Archive for the ‘Economics’ Category

Xenophobic and racist Anglophile First

A case in point…

Pendatang! Balik Cina — Again — But Spoken in English

Anglophile First: See why a DAP Malaysia is going to be a fucked-up country, like is PAP Singapore.

The source of that man’s attitude (in the clip above) — berating, bullying, moralizing, inhumane, irrational — isn’t rooted in law nor in state policies but in his culture and value system that the Singaporean motherfucker had imported then raised to accept without question. He isn’t the first, of course (see below), and won’t be the last.

DAP Malaysia actively promotes this sort of thinking, values and culture: Malaysian First, which is anti-Malay, anti-Chinese, anti-natives because, in Hannah Yeoh’s words, we have ‘no class‘. And we Chinese have been getting it from them, whether in Malaysia or Singapore. Such are the beginnings of fascism.

But we Chinese, China, will get even; we always do. Besides, it’s in the Nature of things….





The world’s most potent revolutionary and anarchist propaganda — and highly deceptive, too. Yet Che Guevara is not even Cuban, he is Irish descent, his father surname Lynch being from the Cork, and Che himself living a while in Limerick. The Che poster had come from one of the two frames immediately above and note who preceded Castro and Che? Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir.


Hannah Savior Yeoh and Chairman Commie Lim

In February 1970 16-year-old Zhang Hongbing slipped a note under an officer’s door in his Anhui village, accusing his mother of criticizing the Cultural Revolution and Mao Zedong. After which, the mother was bound, dragged out, beaten then executed. In 2016, Zhang, 72 by then, wrote and published the same account in his blog to explain her death and his betrayal: “I want to make people in China to think.”

If you are wondering about the relationship in the above image and the one below, it’s this: they carry the same propaganda.

In Harapan, DAP people in particular, so skilled in lying and deception, fought, lived by and had thrived on propaganda: they had won GE14 on propaganda and now rule by propaganda.

Everything else, such as the police and MACC raids, exist purely to explain and to justify the propaganda message: they are Saviors. They had even converted a 12-year-old named Ervin Devadasan to their cause, Ervin being as classic as Anglophile like is Shay Adora Ram.

And here’s the thing: Having ‘rescued’, ‘saved’ the country, the DAP (and Pakatan) will feel justified to drive and to own it. On that plank, when propaganda turns to action and because of a Malay backlash, the result will convulse the country.

Wait till Umno and PAS get their act together….

We haven’t yet the seen the backs of racism that the DAP itself practises in its inverted form: the Anglophile and the Jesus Christ supremacy inside them.

For 60 years or more, all government propaganda messages rested on situating a Malay, usually some Umno crony, as an exemplar of the penultimate Malaysian character, quality and patriotism; that person is never, for example, a Chinese. (Recall Mahathir’s towering Malays?) Today, on the same pivotal position, the ultimate, devoted Malaysian carries a name like Ervin, black skin, white inside, all white, like Shay Adora is white, like Hannah Yeoh, like Joseph Lim Guan Eng, like Lisa Ng and Sheridan Mahavera.

Shay Adora’s turn will come; she is still growing up.


What’s Wrong with the Pakatan Government?

The question above is found in the answers to the following questions:

  • What lays at the root of the decision by DAP Minister Kulasegaran to want to deport all the foreign cooks? Why did he stop at cooks only?
  • What’s to be gained by Hannah Yeoh using — no, exploiting  — a kid, lifting him onto a national pedestal, identical in the way she exploited her 6-day-old daughter to claim a non-existent ethnic root?
  • Why did Mahathir claim that Malaysia has too much debt, 1 trillion too much, then turns around to say the country needed to borrow from Japan, justifying, at the same time, to keep giving fish to fishermen?
  • Why did Mahathir, Lim Guan Eng et al keep lying about the one trillion ringgit?
  • What motivates Jagdeep Singh to wall up migrant workers in Penang into designated areas only, in essence, a policy identical to Nazi policy towards Jews and the Chinese Exclusion Act in the US?

In all the questions, above, Malaysian nationalism is the central plank. In power now, they crank up that message.

Pakatan’s entire propaganda efforts would leave and demand this choice from the Malays: either you are Malay or Malaysian. And if you are Malay you can’t be true Malaysian. Or, if you are true Malaysian, you can’t be Malay.


Anglophieng Revisited

Here, you’ve an Anglophile, with an Aussie diploma, who once counted beans for a living, so listen to him, in Malay, trying to make sense of truth and reality.

A Spade is a Spade when Guan Eng says it is

Guan Eng [in translation] within 50 seconds can go from claim (in italics, bold and parenthesized, below) to fact to contradiction then to contrary-claim and back to contradiction, onward to repeating false equivalence, after which, if you were to sum them up has only one noun-adjectival word. It is call a lie:

… The debt position of the federal government is an amount exceeding 1 trillion ringgit (claim). Obviously, Moody’s saying that the federal government debt at this point is 687 billion (fact). True, we don’t dispute that (first contradiction). But we estimate that the savings (contrary-claim) of the federal government from debts (second contradiction) … For example, the case of 1MDB (false equivalence in an example)….

Small wonder, Malaysia is so fucked up, sucking up to Mahathir, Guan Eng, et al. And reporters, Malaysiakini in particular, see nothing wrong with that statement… and so continue day-in, day-out to troll out trash and those motherfuckers proclaiming them as saviors and gods (the same thing they say for 2,000 years about that other fucker named Jesus Motherfucking Christ). It is his ‘right’, they’d say. It’s transparency, accountability, they’d say.

Also note the man to his left smirking, and who, once in the business pages, would hail him as a successful, clever man all because he’s got more money than you.

The Truth of the Matter

Lim Guan Eng (and Mahathir Mohamad) get away with what they say by the mere act of repetition, which is the cliche excuse given to lies by Malaysiakini. But how does repetition turn a lie into truth?

It can’t. No, rather, lies become lies after first accruing some certainty: it must, those motherfucking editors say to us, contain a germ of truth. Thus, on this germ, grows a kernel of impenetrability so nobody truly understands what it is, in the end, Guan Eng is saying about the ‘debt’.

This is where economics come in. Without, first, the comprehending the economics contain in the statement — the government debt is now 1 trillion — how could Malaysiakini tell if Guan Eng is telling it right? But to get to the bottom of the matter, for the economics to be explained, 1 trillion cannot be done without the tables, graphs and especially the mathematics.

It would be like talking your way through a painting without ever showing the water-color painting, photo above: try imaging it purely with words. You’d be wrong ten times out of ten.

(Truth? It is the cover of a new book Acts of Infidelity, Picador, by Sweden’s Lena Andersson who tells of a respectable playwright (Andersson herself is a novelist) entering into a relationship that’s today called a mistress. To pour scorn on the Chinese as low-class, Anglophiles and moral motherfuckers like Hannah Yeoh call the mistress, a concubine. Andersson wanted an answer to the question, once the sex is taken out, satisfied, what is a lover for in this age?)

In the remaining part of this post, talking of 1 trillion, financial economics and analytic logic are used, generously.


Why do the Fuckers keep lying about the Trillion?

Begin with Anil Netto, a quack economist:

“The federal government’s domestic debt has soared from RM217bn in 2006 to RM438bn in 2011.”

Notice the word, ‘soared’. After which he goes on, dousing petrol into the ‘soaring’ debt numbers:

“The government, however, says nothing to worry, the total federal government debt is only 53.5 per cent of GDP, still below the critical threshold of 55 per cent. But see how even that ratio has been rising over the years.”

After which, he reproduced the graph below:


What’s wrong with it?

For the answer, see the next graph below, taken from some birdy named Hornbill who, though, is less hostile to Najib (pay attention to the green line, at 60 to 100% of GDP that ran for half of Mahathir’s era):


Both charts are factual, but none is true. Not true because debt and GDP are apple and orange comparisons.

Total federal government debt is total stock of monies owed by Putrajaya whereas GDP is not a stock concept but a flow — how many stalks of rice ripened yesterday and harvested, chapatis made and eaten tomorrow — hence, GDP changes by the minute.

Debt-to-GDP is hardly the stuff of economics, it is not even worth discussing, but it is useful for rating agencies (Moody’s etc) and central banks as a measure (notice the word, ‘a’) of the government’s ability to pay. But, in the hands of motherfuckers like Lim Guan Eng and Mahathir Mohamad, they’d use it to decide if Malaysia is going to be ‘bankrupt’.

In corporate or stock market terms, debt level is called ‘leverage’ or ‘gearing’. Hence, debt-to-income ratio is a company’s ability to pay for every dollar earned over a period. In an indirect way, the ratio measures how much money could be earned for every dollar borrowed, though those earnings won’t come three, five years later when a factory, paid with a bank loan today, is completed and therefore could start to produce goods after which they are sold (insyaallah) and earn money to repay the loan. Hopefully, net of these repayments, there is leftover as profit.

Exactly the same is the debt-to-GDP concept, measured sometimes in percentage terms, and mostly as multiple (or fraction) of the other. At a macroeconomic level, however, the ratio is almost useless because, unlike corporate, the government can print money.

Still, we’ll talk about it here because of morons like Anil Netto, since joined by the Lady of the Valley (who can bear to see a graph, which gives her a kepala spin), each of them, one piling on top of the other in a doomsday propaganda started by Mahathir, now spread by Malaysiakini and Stevie ‘Wonder’ Gan.

Now, look at the Japan numbers:


Holy Jesus shit…! 200%, then 250.

These are numbers that Gan, to serve the propaganda, won’t show. This is because the graph demonstrates two things:

  • (a) you don’t need Moody’s to tell you Mahathir is spreading lies,
  • (b) that the ratio in Malaysia doesn’t really, really, really matter.

So long as you afford to repay, who cares if it is 1000% of GDP. And if you have no money to repay then print money or sell bonds. In Japan, they print yen; in US dollars.

Here then we arrive at the crux of the matter in Mahathir’s lies:

  • what’s debt; (Which seems like a redundant question till you learn about its economics.)
  • is a government guarantee given on a loan a debt;
  • the differences between federal, national, and household debt; and
  • does it matter in distinguishing different kinds of debt, or debt that’s external or domestic.

We’ll deal with them together but in random order — the end result from our quest is still the same.

Related image

Because Mahathir and Pakatan tied up government debt with bankruptcy (this stupidity came from the other motherfucker named Lim Kit Siang), quickly scan through the column headings above: debt is broken into external and domestic.

This is big deal because money owed to, say, Japan is different from owing Maybank. Owing Maybank, the government has the power to print ringgit to settle its debt. Owing Japan, it can’t print yen. Malaysia has to earn yen to pay back yen. So, how to get hold of yen? In that situation, Bank Negara comes in.

In other words, ringgit debt won’t bankrupt Malaysia but foreign debt will. Many Latin America in the 1980s, (see Chile, table above), Philippines in the 1990s, Greece and Iceland in 2000s, defaulted on their debt.

Most of those debt — and this is point of departure in discussing debt — were owed by the government (see Greece, below) not by individuals and companies. What is the federal government external debt today? Answer: Around 200 bn out of 687 bn, that is, under 20% of GDP. In comparison Bank Negara’s international reserves is more than 400 bn.


If by breaking down the concept of debt, the federal government’s position isn’t in dire straits, why then did the motherfuckers Mahathir/Guan Eng keep drumming it up?

To answer that question, first resolve: Is it 1 trillion or 686 bn?

(This segment to be continued…)


Letters from a Stoic

There are more things … likely to frighten us than there are to crush us; we suffer more often in imagination than in reality.



From the Daoist Seneca

It is likely that some troubles will befall us; but it is not a present fact. How often has the unexpected happened! How often has the expected never come to pass! And even though it is ordained to be, what does it avail to run out to meet your suffering? You will suffer soon enough, when it arrives; so look forward meanwhile to better things. What shall you gain by doing this? Time. There will be many happenings meanwhile which will serve to postpone, or end, or pass on to another person, the trials which are near or even in your very presence. A fire has opened the way to flight. Men have been let down softly by a catastrophe. Sometimes the sword has been checked even at the victim’s throat. Men have survived their own executioners. Even bad fortune is fickle. Perhaps it will come, perhaps not; in the meantime it is not. So look forward to better things.


Not-so-impenetrable Joycean Speak


the day I got him to propose to me . . . first I gave him the bit of seedcake out of my mouth… he said I was a flower of the mountain… yes so we are flowers all a womans body yes that was one true thing he said in his life and the sun shines for you today yes that was why I liked him because I saw he understood or felt what a woman is and I knew I could always get round him and I gave him all the pleasure I could leading him on till he asked me to say yes and I wouldn’t answer first only looked out over the sea and the sky. . .



Those who are to be judges, must also be performers (i.e artists.) Those who are to perform, should judge less. — Adapted from Aristotle, in Politics


One of the finest films to come out of the Chinese society, arts, consciousness and our humanity. Accept it as true because it is.



Read Full Post »

Although it is polling day, this has to be said…

Fiscal Reform? That’s bullshit

When Pakatan Harapan issued its fiscal policy at the 11th hour of polls, it didn’t give enough time for scrutiny.

But scrutiny was easy. Pakatan’s policy showed that its politicians know nuts about financial economics (I see Wong Chen’s hand in it, a sweet talking lawyer believing he is some top Malaysian economist). Here is to teach those deceitful motherfuckers real world, fundamental economics as a father would teach a child in the letter below:

Under privatization, Mahathir became the world top crony

My dear Daughter,

As you grow up and experience more of the ups and downs of the economy, you will notice a piece of mindbending hypocrisy: during the good times, bankers, entrepreneurs—rich people in general—tend to be against government. They criticize it as a “brake on development,” a “parasite” feeding on the private sector through taxation, an “enemy of freedom and entrepreneurship.” The cleverer among them even go so far as to deny that government has any moral right, or duty, to serve society, by claiming that “there is no such thing as society—there are just individuals and families,” or “society is not well defined enough for the state to be able to serve it.” And yet, when a crash occurs that is brought on by their actions, those who have delivered the fieriest of speeches vehemently opposing substantial government intervention in the economy suddenly demand the state’s aid. “Where is the government when we need it?” they yelp.

One of the most prevalent arguments they make against the state is that wealth is produced individually, by heroic individuals. Taxation is therefore seen as an unjustifiable confiscation of what is rightfully theirs. Nothing could be further from the truth. To see this, let’s go back to the beginning of market societies for a moment—to the time when the serfs were being kicked off their ancestral lands.

How do you think the landowners managed to get rid of the serfs so efficiently? The answer is: with the help of the state. The king and his government lent the landowners a hand, sending their soldiers in to put down any rebellion by the peasants. And how do you think the new order, underpinning market society, was maintained? How were the majority living under conditions of abject dehumanization in the slums of Manchester, Birmingham, and London kept under control when a few streets away the minority lived in the lap of luxury? To put it simply, private wealth was built and then maintained on the back of state-sponsored violence.

In fact, it is not just the state that provides the conditions for wealth creation. If you think about it, all wealth has always been produced collectively—through recycling and through a gradual accumulation of knowledge. Workers need entrepreneurs to hire them, who need workers to buy their goods. Entrepreneurs need bankers to lend to them, who need entrepreneurs to pay interest. Bankers need governments to protect them, who need bankers to fuel the economy. Inventors cannibalize the inventions of others and plagiarize the ideas of scientists. The economy relies on everyone.

While consistently demanding that the state continue to provide the conditions in which their wealth can grow, every time the high and mighty have received the bill for the state’s services from the tax office, they have grunted, moaned, whinged, and protested. And since the powerful have great in influence over the state, this has led to a curious phenomenon: the taxes asked of them have always tended to be low in relation to the amount the state has actually spent, directly or indirectly, on their behalf. As for the workers, their wages have for most of history barely been sufficient to feed themselves and their children, so their taxes have never amounted to a sufficient sum either. So where has the additional money come from? The answer is: public debt. And who has provided the government with the requisite loans? The bankers, of course! And where have the bankers found the money? I hardly need tell you that they have conjured it from thin air. You can start to see how paying low taxes works doubly in the bankers’ favor.

Yet, watching television, listening to politicians worry themselves sick over the size of the national debt and making all sorts of promises to rein it in, you might be fooled into thinking that government debt—or public debt, as it is known—is an awful thing, something like the smallpox virus, in need of permanent eradication. The argument made by those who consider the state an obstacle to private business is that a government that spends beyond its means and can’t balance its books is heading for disaster. Don’t fall for that nonsense. While it is true that too much public debt can cause major headaches, too little is also a problem. Even Singapore, whose government is forced by law not to spend more than the money it receives in taxes, finds it essential to borrow money. Why? Because a market society’s bankers need public debt as surely as fish need water to swim in. Without public debt, market societies can’t work.

When the government borrows, say, $100 million from a banker for, say, a ten-year period, in return it provides the banker with a piece of paper, an IOU, by which it legally guarantees to repay the money in ten years’ time as well as pay an additional yearly amount to the banker in interest—say, $5 million a year. This IOU is called a bond, implying that the government is now bound for ten years to whoever possesses this piece of paper. Given that the rich refuse to cough up the kind of taxes that would make government borrowing unnecessary, the state issues bonds and “sells” them to banks and rich people in order to pay for the things that keep the whole show on the road: streets, hospitals, schools, police, and so on. By spending this money on its various projects—buying supplies, paying salaries—the government directly boosts the whole recycling process of the economy from which everyone benefits, including the banks.

