Archive for the ‘Malaysia: Dialogue’ Category

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 »


The End of Malaysia



Oouch! Ini tangan Melayu! Saya Malaiyoooo!

Umno protects the Malays from Islam: Give them more Islam.


Asri Zainal Abidin (above) was right about the political nature of Malaysia: it is a Westphalian state.

But Asri didn’t expand on that notion: Westphalian sovereignty is a state, a country, answerable to only itself, independent of outsiders, Allah included, and not beholden to any Islamic, political or religious doctrine, given by Allah or not.

This Westphalian quality is the bedrock principle of Malaysia’s independence. Take that away, the Malay ceases to be Malay by ceasing to be the padi and coconut farmer and riverine, kampung dweller that originally defined the Malay. The Malay becomes instead the mirror image of a camel herder and desert tribal lunatic, seconded into an Arab identity, and losing altogether his own. Malaysia loses that fundamental part of its character that first made it up.


[Syed Akbar Ali had uploaded the above video on his site. Thanks for it, asshole. You asked: How much do I know about hudud? Answer: enough to spit on it.]


RU355 and Hudud are

neither Malay nor Malaysian Laws


Before Mahathir Mohamad, the qualifications of being Malay were never pivoted on a piece of paper. The Malay was a loose term and in some ways open-ended. Since, though, Mahathir declared Malaysia an Islamic state, the inverse of the process to bring in Islam into the Malay consciousness and existential being became unstoppable, aided by that piece of paper called the Constitution.

Because the Malay is today so narrowly defined, primarily and singularly by Islam, Najib Razak has little problem in sequestering Hadi Awang’s parliamentary bill RU355 on behalf of Malays, of Umno and the Barisan Nasional. Doing that, Najib hammers in the last nail to entomb then to exterminate the surviving quality of the Malay — his tropical existence — and forever made irreversible that which had originally defined the Malay.

The two remaining legs of the Malays existence, custom and language, would have to be subverted to Islam. Then they fade, disappear and rendered obsolete. In their places would be the Arab language and Arab customary laws.

The Malay ceases to exist altogether. Malaysia becomes Melayustan.

It would be the price Najib pays to stay out of jail, so concluding the process, started by Mahathir and Anwar Ibrahim, in exterminating the Malay identity and thereby kill the fundamental idea into what had constituted Malaysia. That is, its Westphalian political quality which, in turn, rests on its multi-ethnic and multi-cultural foundations.

Doing that, Umno and PAS, and Hadi and Najib, commit the ultimate treason: the ending of Malaysia as it was conceived.

Standing between this final end and Najib’s self-serving politics are the Chinese (including the populations which had moderated politics in Sarawak and Sabah). Should we, the Chinese, let the Malays kill themselves?


But if we do then Malay self-extermination will be followed by Malaysia’s destruction; it, in turn, to be replaced by a sort of Pakistan — and we know what sort of lunatic country that is.

1MDB will not kill Malaysia; at worse the Malays will eat cow grass and that’s halal anyway. So, the ‘Save Malaysia’ campaign is grossly misdirected and gets only little traction because the 50 billion ringgit theft does not fracture the structures of statehood. (True, the police, Bank Negara, and the AG Chambers were compromised to protect Najib, but such institutions were not dismantled; they are still there.)

RU355 will instead do more lasting, fundamental and irreversible damage to the structures of the national foundations.

Should other Barisan components, including Sarawak, quit their alliances with Umno then Najib (along with Hadi) will have complete reign to insert then to hasten full Syaria laws into Malay life, that is, in the extermination of the Malay identity. Sarawak, if it sticks to its guts, will be further repelled from staying in the Federation. With Umno and PAS on one side of Parliament’s aisle, the rest of Malaysia, or what’s left of it, on the other side, the end of Malaysia is complete.

This has been the dream of racist bigots and Islamo fascists. Other than Hadi and Najib, it has been talked about by Umno’s motherfucker mouthpieces such as Helen Aku Cina Ang, Kadir Jasin, Ismail Sabri, and the Pahang mufti. These morons: Do they know the consequences of what they had wished for?

Perhaps the Chinese should grant them their wish: Support RU355.

The MCA is right with its decision. Let Umno self-immolate because, with the Malay dead, United Malays National Organization would have to undergo its own ‘transformation‘, changing its name included. Najib, over to you….

If Mahathir truly wants to Save Malaysia, and if Lim Kit Siang also wishes to do likewise, they should jointly and openly campaign against the Bill. But they dare not.

That being so, why the hell should the Chinese give a shit for Saving Malaysia? It ain’t our agama, bangsa dan negara.


Read Full Post »

Don’t Laugh, But This Reporter (below) Doesn’t Know…

Is Mahathir Racist?


Above, ex M-Insider Sheridan Mahavera: The man who faked a survey — and gets upgraded to SCMP!

Like Mahathir would, Sheridan has suggested that the Chinese in Malaysia were anti-Malay because they spoke to each other only in their mothertongue Chinese and not his colonial Queen’s English. And like Mahathir who today works in Opposition politics, Sheridan now works for a Chinese-owned newspaper in Hong Kong.

Even in rascism, the Daoists were right about cyclical change.

Sheridan, O! Sheridan. What a motherfucker you are….


In, In Malaysia, hopes fade for a post-racial politics, the ex-Malaysian Insider reporter Sheridan Mahavera has asked the questions: Is Mahathir Mohamad a racist? Is Mahathir employing an old Umno method to bait the Malay electorate?

Strange questions; Sheridan is pretending he doesn’t have the answers. Strange because he is himself a racist. Like so many Umno and ex-Umno Malays, he has argued (from a forged survey carried out by himself) that the Chinese are the root cause — ‘the barrier‘, Sheridan says —  in Malaysian racial harmony. How so? His answer: Because the Chinese speaks Chinese among themselves. (In that MI article where Sheridan had faked a statistical survey, he concluded that 100 of 100 Chinese can’t or won’t speak Malay among themselves; therefore, he added, they were against integration.)

It is either that (the Sheridan Pretense) or he wants to cast doubts on Mahathir’s racism so that he could pick up some loose change from the South China Morning Post by yet faking another round of news. You see, it’s at the SCMP where, like in the DAP, it is packed full of liberal Anglophiles who are likely to be sympathetic to Mahathir’s (and Sheridan’s) new political cause. Or perhaps, although this would be implausible, Sheridan is trying to rehabilitate Mahathir’s name in time for the general elections.

In Mahathir’s time, and with that sort of questions, Sheridan would be laughed out the door. In another time, today for instance, the same questions would raise a shrug. Mahathir says he is no racist? So what else is new? The man says whatever he wants to say, anything for his political cause, anything to get whatever it is he wants excepting that the man is an incorrigible racist.

Given the same questions to different people at different times will produce different answers. Take the DAP for instance.  Here is Liew Chin Tong’s answer:

[He said,] criticising Chinese investments was not the same as attacking ethnically Chinese Malaysians. ‘The view that all Chinese Malaysians are automatically pro-China is also simplistic. Small and medium Chinese-owned businesses are worried about big capital from China because they cannot compete against them.’

Note how Liew (and Sheridan as well), both Anglophiles and leftists to boot, equate ‘big capital’ to monopoly and that in its turn to being anti-small business. If that were true then, in China, it would have shut down the day after Deng Xiaopeng opened up the country to western businesses. Yet, in truth, no Chinese-minded actually sees it that way: big money in or small, it is still money and where money is to be found then money is to be made — from whoever.

Worse in their racism is how the two men conflate cultural or motherland sentiment to business competition as if the two are mutually exclusive. Both Liew and Sheridan are saying this: without material benefit to themselves the local Chinese will be anti-China. (This is the same racist, anti-Chinese trope that has been a favorite of Mahathir for ages, that is, the Chinese care about little else other than to satisfy their material greed.)

True to their racism (and DAP Anglophiles, too,) the Liew statement is an identical sort of absurdity and illogic which fill Sheridan’s insistence in his articles that because Chinese speak Chinese, therefore, they must be against the Malay to want to be friends: Chinese, THE BARRIER to unity!

Sheridan’s penultimate conclusion is borrowed and copied from his fellow-traveller Liew:

‘I don’t know if Chinese Malaysians think Mahathir is being racist. But I can tell you that Chinese Malaysians are against China bailing out 1MDB.’

Both men, Liew and Sheridan, like thinking racism especially once the Chinese (in Malaysia or China) are called into question. Which raises the other, related question: what has Mahathir’s racist attitudes to do with 1MDB, with or without a bailout?

Those remarks aren’t just Liew’s Anglophile racism at work, but illustrates instead how the two men are completely cuckoo at their intellectual level. (Worry should Liew Chin Tong ever makes it to be minister: ‘Save Malaysia‘ indeed.) The depth of their hypocrisy is incredulous:

  • Mahathir showed very well, and said so himself repeatedly, he was interested only in getting back at Najib Razak, everything else being secondary, and never mind the methods or the morality thereof and this included aligning himself with Altantuya Shaarribuu’s convicted murderer by the name of Sirul Azhar Umar.
  • Mahathir’s attack on China’s ‘big capital’ (Liew’s words) are identical to his heyday attacks on big Chinese businesses (banks, property and transport in particular) in order to make space for incoming big Malay businesses (RHB, CIMB, MISC), never mind if the results were to completely disenfrancized the small Malay farms (oil palm and cocoa) from the mainstream economy. Felda’s financial woes are traceable to his decision then.
  • China ‘bailing out’ 1MDB is convenient newspaper headline invective, but how is outbidding others for the two main pieces of 1MDB assets (land and power plants) a bailout? If it wasn’t for China’s money, somebody else would have to pay for 1MDB’s debts? Who? Taxpayers? How? Liew and Sheridan will sell their daughters in Golok to raise funds?
  • How is ‘bailing out’ 1MDB a Chinese expression of support for Najib’s political future? If it were, then explain why China stood up against the Umno government not once but twice at least, in particular warning Najib (without mentioning his name) and his Red Shirts to back off at Petaling Street and from threatening harm to the Chinese?
  • Chinese Malaysians are against the theft at 1MDB but Liew conflates, again, theft and ‘bailout’. Where’s the evidence of Chinese against bailout because if the problem wasn’t sorted out today, it would be inherited by any incoming new government after the next general election. The DAP included, if it were lucky to get in. (But the DAP won’t, and we, the Chinese, will see to it.)



Above, Sheridan Mahavera’s fellow traveller Liew Chin Tong:

“It looks this way when I stick out my penis. My tongue does better, it forks out like a snake’s.”

Read Full Post »

Cina in China & a Latuk

A Rat’s Roar


Above, Hong Kong celebrities support the Motherland: the South islands belong to China. Of course!

You see, Latuk, it isn’t just that all roads lead to China but all South China Sea.

So, get use to it, Kadir boy. Stand aside, suck your thumb, and watch. Feel slighted? Don’t like it? Well, bring in your Red Shirts so that we’ll have an excuse to whip your Nusantara arse back to Jolo. Or perhaps you prefer to be dumped in the Sulu Sea.


Nusantara? po-dah, Latuk. You’re a piece of Malaiyoo jamban rat trying to deliver a lion’s roar: Squeak, squeak. Cukup la, we’re so frighten….


The Return of the Mings


Law and order: Ming government forces attack (Chinese, sometimes Sulu) pirates in the South China Sea. Next, it would be the Latuk pirates of Nusantara, those Malaiyoos who go around holding up defenseless people, while pretending they have god and king on their backsides. King, yes, but where is the kingdom?



I look forward to enter China through one of the Spratly islands. Mao yeye, make my day!



Ultra Cina 春节 Diary Notes

At the land immigration control point after leaving mainland China, entering Hong Kong.

Immigration: Why are you showing me the passport? Are you leaving the country?

Jian: [Silence then…] This is my first time.

Immigration: What’s your name?

Jian: Ji..aan

Immigration: Why do you want to come Hong Kong?

Jian: To spent money.

Immigration: You’ve lots of money?

Jian: My boyfriend’s.

Immigration: Who is your boyfriend?

Jian: Some Malaizi man.

Immigration: Malaizi? Zi? Zi like in shit?

Jian: You are a rude man. I’ll tell him you said it.

Immigration: There’s no country named malaizi. Only malaizi-ah.

Jian: This is my first time.


We hugged just behind the immigration counters, but Jian was still hurt from the officer’s initial remarks.

“How would I know I don’t have to show passport. This is a passport control point. Isn’t it?”


“His job is look at passports. You show passport too, don’t you? Does he say such things to you?”

“No. I don’t use the passport. (Motherland gives me a separate travel document.)”

“But he shouldn’t be rude.”

“Maybe he was rude. He was also trying to chat you up. You’re the prettiest face to have appeared before him. What do you expect? Not just the prettiest — today. The prettiest ever. Besides, Hongkies are like that. They are so straight, timber straight.”

At that she was mollified, somewhat, and went on: “But he called your country shit!”

“Country? Naah…. Many people also think it’s a shit country. It does sound like shit when you leave out the ‘yaah’. Besides, it is in a lot of a shit so I don’t care what people call it.”

She emitted a puzzle look: Malaysia doesn’t exist in her consciousness and I don’t remember in five, six years if we ever talked about the country more than thrice and that only spoken in passing.

The Chinese facing authorities can be pretty gungho. At the slightest infringement by the authorities, they throw up. I have heard Chinese berate immigration officers, municipal enforcement, the police, even the army. Fingers pointing, they let fly and the policeman starts to look like the sky has fallen. Once, taking pity on a police officer, I asked him: “Why do you tolerate this kind of verbal abuse.” Answer: “为人民服务 wéi rénmín fúwù, Serve the people!”

Public service in China is tough; people remember the warnings by Confucius: the government is supposed to be North Star.

In Malaysia, on the other hand, people serve the authorities, from Najib Razak down or Mahathir Mohamad. Facing Malay immigration officers, we lower our heads, appear subservient and sheepish, as if expecting at any moment to be pulled up and never to return home and thrown into a lockup.

Chinese visiting Malaysia had gotten a million times worse from Malay immigration officers. One Chinese I met some years back was himself a senior-ranked police officer on a private visit. He was on his way to Kuantan. He got it bad not just at Immigration but especially from the cops on the street, whether driving or walking. At each encounter he is always poorer by a hundred ringgit or so.

Some cases were outright extortion: pay or go to lockup. Over a course of several occasions, I explained to him the nuances in Malay society, the differences between us and them, the social and political pecking order, and, of course, ketuanan racism. I never told him about the law. It would be pointless, it being designed to empower abuse by authorities and not to protect society from them. We seldom keep in touch now but I still have his cell phone number and WeChat account contact, and he mine… just in case.

The world outside China is a barbarous place. Just like it was for 3,000 years. Then the barbarity came only from the north through the Siberian steppes and through the Mongolian plains. Today, the threats come from the south and the sea. It is the price China pays for opening up to the world and sometimes, I wish Motherland didn’t. But that isn’t my call, of course.

Facing the rest of the world to the south and east and to the oceans beyond, Hong Kong survived and became better off, far, far better off than she was 200, 300 years ago. Motherland has learned from Hong Kong’s experience.

The first rule of thumb: strengthen yourself, always; keep discipline and remember Laozi. Grow beans get beans. In spring plan for the year, in the mornings plan for the day.

We parted on the eighth day, after agreeing to meet back in her laojia home where 43 generations before her had lived among the pine and cypress forested mountains. She went north while I prepared to head south, to do my duty in Malaysia as son.

I would never let her come with me to Malaysia. I don’t trust the Malay immigration, the Malay cop, the Malay everything. There have been countless precedent cases, usually for no good reason, like the one that struck Li Junjie 李俊杰 on December 2009, a Chinese student picked up from a bar, thrown into a lockup and kept there for eight days. All the while the police Inspector handling her case abused her verbally and searched for an excuse to keep her imprisoned. Search because everything about her was in order, her passport, visa, student identification. So the bastard made one up: Prostitution. (The police in China don’t do such things: they must gather first the evidence.)

Malaysian reporters, Malays and Anglophiles, not only took the police word for it, so tolerating this state of affairs. Then, they actually went out of the way to smear Junjie’s reputation. Malaysiakini‘s Josh Hong called the arrest a ‘misfortune’ — not an abuse of authority — and said Chinese news reporting of the affair was ‘sensationalism’ while police had the ‘good grace’ to release her and not because they had completely no justification to continue the detention.

I won’t let any of this happen to Jian. Forest City or no Forest City, I want her isolated, protected and far away from Malaysia, from both the authorities and the Malays, as well as motherfuckers such as Joshie. Small wonder Melayu ketuanan continue to thrive: the fascists in Malaysia have very many apologists, Anglophiles in particular (Lisa Ng, Helen Ang, Rowena Yam, Bernard Khoo, Sheridan Mahavera, Tian Chua, Wong Chen…).


This song above is a favorite of Jian although its singer, born in Shanghai, and her are half a generation apart, maybe. Over the phone, she said she cried to sleep listening to it. Below, Jian in a still photo rehearsal for the summer season. Maybe she’d get the make-up part, lipstick, gloss, things like that.



Soon there will be no borders. And we can be together — for eternity.


Waiting for China

Just the other evening she phoned: At laojia, it had rained and snowed simultaneously; Hong Kong was still comfortable at a little under 20. Her father, she complained, hadn’t yet been paid although he’d expect the money in a week at most. The family has no bank account, zero savings but lots of un-serviceable land including a whole mountain. The entire chunjie depends on that money. She said she had been crying herself to sleep. Did I miss her?

The chilly, bone-biting, silent feeling is familiar to me, listening to the howling wind and looking out of the frosted glass windows into the spectacle of gray skies and a forlorn forest where even the birds have given up. They had fled last October. They won’t be back until for at least another two months. Cold heightens the loneliness. I think of those plaintive songs that sing to the passage of time: Three Years 三年, One Year and the Next 一年又一年.

Did I miss her? We have been apart only a day and already it tears at my heart with an indescribable pain. I didn’t tell her that. Instead, I told her about the photos she had brought with her to Hong Kong. She had given me almost a dozen of them, some taken when she went to pitch for the assignment, others during rehearsal for a series of still shoots for the summer. Sleep with it, she said.

I congratulated her on her success. The job means a lot. On the one part, she can soon get her iPhone7 so I won’t have to pay for it. On the other, less practical part, is that she had worked so hard at it, knocking on doors, reproducing tonnes of her past work, stuffing those samples into as many hands as she can find. It is a tough, competitive business.

Such an ethic is so Chinese, valuing personal endeavor, sheer strife, resourcefulness and persistence, not to cry over misfortunes or deprivation but actually to go out and try make a life for ourselves, regardless of the odds. This is to help explain why the Chinese are at the forefront in opposing Najib while the Malays (or Indians) fall asleep as the plunder proceed: We can’t stand for sloth, thievery and fraud, that is, taking things that aren’t yours.

In China, fraud and corruption are considered crimes near equal to murder. Hence, in serious cases, theft gets a life sentence or death. Tyranny is better tolerated than corruption. This worldview suggests why it is improbable Jho Low could stitch a 1MDB deal with China as he did with Arabs.

To the Chinese, Low is so anti-Chinese in his ethics, his life and how he conducts himself (but he doesn’t know it). An Anglophile like so many western-educated Malays, Chinese and Indians, he tolerates fraud more than murder because of the western, Christian injunction not to kill. Under some circumstances, the morality is absurd.

Another point about personal ethics is that the more the Malays press on the Chinese, the greater we become, more determined to move on with our lives and get ahead in our outlook. Jian is like that, so Chinese. For this and nothing else, I adore her.

Not Malay, without Mara, no Felda, no Ismail Sabri with free rent, no Perkasa, no Petronas jobs, no GLC, an indifferent, often hostile Malay government, the Chinese in Malaysia survive purely on their wits. The pain from the deprivation that inflicts the unfortunate is unspeakable (below), unknown to Malays like Utusan. Even then, they don’t cease their attacks, continuing a relentless campaign to beat down the Chinese whenever an opportunity presents itself. To unseat Umno, Mahathir, Muhyiddin, Kadir Jasin, Zaid Ibrahim — these Malaiyoo motherfuckers  — now resort to beating a new Chinese bogey. China.

Neither China nor the Chinese will be stopped. Are we surprised by Mahathir et al? No. Like dogs, these men are very predictable. Throw them a bone they’d scoot right up to it and then … we’ll avenge the injustices. We had offered them a hand, and they spit on it…. I must say no more.

The Chinese drive to better one’s life suffuses Hong Kong society: old women dragging card boards to sell and recycle, out-of-school teenagers playing street music and singing to passers-by for a dollar or two, out-of-work youths are in apprentice programs in construction. Jian and I spent an hour to watch a beautiful couple, probably in their thirties, busking outside a residential block; they look so much in love.

Chinese worry how we’ll turn out and look to the next generation. But we’ll manage somehow because we are not afraid of hard work, nor risks, soiling our hands, doing decent work. When China’s foreign minister said in comments about the South China Sea — We don’t go out looking for trouble, but when trouble comes we are never afraid — I know exactly what he means.

We each take our individual road, pursue our separate dreams. Yet I feel a unison of purpose. I work for myself and for Jian and for family. These efforts return to China in some inexplicable way. As we individually strive to get ahead, each for himself or herself, I sense all China striving as well, right through her bosom, growing strong each day, unified by the same idea though in a different sense to different people: Rise up!

Early in our relationship, Jian would go berserk if I speak badly of China. She’s more relaxed now. She understands that worse than speaking ill of China is to hide the truth from her. The Chinese, in years of my association with its officials, are willing to listen though not to flatter or praise — these they view with suspicion. It is to Reason that appeals most to the Chinese and China.



Families wrenched apart, the root of which is sometimes a banal one — money.


Beside the Water 《在水一方》韋唯

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »