,
而況於人乎?

*

*

Letter to Lilan 報丽兰書

*

丽兰好兄妹

您好

Xiaodi had been meaning to speak you in person, as a tongzhi 同志, since Zhao Mingfu 赵明福 was killed. That it has come belatedly is partly because I have just been able to wrench myself away from the burdens of my responsibilities. Yet, sitting down to write, the heart manages to find only reticence to speak of your brother, to speak to you, your family and Soh Cher Wei.

In Mingfu’s death, Sima Qian 司马迁 comes to mind, specifically his Letter to Ren An 報任安書》:

人固有一死,死有重於泰山,或輕於鴻毛,用之所趨異也。[In translation] A man dies only once. His death may be a matter weighty as Mount Tai or light as a feather. It all depends on the reason for which he dies.

[Alternate last line: It is how he uses that death that makes all the difference.]

有的人说 死亡等於回歸到一種無知、無識、無感、無覺的狀態。這原無什麼價值可言。可是如果我們進一步追問:我願意為什麼而死

Those words subsequently gave rise to a proverb in Japan: “Death is lighter than a feather, duty heavier than a mountain.” 義は険しい山よりも重く、死は大鳥の羽よりも軽い

But, it’s the supreme irony that, driven to a frenzy with these words, Japanese soldiers killed more than 23 million Chinese and those were the days of bayonets and guns. No atom bomb. Are Chinese lives so cheap? Our people alone accounted for half the 45-48 million WWII deaths and not even a stone memorial, not a single word of remorse from Japan, no compensation, nothing. Instead, the world continue to vilify us, speak of us as aggressors, and America enlists Japan to issue threats every year. You can see why we, the Chinese, China, will never, never, never let it happen to us again, tomorrow or forever.

China’s PLA celebrated its 90th anniversary most recently. With this greatly increased military capability, along with enormous economic strides at our Motherland, our people have reasons to be proud. We, as Chinese, want to leave behind not only a pathway of progress but especially we want to ensure, as best as it’s possible, that the safety and security of our future generations will also be provided for.

In your brother’s death, and like Sima Qian’s letter to a dear friend, one is reminded of his final note addressed to Auyong Hian Wah:

欧阳:
他们 在没有复制我的电脑文件下取走了所有电脑。矛头一直指向你。
对不起。
不懂装懂,结果连累了你。
我说,mendapat lulusan YB。他们硬打成mengikut arahan YB.
我帮不到你,抱歉。
对不起,我很累了,再见。

“All spears are pointed at you! 矛头一直指向,”  Mingfu wrote. Yet — and here’s another irony — it was against him that death visited.

Similar circumstances had confronted Ren An (or 任少卿 Ren Shaoqing) when, with spears pointed at him and death near, Sima Qian, himself in a dire situation, could only help by writing the letter. That was enough, although we’ll never know if Ren An received the letter. But, that for 2,000 years our forefathers have so diligently passed it down to us, we know today from death a little more about life.

Not until much, much later did Hian Wah received your brother’s note. Like the apology to Ren An, there’s in it this: 我帮不到你,抱歉。对不起,我很累了,再见.

We are a people sentenced to death at the instance of birth.

This seems meaningless. But, we now know from Sima Qian and others, it is life that acquires for death its depth of meaning, gives it insight and a purpose. Mingfu must have understood this because he spoke on terms that concern friendship and loyalty, devotion and duty, the same terms understood by our ancestors and which Confucius have taught us. Their formulations for life have stood with us in good stead, and with Mingfu as well, never mind what the judges at the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) might say about his ‘state of mind’ (below). Those are, in spite of their learning, naive and ignorant people, unable to understand why it is in life are the reasons for death made. They may be skilled in law and in analysis, but they have none of the insights into life to sustain and to support their skills.

How Mingfu was murdered is, however, a different matter altogether.

That’s a matter of law with which, because one has no control over, you must therefore fight tirelessly for it to come alive since Mingfu’s death eight years ago.

Law in Malaysia, as it is in the West, creates government, becomes its function in turn, is controlled therefore by it and, before that, by legislature. Essentially, that is, by politics. (Increasingly, though, law is religion, that is, Islam.) In our Chinese, Confucian jurisprudence culture, law or 法规 fagui is purely a product, an instrument of governance and so does not construct or determine anything. Thus, in that bewildering state, you must appeal to Law in Malaysia, being maker of and being made by politics, for the justice it is suppose to uphold and then, through it, find reasons for Mingfu’s death.

The world will never come to understand, not even remotely, your brother’s ordeal and pain, nor his duty and devotion because no one else had lived his life, died his death, and never will. When Law failed to offer justice, and when the reason for your brother’s death is not satisfactorily answered — 死了不明死了不白 — you must return to the beginning of all things: politics; this is what, I believe, you mean by campaigning against Najib Razak.

But, 丽兰, we do know!

We know everything and, knowing everything, it tears and wrings out and pounds our hearts, yours most especially.

We not only know how death took place — and this was the easy part to understand — we also know the reasons for his death, these being the same reasons he had lived, being Chinese, in keeping with his duties as colleague, friend, son, husband, brother. Your brother. This is why it so pains us, horribly, to see that the price of duty should be as heavy as Mount Tai — true today as it was in Sima’s time 2,000 years ago — and why being Chinese has come to be fatal, today as it was in 1969 and when the Japanese invaded.

But, understanding this, requires us as Chinese never to cease to live as we are because it is our life; it belongs to no government nor political party. Malay lives might belong to Umno, but our lives belong to no one, including the DAP.

The justice you seek and the Law you seek invoked might deliver to us the actual officers who murdered Mingfu but we want more than that. We especially want the Thing that brought him to the offices of the MACC. We want the Thing, the system, elusive as it is, that delivered his killers. It’s the same idea contained in the wish of a father wanting the person who hired the policemen to kill his daughter Altantuyaa. Without getting to it, the injustice will only continue; of this I’m convinced.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/97/34/e1/9734e18495360f6680690c1950f8fa2a.jpg

The price of duty is as heavy as Taishan 泰山, above.

*

A Government Gone Amok

What is the ‘Thing‘ I speak of?

Before Mingfu was taken, the MACC also took Tan Boon Wah and Dariff Din against both of who interrogators typically started and continued on this line of interrogation: “you orang Cina?” followed by “you dari Cina?

None of which had, of course, to do with some alleged misappropriation of 2,400 ringgit at Hian Wah’s office. Dariff Din got away only because, on his father’s side, he was Malay. Against Boon Wah, they told him repeatedly, Cina bodoh” as if that will made his interrogators clever.

There is every reason to believe, therefore, your brother’s death has to do with the same racial motivation that had set up Hian Wah as a target.

In that year, 2009, and this is long before the 1MDB and a year after the 12th General Elections, Mahathir Mohamad was already attacking Najib Razak on the grounds he was giving in too much to the Chinese and to Singapore, also Chinese. Recall the Utusan Melayu inflammatory banner: ‘Apa lagi Cina mahu’? Najib’s answer to such repeated criticisms from both Mahathir and from the Malay ground is now self-evident: it was to pick on the DAP, using anything to pin it down. Such were the circumstances in Mingfu’s death that the RCI never dwelled on and never looked into.

Chinese and Malay meet only once every four, five years when we queue up to vote. The rest of the time, we stay apart to avoid, for the Chinese, stepping on the Malay tails. We run our own schools, observe our custom, we don’t proselytize and we restrict our lives to ourselves, mind our own business, pay our rents without asking for subsidies, but they still won’t leave us alone as if our existence is itself a poison.

I believe this anti-Chinese racism is what caused Mingfu’s death, as well as hundreds and thousands before him. Supporting this racism wasn’t confined to the MACC and its officers. Here’s one and that’s from a supposed liberal named Mariam Mokhtar. Petra Kamarudin, also supposedly a liberal, has turned out to be thoroughbred fascist. The fault didn’t just lay among Malays; Anglophiles actually deepened it: Lim Kit Siang by asking to be Chinese second even though the Chinese were never first. Yeoh Tseow Suan’s response was to renounce her Chinese ancestry and to be born again as Hannah Yeoh, as Anglophile, after which she’d transfer her anti-Chinese racism to her child as Anak Malaysia, even refusing her an Indian name (the father’s). She is today called Shay Adora. Hannah’s Christianity is today interpreted as a Chinese affront against Malay’s Islam even though this is not the work of the Chinese but Anglophiles.

Who and what creates, prop up and advances this Thing, this unseen force? Unseen because it seems to dwell and move about even outside of people.

Let me take the example of the RCI, comprised of fine people who, although had the task to establish the identity of your brother’s killers within the MACC (it had to be MACC and no where else) but turned up, incredulously, exonerating it. Not once in their findings, as I’m aware of, do they mention the word ‘race’ or ‘Malay’ or ‘Chinese’ although these are matters of established fact both before Mingfu was taken in and during numerous related interrogations. How can this fact of matter, this reality, not be buried or hidden away when a fiction takes its place? The result, predictably, was utter humbug, a Commission of Inquiry reduced to speculation, and speculating about some other worldly experiences called ‘state of mind’ that has nothing to support it.

Mingfu’s note to Hian Wah was its refutation.

 

Reread the first line: Tormented by a predicament, Mingfu experienced a change in his state of mind… ‘Tormented’, certainly; ‘predicament’ maybe. But ‘experienced’? ‘A change in state of mind?” Those are states internal to Mingfu. After this extrapolation, the RCI then indulges in platitudes that were laced in contradictions:

Passage 356: The failings in the Selangor MACC which have been identified largely rest in the operational area, contributed by inadequate training.

Several paragraphs later:

Passage 367: Our findings and recommendations are directed at the individual officers involved and are not meant to be an excoriation of the MACC as a whole per se.

In that passage, it pulls back from naming individuals, from its minimalist approach to make everything look like the mountain fell, an accident: it was a ‘failing in operational area‘, ‘inadequate training‘, there is no ‘excoriation‘ (beating something to produce a wound).

The recommendations are intended to improve and rebuild the MACC….

This isn’t an RCI. This is a Cover-Up made in the name of the King.

Those words added up, plainly said, deflected MACC responsibility for a murder committed on its premises. The sum of the findings read like it were tip-toeing between puddles of Mingfu’s blood, looking for the way out. But we know who intended death and below is that list, available from the RCI report. So many names and so useful for hiding names:

List of Killers: Primary suspects, P1, P2, P3, P4 and P5.

  • P1 Hishammuddin Hashim, MACC Selangor deputy director, the arrogant leader (now Negri Sembilan director)
  • P2 Hairul Ilham Hamzah, MACC Selangor head of investigations
  • P3 Mohd Anuar Ismail, the case officer
  • P4 Arman Alies, the bully
  • P5 Ashraf Mohd Yunus, the abuser (RCI Passage note #158:  “Of the 20 cases, 2005-2010, reported against Selangor MACC officers for assault, Ashraf was involved in 14.”)
  • P6 Nadzri Ibrahim, recorded Zhao’s statement
  • P7 Azhar Abang Mentaril, took Zhao from Ean Yong’s office to MACC
  • P8 Hafiz Izhar Idris, took Zhao from Ean Yong’s office to MACC
  • P9 Mohd Najeib Ahmad Walat, broke into the email account using Zhao’s laptop
  • P10 K. Sachianandran

We also know why this happened the way it did. Because it ultimately involves Malay power, Malay interests and Malay demands, any of which must supersede law.

From the starting position that any Malaysian government must first and foremost protect Malay interest, one arrives, at last, at the point in which the government goes amok.

Its insanity — and this isn’t anymore about superseding law — is demonstrated repeatedly. Zahid insults a man’s father as ‘Kutty’ like he were coolie. Before that, he speaks of law, indeed, the entire system that is Malaysia, as an affront, an offense, to the Malay person.  Zahid again:

Muslims must unite and agree that Islam must be respected and that we do not want any decisions made by the National Fatwa Committee to be challenged by anyone, whether an individual or a different legal system outside of the fatwa committee,

For the reason Najib won’t deliver Baginda Razak over Altantuyaa’s death, neither will he deliver Mingfu’s killers. Malay thinking about power and in regards to their being and existence has arrived at the biblical epoch which says,

I, the Malay, given and possessing dominion in this land named Tanah Melayu, am greater than all life and all things. Whoever or whatever says otherwise shall be cast aside.

Lilan, please understand this: what it means to be biblical, these despicable Christians. Mingfu’s life is worth far less today than at the time of the RCI and at the time of his death, and before even that. One can see how, beginning from Mahathir — did he not see this coming? — step by step, generation following generation, we’d reach the point in which life’s purpose in death is reduced to just this: the Malaysian IC.

We, the Chinese, have been very reverent of law as we had for centuries when the Jins, the Mongols and Manchus ruled our motherland. We are model citizens because our ancestors since Kongzi have instructed us to first understand where we stand, that is, our station in life, and on that position we must excel. But, what if the law has no reverence for our lives?

This, today, is our problem though: it is not to Fate with which we are born; it is to Fate to which we now die. The determination of our station in life is being wrested from our hands, Lilan, and we must resist at all costs lest our children and their children suffer the more.

We each will individually resist in our own way, and we all know how, the ultimate point of which is to uproot the system and not merely defeat Najib because that is merely scratching the surface. Najib must go with or without the justice you seek but, also understand, his defeat is Mahathir’s glory and this is not necessarily to the betterment of all, ours and the Malays. Recall this principle of our lives: 对问题不对人.

Trust, therefore, your compatriots, us, to do what we must, vote how we must, conduct however our individual lives leads us. Campaign against Umno and Najib if you must, but recall that Najib’s political life isn’t our only purpose because he brings with him a train of history we seek to eradicate or, if that’s not possible, to ensure that they can go no farther and must retreat because they have gone too far. We shall help them along in their self-destruction. But I must say no more.

We do not go out looking for trouble but when it comes we fear it not.

All the Chinese are with you because Mingfu was and remains one of us. Has Laozi 老子 not said:

善行,無轍跡;
善言,無瑕謫;
善計,不用籌策;

Please pass on to your parents the greetings of the Chinese people and the Chinese nation. I can assure you that increasingly our Motherland is coming round to understand our predicament and that she stands with us, whatever direction we take, however we decide. Which is this: unlike ordinary Malays, our choices aren’t a simple matter of deciding between Najib and Mahathir and all that they each represent. Eventually, we have to defeat both and — xiaodi is sorry to have to say this — Lim Kit Siang and the DAP Christians are getting in the way.

对不起我用英文写,我相信你可以理解这个语言. Till our next life, I remain,

Yours truly,

小弟

***

Street performance is one of China’s oldest art traditions. Above, the 二泉映月 Moon Reflections on Two Springs was composed for the erhu around the 1930s, a time of upheaval, by a street performer much like the man above. The composition passed on but the blind musician died, still impoverished, and little about him survived except that he was called 阿炳 Ah Bing. His actual name might have been Hua Yanjun 华彦钧.

Below, the same piece performed in Vienna ages ago by the China National Orchestra.

*

怕你没有信 提取 報任安書

太史公牛馬走司馬遷再拜言。少卿足下:曩者辱賜書,教以慎於接物,推賢進士為務。意氣懃懃懇懇,若望僕不相師,而用流俗人之言。僕非敢如是也。僕雖罷駑,亦嘗側聞長者之遺風矣。顧自以為身殘處穢,動而見尤,欲益反損,是以獨鬱悒而無誰語。諺曰:「誰為為之?孰令聽之?」蓋鍾子期死,伯牙終身不復鼓琴。何則?士為知己者用,女為說己者容。若僕大質已虧缺矣,雖才懷隨和,行若由夷,終不可以為榮,適足以發笑而自點耳。書辭宜答,會東從上來,又迫賤事,相見日淺,卒卒無須臾之間,得竭指意。今少卿抱不測之罪,涉旬月,迫季冬;僕又薄從上上雍,恐卒然不可諱。是僕終已不得舒憤懣以曉左右,則長逝者魂魄私恨無窮。請略陳固陋,闕然久不報,幸勿過。

僕聞之:修身者,智之符也;愛施者,仁之端也;取與者,義之表也;恥辱者,勇之決也;立名者,行之極也。士有此五者,然後可以託於世,列於君子之林矣。故禍莫憯於欲利,悲莫痛於傷心,行莫醜於辱先,而詬莫大於宮刑。刑餘之人,無所比數,非一世也,所從來遠矣。昔衛靈公與雍渠同載,孔子適陳;商鞅因景監見,趙良寒心;同子參乘,爰絲變色。自古而恥之。夫以中才之人,事有關於宦豎,莫不傷氣,而況於忼慨之士乎!如今朝雖乏人,柰何令刀鋸之餘薦天下豪雋哉!

僕賴先人緒業,得待罪輦轂下,二十餘年矣。所以自惟,上之,不能納忠效信,有奇策才力之譽,自結明主;次之,又不能拾遺補闕,招賢進能,顯巖穴之士;外之,不能備行伍,攻城野戰,有斬將搴旗之功;下之,不能累日積勞,取尊官厚祿,以為宗族交遊光寵。四者無一遂,苟合取容,無所短長之效,可見於此矣。鄉者,僕亦嘗廁下大夫之列,陪外廷末議。不以此時引維綱,盡思慮。今以虧形為埽除之隸,在闒茸之中,乃欲卯首信眉,論列是非,不亦輕朝廷,羞當世之士邪!嗟乎!嗟乎!如僕,尚何言哉!尚何言哉!

且事本末未易明也。僕少負不羈之才,長無鄉曲之譽,主上幸以先人之故,使得奉薄技,出入周衛之中。僕以為戴盆何以望天,故絕賓客之知,忘室家之業,日夜思竭其不肖之材力,務壹心營職,以求親媚於主上。而事乃有大謬不然者。

夫僕與李陵俱居門下,素非相善也。趣舍異路,未嘗銜盃酒接殷勤之懽。然僕觀其為人,自奇士,事親孝,與士信,臨財廉,取予義,分別有讓,恭儉下人,常思奮不顧身以徇國家之急。其素所畜積也,僕以為有國士之風。夫人臣出萬死不顧一生之計,赴公家之難,斯已奇矣。今舉事壹不當,而全軀保妻子之臣隨而媒孽其短,僕誠私心痛之。且李陵提步卒不滿五千,深踐戎馬之地,足歷王庭,垂餌虎口,橫挑彊胡,卯億萬之師,與單于連戰十餘日,所殺過當。虜救死扶傷不給,旃裘之君長咸震怖,乃悉徵其左右賢王,舉引弓之民,一國共攻而圍之。轉鬭千里,矢盡道窮,救兵不至,士卒死傷如積。然陵一呼勞軍,士無不起,躬自流涕,沬血飲泣,張空弮,冒白刃,北嚮爭死敵者。陵未沒時,使有來報,漢公卿王侯皆奉觴上壽。後數日,陵敗書聞,主上為之食不甘味,聽朝不怡。大臣憂懼,不知所出。僕竊不自料其卑賤,見主上慘悽怛悼,誠欲效其款款之愚,以為李陵素與士大夫絕甘分少,能得人之死力,雖古之名將,不能過也。身雖陷敗,彼觀其意,且欲得其當而報漢。事已無可柰何,其所摧敗,功亦足以暴於天下矣。僕懷欲陳之,而未有路,適會召問,即以此指推言陵之功,欲以廣主上之意,塞睚眥之辭。未能盡明,明主不深曉,以為僕沮貳師,而為李陵遊說,遂下於理。拳拳之忠,終不能自列。因為誣上,卒從吏議。家貧,財賂不足以自贖,交遊莫救;左右親近不為壹言。身非木石,獨與法吏為伍,深幽囹圄之中,誰可告愬者!此正少卿所親見,僕行事豈不然邪?李陵既生降,隤其家聲;而僕又茸以蠶室,重為天下觀笑。悲夫!悲夫!事未易一二為俗人言也。

僕之先人,非有剖符丹書之功,文史星曆近乎卜祝之間,固主上所戲弄,倡優畜之,流俗之所輕也。假令僕伏法受誅,若九牛亡一毛,與螻螘何異?而世又不與能死節者比,特以為智窮罪極,不能自免,卒就死耳。何也?素所自樹立使然也。人固有一死,死有重於泰山,或輕於鴻毛,用之所趨異也。太上不辱先,其次不辱身,其次不辱理色,其次不辱辭令,其次詘體受辱,其次易服受辱,其次關木索被箠楚受辱,其次剔鬄毛髮嬰金鐵受辱,其次毀肌膚斷支體受辱,最下腐刑,極矣。傳曰:「刑不上大夫。」此言士節不可不厲也。猛虎處深山,百獸震恐,及其在阱檻之中,搖尾而求食,積威約之漸也。故士有畫地為牢勢不入,削木為吏議不對,定計於鮮也。今交手足,受木索,暴肌膚,受榜箠,幽於圜牆之中。當此之時,見獄吏則頭槍地,視徒隸則正惕息。何者?積威約之勢也。及已至此,言不辱者,所謂彊顏耳,曷足貴乎!且西伯,伯也,拘於牖里;李斯,相也,具於五刑;淮陰,王也,受械於陳;彭越、張敖,南鄉稱孤,繫獄具罪;絳侯誅諸呂,權傾五伯,囚於請室;魏其,大將也,衣赭衣,關三木;季布為朱家鉗奴;灌夫受辱居室。此人皆身至王侯將相,聲聞鄰國,及罪至罔加,不能引決自財,在塵埃之中,古今一體,安在其不辱也!由此言之,勇怯,勢也;彊弱,形也。審矣!曷足怪乎?且夫人不能蚤自財繩墨之外,以稍陵夷至於鞭箠之間,乃欲引節,斯不亦遠乎!古人所以重施刑於大夫者,殆為此也。

夫人情莫不貪生惡死,念親戚,顧妻子,至激於義理者不然,乃有所不得已也。今僕不幸,蚤失二親,無兄弟之親,獨身孤立,少卿視僕於妻子何如哉?且勇者不必死節,怯夫慕義,何處不勉焉!僕雖怯懦耎欲苟活,亦頗識去就之分矣,何至自湛溺累紲之辱哉!且夫臧獲婢妾猶能引決,況若僕之不得已乎!所以隱忍苟活,函糞土之中而不辭者,恨私心有所不盡,鄙沒世而文采不表於後也。

古者富貴而名摩滅,不可勝記,唯俶儻非常之人稱焉。蓋西伯拘而演周易;仲尼厄而作春秋;屈原放逐,乃賦離騷;左丘失明,厥有國語;孫子髕腳,兵法修列;不韋遷蜀,世傳呂覽;韓非囚秦,說難、孤憤。詩三百篇,大氐聖賢發憤之所為作也。此人皆意有鬱結,不得通其道,故述往事,思來者。及如左丘明無目,孫子斷足,終不可用,退論書策以舒其憤,思垂空文以自見。

僕竊不遜,近自託於無能之辭,網羅天下放失舊聞,考之行事,綜其終始,稽其成敗興壞之理,上計軒轅,下至于茲,為十表,本紀十二,書八章,世家三十,列傳七十,凡百三十篇,亦欲以究天人之際,通古今之變,成一家之言。草創未就,適會此禍,惜其不成,是以就極刑而無慍色。僕誠已著此書,藏諸名山,傳之其人通邑大都,則僕償前辱之責,雖萬被戮,豈有悔哉!然此可為智者道,難為俗人言也。

且負下未易居,下流多謗議,僕以口語遇遭此禍,重為鄉黨戮笑,汙辱先人,亦何面目復上父母丘墓乎?雖累百世,垢彌甚耳!是以腸一日而九回,居則忽忽若有所亡,出則不知所如往。每念斯恥,汗未嘗不發背霑衣也。身直為閨閤之臣,寧得自引深臧於巖穴邪?故且從俗浮湛,與時俯仰,以通其狂惑。今少卿乃教以推賢進士,無乃與僕之私指剌謬乎。今雖欲自彫瑑,曼辭以自解,無益,於俗不信,祗取辱耳。要之,死日然後是非乃定。書不能盡意,故略陳固陋,謹再拜。

***


My PLA

回来? 当然啊!即使不问也会回

也有太可爱了。。。

The Collar 子衿

挑兮達兮、在城闕兮

qing qing my collar qing, echo echo my heart echoes

standing at the gate tower I look out into the distance
one day not seeing you seems now like three months long

青青子衿、悠悠我心。
縱我不往、子寧不嗣音。

青青子佩、悠悠我思。
縱我不往、子寧不來。

挑兮達兮、在城闕兮。
一日不見、如三月兮。

*

***

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

https://seademon.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/img_2441.jpg?w=500

*

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

https://i0.wp.com/www.absolutechinatours.com/UploadFiles/ImageBase/Huaian,%20Jiangsu,%20China.jpg

https://www.chinaspree.com/china-travel-guide/images/jiangsu/14.jpg

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.

https://i1.wp.com/mk-cdn.mkini.net/1025/5e7e8d7ae7505cbeb30a1c01b3f7912d.jpg

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

*

1004407_210135542473712_1174124234_n

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

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRAnqt22tPSyBb5g2-2aNe3VuWml7SS4QMjc-T3mTNlkzD9_2Tn

https://helenang.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/dreammachineyby1.jpg?w=473&h=354

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTyZNWWCl3p4aODa4O_9JjlFtqc82blUOSIB-isuRRr8J31MxBw

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQSP2wuazP8yA6B3Sx2-8LUfaheYgbstnlXZ88OQYrPFPlPuYxP

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 »

1MDB Ketuanan

*

https://shuzheng.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/missing-money1.jpg?w=804&h=622

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.

*

Postscript

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 »