But this is far from being the only reason that government bonds are useful to bankers. The one thing that bankers hate most is cash: money sitting around in their vaults or on their spreadsheet not being lent in return for interest. But as has hopefully become clear by now, banks become precarious and vulnerable if even a few depositors want their money back all at once. At that point bankers need to have access to something that they can sell in a jiffy so as to pay demanding depositors. Government bonds are perfect for this. To the extent that everyone trusts that the government will be true to its word, its bonds will always be in demand. Indeed, they are exceptional in this way—no other debt can be recycled quite as easily. This means that bankers love government bonds: not only is a bond a loan that earns a nice rate of interest very safely (so much so, in fact, that it can also be used as collateral for taking out further loans from other banks), but it can also be used as a commodity—a piece of property exactly like a painting or a vintage car that can be sold immediately if the banker is in urgent need of cash. Bonds are, in bankers’ parlance, “the most liquid of assets.” As such, they lubricate the banking system to keep its cogs and wheels turning.

In fact, in bad times, when bankers pick up the phone to the government and demand that the state’s central bank bail them out, it does so not just by creating new money, as we have already seen, but also by issuing even more bonds and using them to borrow more money from other bankers, often foreign ones, to pass on to the local bankers.

You can begin to see why public debt is something much, much more than ordinary debt. It is a manifestation of our market society’s power relations, the necessary response to the refusal of the rich to pay their share. It is also a shock absorber that allows accident-prone bankers to avoid many of the major mishaps that would otherwise occur in its absence. It is like an elastic band holding everything together, capable of stretching during the bad times to prevent the system from breaking.


The letter was written by Greece’s former finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, an economist by training. The title is mine.


Read Full Post »


A severe cold spell has struck again. Tianjin for the past three days has not been higher than minus 7 degrees. I wonder if the bullet trains or planes will be delayed because Jian and I are to reunite in several days. Weather forecast says it will be minus 1 then.


The clip above reveals the ignorance and stupidity of Malaiyoos in their worldview, their imagination and their narrative of the Chinese Communist Party, as if it were some sort of Umno-type political system. How stupid, these Malaiyoos, these Annie’s Assholes.


Before going into, Why return to China — and then to stay — here’s some background. Start with Martin Jacques and the notion (not his though) of “civilization-state”. Understand that background and, after that, it’s easier to see why China matters to your life, which isn’t just for the fact that you are Chinese and China is our motherland.

Next, listen to what our compatriot Xi Jinping is saying. When China’s government says it serves the people, it isn’t an Umno political slogan. It’s an action plan: how to make China’s dream yours as well.

Now to outside China, the overseas Chinese.

China is seriously looking at bringing back the diaspora, and this isn’t just for ethnic and security reasons. If, once in China, you do nothing else but walk around your house the whole day, we don’t care. Fine, too, if you (Annie?) merely want to find a husband and only to serve his needs, in bed and out.

Those are reasons for returning to China. What’s needed, instead, is individual purpose. What would be your purpose?

What, on the other hand, is China’s purpose? China can only restore its old glory and become great again if its people, each of the 1.4 billion people inside and 70 million outside, have something to look forward to. In epistomological terms, a person is a constantly becoming being, constantly evolving. A nation is like that but more; it is the sum of the individual’s purpose.

How can China forsake its people if people are not to forsake themselves, their families, their friends?

We — China and us — are one and the same so that as individual characters evolve so, too, will the country. I am China and China becomes me. This is what it means to be Chinese. All that the state can do to help is to suggest a sort of guide not on the whys of living (that’s your problem and is self-evident) but how to live. A fisherman is not given fish but taught how to fish. Malays instead are given fish and BR1M. The Chinese rely on themselves and we know this way is permanent and, therefore, more fulfilling. Today, compatriot Xi Jinping would say, try it this way. Three thousand years ago, Laozi would say, think about it that way. Or, consider that other way, Confucius would later suggest.

We want our people to have a good life, says Xi. One person with a good life affects the people around him, starting with the family. This is what I, too, found: the people around me become better off, and they in turn affect those around them, and on and on in circular fashion looping back to my person.

So, what do you want to do with your life in China? Try technology. Try finance. Try anything. Stop believing and start unlearning the fairy tales of Anglophiles (people like the Lim father and son, people like Tony Pua and Ong Kian Ming; they have outdated thinking): that a person trained in accounting is best at being an accountant, that lawyers, doctors, engineers and politicians are the pinnacles of society, looked up to, and upon who everyone is dependent.

Those mamak Anglophiles named Syed Akbar Ali and Mahathir Mohamad say the same thing and, so, spits at people who wash toilets. But that’s garbage talk by infantile minds. Chinese culture never, never says this of other people who earn an honest living. Consequently, in China, academic certificates don’t count because education is not eventually about skills acquisition; it is about how best to live. Jack Ma started working life teaching in a village school. He evolved. Other than war and peace, Xi Jinping is also interested in public toilets — how to keep clean when, hourly, two hundred people use it. He is interested in android technology, not Apple computer nor iPhone because those are passe. That is, he is interested to apply technology on a scale beyond the phone call for the benefit of fellow Chinese.

Xi has been right. The results are showing (see clip, above). Chinese (not Anglophile) humanistic culture supports, favors, indeed calls for such an approach to life: an archer misses his shot, looks at himself and then ask, why?

To automate, you see, is human. To excel is intrinsically Chinese. Whereas Mahathir and Syed Akbar tell Malaiyoos to avoid washing toilets because it is a lowly job, Chinese culture encourages us to ask, how do we make the toilet visit worthwhile. See the difference in approaches, in thinking?

(Update: DAP MPs have the identical Syed Akbar, Anglophile notion that see jobs in terms of class. Looking after longkangs is not their job, one MP said to his PJ constituents who brought complaints to his office. The same Anglo cultural attitude inhabits other DAP people like Hannah Yeoh who denounces opponents in condescending terms of ‘low class’.)

Syed Akbar yada, yada away about thinking outside the box. We say, why the fuck have a box in the first place. After all the world, reality, people’s minds aren’t like that — boxes — inside-outside, believer-non believer, top-bottom, big shot-small shot, bumi-non bumi, low class-high class, evil-good and so on. All these make for an endless diabolical, dystopian, Jesus/Mohamedan claptrap. Chinese cultural approach to life is not linear nor dichotomous. Without boxes, there are no limits to our endeavor.

Come to China. There are still 40 million in poverty; help them because that helps us. Join us to make yourself great and make China and the Chinese great at the same time. Malaiyoos and Anglophiles need not apply; fuck off and stay in your Syed Akbar coconut tree boxes.

Below are for further examination into China’s transformation, evolution, rejuvenation; don’t miss the show:

1. ANDROID TECH. Lee Kai Fu versus Silicon Valley. From imitation to innovation: How China became a tech superpower.



2. DRIVERLESS TAXIS: The story of Jean Liu (below) and how she beat Uber.




That wasn’t the only Chinese engineering marvel.


4. CRIME AND PUNISHMENT: Facial recognition in bio-technology.

Using facial recognition technology, police had picked up seven fugitives related to hit-and-run and human trafficking cases, plus 26 others for cases of identity fraud. These arrests were made with the use of the glasses at four entrances of a Chongqing railway station, according to cnrail.net, a website that covers China’s railway news.

The spectacles were designed for police use and are linked to a tablet device. After scanning the face of the passenger coming into the station, the device activates software to search faces in a database, looking for a match with suspects.


5. TOURISM CULTURE: Fenghuang below, built 2000 years ago, is a whole town drifting on a river. Then there is Guilin and Yangshuo, both updated and still stunning. Collectively, they and more, tells why my motherland China is such a great civilization.

Jian loves Fenghuang. She’s half Miao.


Read Full Post »

[Continued from Part 1, Part 2]

The Case for Civilizations

A Response to the New Yorker


New Yorker’s illustration of John Lanchester’s claim that, between a contest of two ways of life, even though they may be world’s apart, the hunter-gatherer tribe is to the modern (western), agricultural society superior — in some (moralistic) ways. Hence, the New Yorker’s rhetorical question: ‘Did our hunter-gatherer ancestors have it better?’ That question wasn’t just bad. Lanchester’s answer turned out to be utterly worse.


Imagine life in southern Africa’s Kalahari, your village hemmed in by stunted thickets, without leaves, beyond which the lions, hyenas, deer and baboons roam and maybe the gem of a pool of muddy water. The floor is dry dirt, and almost nothing grows. To avoid laundry and conserve water, wear as little as possible. Lunch, brought in yesterday by a group of hunters, will be served soon buffet style but, unlike those laid out at the Mandarin Hong Kong, there is just one primary course: fresh kudu meat. It’s within expiry date. Dinner is stashed away somewhere. This may be hand-to-mouth existence but there is enough food to go round, without conspicuous consumption and it satisfies the UN-designated calorific value, 1700-2400 kcal per day dependent on gender and age. The calories work out to less than 200 gm of meat (one slice, size of a playing card, split for brunch and dinner) and 250 gm of starch, which equals two medium-size bowl of rice porridge.

In the New Yorker, one of the world’s finest written magazines, John Lanchester makes the case for such a Kalahari life that, in a sort of way, had it better than how we live today. This is so, even though — Lanchester will never admit to it — not all civilizations are equal.

By civilization, Lanchester has to mean western civilization because that’s the only one he lives in. His civilization and ours may have the same style of beginnings, that is, emerging from a settled, agrarian life with mass grain cultivation (concentrating on one or two crops and, alongside it, animal domestication). The centerpiece in his idea of civilization is this: the creation of a modern state with its apparatus of taxation, bureaucracy and writing (for law and record keeping).

Lanchester makes no comparison between his present and the pre-modern, western civilization forms. Instead he uses, for contrasting effect, ancient Mesopotamia, the region in present Iraq, as well as the Kalahari Bushman tribes living at present along the borders of Namibia and Botswana. Why take some place so far away and so different in culture?

This question isn’t rhetorical. It is asked because places matter; civilizations emerge distinct to the geography of the land and its people’s habitat. The Bushman hunts because that is all there is to do, water is too scarce for mass cultivation of crops and because game is plentiful. In the Pacific island of Kiribati, for example, you won’t expect to find deer to hunt nor enough arable land to grow maize or rice. Fishing is all there is. Naturally, therefore, the civilization and hence its culture, including system of government, if any, are going to be markedly different from, say, a Sahara or a European country.

Lanchester makes no distinction between a civilization and a state with its system of government, taxation and militarization governing a clearly defined population within fixed boundaries. Indeed, citing James C. Scott, he conflates the state and government, rather than as separate, distinct phenomena, like civilization and states are separate things. In so doing, he doesn’t seem to consider a hunter-gatherer society as a form of civilization. On the contrary a hunter-gatherer band is regarded as the opposite of a civilization, a sort of a free-wheeling society without clearly defined hierarchies and organised rules with nobody in charge. In another (colonial) word, ‘uncivilized’ which is, of course, politically incorrect.

But, couldn’t there be a state overseeing without actually ruling a hunter-gatherer society — that is, a nomadic band within a settled civilization and given state protection? Of course that’s possible. The jungle borders of Laos, Thailand and China’s Yunnan (where today’s first generation descendants of hunters have ID cards) teemed with self-governing tribal bands as late as the 1930s and were left alone until the White Man brought in their Jesus Christ, their fucking ideologies (democracy, capitalism, communism, socialism) and then war and war and more war. Life, as they say, has never been the same since.

Until the arrival of the White Man en masse, the Pacific island societies (Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, New Guinea, Cook Islands, Vanuatu) comprised pseudo states, some with a ruling Queen (Tonga & Samoa and yes, queen) overseeing bands of people who lived on harvesting the sago palm or digging up taro roots, the food staple. In between they hunted wild pigs when not fishing. Malaysia’s jungles in the Peninsula and Sarawak still have remnants of that existence.

All that still represent diverse multi-cultural forms of civilizations, and they are types of civilizations nonetheless. It may be unsettled or unsecured life but settlement anywhere is caveat on habitat. In the Kalahari, a nomad, dependent on a pair of legs, can roam till the sun dies. In the Pacific, on the other hand, an island the size of Singapore is all that there is to go around so that the New Yorker question about which way of life is better — or which place produces a better civilization — is as misplaced as it is absurd.

For the Neolithic or Agricultural Revolution to spent a thousand years or more to first overtake hunter-gatherer society then to be itself replace by industries, it says more about the enduring power of civilization to shape a way of life than it is the other way around; Lanchester suggests it’s agriculture than birthed civilizations. He does not make clear though, is this Neolithic Revolution accompanied invariably by state power? His implication though is that state rule — that is, political life — is inevitable with a sedentary life. “There is,” he says, “a crucial, direct link between the cultivation of cereal crops and the birth of the first states.

From there Lanchester flies off into leaps of logic. After agriculture, he adds, came a litany of civilization’s failures, such as the Stalin’s farm collectivization that killed millions. Citing Jared Diamond, he says the Neolithic Revolution became “the worse mistake in human history.”

O! Really?

All along we thought the worse was the invention of Jesus Christ.

A proto-state is a pristine state, one without the watermarks of any earlier social, regulated form of organization. Mesopotamia was such a proto-state born from the womb of wheat farms, Lanchester says, citing evidence from the anthropologist James C. Scott who wrote the book on Malaysian farms, Weapons of the Weak.  But, argues Lanchester, look what has Mesopotamia gotten for its once glorious agriculture civilization? Gone today, wrecked by its own doing, including slavery and war.

Lanchester’s put-down of civilization as an accumulation of human disasters — from hunter gatherer to farmer to civilization and state — resembles the storyline at Friedrich Hegel who insists that the histories of the world evolve in dialectical form (mind vs nature, self vs Other, freedom vs authority, knowledge vs faith), one invariably giving way to another by a warbling linear progression towards a penultimate sort of state.

State? What state? A political state? Yes, part of it. A mind state? Yes, that too.

Hegel calls this state of political being or sense of state ‘geist‘, loosely meaning mind/spirit, a sort of freedom. Upon this idea, Martin Heidegger came to make the German Nazi party as emblematic of geist. (To fathom that, think in terms of Umno and Malaiyoo ketuanan, that chicken feed fascist version of geist.)

To us, the Chinese and the Far East, Hegelian geist is, really, just passe stuff, 3,000 years late to be precise.

The Chinese call that sense of eternal being Dao: if you can name it, you’d lose it. It’s Nothingness. It’s what it is and, hence, what it does: the apple tree will always apple, nature always nurtures, and if you know what it is you have arrived at, you’d see it is actually Nothing. Buddhism (and even its predecessor Hinduism) call it ‘nirvana‘, absolute knowledge arriving at nothing. Bliss.

This is the trouble with White people: they made ado much about nothing and thinks it so profound. Typical of this worldview, Lanchester wants to be empirically right and logically true at the same time.

This isn’t always necessary nor possible because evidences of fact don’t always turn out to be stone markers of truth. Once Lanchester deploys western methods of analysis — that is, interpreting the rest of the world on his own terms — just as Hegel did and Heidegger and Satre after that, the world they attempt to portray collapses into meaninglessness.

It doesn’t make sense to see how the life of a Bushman is comparable to someone working in a New York office. Nor to compare the civilizations of ancient Mesopotamia to the American prairies, much less to attach to their respective farmers any moral (Christian) significance about greed and covetousness.

Like many western anthropologists before him, Lanchester was simply looking for historical evidences to fit given conclusions. Or worse, liberal biases.

One result of this disastrous academic approach: Lancester, as did Scott and Diamond, failed to see that a hunter-gatherer band is a state in itself, on its own terms.

Take the Bushman tribe where, according to the anthropologist James Suzman, the man who brings home the meat faces a ‘ritual of insulting the meat’. This happens in which recipients of the meat get rude to the young provider when slicing up the carcass for distribution, in near equal proportions. Such a ritual must mean that instead of glory, the chief provider gets slapped. Done often enough — imagine a man has to hunt every few days since meat is not refrigerated — who wants to do it only to be insulted?

Something is also not right with the Suzman story line about a lonely hunter sharing his bounty with everyone because, unless he can operate alone like a lion or a run like a cheetah, the prospect of bringing in game single handed is quite small. Human dominance over other animal species is its ability to think and work in collaboration with others. This being the case, where work is a collaborative effort, then sharing is obligatory when not mandatory. Bushman civilization could simply contain the constituent of a state different from what is found in the West, certainly, with multiple political actors, the main ones being all young, all hunters, all fit and healthy good runners, all equal or near equal in status. Call it, if you like, kinship authoritarianism.

An identical social, kinship sharing-ritual goes on in New Guinea (until the Americans and the French arrived) but flipped around. There, because game is so scare, the man with the most domesticated animals must throw a huge, island wide party regularly so as to redistribute his stock of meat. Instead of being insulted, the man is retained on the pedestal; he continues to remain Chief. (For more on economic redistribution in kinship politics see for example ‘Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches‘, 1975, by Marvin Harris, 1927-2001.)

A similar idea underpins how and why Li Ka Shing is never revered in Hong Kong as the richest man. No, not revered; never. Instead, he is held out as the exemplar of what a man with deep pockets must do. That is, his obligations, responsibilities and duties that come with owning so much: You got rich out of us, now give it back! Hence, you read about him building schools and orphanages here and there in China mainland; and during lunar new year, dispatching truck loads of goodies into the mountains and villages. This redistribution idea has gone on for thousands of years in Chinese society and was central to the establishment of countless clan and trade associations, village societies, secret societies as conduits for redistribution. The rationale is this: Given fortuity, anybody can be rich and Li Ka Shing is no different. But, it takes a good, wise man to know what to do with the wealth accumulated.

In spite of the evidences to be found in every land outside of America and Europe, Lanchester still insists that the Bushman ritual of sharing is unique and peculiar only in a hunter-gatherer society. But why? Why go looking for the thing only in a preferred place when it is everywhere? The only plausible explanation is this: Seeing it his way could only have come from his liberal, political prejudices (egalitarianism) and Christian morality bias (God created all man equal, which is fucking false on all three counts, God, the creation, and equality). Predictably, Lanchester pronounces the Bushman society as superior to the modern (western) form: “affluent but without abundance, without excess, and without competitive acquisition.

Well, well, well if that were true — the existence of this glorious, stateless, abundant, equal opportunity Eden — Lanchester might consider emigrating to Bushman country.

You see, the facts may be correct, but is the truth true?

Going by western definition of a state, the tribal society is a political unit to itself; it’s only that Lanchester refuses to acknowledge this. It has its rules — only that a shaming culture is not the kind of thing westerners are used to. A shaming ritual is a form of rule.

Bushman culture fits Confucian political philosophy, which says that every individual is a political unit and, flowing from the person, the family a microcosm of the state upon which the nation-state rests and is an extension thereof. Hence, the government, public property and public institutions are frequently addressed in street parlance as “yeye 爷爷” or grandfather.

Once interpreted on those terms, you can see why the willingness of the Bushman hunter to bring home meat then sharing it must mean this: what’s good for him and his family is also good for the tribe. And for that, for the good of the family and everyone else, the hunter is willing endure the insults. Lanchester, as it is with Suzman (who studied the Bushman) and Scott and Diamond, were only willing to see events top-down, from a societal, worldview point rather than viewing life from the individual and family up. The Bushman’s material, physical priorities in life can’t be far different from the Chinese. It is only how life is sorted out to make those priorities happened is shaped differently. That’s a matter of culture.




In Lanchester’s world — civilization — only the numbers are race free. The rest, especially the language and his anthropology, are White. In ‘The Case Against Civilization‘, it has to be white-bias (liberal) so that reading it is much like a black girl reading ‘Jane Eyre:

[Charlotte] Brontë sees Jane as an ideal version of womanhood. That version, comely and small, has to be absent of moral imperfections. It has to be white.

Imagine then when, for as many as 20 years, Hannah Yeoh or Yeo Bee Yin passing through the same, white civilization classes (above). They’d come out complete white crackpots, Anglophiles. White, Lanchesterian racism has been perfected into a scholarly art form, like Charlotte Brontë and her book are racist perfections. Her readers think nothing of it but only moral modernism and goodness. Tyrese Coleman:

To call this book feminist is to forget about me, that I am a reader too, that I am a woman too. That according to Brontë, I am a savage.

And Hannah Yeoh has said Brontë is one of her favorite authors.


Lanchester’s interpretation of the Bushman life reflects the extent to which egalitarianism has become, on western terms, an ideological and a (Christian) moral fighting tool rather than existing simply as the necessary basis for organizing society; whether the society is agrarian or hunter-gatherer, it doesn’t matter. Egalitarianism is not moral injunction. It is the consequence to a kind of economic redistribution because to force people to share is to work against the human impulse that we have priorities. That is, we simply will love some people more than others, and for good reason.

The tribe is a state in its rawest form where everyone is his own government with the life of one stitched to the next and next in a chain of inter-dependency because this is the best possible way to survive in the barbaric wild. Like a family is self-governing so is the tribe. It governs by governing the least, with the minimum of rules, some disguised as rituals befitting their environment. It governs without any sophisticated apparatus or a bureaucracy, but some form of security organization must exist, even if not to ward off other tribes, at least to fight the lions and prevent those fucking hyenas from making off with the baby. It’s an arrangement that works well in small Kalahari groups or in secluded island societies but not in, say, China.

Why is it that Lanchester and the West still refuse to see the Bushman tribe as a form of civilization with a rudimentary government and sprouting elements of statehood?

To do so, his entire case that the modern world is somehow not right would collapse; it would end the western insistence that lives across the planet are comparable and being comparable must possess determinable yardsticks. Other than common physical needs, these yardsticks tended to be moral (Christian) in quality and logical in interpretation. The White man has the command of technology, language and global reach to determine what those yardsticks might be. But why should the rest of the world live on the moral dictates of Jesus Christ and be fitted to the terms western civilization has established for itself — this square peg in round holes thing?

The White man has done good, yes and true, but he has also become the enemy to other civilizations when, like Hegel, insist there is only one history to follow. Other civilizations, or their intrinsic worth therefrom, are snuffed out. The millions of death from Stalin collectivization arose directly from a single (western) ideological, political act that had nothing to do with the purpose of sedentary agriculture. With these western exports of murderous ideas, the world wouldn’t need civilization nor the state to do the killing. Lanchester goes down the same folly path. Using Scott’s “study” on the disastrous effects of agriculture (slavery, oppression, war) has had on Mesopotamia, Lanchester then argues for being wary of the settled life that produces civilization and statehood. This is plainly absurd; it’s logical solipsism at its worse. On point of fact, there is no evidence to show if one event birthed the other or even created the conditions for slavery and war as if without the state or without farming people don’t kill each other in mass numbers.

China, both its past and the present, stands as a counterpoint — a complete refutation in fact — to western claims that the civilization has become a danger to itself.

Civilization in China, the state by extension, permitted sedentary agriculture to flourish. It was never the other way around. Until the Shang dynasty (商朝 Shangchao, c.1600 BC–c.1046 BC) and even onward to the Qin dynasty (c.220 BC), farming was a dangerous enterprise because the neighbor or the nomads on horseback along the present regions of the Great Wall came in galloping to raid the granary, often making off with Han girls for bonus. These were the xiongnu 匈奴, roaming bands of animal herders no different in numbers and in way of life from those found in Africa, with a chief and a coterie of hangers-on that became the bureaucracy. The xiongnu were the gatherers of other people’s grains, China’s, and were hunters of Han women — not kudu deer and wild pigs.

Nothing romantic about hunter-gatherers, Mr Lanchester.

Against these barbarians, militarization of the peasants became necessary and with it the growth of Chinese state power, improvements in writing, record keeping, development of ferrous making, gunpowder, paper and so on. And with these, elements of industries sprouted. Unlike those cited by Lanchester wherein states taxed by cereals, the first rule of Chinese taxation was compulsory conscription (think Fa Mulan): young, healthy boys for the defense of not just the country but a way of life. This is collaboration and defense sharing, no? Only later were salt and currency added as taxes.

Civilization and state power made possible mass cultivation — and a settled way of life.

By the Han dynasty era, so successful was this development of civilization that a distinct Chinese culture emerged that exists in recognizable form today. Another evidence of the success: population growth from, say, 60 million to 80 then 110 and on and on (see graph below). The Chinese came to be known in street parlance as huaren 华人, an ‘Accomplished People’. Records in the 書經 shujing as well as Sima Qian’s ‘History of Han‘ (again, the work of strict record keeping) spoke repeatedly of the xiongnu as well as of entreaties to the emperor to keep the peace at all cost; it was his primary purpose, his station in life. If heaven breaks loose 天下大乱, he goes. Now that the hunters and gatherers were pacified, enter Confucius: how to keep the peace in time of peace. For that, culture…. Chinese culture.


The xiongnu 匈奴


Roughly, the area covered by the xiongnu 匈奴, collective name for varied hunter-gatherer tribes in central Asia. For more than 3,000 years they refused to leave alone the southern settled agrarian life, that is, the Chinese. Other than to kill these motherfuckers, consecutive emperors had to build, rebuild, and extend the Great Wall just to keep them out of China. That work did not stop for a thousand years. By the time the Mings sailed into the South China Sea, they were — no joke — still at it.


Graph: China’s demographics the last 2000 years.


Chinese sedentary agriculture was so successful that it brought vast improvements in health, reflected in lifespan and to how tall.


不裝飾你的夢 Never embellish your dreams…



Read Full Post »

 The Fraudulent Life:

Sister in Christ, Sister in Deceit

Image result for Yeo Bee Yin

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


Mattala, Rail & the DAP


Why Yeo Bee Yin?

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

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

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

China simply doesn’t think in these terms.

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

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

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


Image result for Port of Hambantota

Related image



1. ECRL in DAP Christian Economics


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

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

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

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

In that, there is actually a precedent.

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

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


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

Related image



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


ECRL in Bee Yin Racist Bigotry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s wrong with the passage above?

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

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

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

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

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

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


2. Mattala in Bee Yin Immorality


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related image

Image result for Port of Hambantota

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

Image result for Port of Hambantota

Image result for Port of Hambantota

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Mattala isn’t a Chinese airport

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

We know, why, of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Image result for SJK (C) Hwa Nan

3. Born Again Bee Yin:


Saved by the Son, Fucked by the Father


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Bee Yin & Hannah Yeoh: Sisters in Deception



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Image result for pas yeo bee yin





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


Read Full Post »



(The above, an ancient idiom-in-poem, was found on Twitter. Free translation…)

Heavens are not in halves
Earth and land are never apart
The Wise knows silence
Parents know their names
A teacher isn’t you at shoulder
Why then think this is about you?



Something isn’t quite right with this voter registration poster…

it presumes all votes have a moral content, they are equal and the man’s vote equal yours.


Impossibility theorem at work.


Imagine a moment:

Malaysia without God, without standards


Kenneth Arrow has recently died (read here about the person and his work), the man who designed the ‘Impossibility Theorem’ around the idea that people typically make lousy choices and if they were given a second chance to correct the mistake first made they will again pick lousy ones. An infinite number of choices deliver an infinite number of bad judgments so, one can’t be the result of the other.

Hence, when liberals beat us with the cliche — you deserve the government you voted in — those moronic Anglophiles don’t know what it is they are babbling about. There is simply no ideal situation delivering an ideal set of information for making an ideal choice. In economics, that means no perfect markets; in politics no perfect system for an outcome entirely fair and just.

Change the conditions of a circumstance, or even change the settings during a decision, preferences change. This isn’t fickle-mindedness exerted by some invisible hand. Rather, conditions are never what you’d hope for, which goes to show that imperfection serves itself and so, too, imperfect markets. Or, in another way of saying the same thing, something imperfect is its own perfection. And if some lonely woman, say, Annie of the Valley, were to shop around for a perfect man according to a set list of criteria then she’d be drawing out a list every year instead of shopping. Poor woman. And if we think everything around us as unsatisfactory — Malaysians have shiploads of dissatisfaction — then that’s a view perfect only to ourselves. But we’ll never know if the perfection is true because, how can we?

(Why will one never know? Answer: depends on who you ask. According to the Great Moron of Manchester, ‘There are no truths because all views are subjective.‘ If, indeed, there are no objective truths out there then, by the same token, that statement couldn’t be true either. If not T then F. And if F, the Moron’s statement is nonsense. This is what happens when English La Salle and Victorian little old boys try to sell snake oil philosophy outside a Manchester nasi lemak restaurant.)


Arrow’s theorem was great economic work from the use of vigorous mathematics that defeated earlier, commonplace economic and political assumptions which have no basis in mathematical probabilities. By commonplace, it means whining, an Ariff Sabri whine, so much yada, yada out of a Raub durian farm.

(Imagine this ludicrous statement from that DAP bleeding heart: ‘The defining characteristic of a Malay is poverty,’ a race-equal-poor definition plucked from before the 1950s when nine-tenths of the world was poor, including Lim Goh Tong. But never mind that, spare a thought instead for the Orang Asli today, poor, poorer, poorest, still poor, not Malay, without Umno and — thank god — without kampung heads like Ariff’s to struggle on their behalf.)

Arrow’s theorem had profound implications: it meant that material or social progress should not — and couldn’t be, anyway — be set to a single standard. In economics, such a standard, say, a perfect market is simply an artifice of invention which the Great Syed Akbar Ali calls the ‘Laws of Economics’. That man just discovered those laws at work in Malaysia 250 years after Adam Smith.

In Malaysian politics, standard setting is the desire of PAS, of some Umno ministers and numerous government-appointed muftis. Standards create, so they say, an ‘Islamic’ environment, supposedly so that the Malays could live out their Muslim lives fully, ‘holistically’, the Islamic way. RU355 is an example of the standard setting — the ‘Laws of Allah’, says the towel head Hadi Awang — giving form to a supposed Islamic environment. Of course, expect no God of heaven to thunder out and verify his commands that are being shepherded around by Hadi and that other Pahang towel head mufti.

Enter Bersatu and PKR, while Ariff’s DAP sit on its village hands. Also enter Mahathir Mohamad and Bro. Anwar Ibrahim, the latter in the person of Azmin Ali because Bro. Anwar, so happens, is indisposed. Both Mahathir and Anwar are continuing where they left off in the 1980s, currying favor with Islamist political groups — even after, and this what really gets to you — seeing the disastrous results of their early efforts. The decision by Bersatu and PKR to stick with PAS was purely electoral, One-to-One, but all know that the inevitable consequence in their maneuvers will simply hand over the country to those towel heads to dictate other people lives and fix other people’s standards.

Would Mahathir care? No. His hatred for Najib Razak is deeper than his desire to Save Malaysia from himself, from PAS and Islamism. That is, a Malaysia of humanly sane Malays unmolested by the impossibility of arbitrary standards.

In the old days, Mahathir’s excuse for collaborating with Islamist groups (in the person of Anwar) was to craft a set of Muslim standards for Malays while, in return, the latter would support Umno. In this horse trading, the presumptions were many, for example, a Saudi-type religious environment (No external interference in domestic affairs? That’s a load of Malay chauvinist shit.) was necessary for Malays to be good and what’s good for Malays has to be good for Malaysia.

But — and this is the key — they didn’t presume this: Anwar’s Islamic environment agenda was nothing more than standard setting. Instead they took the standard setting for granted, obligatory even. Why? Their answer, because it is a Muslim duty. Says who? Says Allah, never mind if those standards were never verifiable nor proven because, if that was true, Najib Razak who has since devoted so much time and money in the perfect kingdom of Mecca would be the model of sainthood.

All of which arrives at this other conclusion: Other than removing Najib, are Mahathir’s excuses for collaborating with Hadi any different from those during the Anwar days? The answer, if it isn’t self-evident by now, goes to show, once again, Mahathir is dangerous to everybody. He presumes he knows what is good for Malays (and everybody else) but his decisions are as arbitrary as Arrow’s Theorem — supposedly rational one day but would be idiotic the next. And, in between, causing innumerable damage to the fabric of society.

Mahathir is little different from PAS in their approach to politics and treatment of people and society. While he was fixated to the idea — then demanded — that an entire country be modeled after a prescribed standard (Malays! Get rich!), PAS would go about the kampung with its own prescription. Mahathir’s sycophants, namely Kadir Jasin and Firdaus Abdullah, would then call that stupid man a ‘visionary’.

The result: the simple, straightforward idea of merely administrating well and governing fairly is completely lost to these propaganda assholes.

But, here’s the even bigger problem visiting the country: both Bersatu (actually Umno by another name) and PAS are still standard setting because, so their argument goes, the first set had failed: more sex, more hair saloons, more girls on bikes, more unwed mothers. Like Pentecostal Christians — another bunch of assholes — the Hadis and the Berjaya ulamas have convinced themselves their set of moralities are greater than everybody else. So, must be followed — or else we’ll whip you.

Mahathir’s presumed moral world was, on the other hand, utterly infantile when not materialistic: feed full the Malay stomach, his intellectual powers will therefore grow; he will be smarter, become doctors, and all injustices will vanish. The PAS world of morality was, of course, primarily about sausages, haircuts, sex and women. Their morality was never — not even remotely — about Hermes bags or condominiums in England. (This absurdity is why in Saudi Arabia’s women-oppressed world, perfumes by Victoria Secret and clothes by Chanel sell so well even though their women will only get to use those things at home.)

Predictably, as a result, PAS has little to say about Najib’s 1MDB nor all the handbags accumulated by all the Umno wives. Corruption simply isn’t the PAS kind of Saudi morality standard they had been driving around the country since Day One, starting with the veil, Friday holidays, Melayu fetus tossed onto KTM rail tracks, leading to RU355 today — never mind if the Saudis flaunted their morality by booking a whole kafir island for a holiday.

If, ultimately, the PAS version of Saudi morality has nothing to do with money, or Najib in particular, then Umno is still the better of the two choices between it and Bersatu. All that Mahathir wants from PAS, through this 1-to-1 seat contest (which — and don’t laugh — Azmin calls a ‘principle’) is for the latter to deliver Najib’s head to them.

But Najib is the least of the problems confronting Malays and Malaysia. (Among 27 million only one man agrees with this conclusion — S. Thayaparan.) Najib as a national problem is a short-term one. More damaging, more lasting, and more insidious than the man himself is that Najib has gotten on board the Islam agenda which, to be precise, is a Wahhabist agenda fronted by and being fashioned out of PAS.

Yet this is the same Saudi front that Mahathir wants to work with, ignoring the dilapidating consequences from his decades of bringing into Malaysian mainstream the PAS in Anwar and PAS outright. (Remember the Islamic state?) And all that for what? For consolidating his power, what has it gotten Malays and Malaysia? So, for Najib’s head, Mahathir is again willing to throw an entire Malay society to the Arab dogs of Kelantan? Just like he did in his hey-days against political opponents.

That reason alone, Mahathir’s egoism — trading off the entire future of a nation, the greater good of the Malays, for the one man he hates — is  sufficient to reject Bersatu and, regretfully, all of Pakatan as well. We rather stick with Najib and Umno and Barisan: if money can buy Hermes bags, surely it can buy any God.


Women Without Men


Now, girls why would you need Hermes (below) if you had God (above)? The PAS answer, Because it is the woman’s “true function”. Handbags are god created exclusively for women just as women belong in a house, also exclusively.

From the wise assholes at PAS is this standard they have set for the Malay women:

The PAS Ulama council has called for women to be allowed to fulfil their true function as homemakers, even as the world celebrates Women’s Day today.

PAS Ulama information chief Datuk Dr Mohd Khairuddin Aman Razali At-Takiri said households in Malaysia were increasingly broken, citing the rising number of divorces as evidence that the institution of the family was growing weaker.

“As such, it is appropriate that the institution of the family be restored, including providing room and conducive space for each couple, especially wives so that they may perform their true function at home as wives and mothers,” he said in a statement.

Malays have lost so much ground already in spite of Malaysia, such as its Constitution, which had protected them from the vestiges of Islamism. While Umno talked and talked ketuanan, PAS, hiding behind that talk and hiding behind the word Allah, came to the forefront of stripping off those hard-earned rights. The next general election will see if the Malays will even lose more.

Every general election was never about how much the Chinese might or might gain in political power although this had been the handed down propaganda but, really, about how far Malays will retain their freedom and independence from an Arab religion. So far the Chinese have stood in between them and the desert force: Imagine then if the Chinese stop voting.

(Also see bottom of this post, the feature clip about women, Saudi society and its elections.)


Even the recovery of those handbags from Johor had nothing to do with the morality standard of Allah set by PAS that they had copied from Arab camel herders. Only Anglophiles and Christians, associating money with evil, therefore moralizing the two, think it otherwise. Those handbags were about fixing up an Umno chieftain.


Men Without God

Something is terribly wrong in the deputy minister’s answer, 355 won’t solve all of society’s ills. Who says it is suppose to? But, more to the point, since 355 comes from God (so says Hadi) then the Timbalan is also saying one of two things: (a) Allah is imperfect, or (b) 355 isn’t from Allah.

Regardless, the Timbalan in the above clip is evidence of Arrow’s Theorem at work in Malaysia: people change their decisions all the time and nothing in them, in any of those choices, will be fair and perfect.

The inference?

Malays (and Malaysians) are safer with Umno than with Mahathir (or Bersatu) who, like PAS, set humanly impossible standards then blame everybody else for failing to comply — but not themselves for proclaiming those standards. After which, and in order to rectify earlier failures, theirs, they go about making up even more standards that they then say had come from God, a god with an Impossibility syndrome. (picture at the bottom).

That being so, why even bother to start with? But those Kelantan Malay coconut heads will, in turn, answer (clip below): ‘This is the way we are, the way with our society; we follow Allah.’

That answer — ‘That’s the way with Malays‘ — is the Mother of all Lies, a self-contradictory and self-defeating answer because, in Kadir Jasin’s perverse, contradictory reasoning, it would mean that a once riverine, padi society would have had to originate from and had grew up in a desert 8000 miles away.



Maria Without Opposition

Over an article critical of the Opposition, Maria Chin was told to fire her Bersih colleague Mandeep Karpall Singh, which she refused to do. Because, she said, “I don’t know why so many people are jumping up and down about it.

So, if she knew why people are ‘jumping up and down’, Maria would sack Mandeep? She was being disingenuous, of course. She knows why people are ‘jumping up and down’: The Opposition people — DAP motherfuckers in particular — are convinced they are morally superior to Barisan and so are beyond reproach. You cross them, they fix you.

Imagine them in the seat of power. In his days, Mahathir was like that. The Opposition (picture below) today is the most illiberal bunch, the largest ever pile of bigot shit gathered under a single kampung roof.

Here is the ought-to answer for Maria’s question about ‘don’t know why’: Fuck Mahathir, fuck Lim Kit Siang and fuck the Opposition — your Opposition, Maria.


Impossibility syndrome found in the man above: Dulu Umno Melayu ketuanan bigot, sekarang DAP Melayu bleeding heart bigot. All the same a bigot; on top of that, a village idiot.

Read Full Post »

The Incorrigible Malays

[updated, bottom, more on Malays]

.. and the

Fall of the Great Malay Hoax: Ketuanan


Before the Great 1MDB Scam,

the Great Malay Hoax

Zainudin Maidin, above, a Mahathir stooge and make-pretend smart aleck produces (can’t say he writes) unreadable books that nobody bothers with, not even among his kind. Without any worthwhile intellectual and literary tradition. Zam’s god, religion, morality and intellect had to be imported. And even there, available in just one book — and that’s written in a language foreign even to Malays and on script, not Roman alphabets — what profound shit is there to be found in Depan Api, Belakang Duri?

Poor Zammy, trying to hoist up Old Horse Mahathir to burnish the scales of the Great Ketuanan snake and myth. His rebuttal to Nazri Aziz has, at the back of it, again, the classic Mahathir political and racist agenda supported by nothing other than Zam’s pseudo, personalised history — history he would make up.

Zammy is one of the signs, gathering speed today and spearheaded by Najib Razak, of the Melayu snake chewing its own tail. (There are more signs, below, provided by people like Irwan Serigar Abdullah and Ahmad Maslan.)

To proclaim the Fall of the Melayu (even the Great Syed Akbar Ali believes in his own lies) is to presume this stock of people were once great. Were they? How could they be great when all they boasted were coconut huts, shitting on their paddy farms next to steaming, muddy, mosquito-infested river banks.

Like so many Malaiyoos before him, Zam in his tweet (below) painted the picture that there were cities under Malays whereas the Chinese diaspora, instead of laboring to build them — Kuala Lumpur, Penang, Johor — actually seized them from Malays. Malayan and Malaysian history is full of  these lies, and nobody would challenge Zam to his counterfactual revisionism. Not even the DAP nor the MCA would do it because Zam is tweeting it from a ketuanan platform, and anything to do with ketuanan or Malay, it is suppose to be sacrosanct whereas Chinese are fair game.

Well, fuck the Zammies, fuck their ketuanan. And fuck the Malaiyoos. How could a bunch of coconut tree dwellers who wear color bed sheets for trousers know anything about urban civilization? Not true? Ask the Sungai Besar village idiot and nuthead named Jamal Yunos: he was there in Chinatown on behalf of Najib Razak and Umno, threatening Chinese their lives, property and schools.

Malays, pirates to begin with, have never ceased in their grab-and-run conduct and attitudes, best reflected in the 1MDB scam. Today Malays still eye Chinese property with a mixture of jealousy, insecurity and rage. Ketuanan provided the political foundation and justification for Malaiyoos to steal, hide then pretend.

Malays as architects is a joke. What grand Reichstag vision can they have when their lives, 24/7, are spent surrounded by baking hot swamps and mosquitoes. Even Putrajaya had to be built on foreign designs, foreign labor and the US dollar. In the meantime, Zam would scratch his balls with the same hands he eats tosai out of banana leaves. Is that suppose to be Malay greatness? Ketuanan was, after all, manufactured, stuffed in a bottle labelled Umno where empty of true wine it is filled with Kadir Jasin’s Nusantara urine. Without an actual history (other than those imagined by Zam), without any theoretical basis, ketuanan was doomed from the start, surviving all the while only by putting down other peoples and beating up imagined enemies.

Is it any wonder why Muhyiddin Yassin should spit at the Chinese UEC examination syndicate? Out of Umno, he still needs Umno, he needs ketuanan and needs Malay. He is Malay, you see, and Malays like him were always a spineless lot, even a thousand crutches aren’t enough to hold their tongues to talk straight.

Gleefully, therefore, we watch Malay ketuanan turn into Malaccan shit.


Ketuanan Zammy, the Malay Fraud

Dulu Orang Cina, Kini Negara Cina

On the face of it, Mahathir Mohamad’s fight with Najib Razak appears to concern national issues of ethics (1MDB theft versus upright conduct) and law (corruption versus fiduciary responsibility). But is it?

Immediately above is the screen capture of a tweet by Zam the Mahathir stooge, ex-Utusan, ex-Information Minister (that is, ex-Umno propagandist), so, like Mahathir a has-been. The genesis of his remarks is a Mahathir blog entry criticizing Najib for selling land to foreigners.

By foreigners, the pendatang Mahathir meant the Chinese, of course. It didn’t matter if the Chinese are from Malaysia or China (or India or ‘Nusantara’) — the pendatang are, to begin with, foreigners so that, in a backhanded way, he could, so as to defeat Najib, tell the kampung: ‘we’re still watching the Chinese to look after the Malays‘. Better than that, he could add the emotive phrase, ‘selling out‘. Kampung Malays are not expected to, and probably won’t, remember that Malacca and Selangor sold swathes of land and seashore to Arabs to build some idiotic ‘model Islamic city’. On that, Mahathir is expected to say nothing.

Malay politicians, in Umno or outside, all pendatang, along with their hangers-on (Ahi Attan, Kadir Jasin), will forever find an anti-Chinese angle in whatever each other does, or doesn’t do.

Sprinting to Najib’s defense, the Najib man Nazri Aziz called Mahathir ‘mad’. Nobody, of course, believes Nazri has the Chinese in his heart when defending land sale to China. He does and says what comes so naturally to Malays, almost without exception: hypocritical, deceitful, racist, and always political, always.

A good monkey stooge that he is, Zam came biting back, hence his tweet above. (By now, it is clear Melayu lawan Melayu is a hilarious, comical sight.) Even that isn’t the point, though. What is, is that whenever a Malaiyoo opens his big mouth and wags his tongue, there is always a political, racial slant in their word-meanings. Even to save foreigners, the Rohingyas, since especially they are Muslims, it is a political, racist act; expect no Malays to be humanitarian. That word is not in the Malay consciousness nor Muslim lexicon.

A chunk of Kelantan is flooded and from Najib down ministers queue up to be photographed, smiling with the glum-looking homeless, taking selfies, tweeting, always tweeting, then plastering their faces all over the papers. They present themselves as if the monsoon floods happen once in a lifetime, not every December and January, and here, thus, was yet another political opportunity.

Even the motherfucker named Ahmad Maslan tweeted the grinning Malay deputy prime minister (apanama dia?) with the title: Ketepi Kepentingan Politik: Demi Rakyat. So much for the Good, Super Tolerant Malaiyoo. If you were Chinese, however, Maslan would watch you drown, scratch his balls, take a pic then tweet your face under the banner: Ketepi Kepentingan Politik: Demi Melayu.

These incorrigible Malaiyoos….

The entire fulcrum of Zam’s remarks couldn’t be a psychological or a pathological question of Mahathir’s mental condition — a sick, demented man — because Zam didn’t offer a diagnosis. He offered instead an Umno, therefore, political account of Chinese occupying cities such as Kuala Lumpur then disguised the account as history because, after that, nobody could say he is wrong.

Malaysian history had been wronged in even the text books and since there has been a thing called Malay.

Out of swamps, the Chinese diaspora build cities while Malays sat on their asses, looking on. How could kampung people build cities? They have no such vision, no such culture and no urban civilization. Thus was the capital city of Malaya, later Malaysia, build by the pendatang, foreigners, Chinese. People like Kadir Jasin had city streets to drive on; was it a British Bentley? Ahi Attan had nightclubs to swing his pig tail. Ismail Sabri could sell phones. Imagine, what a new life!

Cities when completed, Malay politicians, the Mahathirs of his era, always insecure, always covetous, looked not at working with the Chinese, thanking them much less. Instead they scoff at, fumed, then with fingers pointing started their racist bigotry: balik Cina, pendatang, hapuskan Chinese schools. Hear this often enough and threatened, the Chinese did leave. It meant Malays could empty the city then seize building and land, paying for it either cheap or with no money in the name of bumiputra rights.

Cities provided the focal point of Malay racism and ketuanan, both of which provided in their turn the justification to bludgeon the Chinese, the perfect scapegoat for Malay greed and thievery — the same sort greed and thievery that characterize Najib’s plunder of national resources through 1MDB.

Zam wasn’t interested in history for his defense of Mahathir nor in its illumination of what Malays own and didn’t own, of what Malays had threatened to seize and then stole. His so-called history is designed for a racist, political purpose, the same one repeated from 50, 60 years ago for yet another political, electoral campaign, this time against Najib and Umno, never mind that Forest City in Johor was yet another set of ammunition, especially since it involves the Chinese.

Each time they find an opening, Malays look for an electoral score, even for something as amoral or as benign as economics. They troll our ministers and civil servant to make stupid statements but politically beneficial. Take, for example, the Treasury’s secretary-general Irwan Serigar Abdullah.

He has to be heard to be believed and it wasn’t just that he was plain wrong: that is, GST has no substantial effect on the poor (Clip A). He actually lied: poor economic performance is a matter of perception (Clip B).


Malaiyoo Ketuanan Economics

Clip A: Ketuanan on Handouts

Irwan Serigar: “Here’s your ketuanan, Malaiyoo! GSTless food supplied by Umno.”

But, Tuan, ta’da duit.

“No duit? We gave you BRIM, you lazy Malaiyoo loafer!”


GST is only the name of a form of tax (like corporate tax is another form), properly known as Value-Added Tax or VAT. Unlike, say, income tax, GST happens whenever a transaction is made (through an invoice, for an example). Consumption is presumed to have taken place.

Serigar says the poor are unaffected because fish, fresh meat, paddy and flour are not taxed but only at that point of transaction, not with the products that contained those ingredients. A hamburger produced from flour and meat loaf is taxable, and so, too, a bowl of noodles. This is the cascading effect in GST.

Striking at every point of consumption, McDonald is required by law to bill you GST at every sale. The other, especially painful part is the level of tax, 6 percent, then multiplied several times for GST imposed on rent, electricity, water, meat loaf, cooking oil and others. (This explains why developed countries keep the GST at a low 2 percent, but not Najib’s Malaysia.) All that — 6 percent piled on 6 percent on 6 percent and so on — means McDonald had in effect raised its hamburger price before slapping a final 6 percent on the hamburger bill.

The only way for the poor to be unaffected is to barricade themselves in the jungle and never see money again or another human being. Otherwise, you’d get the two charts below, in particular Chart Y. There, prices of food and non-alcoholic beverages have risen in just one year since GST by 30 percent (Index 3.8 – 2.5 = 1.3 x 100).

Things get worse with the slump of the ringgit, making every drop of grain of paddy or pound of meat incredibly expensive because more ringgit than before is now required to pay for every import which are payable only in USD or Sing dollars.


Chart X: The Rise and Rise of Ketuanan Makanan

In both charts, food have galloped way ahead of overall prices, raising the prospect that the poor must surely go out less, travel less and especially eat less (eat because the lower the income, the higher is the share spent on food, often as high as 90 percent). This would be necessary in order for a fixed given income to cover higher rents, school books and uniform, a pair of shoes. Watch for malnourishment next door, the signs of which are a big, distended belly, thin arms and legs. Kids are the first to be struck down.


Chart Y: Holy Ayah! Nasi under 1

Clip B: The Lie

As if being misleading wasn’t enough, Serigar went on to lie, which wasn’t difficult to pinpoint. No economics necessary, but pure reason: On a daily basis, Najib’s government troll our dozens of Serigars to mouth platitudes and say all’s well. Has Serigar been delivering perception then failing? All that he says is nothing but pure perception — that is, lying to himself and the rest of the world.


梁茜雯 Liang Chien-wen in Taiwan: always so good, so deft. No ketuanan necessary to inspire her.

Coconut Malaiyoo: don’t even have instruments to play music with. And Fahmi Reza, below, has to flee to the Chinese (in Taiwan) to escape from … ketuanan, from Malaiyoos! What a mess, these Malays. Truly, Fahmi epitomizes the Fall of Ketuanan — running to the Chinese — like no other Malays before, not even Anwar Ibrahim who hides in a Turkey’s ass instead.


Fahmi, Welcome to Zhongguo, land without shit Melayu Ketuanan. So how? Can you survive here?



The Malay as Vomit

The Malay is such a bitch… and when the rest of the world don’t give a shit for them, not their silly looking baju nor their pendatang bangsa nor their copycat language, they eat one of their own, as dogs eat their vomit.


Faiz, here’s your solution: Don’t be a fucking Malay, ketuanan or no ketuanan. Ever.

Mahathir, Umno then Utusan and every other Malay ever since had been lying to you, cheated you. The Melayu is, if you’d think about it, is no big deal. No, he’s a political scam, a hoax, like 1MDB is a scam. You know 1MDB?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »