Archive for the ‘Malaysia: Dialogue’ Category

The Confucianist Lee Hsien Loong

Few things irk the Chinese more than to see family matters laundered in public, given especially a family in public office. Anglophiles have no problem with that — they don’t know what’s propriety — hence Lee Hsein Loong’s brother and sister.

Properly raised, no Chinese would read into the clip, above, that Lee is a Chinese or that he is a famous Chinese PM or a PM with a hidden agenda, to save his political life. They see, on the basis of his arguments, tone and demeanor — above all, his apology and how he intends to remedy the damage — a good man instead, a man of virtue, properly raised. He was especially fair to himself.

But, what does Mahathir Mohamad see and hear? Why does he hate Singapore — that is, the Chinese — so much? What cause have we, the Chinese, given him to spit at us, even today? With Mahathir’s way, the Umno Malay way, the result is this.

Firdaus Abdullah at A Tale of Two Prime Ministers has rightly raised the pertinent points comparing Lee and Najib Razak. And not because one is Chinese, the other Malay, which bigoted racists like Ahi Attan and Annie of the Valley are wont to do, without batting an eye. This is, as it should be, the way to inspire true loyalty, the way to inspire confidence, the way to conduct relations, Malays among themselves and between Malays and Chinese: sincerity, introspection and virtue.

The Analects: 子曰。爲政以德、譬如北辰居其所而衆星共之。 [In transl.] The Master said: “If you govern with the power of your virtue, you will be like the North Star. It just stays in its place while all the other stars position themselves around it.”

[Muller’s comment] This is the Analects’ first statement on government. Scholars of Chinese thought have commonly placed great emphasis on a supposed radical distinction between Confucian “authoritative” government and Daoist “laissez-faire” government. But numerous Confucian passages such as this which suggest of the ruler’s governance by a mere attunement with an inner principle of goodness, without unnecessary external action, quite like the Daoist wu-wei are far more numerous than has been noted. This is one good reason for us to be careful when making the commonplace Confucian/Daoist generalizations without qualification.

Analects again: 有子曰。信近於義、言可復也。恭近於禮、遠恥辱也。因不失其親、亦可宗也。[In transl.] You Zi said: “When your own trustworthiness is guided by fairness, your words can be followed. When your show of respect is guided by propriety, you will be far from shame and disgrace. If you have genuine affection within your family, you can become an ancestor.”

[Muller’s comment] Fairness is one way of rendering of the Chinese yi 義, which we also translate in this text as Justice, according to the context. Although not quite as essential a concept as ren 仁, it is a strongly internalized human capacity. Being attuned to fairness allows people to do the proper thing in the proper situation, to give each person, place and thing its proper due. In the Analects and other Confucian texts, 義 has the specific connotations of fairness, or justice delivered in a situation when a person is in a position of power or authority. Thus, one of the greatest qualities to be possessed by teacher, a supervisor, a judge, a company owner, or the leader of any social circle is that of fairness, or justice, in treating those over whom he or she has power or influence.


Updated with Zainuddin Maidin

Zam: You tahu saya siapa?

Sure we tau, you’re some motherfucking Malaiyoo prick from Mahathir.


Why are you dragging PM Lee into your Malaiyoo affairs, Zam? So, what slap? Your character, indeed your entire life, is as vile and as base — and stupid — as it gets with an Umno Malaiyoo. While praying to your Allah, go fuck your mother, Zam. Especially if she’s dead. And if you aren’t satiated, fuck your father too.

Keep doing this Zam, we’ll know what we should do. Motherfucker.




China’s Revival (not the Spratlys)

In the following three video clips, China’s women have done it again, taking to a new high point in Chinese performing arts: dance + painting + music + poetry + theater + history

星月神話 Myth of the Constellation

(Play it on full screen.)




Where will you be the next millennium?
Beside you, will all be the same.
Our story is not the most beautiful
but, in this way, how hard it is to forget

If at the time we were altogether brave
would not the outcome be different,
would you not be chatting away,
or bury in your dream, your silence…


Jian dressed for rehearsal…

纵我不往,子宁不来? Even if I did not go to you, might you not come to me? / At the gate tower I look out anxious into the distance / Days are gone for so long without you beside me… How, for you, shall I and Motherland compete…


An Afterword

穿越時空 錯相逢
千年情緣 夢醒空
畫中踏情 夕陽紅
來世再見 已千年

It might be in time, a chance meeting be a mistake,
as if waking from a dream, one millennium away.
As if once stamped on canvas, a red sunset
is goodbye till we’d meet the next millennium, life.




[Video note: What you see isn’t a stage set, but on location in the old imperial palace grounds, Beijing. Play on full screen.]

青青子衿,悠悠我心 纵我不往,子宁不嗣音 青青子佩,悠悠我思 纵我不往,子宁不来 挑兮达兮,在城阙兮 一日不见,如三月兮。


Han Rejuvenation

Chinese etiquette and ritual culture, pivoted on tradition, beauty, arts, a value system and history:

Read Full Post »

The belly is an ungrateful wretch, it never remembers past favors, it always wants more tomorrow. — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich


One Day in the Life of Najib Razak

Sometime in 2012 or 2013 when hustling for votes, Najib Razak was often quoted to say, ‘Cash is King’. This is a curious remark because, if cash is king, what is the sultan for? What about Najib himself in his position as head of government? What are sultans and PMs? They count for next to nothing?

As the 1MDB saga unfolded the past two years there is also an increasing sense that, although money is king, it is also a lot of trouble. Sarawak Report‘s latest disclosures (mirror site) about the dozens of (mostly politician) recipients from Najib’s treasure haul at 1MDB and SRC are revealing into the depth of Umno’s political money culture, launched in the era of Mahathir Mohamad. That’s one part.

In another, SR disclosures explained, without meaning to, why Najib talked about ‘cash is king’. It reaffirmed a fundamental dilemma within Umno’s power structure which is, power and positions count for nothing without money.

Until Najib, the received wisdom (wisdom passed on by Mahathir and his fascist hotheads, Sanusi Junid being one) was the other way around: from power flows money, wealth and prosperity. This was also central to Umno’s determination to hang on its political hegemony. It became the guiding light in Mahathir’s national policies, teaching Malays, in turn, to believe that with power on its side, they are invincible and so could beat the Chinese financially.

In time those ideas turned up to be nothing more than a doctor’s pig shit, splayed out the last three decades that saw the rapid rise and equally rapid fall of towering Malaiyoos, from Perwaja, Proton to MAS, the depletion of institutional influences and the perils of power concentration. Worse for it, race relations got worse, not better: When Malays caught up, they got more greedy, more demanding and more fascist, and Umno was proof of Mahathir’s fallacy. Cash, taking the place of power, became king naturally.

Why when everyone was into it, including Mahathir; why, when everyone had a hand in pulling at the seams and sticking a hand in the pocket, pick on Najib to blame for the country’s state of affairs?

If people had wanted an icon for great misdeeds, Mahathir would be a far better representative, that man created the conditions for exploitation galore. If Najib is the indeed the country’s problem what then was his well spring?

Here was an Umno man before he was born, the Umno Mahathir would later refashion into his own image, a party dependent on largesse, forever demanding more, never letting up, perpetually dissatisfied. This set of situations is today acknowledged and reaffirmed in a party statement: Like head of some jungle tribe, the party chief is supposed to be the wealthiest who dispenses favors all round then once a year distributes cattle like they are Tan Sri badges.

But, Najib’s problems were also self-inflicted. They are the failures of a man made worse by circumstances then driven to insane levels. The two diagrams below explain how.


Two schematic illustrations of the same thing:

Diagram 1

Arrows indicate a direct connection whereas lines show relationships. Fraud and conspiracy are far more complex than murder so that the first requires a far greater and wider constellation of players (below), all of who must be paid off.

All of which merely goes to show that if Malaysia is rotten and if Najib is bad, Malaysians in general are worse. Worse because people like Steven Gan and Charles Santiago and Syed Akbar Ali and Wan Azizah, Lim Kit Siang think they are living saints. Counting starts from Mahathir Mohamad and Anwar Ibrahim.

Diagram 2


Murder was the easy part to cover because, with power and positions, Najib’s government could easily let Razak Baginda get away. Not where money was concerned though.

Note how, in the Diagram 1’s right side column, the number and range of people involved. This could only mean that for every one ringgit raised (by 1MDB or SRC) a large share of the monies would have to first go to an assortment of motherfuckers even before these whittled down sums of money are distributed to Umno divisions, to Sarawak and people like Shafee Abdullah.

Shafee is interesting because Najib could have gotten litigation for free from the Attorney-General Chambers. Instead Shafee, according to SR’s disclosures, was paid MYR9.5 million. In another way of looking at the same thing, Najib not only (like Ambiga) distrusted institutions, or their efficacy, he also faced limitations even with power and position on his side. Certainly, if SRC’s MYR 4 billion wasn’t enough to buy influence 1MDB would have to enter into the calculation, itself raising more than MYR 30 billion.

Najib having to pay for influence is entirely counter-intuitive. That’s also to say, there are things (laws and moral conduct, in this case) greater than the prime minister. But Najib’s personal experiences, and success, was to drill a hole right through Mahathir’s groins, which, all along, had proclaimed the supremacy of Malay government and with power on its side Umno will always be king.

Conversely, with all Malays united behind Umno, Malay power will be king.

Najib showed that if cash is king, then Mahathirism and Malaiyoo politics are a swine and a dog.

This raises a question about the Opposition coming into power, if at all: Can people in the DAP or Bersatu live on cow grass or run and manage the country on the fetid Tanah Malaiyoo air?

Cash might not be king to them — yet — and that’s easy to say when they have nothing and they live like pigs. But, sitting on the throne, it won’t look that way. Their hypocrisy and contradictions are already showing: attacking Najib for surrendering national sovereignty to China’s investments while, on the other hand in Penang, the DAP government borrows MYR 1 billion also from China.

For that, Mahathir and Malaysiakini have nothing to say, nothing to criticized about Malaysian dependence on the Chinese.

Such motherfuckers in Malaysia are a dime a dozen. They make up the standard quality of Malay and Anglophile politics that in combination have delivered the mess seen today.





Summer’s been raining without stop for a week, so I’m told. I miss Jixi, miss Jian, miss everything there is to miss in Motherland. Russia is just across the lake, left side.


O! Starducks…



Read Full Post »


Zaid Ibrahim: How to follow in the steps of these failed men? Answer: Name one!

Actually, any one of them makes for no difference to Malaysia’s future.


In Koh Samui, Zaid Ibrahim writes on the Opposition naming the prime minister elect. These are his criteria for the nomination though they are phrased rhetorically:

  • Can we have a leader of the Opposition who is willing to articulate what is right for this country?

  • Can we have a leader who is willing to risk it all by saying to the Malays and the Muslims that their long-term interests require them to moderate their views on many things and that such an attitude will save them and this country?

  • Can we have a leader who is willing to revisit the idea of “fairness” to the various groups in this country?

  • Can he or she capture the right message and the right spirit that can motivate the people to unseat the Barisan Nasional?

Those criteria look straightforward enough and this is to Zaid’s clarity of thought. With the little he has in philosophical proficiency, he has the ability to turn complex national, political issues into basic arguments that run deep, sometimes very deep.

Why deep?

Because the question of ‘what is right‘, for example, is driven not by real needs of citizens but by a single political group, Umno, entirely Malay, that’s managed primarily with a largesse (a fact confirmed again and again, most recently by Nazri Aziz) which is, in turn, extracted by a combination of carrots, sticks and connivance, and among who its senior people are notorious for being both incompetent and manipulative, Islamic fascists to boot.

In his next post, ‘Deja vu all over again‘, Zaid’s singular answer to the criteria he posed was, Mahathir Mohamad. Now, take that answer and apply it to Zaid’s own set of terms; any of which one will do:

  • Is Mahathir the man willing to moderate his own views, much less tell it to Malays?
  • Or, is Mahathir, the man who defined what it is to be an Umno and Malay politician (‘Get rich! It is your right in Tanah Melayu.’) willing, as Zaid says, do something “with the whole system of administration that has long been in UMNO’s grip”?

Zaid’s ability to contradict himself is as legendary as Mahathir’s national policy failures. But, for him to fail every criterion he himself has laid out — in essence failing his own test — is further evidence of Umno’s inbred ineptness.  He reaffirms two of the most common fallacies in national politics: (a) pick the right (Malay) leader, everything will be fine and (b) let that same leader decide the way forward. That is, in another manner of speaking, Malay politics, the harbinger of national policies, is rigged right from the start and also from the top. Malaysian democracy was never bottom up.

Which explains why, even within Pakatan, there is such a position known as a ‘seat warmer’ as if only Anwar Ibrahim, and he alone, can set things right. This is telling on the political system: it is so racist and fraudulent that Opposition politicians have no shame even suggesting such a position. (What do they take voters for? Don’t half the population, the Chinese, Indians and those in Sabah and Sarawak, have any say?)

Malay and other Opposition politicians conveniently like to forget that it was Anwar who jointly with Mahathir triggered the downward spiral for what politics is suppose to do and Zaid’s infantile thinking is illustrative of this past brought into the present — also showing how little or nothing Zaid had learned from the failures before. Chief of which is, it should be good ideas that drive political careers. Instead, the pinnacle of all present and past political priorities is, get the power first. Is Mahathir at 92 not a seat warmer, like Wan Azizah, so that the only question left is, for whom? This being the case, Zaid’s criterion to find the Saviour of Malaysia is nothing but yet more Zaidgeist pig shit.

Read Full Post »

This ‘letter’ was first published two years ago, 2015 January. It remains valid — and true — and is reproduced below in full (easy that way). Why so? From Margaret Atwood:

“If you see a person heading toward a huge hole in the ground, is it not a friendly act to warn him?”


Poste Restante — Letter from Chang’an

Malay Crime and Punishment

Greetings. We write to you from our Motherland, and may this letter find you in good health and at peace. Winter has arrived, and early at that for we had snow the past three days and the weeks before that. Word is that there is going to be two feet of snowfall in another week or so. Yet, if there is ever half a chance, we did rather be back in Malaysia – to join you in warm drink and happy merriment, that is, if drink and merriment are still permitted. Malaysia could be a nation of intellectuals but, daily, it is turned instead into a nation of idiots. Be wary then of the like of Helen ‘Aku Cina’ Ang or Ridhuan ‘Aku Melayu’ Tee, those Chinese posing as Malays – they are so ‘liberal’ – people who live lives somewhere between a kampung clairvoyant and a city snake oil salesman.

But, rest assure that if Khairy Jamaluddin tells you ‘good riddance’ and never to return to Malaysia, it is a good sign. They say this to the Chinese all the time, if you recall, as if Chinese owe them their lives, so they use our identity cards and passports to hold us hostage and treat us like we are lap dogs. But, you know it doesn’t work – not anymore. Now, they tell the same to the Malays as well. Ironic?

For many decades (since Mahathir Mohamad?) Malaysia has not been a good place to be a Malay – it is only that the Malays found this out much later than the Chinese. This means Ali Abdul Jalil will be better off in Sweden. For proof of that, look at Terengganu: Between the shopping mall and the mosque your people choose the first. But those spiteful, malicious scoundrels of bureaucrat-politicians would blame this state of affairs on the malls. Step by step, inch by inch, they contribute to criminalize the Malay life, from the clothes you wear, the places you visit, the music, and to the thoughts you hold. But, why do your people continue to put up with this sort of indignities, suffer this affront on your persons?

In the Zaid Ibrahim polemic ‘Alpha Malays National Organisation’, a scornful and cynical comment from ‘Anonymous’ labeled as ‘idealism’ Zaid’s call for a Malay revolt against the Umno status quo. In making that call, Zaid’s biggest hurdle is neither facing Umno’s ominous government apparatus nor the vitriol of it sycophants (Isma, Mahathir Mohamad, Syed Akbar Ali, Petra Kamarudin, Helen Ang) but this cult of unanimity. It’s a culture that tolerates no argument, no controversy but accepting only consensus and (in Umno’s political language) ‘unity’, by which Umno politicians mean, to stand back-to-back so as to watch out for the Chinaman who they have pictured as perennially trying to steal Malay land and property then profit from them.

Conventional Malaysian and worldwide labels put Indians as argumentative (Amartya Sen wrote about it in the essay The Argumentative Indian); Chinese as greedy, covetous; whereas Malays are laid-back and tolerant. Laid-back perhaps but, to go by Umno general assembly speeches, Helen Ang, the great Malay apologist, wouldn’t be able to find a single tolerant Malay in a crowd of 2,800. Would it then be possible that a compliant, acquiescent Malay culture had permitted the regression of the Malay mind, arriving to its present state, unquestioning and subservient? If true, then it’s small wonder that the Malay life should fall so readily to an advancing and aggressive Arab Islamic culture or to be so easily persuaded by British gentility, with its perverse English laws and customs, and now … to Umno and PAS.

The American writer Leon Wieseltier has argued that levels of dissension make up the barometer of an open, tolerant society: the more there is dissension the better for it since argument is emphatically, he says, man-made. It is only God (and the PAS ulamas and Jakim) that brooks no dissension. This, from Wieseltier, is ingenious:

“The community of contention, the contentious community, is not as paradoxical as it may seem. The parties to a disagreement are members of the disagreement, and they wrestle together for the sake of the larger community to which they all belong…. A quarrel is evidence of coexistence.”

Within this universe of controversy, reflecting a universe of tolerance, lives reason or rationality, the things committed to the discovery of the truth, as opposed to beliefs, superstition actually, and those anti-rationalist cliches (think of Isma and that ‘former Judge’).

“Emotion is private and opaque,” Wieseltier added, “but reason is public and lucid.” He quotes Ovadiah Bertinoror’s remarks: “Only by means of debate will truth be established.” From elsewhere, he quotes again: “Sometimes it is our duty to make a quarrel…. For the sake of truth we are not only permitted to make a quarrel, we are obligated to make a quarrel.”

For Malays, those lines tantamount to this, which in Zaid’s words say, “Be unafraid.” Indeed!

Malay Angst

Yet, being afraid has been least of the Malay problems. Instead, it is fundamentally this – and which one might just as well say of this of Malaysians in general: The Malay has no internal, working mechanism, no philosophical grounds on which to stand on in order to make his decisions, on which to judge his ethics or appraise the injunctions and the entreaties of our time. That is, he has little on which to make a quarrel. Nothing he has, nothing he knows is his own. (Mahathir Mohamad, that piece of cretin, with his provision of economic and social crutches, merely turned the situation worse than it already was.) Which is to also to say, the Malay is permitted no private sphere. And Islam sees to it.

From Islam the Malay life is pre-ordained and every thought and action is already decided beforehand. This helps to explain why the pronouncements from Isma or Perkasa or some bureaucrat-politician constitute as much as banal hogwash even as they seem to sound radical, or ‘extremist’ as we now call it.

When the Malay is permitted no private sphere, how then can be be angry at any thing? Even the Malay anger has to made up, invented, drummed up. So Umno, the Party had, consciously and willfully, for an entire generation and beyond, constructed the Chinese as the Malay enemy so as to feed this Malay emptiness, in much the same way Russian Stalinists and Cambodian fascists feed the people with imaginary enemies – teachers, engineers, scholars, peasants, dancers, music, theatre, biology, science, everything (doesn’t this sound like PAS Kelantan, recently a complete washout, thanks be to ‘god’).

The Muslim Malays are condemned to be anti-human unless they, themselves, filled that void with their own humanity. And to fill his life with his own adat, his ethics, he must first be unshackled from the strictures of Islamic dogmas, from their parsonages, their kampungs, their ulamas and from their politicians. Being unbending – often on account of some abstract, usually absurd, ‘principle’ (think Petra Kamarudin, his son in a lockup, and the policeman who could let out the boy), such Malays have turned out to be monsters. Petra, supposedly a western-minded ‘liberal’, is therefore no different from the doctrinaire ulama; each in their own way both are moralists and both are inflexible and dour, unwilling, or perhaps unable, to accept as natural the human condition, whether good or evil, ossified in their thinking and their morality. Petra takes a dagger with him to political events; the ulama brings with him god … so insecure are these men that they have to employ a weapon and rely on a Pendatang god and to speak loudly to cover their deficiencies.

Mahathir likes to believe he could build ‘Towering Malays’, but these Malays had been constructed on sand – and that imbecile doesn’t even know it! But, to break this causal chain of life requires a struggle, a quarrel, a shakedown to be rid of these people and their doctrinaire ideas that place evil not only in deeds but, worse for it, in thoughts. You might have to move the Malay to stand on rocks.

Here are the contributions of three documents to unshackle the Malay mind from the bindings of Mahathir, Anwar Ibrahim, their petty ulamas and all the others who act like they are prophets sent to save the Malay:

  • (1) Letter from the Eminent 25, Malay Mail, Dec 8
  • (2) Farouk Peru’s reply, Open Letter to 25 Prominent Malays, Malaysian Insider, Dec 8, and
  • (3) Alpha Malays National Organisation (AMNO), Zaid Ibrahim, Dec 8

Malay Manifesto

The Malays are in the throes of an epic quarrel: which is this, neither Umno nor Mahathir Mohamad nor Petra Kamarudin shall have the last word on what it is to be Malay. This is revolutionary thought; a revolution because that challenge stabs at and shakes the perceived foundations of a given Malay identity-set, monopolised by Umno, and which has so far ascribed to the Malay on purely political terms (in the Constitution and in the Mahathir years) and now on Islamic terms as well. Such ways of thinking – Malay supremacism, a race divinely ordained – lead directly to fascism, Islamo-fascism in particular. It was Islamo-fascism that was the undoing of Afghanistan; destroyed, first, by a ragtag bunch of Talibans (no big armies needed there) and after them by Americans. Countries are not sacrosanct; they can be exterminated; recall that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Both the Eminent 25 and Farouk Peru have reason, therefore, to be wary not just of Isma and Umno but in particular their ulamas, apologists and propagandists, online and off.

In their letter – actually a Malay Manifesto – the Eminent 25 protested at how Islam and its laws have been used to govern the Malay life: religious authorities assert their authority beyond their jurisdiction, fatwas are issued in violation of the Constitution and supremacist Muslim-Malay organizations make life hell for everybody. Under Shariah, the most common, ordinary human activities – as pedestrian as playing music, having sex and family conduct – are turned into ‘crimes against the state’ (since it is the state that makes the arrest and initiates the prosecution).

The Malay life wasn’t any thing like this before, a point which Farouk Peru makes very well in reply to the Eminent 25: there is a Malay version of Islam and there is an Arabic version. This is to suggest that, before Islam, there has been the Melayu. The Malay had preceded Islam and changed it to suit the Melayu in him; it was never the other way around. “The Malay version of Islam,” Farouk went on, “had always been tempered by our own local culture and so we retained that beautiful spirit of moderation and acceptance.”

Farouk had rightfully made a distinction between ‘local’ and ‘Islamic’ culture, thus drawing a schism between geography and religion, between earth and heaven, between nature and god. The first was natural to the Melayu; the second was simply imported then acquired. In creating that division, Farouk returns to his Melayu roots, to the muddy banks of the riverine, paddy life, the humid, water-logged jungle forests, the estuaries from which shrimps and cockles were once harvested. Everywhere around the Melayu, the world brims with life. Once we compare that world to the roving desert camel people then we are likely to agree with Farouk.

In the beginning is the Melayu; then came the ‘Word’ and he became the Malay. The Melayu is a naturalist, a botanist and biologist. The Malay Ahmad Mustafa Babjee: “All my life, I have been curious about nature. I can sit and water nature work for hours…. A bundle of flowerheads of a wild palm can conjure in my min, strands of DNA with their bases, or a bunch of rosary hanging in a shop in Medina or an exotic ear-ring for a go-go dancer.” One is unlikely to find such a speaker in the desert, but Ahmad Mustafa is one of the signatories in the Eminent 25 letter.

Malay Pendatang

Abraham is then a pendatang, and so it is with his kind of Heaven and God; they are desert inventions, 1,400-years-old, 10,000 km away, where the Melayu could know nothing about, much less played any part in its religious development. Thus, when politicians and bureaucrats, egged on by their ulamas, force feed the Malay life with this desert creed, usually of their own interpretation, alien to the Melayu’s mud-river, tropical kampung origins, it is small wonder the Malay do not turn up for Friday mosque in Terengganu and Kelantan. In time, Umno and PAS will make this absence a criminal offense.

Once Malay-ness is framed inside an ancient Islamic legal straight-jacket, there is little, if at all any, to be done to mitigate the full brunt of Shariah the modern Malays must face. The Eminent 25 could only ask, an appeal tinged by an apologia – “…at the end the day…, we want Islamic law” not for, unlike PAS, for its politics but “to meet the highest standards of justice…” They asked for Najib Razak’s personal intervention then for a review of the entire body of Shariah laws, and for reason and debate to prevail over the tyranny of the ulama clergy.

Yet, none of their suggestions are new. On this point, the Eminent 25 revealed that there was an internal government review of the Shariah laws in 1999 and nothing came of it. Instead, as the years rolled by, things went the opposite direction: stepped-up intrusion into people’s lives, a marked increased in criminalizing the most banal, everyday human conduct. In the circumstances, the Eminent 25 letter, no matter how well-meaning, could do nothing more other than to plea. How? How had the Eminent 25 managed to box themselves in?

To understand that, “we must understand the nature of Shariah law,” Farouk explained. “Shariah law is not designed to play second fiddle to any other legal system. It was designed with the firm notion of supremacism…. It will grow and ultimately subsume whatever system with which it is co-existent.” Which is to also to say, Islamic supremacism isn’t a system of just political power and rule, it ends up as an institution for domination, hence, exploitation.

Such thoughts are, by any measure, astonishing confession from a Malay – not that we had never seen it coming; we, neither the Melayu nor the Chinese, would bring this to admit it to ourselves. Recall that in the book Among the Believers, V.S. Naipaul wrote about this phenomenon, describing how the Malay/Indonesian life had been completely overtaken by Arabian Islam. One sees this happened to Anwar Ibrahim and his ABIM cohorts. But, Islamic supremacism dovetails so well into the Ketuanan Melayu ideology, so you can tell why Islam continues to be used by PAS at first, adopted by Mahathir and now followed up with a vengeance by Umno and Najib Razak.

Farouk’s suggestion for ‘complete secularisation’ – removal of the Shariah courts (which he considers as a historical anachronism) and to de-fang all the Islamist bureaucrats – strikes at the political heart of a religious problem. Which is to go back to the Malays with the agenda that their lives can be better lived if they knew where to begin: the shopping malls will naturally empty if, on their Fridays afternoons, the Malays knew how to better spend those endless, vacant hours that even God is useless to fill.

Malay Conduct

Recovering the Melayu character is not sufficient reason to cut off the legs of Islamic supremacism. Another, equally urgent task is to halt the Malay being from sliding into utter bestiality and inanity because, once you believe yourself to be supreme, what else is there left for you to pursue? Indolence and contentment take over. A thing as necessary as work is then given to others, ‘sub-contracted’ as they say, so that Malaysia, in creating a regime of exploiting, cheap foreign labor in nearly every field of enterprise, as basic as health care and municipal services, is surely not a stand-alone phenomenon unrelated to modern culture, our values, ethics and norms of conduct. This kind of life is forced and unnatural.

Kua Kia Soong recently wrote about the institutionalisation of racism – that silly Ketuanan thing – to the degree that it has become a norm. Even ‘moderates’ (such as the Eminent 25) would accept preferred treatment of Malay in fields of commerce, education, religion and other fields; they plea not for the dismantling of those institutions but only one, that is, Islamic power be reigned in, by which the legs of the ulamas be cut off, from knees down it seems. In that conclusion, and this includes Farouk’s deduction as well, such a proposal is largely administrative in nature – whittle down the Jakim staff, for example, and starved them of funding.

But this kind of remedy does nothing to sever Islam’s political, moral and religious backing that stand at the back of, and giving impetus, to the insane thinking that powers and which provides the doctrinal foundation for the like of Isma, Perkasa, and even the ulamas. What is their thinking if not Malay supremacism? Face it: Islam is bundled as a tool of Ketuanan, and it is a very potent one at that.

Here, however, is their problem: They can’t use Islam to touch us, the Chinese (and Hindu Indians). With Islam, Ibrahim Ali can make a lot of noise, or the Syariah could rob the Hindu of their dead or abduct a Chinese child from her Penang school then convert her, but all that’s at the peripheral. In the main, it is the Malays who must face the full force of hudud, so that, as they say, the rooster is now back home to roost.

If you accept this line of argument then you must also accept its logical conclusion, that Ketuanan doctrine, hence institutionalised racism, is at the root of Islamic power and its rise. Farouk was in error to attribute that power only to its moral, political and religious standing (the Syariah does not play second fiddle to any other legal systems), which then puts you into a bind on how to unbundle it. The ultimate source of its power, in Malaysia and among the Malays is, one dare say, the Ketuanan. This conclusion would explain what one reads about: why PAS, in ruling Kelantan and Kedah, sets Malay quotas higher than Umno and that the two seem to get along so well and that the object of Malay ‘unity’ is a perennial topic. The Chinese have live for so long and have endured so well under institutionalised racism, it doesn’t matter one way or other if that stays or goes. In their Daoist-Confucianist way of thinking, the Malay need no institutional support if he is supreme; it shows naturally. But, to hand him made-by-Mahathir crutches is to admit failure and weakness, and that’s even before trying. Crutches for helplessness and misfortune is a different thing altogether.

Xiaodi apologise this letter has gone on for too long. You can see where the letter takes you, that is, where its conclusion lays. For the sake of brevity, let this be said: The Malay revolution has to go deep. Only then it is sustaining and meaningful.

Ali Abdul Jalil, poor chap, exiled in Sweden, is but a manifestation of what the Malay is doing to the Malay over causes that are man-made not ordained and this goes back to the Malay raison d’etre. The Eminent 25 do not call themselves the Eminent 25 Malaysians but Eminent 25 Malays, suggesting to the Chinese to mind their own business. The Chinese will and has no reason to bother if Malays gather in Dataran Merdeka to throw stones at another Malay. It may be true that only Malays should solve Malay problems but what if the root of those problems lay not in just the Malays alone but it the conduct between them and the others, the Chinese in particular?

Umno, pre-Mahathir, was far less mindful of Islam but this instead grew in the zealousness of Mahathir’s anti-Chinese bigotry until we arrive at the situation we are today. PAS by itself would play lip-serve to hudud, but ruling with those DAP and PKR infidels it turns with lunacy towards Islam. The same appears to be the situation when Umno was singularly dominant but with Malay power divided three ways, it acts differently. But, this argument is empirically false: Umno sees, and hence asserts, its power only sometimes in relation to other Malay parties (all are Malays after all). But Umno’s policy conduct, moving between the crest and the bottom, like a roller coastal ride, have always been held in accordance with its relationship with the Chinese in particular and Barisan in general. They treat humans much like Islamists treat dogs. Should we, as Chinese, do nothing in the circumstances? What if the Muslim laws intended by PAS or Umno or the ulamas usurp then replace simply human decencies? Are we, the Chinese, to sit on our hands while watching your sisters dragged, screaming, to the stone execution pits?

If the Malay is to redress his religious dilemma, he must also act, politically, on Chinese-Malay relations within Malaysia. Good relations with China is but a pretense and a bad substitute for those relations; worse for it, it doesn’t work. Religious problems are for the Malay to act – as it is Zaid’s call to free Malays from ancient and foreign Islamic strictures – that is within his power. But if his intent is moderation, which is to say his mental constitution, his heart, his freedom, then he must first establish and acknowledge the roots of the immoderateness. You should well know that in religious morality, in Islam and Christianity in particular, the individual is never sacrosanct; only God is. (We, the Chinese, are raised to believe it is the other way around.) So they sacrifice the woman in the stone pits so as to appease their gods and to abolish punishment – recall what our western-minded judges use to tell prisoners: to inflict punishment so as to abolish it once the lesson is served to all. But, dear Melayu, what do you believe? When tyranny is committed in the name of your Allah, what then do you say? Tell us, what does your adat say?

Peace be with you,



Read Full Post »

It can’t be both.


That, above, was Arul Kanda’s early handiwork: those numbers didn’t lie, but the words did. ‘Brazen?’ ‘Deposits?’ ‘Funds?’

Hi, Arul, what you’re working on now? Haven’t heard from you for a while. Anything good happening?


1MDB’s 50 Billion: Where to, where from

Let’s settle this once and for all: how much, by who? (Answer, table below.)


When Mahathir Mohamad started on 1MDB, he said the money was missing. Today, it had been stolen. Sometimes, actually most times, the Opposition says the 1MDB’s ‘debt‘ is… yada, yada, yada. That is, someday, somebody will have to pay it off: sob, sob…. And, of course, listeners to this sort of ceramah talk don’t listen. Who gives a shit for the future when the present is problem enough: No wonder few people care.

The challenge with 1MDB wasn’t proving that its money was missing or stolen or even if it is debt which, according to Malaysiakini’s P. Gunasegaram, was going to grind the country to the ground. How does that happen, Guna, ‘grind’? All of which weren’t just unreal, the effect of Anglophile philistines trying to be literary on matters of bread and butter.

Here’s the latest from C4 which it has titled, The 1MDB Chronicles – Exposed:

It’s a tale which is so fantastic that it will make a Hollywood scriptwriter proud. It has a cast of a king/sultan, princes, a prime minister and his stepson, Arab sheikhdoms, and a deal making, baby-faced whizz kid who was in his twenties when it all started – the apparent brains behind the deals, who cavorts with actors and other luminaries, has a proclivity for grand parties and yachts, exorbitant tastes, runs philanthropies and is close to the very top echelons of political leadership in Malaysia. The loot is large with assets involved of about RM50 billion.

A tale? Hollywood? A cast of kings, princes and politicians? Whizz kid? No wonder those kampung types in Kelantan and KL can’t make head and tail of what this is all about.

It gets worse. To be writing about 1MDB is a political badge of courage, the requisite for being anti-Najib Razak and therefore pro-Opposition. Being politically correct extracts a price, though. It is called Distortion.

To be political with 1MDB, therefore exaggerate; indeed, the worse the case the better for the points. Here’s how to inflate the gravity of 1MDB: count the same thing twice. Figure 5 (near the bottom of this post) is a case of double counting from donplaypuks: the IPIC USD6.5 billion claim on 1MDB had arisen directly from the Goldman Sachs USD6.5 billion bond issuance. That is, they are one and the same; if IPIC wins, 1MDB settles; if IPIC loses, it settles.

Unless two and two equals one, doubling 6.5 bn in the debt drives up the 1MDB numbers from MYR51 bn to 95 bn. Seeing it soar, the Great Syed Akbar Ali roars with delight. Here’s a man who thinks himself as cleverer than everybody else but, for him, inflating the 1MDB numbers is the political correct thing to do. Akbar then offers the justification that ‘Donny’ had combed through the accounts although those accounts had since been disavowed by every auditor in town.

Here’s another fallacious line that Akbar also regurgitated. From ‘Donny’:

Since 2014, 1MDB has had to service interest on its $42 billion borrowings at an average of say, about 5% per year.

By 2014, three chunks of debt (above, the TIS bond and the USD bonds) were already incurring large, periodic payments. Without income Arul Kanda turned to the Mother of Frauds, an inverted pyramid scheme invented in Chow Kit that relies on multiple short term loans to pay an earlier, fat, long term one which fell due. It is what people also do with their Visa cards today. 1MDB piled up as much as a quarter of its total debt in this way; short (such as the syndicated USD1 bn taken from Deutsche), usually revolving debt, under 1 year, paying long. Arul was clearly stalling until such time the power and land assets could be sold or leased and bring in some money. By the end of 2015, Arul found the Chinese.

Persons like Donny and Akbar who typically accuse Arul of massaging the figures are guilty of the same offense. No wonder the folks in Ulu Kelantan can’t make head and tail of the 1MDB scam, what more with those kampung Hermes bag carriers in Putrajaya. One result: the more it is written about, the more convoluted and obfuscating it gets.

Because 1MDB numbers are used singularly as anti-Najib tools, and not as evidence to show crime, the rudimentary issues at stake are cast to the imagination.

  • (a) Where had the money come from?
  • (b) Where did it go?

Without firm answers, the government, along with the Attorney General and even parliament’s PAC, are left to get away with this often-cited question: Where is Najib’s crime? What, really, did he steal?

The closest suggestion to a crime committed has come from the US but even there that’s just extrapolation: money came from 1MDB to New York, taken out by so-and-so then went to buy such-and-such. All of which makes for what C4 calls a wonderful ‘tale‘.

But a tale is not empirical evidence so that Tony Pua has all to go on is ‘malfeasance’ or misconduct. That’s not even the money laundering done at the periphery of 1MDB and not especially misappropriation and theft. Pua, Donny, Akbar and others are merely casting aspersions, not offering evidence.

The answers to those two questions are, surprisingly, are self-evident once 1MDB is seen not as a government agency misdirected or misused in its purpose but as a vehicle of theft. Because, the only way to steal this kind of money and on such a scale is to do it from the outside not inside; the loot once lodged in Malaysia will be seen by all.

In 2009 and 2010 1MDB tried to take away MYR5 bn, the money it had raised at home (through TIA’s Islamic bond issuance), by passing its bond proceeds through the bogus venture 1MDB-PSI with Tarek Obaid et al.  It almost got caught and 1MDB was punished (with a fine) for it by Bank Negara.

Wiser for the experience, 1MDB turned outwards, specifically to Goldman Sachs, raising USD6.5 bn, using the power plant acquisitions as cover. That USD currency money known as the offshore portion never returned to Malaysia because it isn’t suppose too. Today, it is the object of the American investigations and seizures as well as IPIC’s suit.

To keep such vast sums of money outside Malaysia, 1MDB operators have to keep them in circulation (Figure 12) and this is where BSI, Falcon, Blackstone, Standard Chartered and the Singapore banks enter the picture. Yet, in the end, the Singapore trials have to do, not with theft, but money laundering and violation of disclosure rules, all of which still has nothing to do with Najib. The man might be guilty by association but where is the theft?

To actually see the theft, return to the two questions just posed.

C4’s latest stab at unraveling 1MDB provides clues which are contained in two important charts it has provided (though they are full of holes). Here there are, below:


Figure 1: C4 Chart. The Misappropriation Phases

Those figures above understates the magnitude of the theft, USD3.7 bn, according to C4.

Figure 1 above (C4 Chart) was re-tabulated from the 1MDB major bonds issued between 2009 and 2013. But, C4, by relying primarily on American DOJ data, greatly understated the scale of the theft because where 1MDB money was not passed through the US, the money doesn’t appear in the American forfeiture suits.

Also, those tables (above and immediately below) are highly unreliable and as dodgy as Arul Kanda’s statements. Eg: Good Star might have pocketed USD1.3 bn (Fig. 1) of 1MDB’s money but, backed by Saudi connivance and under the 1MDB-PSI jv, 1MDB transferred out in total about USD3 bn (see Fig. 9 & 10). If only 1.3 bn went to Good Star, where is remaining 1.7 bn?

Later, under another joint-venture but with IPIC (also Aabar), USD6.5 bn was raised and never returned to Malaysia. Now, if USD2.6 bn was ‘stolen’ (that political correct word again) where’s the balance of 3.9 bn?

Figure 2 below: This C4 table is even more sloppy and incredulous than the first. Simply ask this: How could ‘Others’ have taken more than Najib Razak, the Man himself? Who are these Others?

Figure 2: C4 Chart. Where 1MDB’s USD3.6 billion went?



Figure 3. Q1: Where had the money come from?

Figure 3 above reworks the C4 chart in Figure 1 by adding a fourth source of funds, the KWAP term loan to SRC.

With 1MDB, there are only two possible sources of funds from which to ‘steal’: (a) monies raised abroad, and (b) monies raised at home. The distinction is important (for reasons given earlier). Offshore, the two USD bond issuance raised the equal of MYR 21 bn compared with MYR 5 bn raised from the domestic Islamic bonds issuance in 2009. SRC debt to KWAP added 4bn in local issued MYR debt. But, like the earlier TIA, it was also taken to Singapore.

Because the two local debts, MYR 9 bn in total, didn’t pass through the American banking system, neither appears in its investigations, upon which C4 relied heavily on to produce its 1MDB Chronicles.

Figure 4 below collapses the charts in Figures 1, 2 and 3 into one. In it is also added other publicly available information, particularly during 1MDB’s time when Jho Low, Tarek Obaid and Petroleum Saudi Int’l (PSI) were merrily scamming everybody else. Exchange rate then was USD1=MYR3.3. Within the chart, some numbers have not yet surfaced, such as those involving Sharol and Faisal, the two key 1MDB/SRC directors. But the monies, though still unaccounted for, are traceable through 1MDB’s debts using the rule, money in must equal money out. Add those with Sharol and Faisal, the total theft through 1MDB could well exceed MYR20 bn; in the chart below, it’s already 20.5 bn.

Figure 4: Q2. Where had the money gone?

One way to make sense of the chart above is to compare the columns ‘Fund sources’ sub-title headings and the bottom yellow line: money into 1MDB, money out and then onwards to several individual accounts, aggregated. Under Islamic bonds, for example, 5 bn went in, 5 bn out. Tarek, Low, Patrick Mahoney and PSI got about USD 3 bn (MYR  9.9 bn) out of 1MDB. If the local bond issuance (MYR 5 bn) wasn’t enough to cover that sum, then the USD offshore portion would have done it.

The USD 4.3 bn filched from the offshore part of 1MDB’s debt is about USD 600 million more than the USD 3.7 bn used in C4’s figures (also DOJ’s). The reason is Goldman Sachs and its USD 593 million in fees. They were not entitled to so much. But that they helped themselves to almost 10 percent of the bond proceeds was further evidence that what Goldman did for 1MDB was highly improper, almost certainly criminal if not complicit. It is called Fraud.



Figure 5 above: That is Donny’s double counting at work, a piece of work as dodgy as Arul Kanda’s. Some of the later loans taken, say, in 2014 were used to repay earlier ones. An example is the 2013 MYR 2bn line of credit from Maybank (not in Donny’s chart) which was used to part-pay the KWAP loan. Arul was good with this sort of feet shuffling and with right-hand-give-left hand debt circularity. (Also see table at top of post; that was an early Arul handiwork.)


Past illustrations into the 1MDB theft appearing in these pages. In chronological order.

Figure 6



Figure 7



Figure 8



Figure 9


Figure 10



Figure 11



Figure 12


Figure 13


Read Full Post »

to the New World.

Say what one may about gweilos, but they do have a touch for the philosophical Good life and, to discover it, have the instinctive ability to smooth over its difficulties with exquisite arts and good music. Above, Judith Durham sings to a long, long journey that cannot be traveled alone. Below, in text, some moronic asshole Malaiyoo talks about how to laden and ruin it all with more rules to travel. Yet, before starting off, he is already blaming his problems on gweilos. Sigh…


I’d hold your hand / and be your Someone. 发誓.


On the Origin of Laws, specifically Malaysia’s Penal Code, Aidil Khalid, some lawyer it appears, has this to say:

These are laws imported from India which were taken from the British legal system. Some are based on the principle of morality and under the Christian principle. The Muslims never complained (about them).

But who let them in?

Aidil’s contention was made in a Bebas debate (some debate) on Hadi Awang’s 355 Bill. Present at which were, like Aidil, the lawyering types such as Haris Ibrahim. One would think that Aidil would be easy to crush: ‘Christian and you didn’t complain? No shit! So stupid of your Malaiyoo types to import those laws. Having done so, we are going to make damn sure we won’t make the same mistake twice, importing Arabic laws.’

Instead, all that Haris et al manage to respond was to go on and on with all the yada, yada about 355 religiosity as if Islam is a matter of rational debate. Haris would be better off to try reason with those head-chopping Saudi fascists and their ISIS collaborators.

The like of Aidil didn’t know it then, nor now, still, that cultural genocide — the complete eradication then replacement of a native culture by another — is a Western specialty later took up by Arabs and Muslims. Genocide is what happens when Malays are faced with a much more stronger — and dare one say, superior — force. Malays once lost to the English political system because they had none and they are now losing to the desert camel herders. But, whether they lose in politics or religion, it made for no difference; Malaiyoos are still done in.

If Malays had their own laws, or their own God to begin with, would they have needed to import any?

On the contrary, many of Umno’s apparatchiks even welcome the conversion from their infidel roots. Take that Malay moron and Nusantara supremacist Kadir Jasin. Today, he claims to be Muslim first and only after that is he Malaiyoo. We know why he would say that, of course: like ketuanan, Islam is taboo to touch, cannot be scrutinized, and if you as much as sniff at it, prepare for jail. Above all, it is a better tool than ketuanan to beat up the Chinese. They would say it is the fault of the Chinese if a Malay eats on puasa month. According to Ahirudin Attan (a supposed ‘liberal’) it is the fault of the Chinese girl if, on a puasa month, she wore short pants and the Malay oogling at her has bad, sinful thoughts: ‘Those Chinese are so insensitive,‘ he’d say. Heard that line before? Anywhere?

Now that Ahi’s liberalism and Kadir’s Great Nusantara culture (or what’s left of it) face their final threat of extinction, they have nothing to say. Not one fucking word from these coconut heads who otherwise will have a ready word for anything that concerns Malay existential survival.

Aidil may complain about having to inherit Christian laws but he says nothing about why that should be a bad thing for Malays. Whether the laws in Malaysia are Christian or Islam, they still emanate from a foreign God unless, of course, Aidil now says the two gods aren’t the same. And, if not the same, then the world is ruled not by a single omnipotent Power, the One, but by many, an idea clearly in conflict with Quranic statements or the Bible.

Saying that the Penal Code had Christian origins is not the same as saying the law is inferior because of its gweilo origin, especially since it was passed to an old Malay society that would have had been next to being lawless. Indeed Christian laws might have even delayed the complete subjugation and, thence, annihilation of Malay society. If not for Malaysia’s laws, Aidil et al wouldn’t be Muslim first and then Malay. Nowhere else, not even Saudi Arabia, would today’s Malay life be possible.

Confronted with that argument, Aidil would probably retreat to the only thing left to be said in defense of 355: hudud is only for Muslims. (But Christianity wasn’t; it was for everybody. Which was why Malaysia had it.)

If Aidil were to be true to his word that hudud is only for Muslims then Malaysia is in danger of being a corrupting influence on Islam because in ‘Holy Land’ Saudi Arabia, its Sharia is made applicable to all, Muslims and Christians alike. This is where Aidil lies through his teeth. His is the sort of lie advocated by their ustaz and imams who would consider hypocrisy and pretense as acceptable, even preferred value practices in their dealings with infidels in mixed, plural populations and settings.

Behind the For-Muslims-Only theory is the Quranic injunction that Muslims ought to live out their lives in Islamic fullness, that fullness being decided beforehand by coconut heads like Aidil and Hadi. The injunction is a minefield. Such a life, once made specific to another era and geography, had to draw support from the pre-Islamic traditions that were pagan, Jewish and Christian in their origins. Characteristically, today’s so-called Islamic laws produce the precise opposite of present standards of conduct; it reproduced the barbarity of the past (think also of the Inquisition). Such results implied that Allah’s omnipotent power has had messy consequences. It further infers that proper, socially acceptable conduct is impossible by individual acts of internal volition and so must coerced or forced out, by death and whipping if necessary. Just as Alice of Wonderland has seen and heard: ‘Off with his head’. It is very medieval Christian.

Small wonder, therefore, the like of Aidil have been endlessly offering justifications when promoting 355 — and justifications offered not to the Malays though, their primarily target audience, but to the Chinese. Which, if one were think it through, would be completely absurd: If indeed 355 is sanctioned by God, then there is no problem; passage into law is assured by the Omnipotent. And, if indeed 355 is so good and useful, why even bother placating other people, infidels in particular; its holiness ought to be self evident.

All of which suggests that Aidil et al knew beforehand that 355 isn’t merely an aberration in modern society. Rather, their proposed so-called Islamic laws are so completely deranged that they are left with only two means of ensuring its passage in Parliament: (1) force Malays into acceptance on the pain of being denounced then ostracized and, (2) tell the Chinese this is none of their business.

In telling the Chinese that Muslims have been tolerating Christian-based laws, Aidil is also offering the justification should Malays in future apply their religious rules on the Chinese. That is, they would say, infidels have no right to complain since this is all so holy and since Muslims have to put up with Jesus before, so can you with our Allah. To further strengthen those arguments, Hadi and Umno could even throw in this other piece of poppycock. Which is that, since more than half of Parliament, the majority, had brought about the law the minority must accept the decision: ‘It is the essence of democracy, you see. The majority prevails. So shut up or we will cut off your tongue.

Well, to Hadi, Aidil, Mah & Muh, their fellow Umno/Pakatan travelers, their Arabian tribe and their kafir apologists (think Helen ‘Aku Cina’ Ang) let this be said on the outset in case these towel heads still don’t get it: You want hudud? Fuck you.


Aidil’s inane attempt to segregate Malaysian laws on the basis of their Christian and Islam origins (even though they are rooted in the same past) also reveal an undercurrent in the secular (liberalism) versus religious (Islam) struggle within Malay society, a struggle forced now into the open by 355.

It is an old problem, pre-dating even Socrates and Islam certainly but peculiar to Western societies before, Malaysia today because of its late existence, its coming into being. (Ever hear about this fight in Japan, Korea or China?)

At the heart of which is the notional struggle that people can have only one God and He won’t tolerate a substitute, a replacement ideology much less. And, He must be obeyed. He is like the ghost haunting Malaiyoos since the day some unthinking pirate chief, who, too, must be obeyed, was hoodwinked by some Arab camel trader and Indian Muslim money changer. Exorcise Him from Malaysian life and everyone would be free. Imagine: Freedom!


Fold a straight line, what you’d get is the above. Consider, thus, the Islamists (PAS, Sabri Ismail) occupying the right end of the spectrum line and on the far left the liberals, of course. Fold that line, they meet. This is no coincidence. Liberalism and God run along the same track and share the same End, the same ultimate intention, and both possessing the same proselytizing zeal and eclipse qualities. Yet, both were made up by gweilos, beginning with Plato and Anselm of Canterbury and, after them, copied by Arabs.


Read Full Post »

…then at the boy at the bottom.


Why the picture above?

According to Kadir Jasin, it is proof that (and hang on to your seat): ‘China treats every nation that owes it money as its slave and subordinate’.

And how so it treats Malaysia as slave and subordinate?

Well, here is Kadir’s answer to, how China enslaved Malaysia? One name. He had spotted in that pictured billboard the name China State Construction Engineering, the world’s third largest construction company undertaking a mosquito job, says Kadir, ‘at the most 15 million ringgit’. Kadir made sure to drop the post-fix ‘(M) Sdn Bhd‘ because that might suggests the Chinese are not the sole owners.

So, in alerting his readers to his Great Discovery, he concludes that China is on the way to taking over Malaysia, violating its sovereignty and, in the process, the Chinese business is seizing by ‘monopolising‘ the national wealth but expect no crumbs from them. Even for the third largest constructor, 15 million also they sapu.

That, if you recall, is how Mahathir Mohamad had justified the NEP: ‘We must protect the Malays from the Chinese who monopolize the economy and leaving nothing for the bumi, not even ikan bilis. These Chinese are always up to no good. We have to squeeze those bastards.’ Hence, from Mahathir on, they had bumi this, bumi that; AP this, AP that; 30 percent this, 30 percent that, and all the other stuff.

This is, of course, a well established, worn out Umno line, especially put to effective use during the propaganda hey-days of Kadir and in Mahathir’s era. Today they use it to fix up and to nail Najib Razak.

If the last column had the name Kadir Jasin Construction Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd, would Kadir be bellyaching about Chinese monopoly? Yesterday was about ketuanan and bumi rights, today it’s national sovereignty. Why sovereignty? Because, today, he needs the local Chinese to help Mahathir fix up Najib; local Chinese because the Malays just won’t give a shit for him.

It’s all about money, ain’t it, Kadir — the Mahathir small fish crony type you can buy at a snap.

You have only to grease that motherfucker, and for sure he’d say nice things about you. In fact, he will say China is Malaysia’s salvation, to help Selamatkan Malaysia. It explains why people like Kadir and Zaid Ibrahim are such great Katak team players. They had found in Lim Kit Siang and the DAP their Ali Baba political partner. It used to be Vincent Tan and Ling Liong Sik.


Kadir looking up to the heavens: ‘Boohoo, boohoo. Where’s my lollipop? I don’t want ringgit. Where’s my renminbi?’

So we, the Chinese, told him: ‘It’s between Mahathir’s legs. Go suck it out of his cock.’


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »