Archive for the ‘Malaysia: Dialogue’ Category


Multiracial MCA? No shit

Liow Tiong Lay’s argument (clip above) rests entirely on the western, Anglophile cultivated myth that being Chinese or the word ‘Chinese’, like the word ‘black’ or ‘white’, is a racial group. This is patently false.

Look at China. Read its history, go back to Sima Qian (司馬遷 who wrote the shiji 太史公書). Look at the rule by Mongolians and Manchus. Chinese is not an ethnic notion that white is ethnic. It is a cultural term, and a civilization-state, so that it is not inconsistent to say there are today Miao Chinese, Yao Chinese, Zhuang Chinese, Mongolian Chinese, and 52 other ethnics within China today.

Jian is Miao but she is Chinese, talks Chinese, practices Chinese customs, reads Chinese, and loves me (to a fault), who is a Han Chinese. Likewise, Korean is culture, or Japanese, both of which have distinct identities that were shaped by Chinese civilization and ideas. For an example, look at the (south) Korean flag; it is Chinese, that is, the idea is Daoist, also having originated in a land called China.

Hence, being culture, it was easy for China to tolerate different systems of government, one in Hong Kong, in Taiwan and Macau without any of which losing the Chinese cultural identity.

Hence, too, being culture, it was easy for Anglophile Lim Guan Eng to say he is not Chinese, and we Chinese won’t throw a fit. He is welcome to leave — good riddance, we’d say — because we know, he knows, and everybody knows, he is an Anglophile, a fucked-up piece of Banana, yellow outside, white inside. Ridhuan Tee is only Chinese in name and so, too, characters like Yeo Bee Yin, KTemoc, Wong Chen, Lisa Ng and Joshie Ah Hong. If, on the other hand, Malay first Anwar Ibrahim were to declare he is not Malay, Pakatan will face a riot the next day in Putrajaya. Lina Joy discover that the hard way.

To conclude: MCA must remain true to its identity because that’s all you have, which isn’t something you buy in a supermarket — unless Liow wants to be an Anglophile or Muslim. Or, Allah forbid, Malaysian First, whatever the fuck that is.

Just be Chinese, Mr Liow. It’s the most natural thing; it’s what we are. And we’ll be okay. 无为, Mr Liow, 无为.



MCA, Umno treaty: No more wedded under Barisan

Six decades of Umno maligning the Chinese have led to DAP’s victory. Behind the backs of the Chinese, the DAP is now doing Umno’s dirty work so, if this seems bizarre, consider this: it took the most conservative, hawkish American president to make a deal with communist China, leading thus to US-China normalization.

The same counter-intuitive rule applies because who would believe it? Lim Guan Eng is suppose to be Chinese. How could he be maligning Chinese? But therein is the catch…. Is he Chinese? Looks like one, sounds like one, but is he?

In the circumstances, an MCA and Umno alliance treaty is a feasible alternative, going forward. The Barisan coalition of tying together the two parties within a single, superstructure is proven counter-productive and, now, passe.

What is there to object anyway if Barisan breaks up: Umno has repeatedly said, it never needed the Chinese. Nor, do we need Umno.


Y Z, you poor thing, having to write in English: Try the spin again, Taiping woman, and tell us truthfully next time, why.



The following is taken from YZ Chin in LitHub (the title is mine):

Malaysian in NY wonders why she writes in English

One of the very first questions I wrestled with as a writer was this: Why write in English, the colonizer’s language, when I have others at my disposal? I grew up acquainted with three languages; my grandparents immigrated from southern China to Malaya, which was a British imperial territory. So if I didn’t write in Malay, didn’t that make me unpatriotic? And if I didn’t write in Chinese, didn’t that make me a “race traitor?” Why English?

English is intricately woven into my family history. When my grandparents first came to occupied Malaya, they worked for the British. For some time they lived apart, my grandfather cooking meals for colonial officers while my grandmother worked as a nanny for British children in a different part of the country. I never heard either of them speak English, but in my imagination, the few English phrases they did know formed the language of intimate care: Please enjoy the food. Are you warm enough? Have another helping. Did you sleep well? Don’t cry. I’m here.

I suppose they learned as much English as allowed them to forge new lives. It was both a choice and not, just as it was and was not for me as I haltingly attempted to piece together a self through literature. I did not see myself in my Malay textbooks about boys who formed interracial friendships. Neither could I find myself in the Tang poems my parents encouraged me to memorize, which featured ancient men in long-sleeved robes drinking alcohol and being sorrowful (only later in life would I come to relate to that). It was in English books that I saw a sense of adventure and escape that I identified with, as embodied by British children daringly solving mysteries or circumventing adult cruelty.

I acquired English differently from the other languages I used in daily life with my parents. I became proficient solely through reading, without a corresponding speaking component. So at first English seemed to be an abstract, fantastical thing with no real-world application, and this lent itself to boundless dreaming much more than the other languages did. I gravitated toward the stories in my English books because I thought the lives depicted within were so far removed from mine; they gave me the space to imagine new ways of living.

It wasn’t until I encountered the poetry of Shirley Geok-lin Lim that I saw how naïve this view was. I was introduced to her work in the last place I’d thought to look: school. It was a place I associated with casual disdain for the arts in favor of science and mathematics—literature wasn’t introduced as an official component of English language studies for secondary school students until the 21st century. I was among the first waves of students who got to read fiction and poetry for school; prior to that, literature was considered fluff, extra, a hobby. School also seemed propagandistic to me, so I was prepared for dreary, moralistic tales about the value of being upstanding citizens. And although some of the assigned reading did fall into that category, what I remember most is Lim’s “Monsoon History”:

Again we are taken over
By clouds and rolling darkness
Small snails appear
Clashing their timid horns
Among the morning glory

Drinking Milo,
Nyonya and Baba sit at home.
This was forty years ago.

My mind was blown. Here was a poem set in a Malaysian fishing village, written by a Malaysian writer who obviously had intimate love for the landscape, from its damp air to its snails, gnats, and termites. And people in the poem drank Milo, something I did every single day! But they also read Tennyson (“Reading Tennyson, at six / p.m. in pajamas”). The reference seemed jarring at first, yet wasn’t it a mirror of my own life? Was it any stranger than a girl in small-town Malaysia reading Archie comics from the library? That was when I started questioning: why Tennyson? Why, for that matter, Milo? It wasn’t a local invention, but the drink had become such a staple of everyday life in Malaysia. There must be a reason for that.

Once I started trying to find answers, they were everywhere in plain sight, like the hill my small town was known for, which has two names: one that belonged to the colonial officer who “discovered” the hill, and a local name people started using after the colonizers left. I gained an inkling of understanding that, as a postcolonial writer and reader, I am not as removed from the problems of English as I’d assumed. I drew a line from Tennyson in Lim’s poem to my grandparents’ careworn faces, their tight-lipped refusal to speak about their pasts. I finally saw that English was not a language of escape for me, but that it rather represented a painful negotiation between myself and my environment. My family had used English like a tool to carve out a living. Perhaps I, too, could wield English to reinvent myself—or my selves, as in the case with writing fiction.

So yes, I decided to write in English. I don’t see this as capitulating to a colonizing language, however; I see it as an act of acknowledging history and of claiming space. Lim’s poem, “Learning to Love America,” speaks to this:

because it has no pure products

because the Pacific Ocean sweeps along the coastline
because the water of the ocean is cold
and because land is better than ocean

because I say we rather than they

The magic of this poem is that Lim has assembled, out of English words, a declaration of identity that is ambivalent and full of turns, a kind of feint that claims a space (“American”) while leaving room for so much more. It got me thinking: what kind of layered identity could I create for myself, if I, too, claimed the language and used it the way I wanted to? Even the resignation in the poem’s ending lines—“because it is late and too late to change my mind / because it is time”—spoke to me, reminding me that I, just like anyone else, am shaped by forces that are beyond me, long in motion. This has a kind of perverse comfort; if I am thus shaped, then might I not be participating in the shaping of forces to come, even though my efforts may seem puny and the effects invisible so far? And why not participate while wielding the language that so shaped my family? As Elaine Castillo puts it in her essay: “The reason I write in English, and the reason I use untranslated words, are one and the same, the punchline to that rambling, viciously grim joke also known as history.”

Here I am, writing in English, which is mine because my grandparents used it to survive, and because I have written my truth in it. Encountering Tennyson in a monsoon poem helped me become more critical of how I pieced myself together and of my relationship to language. I believe in literature’s ability to connect us. But I also think it can help us discover the ways we are ensnared. And that is the first step to doing something about it.



YZ Chin, The Horror, The Horror

No doubt, the essay merely reflects Chin talking, arguing, to herself. So we’ll take her word at it. Which is to answer, “Why did she write in English?”

The question is pivoted on the unstated assumption (conveniently left out) that she is equally proficient and good in the two other languages she grew up with, Malay and Chinese.

But is she equally proficient in all three?

1. On Malay, she asks, “So if I didn’t write in Malay, didn’t that make me unpatriotic?” Which then begs other questions,

  • (a) Patriotism is demonstrable only in the Malay language? So then, ethnic Malay equals Malaysia? There is only one ethnicity equaling nationalism and this is Malay? To be Chinese is implicitly not a Malaysian?
  • (b) Where and what is the causal relationship between language and patriotism?

2. On Chinese, she asks, “And if I didn’t write in Chinese, didn’t that make me a “race traitor?” Who, which Chinese, has ever call her a ‘race traitor’? What is being a ‘traitor’ to a race? I write in English yet nobody in China calls me a ‘race traitor’. Instead, I am encouraged to do so, presenting China to a hostile Anglophone world. If this is true of me, then she must be imagining ethnocentrism as a peculiar Chinese trait.

Although proficient in Russian and English, Vladimir Nabokov in his later years, wrote only in English (Lolita). Does that make him a traitor to Russia?

If Chin were simply to be honest as to why she writes in the ‘colonizer’s language’ (English), she would say she isn’t proficient enough to write in either Chinese or Malay. Besides, writing in America in Chinese or Malay will not sell books. No buyers. And that would be the end of the matter.

But, for her to justify her ‘colonizer’s language’ suggests the Anglophile in her and her Anglophile prejudices: Tang poems … featured ancient men in long-sleeved robes drinking alcohol and being sorrowful whereas Tennyson brings out, gloriously, her “identity” in a ‘low-class’ mosquito swamp called Malaysia. And, if that’s all she has learned in Tang poetry, it showed she has learned nothing about Chinese literature.

Like numerous western educated up and down Malaysia, Chin is case exemplar not only of a disgusting, deceitful Banana (like Yeo Bee Yin and countless others) but a completely fucked up woman.

If Chin wants to write in pigshit, write. Whining about it, playing a ‘colonizer’ victim, will not hide her racist character — and a lying, fucking cunt that she is — all that on display in third-rate English. Eat your heart out, Chinny.



China will not be made fodder

Every five years, when Malays fight Malays and the local Chinese are required to choose sides, they are used as ammo. To which the Chinese have paid with blood.

Because the DAP has chosen Mahathir Mohamad, MCA must now break away from Barisan in order to free the Chinese to decide.

Unlike the local Chinese who are turned into dedak at every internecine Malaiyoo war, China will not be made into fodder.

Don’t mess with us, you piece of mamak. Consider this, as yet again, a warning… Ignore it at your peril.



Behind the smile, the Salafist fascist


All the smiling faces above are Salafist fascists. The one brought to the seat of central power, thanks to the DAP (again), is the one on the left.


In the way, Anwar Ibrahim let into Malaysia radical Islamism 30 years ago, and also the way the DAP let PAS and hudud into mainstream politics and, now, Pakatan Harapan has let into the Cabinet yet one more fascist, Maszlee Malik.

Malaysia never learn, Malaiyoos never learn; they fall so easily for smiles, appearances and propaganda.

The propaganda: Ten years ago radical Islam was touted as ‘PAS for All‘. Now, DAP’s Ong Kian MIng has declared Maszlee Malik clean as a whistle. Look at his “impressive CV,” says Ong,  who himself — surprise? — is the sort you would imagine of Jerry Falwell.

Maszlee’s CV is impressive?

Durham is impressive? The International Islamic University is impressive? Before he was recruited into active politics, Maszlee taught at IIU, the sort of den (Guess who set it up?) that breeds the like of Osama bin Ladin and others who’d recruit some out-of-work assholes to mow down people on European streets.

…on second thoughts, we should let him into the Cabinet.

He will help speed up Malaysia’s self-immolation, like in the Middle East and the north African Muslim countries. In fact, the more Maszlees the merrier. Related image



Read Full Post »

…49 years to the day. And Umno is destroyed in the same hands that made it. Justice, balance, harmony are restored. Zhuangzi莊子 was right:Wuwei 无为; most effective way is, act but effortlessly.

Truly, home. 心爱的 还有十个小时到

Read Full Post »

Dear Mr Lim Kit Siang,

Malaysia ‘a model to the world’? Grand words that even Stalin knew how to say.

After which you go on with the yada, yada about ‘independence, efficiency and professionalism’ as if these are classroom behavior matters you carry out by snapping the teacher’s finger. Mr Lim, you don’t even know what it is you are saying.

You talk about ‘national unity and reconciliation’ yet you have the country’s greatest, biggest, most virulent, longest-running divisive power sitting on top of the political pecking order. Make a guess who?

And you have the nerve to patronize us about ‘unity and reconciliation’.

Farther down you add, ‘This is not a time for vengeance and petty-mindedness.’ Have you not been listening to campaign speeches from your party comrades, for example, Nga Kor Ming, Hew Kuan Yau, Hannah Yeoh, and your son Guan Eng? These are on record and I suggest you go back to listen and pay attention, now that you have the time.

“Harapan,” Rais Hussin says, “did not challenge the previous government merely out of sheer caprice, or of wanting to go one up on then-prime minister Najib Abdul Razak.”

Yes, of course, he, you and Mahathir are in it to ‘save Malaysia’.

How to save Malaysia? According to Rais, get ‘triple-A sovereign risk rating’. Sure, even junk bonds are issued triple-A. Do you know nothing about the subprime mortgage crisis? Or, have you learned nothing?

One more thing, Mr Lim, go fuck your mother.



Postscript: You want Triple-A? Look up the Americans. Try Goldman Sachs as well – am sure they will help. Or is it that Wong Chen has already done that? You know who is Goldman Sachs, Uncle Kitty?

Read Full Post »

GE14 results prove one thing: From hell and, now, back to it, Malaysia is the world’s top most stupid country.

If you are outside stay out. If Najib was bad, then Mahathir doing worse has nothing to lose. Soon, he’s going to be dead anyway.

Mahathir had been wrong on so many things, so many times, about Musa, Anwar, Badawi, about the Chinese — and Malays, too — about human nature, about the economy, about the world. Now, wrong about Najib Razak, he conflates the personal character failures of a man, a very human one at that, to bad governance.

Who’s to say Mahathir isn’t wrong again? And then what, Pakatan? That he will return from the grave to ‘make amends’, to ‘save Malaysia’? DAP and PKR thirsted after power so much they would do anything for it. Anything. They had won on pure propaganda, not with great ideas.

New Malaysia? Fuck Malaysia.


Watch this video below.

Regrets Kak Wan? Mr Lim? The clip plays the hesitancy again and again.

Pay attention, not to Mahathir, but Wan Azizah/PKR and to Lim Guan Eng/DAP. What does it say about the two parties that got together not because of Najib but because of Mahathir Mohamad? In the clip, they can’t even breath. Also watch Kit Siang’s demeanor whose party has 42 seats vs PPBM’s 13 and must play second fiddle. What happened to equality?

Kit Siang will now die worse than second class.

What does all that say of the tyrannical streak in Mahathir? What does it say of a man whose PPBM has just enough seats you can count on the fingers? And if that doesn’t humble him, what does the conduct say of a man laying claim to 122 seats as if he owns everything?

PKR scored 47 out of 51, DAP 42 out of 43. If there is indeed a Malay tsunami, why such a miserable PPBM count: 13 out of 52 seats? The mamak knows no shame.

This is the trouble with a marriage of convenience. This is the trouble with one logo contest; it limits choices and puts democracy in a straitjacket. Wait till the in-laws start to fight.

Game over? No way. When the deceitful squares off with the deceitful then someone, sooner or later, is going to pull out a dagger. No convenience store marriage is going to end happily after. Even the diapers have to be paid for.

Let’s be done with the country….


亲爱的 回来了


Update: Annie’s Stupid Malaiyoos

After Barisan nearly lost GE12 and 13, in spite of Mahathir’s support, questions arose about Chinese ‘loyalty’ to Malaysia, at Utusan for example. At Annie’s blog, she and her fan-mob feasted on that idea. When the chance came up, Annie struck:

The one below implied that Malays decide the Chinese fate, if we live or die.

At GE14 when more than 6 in 10 Malays voted against Barisan, Annie has nothing to say about Malay ‘loyalty’ to Malaysia.

It isn’t just Annie, of course. Over at all the Malay blogs (for example, the Malaiyoo who considers himself a ‘Dog‘) the same silence persists. Like them, Annie’s is a den of racists. In Malaysian political life, this is par for the course.

What’s however striking is the Malaiyoo display of incredible, hypocritical stupidity.

At Annie’s, Hew Kuan Yau (the DAP man who said let the Malays screw the Malays) is now considered a patriot! How? Because Hew supported the Umbrella protests in Hong Kong; it being anti-mainland China. A Malaysian Chinese supporter of a foreign, anti-mainland event is therefore patriotic? And this is the same supporter who has said, without qualification, that all South China Sea belongs to China. Period.

Why? Why? Why? Why are these Malaiyoos so stupid? Give them a generation they can’t fix a country and, now, they bring in a mamak to run the show, the same mamak who fucked it up in the first place. Hallelujah!

Good riddance Malaiyoos. And fuck you.

Postscript: Want to know something else, Malaiyoo RD? We threw the Umbrella Christians out of the universities, jailed and fined them then gave each one two criminal records to last them a lifetime. Out of jail, they will collect street garbage for a living. For your own sake, don’t mess with us. You are not up to it.


Read Full Post »

The Chinese have practical life lessons (video below) for Malays. Best therefore to learn from us. Forget Mahathir, forget Mohammed, and forget especially those towel heads; they have brought nothing but sorrow, death and fetus in trash cans.

The English subtitles are fairly accurate translations of the Chinese conversation. Reading it, ask yourself this, What is salient in the Wang family’s story? Tip: it’s not poverty.

An aside to that says why Mahathir Mohamad, being anti-Chinese, is also anti-Malay and anti-human. He is, in desert Abrahamic culture terms, the Satan.


The video clip above answers and answering it quite simply, too, this question: the cause of poverty.

Unlike Mahathir Mohamad who blamed the Chinese (and foreigners) for the problems of Malays, Wang Gangkui, the father in the story, doesn’t blame others.

On the contrary, he blames only himself for the family’s poverty: he did not study so have no education and no skills and knowledge. That is, he says of himself, he failed; he failed himself and everybody else around him, including his wife who left him and including the burdens of Ice Boy. There’s no money even for a hat.

Here as well is the other striking difference between Mahathir’s Anglophile culture and western outlook against that held by the Chinese he rules: Looking for solutions to failures, Mahathir looks outwards. In looking outwards, he would squeeze the Chinese to pay for the material and financial improvements to the Malay lot.

Since both problem and solution lay outside the Malay, so are the consequences. Hence, when a Chinese such as Robert Kuok got rich, it was because of the ‘key’ (Najib Razak) given him by the government.

The Chinese, on the other hand, look inward. In his self-examination, Wang urges endurance, frugality and pragmatism. In pragmatism he’d go to Kunming to work for money. He does not even blame the Chinese government for the reduced plots of crop land.

Such an attitude is highly Confucian: the archer misses the target, turns around to ask himself, why? He finds fault with nobody else, not even the bow, because that would be false.

Mahathir’s Anglophile culture, on the other hand, finds fault with everyone else but himself. Today, that fault finding is intellectualized away, explained away, by his hatchet men Rais Hussin and Wan Saiful Wan Jan (pictures below).

The intellectualization goes something like this: Because Malay problems are fundamentally the fault of the rest of the world, Chinese greed in particular, then it is the duty of government to fix the governance system.

This White man, westerner worldview is why the DAP and Mahathir fit like gloves to hand. It explains why the DAP, being Anglophile that it is, is never an intellectual force in policy formulation and why its political agenda relies, like Mahathir’s, from entirely emotional appeals that easily spilled into an anti-China crusade in order to fit Mahathir’s strategy to amass power — for themselves, of course.

Up against the Malaiyoo whistle boys Rais and Saiful, even the DAP lynch mob is speechless. These pathetic assholes.

Thus, from within the ranks of Harapan, is cultivated and produced useful idiots (Rais Hussin), speaking with English-style eloquence about reforms on the results produced by his father. He sees no contradiction. This is because Harapan parties no longer care for consistency and rationality. All that they have against Barisan power is a morality play on emotions: 1MDB robs the future generations, yada, yada, yada.

Producing the opposite results to the original intent, their contradictions are visible everywhere.

An example is this. When Rais and Saiful extol the virtues of a past, minimal government, there has only been more government, and more, and more, until government today has intruded into every facet of life, Malay life especially, from praying and Malay lifestyle to the jobs they eventually take up.

Of course, Mahathir bragged that there are today more Malay doctors than before the NEP days. True, he has produced doctors his standard, doctors who examine patients with a pencil, these small town Panadol GPs who can’t tell which end of the syringe is for injection. This irrationality assumes that without the NEP there won’t be more doctors. The stupid Malaiyoo that he is, Mahathir can’t recognize his own irrationality and the DAP lynch mob doesn’t call him out — for further assuming that there is no other way to produce more Malay doctors, and better ones at that, better than those who graduate from Mara.

Malaysia has been through the same rigmarole that’s being hounded as Najib Razak’s failures. In Harapan, Mahathir with his new mouthpieces, Rais and Saiful, talk grandly of reforms to the system they cultivated. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

This is Mahathir’s last gasp.


Mahathir’s Pipe-Piper Boys


Above and below, Saiful and Rais are today the new whistle boys for Harapan and Mahathir combined. On the Malaysiakini platform, they pipe into the blue, as if some social science intellectual star on a save Malaysia mission.

At the end of whistling, what is it they really want? It is to reinstall Mahathir….

Then look behind their credentials what does one further find? Saiful is a fascist, who believes in the supremacy of some camel herder voodoo god named Allah, the same Allah from the towel heads Nik Ibrahim and Hadi Awang. These Malaiyoos….


Hey Rais, when you came down from your kampung tree hut you left behind your dick brains, you piece of Malaiyoo pig.


Think Tong DAP


Liew Chin Tong: “Like that, like my dick, my tsunami days will end.”

And Mkini’s Steven Gan calls him a political ‘strongman’? Some strongman… when he can’t string a coherent argument in two sentences.

Like Rais is to Islamic Bersatu, Think Tong Anglophile is to Christian DAP. But look at the duck face, waffling in his tongue, saliva oozing. Are you sick, Mr Liew?


Mahathir, Malaiyoo Satan



No, we don’t have to tolerate ‘lesser evils’

Maryam Lee (above) is correct — up to a point, the non-tolerant part. After which, it is where she falters and falters badly. How does she know a thing is evil if not because there is a good? Here’s an answer tip: only evil could make possible for good to exist.

Round and round Maryam goes in a merry-go…


This is the trouble with Christians, Muslims, and the DAP/PKR lynch mobs: they are so gweilos, so Anglophile.

Get real, Maryam, there is no evil in politics; there is just Najib Razak vs Mahathir Mohamad. Get the fuck out of the carousel and matters will clear. Forget the Pakatan lynch mob; they are just a pack of toothless barking dogs. Besides, what the fuck do they know?

But, if you still want to see true evil for what it really looks, Allah has told us (you weren’t listening then): He is Mahathir Mohamad, the Syaitan of Malaysia.


三寸天堂 / 二胡

Three inches of heaven — erhu

Read Full Post »


Reply to Rais Hussin

In 1,138 words on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) subject, Rais Hussin (above) spent 800 words talking about the West. Those 800 plus words is, in Rais’s word, ‘telling’: it says of a man struggling to give an intellectual sheen to his fascist master’s voice — Mahathir Mohamad’s.

Rais’s language is also telling about his motives, pouring scorn on China by dressing it up like he is offering rational argument. Let’s start, therefore, as Rais did, with Teresa May. (For a full text of the Rais diatribe, see further below.)

Rais: Why did May pass on the chance to ingratiate herself with President Xi Jinping’s signature project?


Let’s consider the Rais syllogism, that is, his irrationality. In Beijing, May didn’t say no nor yes. So, what is it then to ingratiate? If May ingratiate herself with Xi, then Rais Hussin will do likewise? And how will Rais ingratiate? Stick his prick out of his pants for Malaiyoo dogs to lick?

More to the point: Since when did China asked for May’s endorsement? Or Britain’s? This is because BRI is not a project, much less a ‘signature’ project of Xi Jinping. We Chinese, and that includes Xi, do not need endorsement from Malaiyoos, the British much less, for what we want to do. Hence, if, indeed, there is a ‘signature project’ it is not even outside China but inside. China and the Chinese matter more to us, and to Xi, than the like of Mahathir or Rais Hussin; we don’t need to curry favor their arses.

BRI, hence, is an initiative, an idea. You are welcome to participate, join in for the benefit of all, or to toss it aside: the choice is not ours, only the suggestion is. If you are paranoia and xenophobic, seeing ghost at every turn, like Donald Trump and Mahathir, then don’t bother with our idea. Fuck off, so you can stop making threats like Mahathir is wont to do all the time.

A Pakatan Harapan government, if it comes to that, is welcome to cancel all the projects undertaken under Najib Razak’s administration. You think we don’t know that and still went ahead to make those deals?


Rais: To begin with, May wasn’t sure if BRI could succeed.

The syllogism again: How does Rais know what May doesn’t know? It is queer isn’t it, May isn’t sure BRI would succeed but Rais is sure that it would fail. And what is it to succeed? Measured by what? How long?

This is the trouble with make-pretend intellectual Anglophiles like Rais. He thinks in terms of English verbiage — success, failure and that sort of thoughts — that pretends there is solidity to wind. So, as Hannah Yeoh would say, he is ‘low class’.


Rais: …it was actually the Reaganite and Thatcherite revolution of “small government” that transformed the world with former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad doing his earnest best to create a smart partnership that combined the private and public sector throughout the 1980s.

Well we know what that ‘smart partnership’ has led to in the present. Don’t we? Toll roads, MAS, Perwaja, Proton and on and on and on and on.

And did Rais actually say ‘small government revolution’? Does that man even know any elementary economics? Any at all? Has he any idea what was US government debt before Reagan and after? This guy, Rais, is pathetic. His scholarship ineptitude and his woolly language hark back to the opening remarks of this posting: “a man struggling to give an intellectual sheen to his fascist, master’s voice — Mahathir Mohamad.”


Replying to little media hacks such as Rais is tiresome. So we’ll just cut to the chase.


Rais: Harapan is not anti-trade nor anti-China. They are simply pro-Malaysia and pro-trade for development that can benefit the people, not just the Umno/BN or PAS elites.

Harapan not anti-trade nor anti-China? Yes, of course, not. Rais is also not anti-China. Only Mahathir is. He was never anti-Chinese; he is just pro-Malay.

Again, back to the point: the fact that Rais has to repeat, for the umpteenth time, that apologia of a statement is revealing. It shows Harapan, Bersatu in particular, is a racist, fascist endeavor no different from Umno when Mahathir was readmitted into the party and the government by Abdul Razak.


From Malaysiakini, by Rais Hussin

‘I am not racist. I am simply pro-fascist.’

COMMENT | British Prime Minister Theresa May, in her recent trip to China, politely declined to endorse the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) of China.

Had she done so, a post-Brexit Britain, which must happen by March 29, 2019, would have found a way to return to Asia Pacific in a big way. That is after returning Hong Kong to China in 1997 too.

But why did May pass on the chance to ingratiate herself with President Xi Jinping’s signature project? After all, BRI seeks to physically connect China with 64 countries across Euro-Afro-Asia continent.

Even Turkey is a member of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), despite not being a dialogue or sectoral partner of Asean or the Asian Development Bank in any way.

If Turkey wants to get into European Union, which is still comprised of 27 member states, and at the same time benefit from the same logic of the BRI, which has even more marketplaces to exploit and explore, why can’t London do the same?

Even Japan, knowing that the US under President Donald Trump has looked inward to jettison the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), has looked favourably at the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP) backed by China and other Asian countries.

In other words, when an economic agreement promises more marketplaces and opportunities, it is a good thing to follow up on it no matter whether it is called ‘One Belt One Road’ or just BRI.

In fact, by the end of 2016 alone, BRI-related investment in Malaysia alone shot up by 116 percent. according to Hong Kong Trade Development Council.

Surely, if Malaysia can enjoy such a huge spike in Chinese investment, the same can be claimed by Britain with or without Brexit in the background; perhaps especially because of Brexit since access to European Union would have been shrunk by some 26 peer states that Britain could have otherwise claimed as fellow members.

Yet, May and her foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, refused to accept the BRI even while on a visit to Beijing itself. This British attitude is telling. And, a new Malaysia, ideally with a new government able to displace and replace the corrupt Umno/BN government, should take note of Britain’s attitude.

To begin with, May wasn’t sure if BRI could succeed. If such a massive geopolitical project failed, it would be akin to various African and Latin American countries calling for the New International Economic Order (NIEO) in the chambers of the UN General Assembly in the mid-1970s.

Incidentally, the failure of NIEO happened despite the support provided by China when former paramount leader Deng Xiao Ping proclaimed the dawn of a new “Third World” which Chairman Mao had vouched to support. But NIEO failed anyway.

Instead, it was actually the Reaganite and Thatcherite revolution of “small government” that transformed the world with former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad doing his earnest best to create a smart partnership that combined the private and public sector throughout the 1980s.

While the supply-side or trickle-down economics of Reagan and Thatcher have their respective problems, leading to the rise of populist Trump and xenophobic Britain, Malaysia has seen the same problems.

In Malaysia, while the Umno/BN government continues to tout the growth of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), even a reduction of 0.1 percent of its Gini Coefficient that measures the inequity of income, truly Mahathir and the rest of his colleagues in Pakatan Harapan know that Malaysia hasn’t gained from deep and broad growth. After all, you cannot eat GDP.

Only 10 percent of the Malaysians paid income tax over the past ten years. Meanwhile, GST is imposed on Malaysians for every single transaction.

Predatory economics

Over the last three years, while BN government has collected an average of RM42 billion in tax revenue, no one knows how the money is actually spent – since the 16 percent of the development expenditure of the Federation of Malaysia is still taxed by one-quarter by the Prime Minister’s Office alone.

At any rate, May and Johnson could not endorse BRI because they are not even sure if BRI is the manifestation of what US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (photo) called “predatory economics”?

If it is, then the BRI of China is closely connected to the South China Sea and its islands of which Malaysia is also a rightful claimant.

As things stand, when Hong Kong gravitated towards the BRI, Moody’s credit rating agency this year downgraded the financial city’s credit rating. Aware that it is not seen kindly internationally, even the BRI is trying to get a friendly rating from Fitch and Standards and Poor’s.

For the lack of a better word, no one knows what is the totality of the BRI. When in a hole, stop digging. But Malaysia seems hell-bent on joining the BRI even without knowing the outcomes and deliverables other than what China had promised.

In 2015, some 1,500 BRI contracts were signed. But the Center of China and Globalisation in Beijing also admitted the US$1.4 trillion BRI project carries with it top political risks. Even China’s own AIIB confirmed to Financial Times that they can only assess a project on a case by case basis – not wholesale.

The Malacca Gateway project, for example, seeks to make Malacca the centre of entertainment, maritime engineering and abode of comfortable living.

On the side of Malaysia, it is supported by KAJD or KAJ Development. The fact is, Malaysians don’t know if these companies – real or merely acting as shells – have the capabilities and resources to complete all these massive projects.

To BRI or not to BRI?

If the BRI is good and sound and free from unnecessary corruption, the Malaysian government under Harapan will support it wholeheartedly. But if BRI or some specks of it carry the imprint of corruption, then Mahathir’s advice would have to be followed.

Contracts all awarded by Najib and his cabinet would have to be reviewed and audited again through stringent forensics. And any ill-gotten gain will have to be returned to the “rakyat” or the people.

To BRI or not to BRI, that is not the question. The question is do we know what is BRI at all, beyond the razzmatazz that Beijing has put up?

If the headlines are more glitzy and appealing than the reality on the ground, then the trade negotiators who have found these movies secure and comfortable in each of their well-nestled projects would have to start their negotiations anew – with full transparency.

After all, if Thailand can professionally push China into at least 18 rounds of negotiations for the Bangkok and Nong Chai High-Speed Railway project, why can’t Malaysia, which is a sovereign country, do the same?

Harapan is not anti-trade nor anti-China. They are simply pro-Malaysia and pro-trade for development that can benefit the people, not just the Umno/BN or PAS elites.

As Jeremy Corbyn famously declared: For the many, not the few.

Read Full Post »


How do you bury a tyrant who simply won’t lie down and die? Read him the Psalms?




Revisiting history avoids its future


Shuzheng: There is a term you have begun using, crypto-Mahathiristas. That was interesting in two parts. First. It reminds of crypto-currencies, of Bitcoins, things like that, which resonates with people who are completely unrealistic, just quacks, but they try to be more important than they really are and which they can only do online. But, the second part. Mahathiristas?  How did that come about?

Kua: Mahathir. Need I say more? The term ‘istas’ is a Latin derivative, an accusative form.

Shuzheng: An accusative form attached to a noun. In your case a name. Adding ‘istas’ to Mahathir’s name conjures the image of an army of slave soldiers, like little toys. Mahathir says jump and they will leap out of the Petronas towers.

Kua: Hahaha. Who’s going to catch them when they land?

Shuzheng: The Red Shirt platoon, I guess.

Kua: But let’s name names. Who?

Shuzheng: Muhyiddin Yassin. Mukhriz. Lim Kit Siang. These are the Mahathristas who make the Mahathristas argument that without Mahathir, Malaysia is finished, can’t save Malaysia.

Kua: Hahaha.

Shuzheng: You know the trouble with that argument, why it rings hollow. It is the flip side of the Umno argument that, without the party, the Malays are finished; the Chinese will control and eat them. So, without Mahathir, Malaysia is finished. How is a country doomed anyway?

Kua: It doesn’t, and it is just a fallacy. Civilizations come and go, people endure. Mahathir started on that way back in the 1970s. Mahathiristas are the extension of the Umnoputras. They presume there’s some purity, a pure state, in which lives a country. Like when a baby is born, people say it is pure innocence. That’s rubbish. But, worse than their presumption — this pure state to which politics could return Malaysia to — is their belief in their own stupidities. It is a very Christian thing, an Eden paradise. They are so indoctrinated from childhood.

Shuzheng: This pure state, I agree, has its religious roots, both Christian and Islamic. People who used to hate Mahathir now declare their love for him. How did that happen?

Kua: The truth? Or the Malaysiakini Guide to it?

Shuzheng: Of course the truth.

Kua: It is simple, really. Mahathir is a friend of Anwar, who is a friend of Lim Kit Siang, who was once married to Che Guevara, and Che was Jesus Christ, and Jesus is love, therefore we have to love Mahathir. And to save Malaysia.

Shuzheng: We have to? What’s going to happen if we love Mahathir and that doesn’t save Malaysia? Makes it worse?

Kua: Then we blame Najib Razak and Umno and PAS and the Elections Commission and everybody else.

Shuzheng: I see that you know your daodejing. Laozi: ‘A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves.’ Though you apply that ethical value to Kit Siang but is he even Chinese?

Kua: Well, he has a Chinese name, he does read Chinese, and he originates from Fujian.

Shuzheng: Read Chinese? A little yes. But he can’t string a proper sentence. Either way you put, it doesn’t fully qualify him as Chinese, not as far as we are concerned. Chinese history is replete with double-crossers and backstabbers. What I mean is, has he the consciousness of Chinese ethical culture so that when you tell him Laozi he understands? On the contrary, he is an Anglophile, a banana, yellow outside, White inside.

Kua: Anglophile? Careful there. I would be very close to it. My wife is White. Also remember I’m Marxist. Does that make me Anglophile?

Shuzheng: No. Minimally, you are not married to Jesus. So, no Anglophile there. But as a Marxist, it makes you a Chinese Marxist. And Marx hated the British capitalist system though he depended on it, materially. An Anglophile like Kit Siang knows nuts about Marxism. Don’t forget, he grew up with pigs. Literally. He went to Anglo schools and were fed on a biblical diet of English values, priorities, culture, Jane Austen, pastoral farms, preachers and that sort of thing. And he has internalized all that; he knows only that.

Kua: Then we’ll have to forgive him for being an Anglophile. It isn’t his fault.

Shuzheng: You are being presumptuous. The disease called Anglophilia is not inherited. It was acquired and that’s by choice.

Kua: Malaysia’s circumstances at the time were like that so there was little of an opportunity to be otherwise. Chinese education alone, not Malay nor Tamil, stood up against Anglo influence. Otherwise, we won’t be talking, would we? You come from a later generation so you were less susceptible to that influence.

Shuzheng: Now, you make me wish Kit Siang’s generation all die, the sooner the better. But Anglophilia is easily transferred. So you won’t find the end of them. The Mahathiristas are a variant of this Anglophile class. The crypto part is applicable only in the last two, three years.

Kua: Yes, of course. They speak English, think great of Parliament, of Bentham, talk only of politics in terms of power, and can cite only western ideas even if those ideas are dead ones. Which is why I chose the Laozi quotation. Anglophiles never think in those terms: the Anonymous, Invisible Great Leader. They want and need role models and heroes like those in Snow White baby stories.

Shuzheng: That makes them stupid. Morons?

Kua: Yes, in short. Absolutely. I’m sure you have read those Malaysiakini comments. All of them are very personal, against me, name calling and so on. The crypto-Mahathiristas could never find the core of the issue for pining after that tyrant. They think purely in terms of power, of winning, and not how they are going to come to acquire that power. This was Mahathir’s basis for rule: Get that power then do what you like.

Shuzheng: Those comments in Malaysiakini especially keep telling you to forget the past and ‘move on’, they say. Your answer to these crypto-Mahathiristas.

Kua: They can fuck off.

Shuzheng: That’s cryptic. But let me interpret that fuck off bit: we are talking to very stupid Malaysians, especially those online. They don’t know how to read, they know nothing of what politics is suppose to do, and they don’t know how to make an argument. In short, a pretty dumb crowd led by dumb politicians and written about by dumb journalists. They are modern, online soothsayers. Mahathir said Malaysia can be saved. So they say Malaysia will be saved by Mahathir. Is there anyone more dumb?

Kua: What to do? You can only hope that, out there, someone within the establishment is clever enough to sieve grain from fluff. Mahathir, for example, is not a clever man but that he has endured, it isn’t because his ideas were profound, not even good, but because no one has come forward to — or dare to – call him a charlatan. So it’s a long shot. To avoid the past, we will simply destroy the future. Look at the present: Is it not the future that Mahathir built from 30, 40 years ago that he now says is being destroyed and wants saved?

Shuzheng: You feel sorry for Malaysia?

Kua: No, not at all. It’s inevitable. A revolution is not a one-time event. It is a process.

Shuzheng: But it’s a process that needs, in Malaysia, a hero. You said so yourself. Any hero. Heroes are narcissistic. Malaysians can never save themselves because they love themselves too much. Instead, all want to save the country which they themselves made. Malaysians love heroes like liberals love John Locke  and Kant. Liberals ignore that Kant was a racist; he wrote (in ‘Physical Geography‘), ‘Humanity is at its greatest perfection in the race of the whites.’ Locke was another fucker. God, he said, gave the world ‘to the use of the industrious and rational’. By world, he meant North America, so white people had the right to the land of American native Indians. This is the same sort of fallacy and policy device Mahathir used against the Chinese to enrich his Malay cronies: Malays came first, therefore they are entitled to property at any price he sets. Now, he is hailed as a savior and the crypto-Mahathiristas are given him a second go at repeating the same Mahathirista method Najib uses to transact government property. Many crypto-Mahathiristas today are from your generation. What’s wrong with your generation?

Kua: Wrong? Haha. Too much Mahathir; too much religion; too much English, never enough Chinese…. Does that answer your question?

Shuzheng: Back to Anglophilia. Are you an Anglophile?

Kua: No, though I love scones and marmalade. Let me ask you a question in turn?

Shuzheng: Go ahead.

Kua: What have you got against Anglophiles?

Shuzheng: Nothing. I just don’t like the way they squat and shit. And then they pee all over the toilet bowl. They fart too loud. Don’t they have mothers to teach them toilet manners?

The Malays were naturally involved in the anti-Chinese campaign. But Anglophiles were at the forefront of it, a campaign of public shaming, public ridicule and absurd moral accusations of Chinese being greedy, malevolent and so on. It is like this #MeToo movement in the West. Which has gone too far, so far in fact that even touching a woman’s elbow is now considered sexual assault. Rape is a crime, now seduction is also a crime. Public shaming replaces due process. Chinese in Malaysia were treated like that, and worse, so being Chinese is a shame, even a crime. Mahathir launched it for its political objectives. But the media, especially in the English, people like Kadir Jasin, Ahirudin Attan, latched on to it. Later Ridhuan Tee, Hadi Awang, the Islamic types, all followed up. Everyone tended to overlook this racism just because their justification is political. But I think there is more to it. It’s another face of crypto-Mahathiristas, a bunch of fucking Islamofacists. And before they turn the country into another ISIS den, we should shoot the motherfuckers. Dead.

Kua: Is there no other way?

Shuzheng: You tell me.

Kua: For example, your shuzheng site. It is purposeful in standing up for being Chinese, to reverse this anti-Chinese bigotry.

Shuzheng: I see that these racist bigots, the crypto-Mahathiristas, are largely from your generation, speak and write mostly English, and so on. They tend to have fancy names like RD, Gladiator, Rocky, the Scribe, Big Dog, Tony, the Ponies and Joshies. What’s wrong with your generation? Is your generation a sick lot?

Kua: Sick? Probably. Why not if, as you often say, they will even fuck their own mothers.

Shuzheng: Thank you for talking to us, Mr Kua. I am glad you didn’t name yourself Pony or Prick Dog or something like that. But it’s okay if you name your next daughter, Annie the Lady.

All that above was imagined, of course.


In Malaysia…


Of the top ten losses, nine happened under Mahathir’s watch.


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »