Archive for the ‘Malaysia: Dialogue’ Category

From Anglophiles, Taiwan and Malaysia, such a film is call ‘art’ — and gets prizes, Taiwanese types. If from my Motherland, it’s called ‘propaganda’. No prizes, of course.


Pete Teo, the Chinese Anglophile from Sabah made infamous by a slap from a Malaiyoo in the Peninsula, has participated in an anti-China film done in Taiwan (Cina @ YouTiup, below, is easily impressed; ‘wah‘ he says). This is a film about a film, a trick taken from an old literary story-within-a-story device (Joseph Conrad, for example). It talks of a single family situation within the politically loaded one-China context.

True, some Hong Kong people want a separate state independent from the mainland. Ditto Taiwan. And they are far more millions who want to keep China one. What about them? Their views don’t count; undemocratic?

In any case, what’s the big deal about the film? Anybody think China will sweat over it? It will win big prizes that the Taiwan Anglophiles will happily hand over dozens all because a film is anti-China. We, the Chinese, on the other hand, are too big for that.

If director Ying Liang 應亮 wants such a film, yes, he’s entitled to do it, but not inside China; there’d be millions of Chinese — and this isn’t just the central Chinese government only — who will want his head. Is this oppression? Is this undemocratic? Answer: So what? Why, on the contrary, we like to think it is very democratic.

The Chinese have lost hundreds of millions upon millions of lives (between 1938-45, 25 million and we haven’t yet finish counting the bodies) to lay out, build and keep intact its civilization, culture, identity, and state for over 3,000 years — helped by Confucius and Laozi. Why would you think we would let a couple of motherfuckers undo it all? Because Pete Teo says so? Ying Liang? Taipei Times of Taiwan? Or Richard Brody?

They can even call China all sorts of names — we don’t give a fuck.



But, here’s the rub. Brody:

Ying Liang, one of the world’s best filmmakers, whom China tried to silence, has a new film, I Have Nothing to Say….

One of the best? According to Brody, of course. And this is how good Brody is:

Here’s the Chinese title: 媽媽的口供. 媽媽 = mother; 口供 = confession. Hence in translation: A Mother’s Confession.

In one dialogue scene, a main character, the mother played by 耐安 Nai An, said to the public security officers: 我還有話要說. Literally, “I also have something to say.

Now, take those two sets of Chinese phrases and their actual translations and compare them to Brody’s English rendering of the film title I Have Nothing to Say, which so clearly attempts by distortion and by outright lying to connote, to imply and to infer a sense of defiance against the authorities, of silence, of an uncooperative attitude.

Western attempts to portray China on the cruelest, darkest possible terms is legendary and has gone on for the last 300 years, indeed ever since the arrival of White Christian missionaries and gunboats. They have never, never, never been attempts in mass media to be fair or to see things on Chinese terms — much less to be real or truthful. Not even to see and interpret China by other Chinese who feel their government is doing right.

The result is this relentless propaganda, itself twisted — I have something to say becomes I have nothing to say — standing on the legs of western values (human rights, yada, yada, yada). Helping to spearhead this are the Taiwan Anglophiles and western editors at Taipei Times. In the circumstances, therefore, why should China allow Ying Liang any space at all at home to present such distortions (which is why it is also called propaganda).

At the end of the day, we, the Chinese, don’t give a shit. Ying can do what he likes; Pete Teo can take part in the film, again, we also don’t give a shit.

But if Pete wants to talk about being silenced, that would be a joke, isn’t it? Does he mean silenced like he was silenced with a slap in front of Najib Razak, no less?

In his Twitter, Brody cites Ying:

“…all Chinese signed a contract with the government: If you forget what happened, you can lead a normal life. If you don’t, then you have to leave or not have a normal life.”

Is that statement even true?

We, including the authors at shuzheng, have never signed any contract with the government, expressed or implied; the government doesn’t want such a contract, and we don’t need it to govern our lives. We know about Tiananmen, we have never forgotten, we even talked about it — in front of the authorities. But are our lives abnormal as a result? Have we left? Were we driven out? Can I not publish in WordPress?

To us, people like Ying are abnormal. Like the West is abnormal, like Brody, like Pete Teo, like Mahathir Mohamad, like Lim Kit Siang — these bumbling Anglophile fools. They aren’t just nuts; they are plain stupid, and can’t even do propaganda convincingly.



Pete, you want another slap? Next time your tongue will take flight… and all your teeth with it. Whoosh. Stupid fucker, and watch your tongue, boy.




Read Full Post »

For the Reform Agenda:

Hunt Down Shahidan Kassim


Image result for shahidan kassim

The forces that destroyed the lives of Indira Gandhi and her children and that of Chen Yimin (陈乙敏) as well are the same forces at work with that man above: that piece of kampung pig head and motherfucker named Shahidan Kassim. Versus the cocksure, lawyering, liberal types, Syah Redzan, below, guess who’s going to win?


The War Against Man, Against Malays

In Malaysia, God Opens a New Front


Normal people would consider Shahidan Kassim a whacko and so are likely to ignore or dismiss his threat to hunt down atheists (remarks on YouTube), Malays in particular, to ‘bring them back and fix their faith’.

There are two lines of possible defense for Shahidan:

(a) he has a constitutional point of view to do something about atheists, and

(b) he has a Muslim leader role to safeguard the interests of the ummah, the Muslim collective, an argument that runs something like, On ‘judgement day’ he will be asked by Allah what he had done for Malay-Muslims (don’t laugh, that’s what he said).

Shahidan isn’t the only official who wants to beat up other people because they aren’t like him; a day before him there was Rizal Mansor, some Rosmah aide it seems.

Which is to suggest that there is now a war, another Allah’s war, launched against people, atheists this time. The war begins with and focuses on Malays.

More dangerous than Shahidan, the madman, is the idea. It parallels ketuanan in its insidious quality and when rooted it becomes near impossible to pull back even though you see the devastation by ketuanan everywhere.

This havoc isn’t unlike the ones in Syria or Libya or other Muslim countries. Ketuanan’s havoc might not be scorch earth type but this also means its economic and social affliction spreads further and deeper against the individual souls. Common to both in their self-destructive capacity is, of course, Islamic culture, history, politics and society.

The plain fact is Umno and PAS, Hadi Awang and Mahathir Mohamad subscribe to the same religious dogma that fuels ISIS terror. It is the same Allah they pray to, the same Allah whose name they invoke when hunting atheists or chopping heads. ISIS and Shahidan work out of, and flow from, the same religious principle — the ummah.

Malaysia’s Constitution, where Shahidan is concerned, is merely added justification used to fit a multi-religious context.

Like Rizal, Shahidan might be wrong but it didn’t matter. Saying it, he takes Malays and Malaysia not to uncharted territory — it is on the same grounds of apostasy and ummah preservation. Shahidan simply slipped in via another door so as to build a case to deal with people who talk too much and take too much personal liberties he doesn’t like, possibly even to jail some of them. This is an old war fought on a new front.

That he has to invoke the Constitution and then some voodoo Judgment Day, with some fictitious demand by some fictitious god, shows he wants to give law a moral compunction: Religion is not refutable since it is never demonstrated truth in the first place. Thus, Shahidan (and those muftis) can say anything he likes and he will even get away with murder, like ISIS and like Arab towel heads.

What does Shahidan want out of his anti-atheism? Only he knows the answer. But, for sure, it keeps Malays as Muslims, even if nominally, and it keeps up with the high Muslim population relative to the Chinese and others. That, in its turn, provides the political and electoral objectives for the survival and existence of Umno and PAS. It’s this political objective that explains the war language tone in Shahidan’s ‘hunt them‘ and in Rizal’s ‘plague of atheism‘.

Consequently, political parties with a religious objective is antithetical to a secular constitution. Whereas secularism attempts to order life and a nation from a non-religious standpoint, Umno and PAS are forever trying to introduce religious injunctions into the constitution so that on point of fact, and law, those parties are anti-constitutional and must be abolished.


Below, from Twitter, Malay responses to Shahidan



Tweets like those above aren’t arguments but are merely little bullet blanks — only longer in blog postings — fired to make a sound without impact against the Shahidan proposal.

Like it is with numerous life and death issues, and against a formidable, insidious enemy such as god, Malaysia’s tweets and blogs reduce Shahidan to a war of words without attrition, just so for entertaining their reader fans.

As a result, Shahidan gets away with persecuting the innocent, people who, as with pregnant, single Malay girls or a kampung child, have done nobody no harm. This is just so wrong, yet, nobody — these stupid Anglophiles, so full of righteousness — takes it up against Shahidan personally. Who the fuck does he think he is!


Not all opinions are equal

There is a sense of weirdness in Shahidan’s anti-atheism.

Apostasy, in which a previously professed God is renounced, is the opposite to joining faith which, in turn, is typically signified by a declaration in speech or acts (such as baptism) or both. But atheism requires none of the above. It’s purely an internal process, an idea held in the heart or mind or soul, any of which, if it were to give oral expression to the thought, simply says, ‘Nah, I don’t believe in god.‘ It never says which or what god, and this is the crux of the matter.

Shahidan aims to root out that Thought.

Like, if you were to land in Mars then stumbling on something that has never existed on earth, you first have to give it a name — see, naming is the beginning of things. God is such a thing. Which then leads to the question, how do you express something that isn’t there? The next best thing, where Shahidan is concerned, is to demand a public confession from an atheist of a belief in no god; there is simply no other way to secure a conviction. Any which way you look at it, in both Shahidan’s objective and method, he is identical to the communist tyranny of Stalin and Pol Pot who typically employs the device of a TV confession followed by jail, when not executed.

The result of Shahidan’s threat? Liberal Malays scramble around like frightened rats and you see this in their tweets (above) because, foremost in their minds, they are asking: Is Shahidan and Umno and Jakim out to get me?

Take Syahredzan. Getting cold feet, he blabbers away, How did I show I am atheist? (tweet above). This reduces his only defense to within the ground rules set up by Shahidan. Which is this, a Malay believes only in Allah; that or declare yourself an apostate and believe in another God. No third option here.

It’s an absurd proposition but there you have it because, to rub salt to the injury, Shahidan says the Constitution is silent on atheism. Therefore — and this is where a Malaiyoo coconut head like him fails the logical test — the Law, the man adds, does not permit No Belief! In other words, Silence = Refusal. (There is more to be said about his argument but we’ll leave it at that. The point? What a fucking pig head: were these Malaiyoo Cabinet members born out of their mothers’ asses? Poop….)

Worse is to come for the like of Syah Redzan, Shahidan could make atheism a criminal offense, after the TV confession of course.

Atheism requires some elaboration alongside its associated concept, apostasy, because these things don’t exist in the Far East Asian lexicon, languages, traditions and thoughts, at least not until the arrival of Scottish and Orang Putih motherfuckers.

Within both Islamic and Christianity dogma contains the tyrannical idea that there is only ‘One True God’ and no other. This tyranny is central. It gave rise to religious regulations subsequently extended to criminal laws that are associated with chopping heads and ISIS terror. All of which are linked to the Arabic life styles concerning terms such as murtad (apostate), munafik (Muslim by pretense or appearances only) and especially kafir (non-believer, that’s believing in other gods).

From Christians such as Yeo Bee Yin or Hannah Yeoh their equivalent of the murtad, for example, is the Infidel (it’s in the Bible). This is completely anti-Confucian and anti-Chinese because we never classify people in such moralistic terms. It goes to explain why in China, for example, we despise Christianity because it breaks up families into categories with which Christians then act according to the divisions. This way of life is identical to the Islamic way, to the way PAS and Umno do things and treat people.

It is this context that Shahidan is going after atheists because, where the previous case concerns deviancy or belief in other gods, atheism is belief in no god; god being either Allah or Jesus.

Atheism changes apostasy’s ground rules entirely because where, previously, it was a choice of gods, now it is a choice between God and no God. But here is the stickler affecting atheism: No Belief has to, in the first place, presume the existence of God (recall the Mars analogy). The issue with atheism is, belief or no belief, not the existence of God; that is supposed to be a given. That is, you can only disbelieve a god after you first acknowledge there is even a god. Put another way, you cannot not (double negative) believe unless there is something to believe in, yes?

So, which God is being denied? As laid out in western liberalism, subscribed today by Malays like Syah Redzan, atheism became a denial of one of the Judeo-Christian/Islamic gods: Allah, Jehovah, Jesus or whatever names were given them.

In Chinese and other Asian traditions, there was no One True God to begin with. So how could we be atheist? That, as the equivalent of a negation on a negation, what’s there to deny? On a thing that isn’t there? On a Nothing?

Anglophiles, both Christian Chinese and liberal Malays, Syah Redzan likewise, these great God apologists, find themselves trapped in this merry-go-round, circular syllogism which they cannot get out of. In such a situation, other Malays, the PAS and Umno types, whip out their Quran (or Bible by the DAP Christians) to find answers for out-of-god questions — you see in the tweets above. (But can you see their stupidity?)

Where does this leave Anglophiles? Short answer, nowhere: ‘Sit tight, Syah, no worry, you don’t need to do anything; Shahidan will come knocking.

To save their asses, they might even resort to Shahidan’s defense, saying, for example, atheism is not against law, yada, yada, yada, so that this is purely a single man’s point of view. That is, Shahidan is entitled to an opinion, as if all opinions are equal and, therefore, it deserves by right to be treated equally, with equal claim to being true or right.

This ‘entitled to his opinion‘ cliche, followed by the other ‘respect his opinion‘ cliche, presumes there is any logical, rational or evidential basis in Shahidan’s anti-atheism and therefore presumes the man’s campaign is a serious candidate for truth, hence implementation, when, instead, all that it amounts to is a tyrannical, fascist absurdity which not only devalues good opinion but is especially cruel to people and deserves to be pummeled to death, along with the Shahidan fucker.

Syah Redzan’s greatest fear is, he has no defense because, once in the realm of the Abrahamic faiths, he is stuck on its terms and those terms involve life, limbs, and death.

This is why, although Islam and Christianity are both dangerous to Malaysia and so utterly inhumane, it is despairing to see Opposition politicians plunging headlong into some foreign religious morality then invoking it to save Malaysia, on the assumption that you can’t be good without the Bible or the Quran. That is, they say, Najib Razak is an abnormality, a deviant of righteousness when on point of fact he is instead a devout follower of Wahhabism along with its Arabic creeds, and so deserves to be treated with contempt. (Not 1MDB, that’s a side show.)

The notion that good can only come out of the Quran (or the Bible) is fucking absurd. We, the Chinese, have 3,000 years to prove that though without Allah, without Jesus, or because we are accused of being ungodly — or ‘Atheism’ if that’s what Anglophiles and Malays prefer — our Confucianism and Daoism treat people far, far better as humans than all the centuries of Christianity and Islam stacked up. For example, we see ourselves as open to being wrong and vulnerable because ‘learning’, ‘experiences’ and ‘growing up to be human’ are never complete and never ceases until death. This is what a Chinese education and Confucianism teach us.

A human being is not borne out of a machined mold into which the godly of Malaysia attempt to fit other people back in. The west is only beginning to discover — Cogito Zero Sum — what we, Chinese, have been saying for millennia:

To learn is to accept that one’s growth—the endless process of becoming who they will be—depends on engaging the strangeness within themselves (the part that is perpetually open, unpredictable) as much as interacting with a strange world of knowledge that they can absorb but never know in its entirety on their own. They must share in it with others. It belongs to no one, and so it belongs to everyone; this is the radically communist (or “commonist”) core of learning itself. The same goes for consciousness and selfhood: both are open things, and both are as dependent on you as they are on other people.

That, however, has yet to catch on among Anglophiles in Malaysia, these cultural copycats. So they continue to follow the Islamic and Judeo-Christian traditions under which their conduct, that is, their acts and words that they exhibit, have already been determined beforehand, depending on whether (if at all) they read the Bible or the Quran. Those are their ultimate and only reference points. Hence, Shahidan says Islam has this instruction so he goes up and down the country hunting for atheists — to ‘fix’ them! Is there, truly, in this world any greater motherfucker.

To make matters worse in Malaysia, this fucking God is in the Constitution and the Rukun Negara, both ready now at the beck and call of Shahidan, Hadi Awang, et al, for use to grind you, Syah Redzan and others to dust.

The like of Perkasa and Ibrahim Ali, even the PKR and DAP, think that the Constitution is guarantor of the Malay life. Yes and true, a fucked up life if that’s what Malays want. It’s defective, full of holes, any of which is now the curse of the Malays and should be ripped apart if Harapan truly and rationally have people’s welfare at heart.

Here’s a warning to Shahidan Kassim, et al: Don’t touch any Chinese, and don’t take this warning lightly. We now play for keeps, you piece of motherfucker.


Read Full Post »

Before politics, here’s something you are unlikely to see, a tweet from people in finance…



CreditSights is a finance research company run by a bunch of White people and Anglophiles. When they try to spread Chinese ideas, that, above, is the result.

Cina @ YouTiup says CreditSights (anonymous tweeted it) is wrong:


Who then is right? Because, if Cina is right, what then explains the term which in its script (versus etymological) origin is, technically, correct. It is a composition of two terms, (亻being the short-hand variant — also called a ‘radical’ — of 人):

ren, person + 呆 dai, stupid = bao, ‘guarantor’



Anglo Copycat Khoo

Is he preaching or teaching?

Khoo Kay Kim, the UM man above wants Chinese schools abolished because, according to him, those schools produce copycats and idiots who can’t think. That’s from a man who hadn’t sat a single day in a Chinese class and evidently hadn’t heard of Pisa. How could such a stupid man end up as a professor? Only in Malaysia.

An Anglo version of the Muslim Ridhuan Tee, Khoo is representative of Anglophiles in Malaysia (Lim Kit Siang, Liew Chin Tong et al, mostly Christians) who think the world of the English, English custom, thought, education, history, snow, sheep, Scottish farms, Thomas Hardy pastors, pedophile priests, scones and marmalade.


CreditSights: White, Finance People Teaching Chinese


… then discovering profundity that kids grow up with.


By the time a Chinese student finishes six years of primary school (particularly in Taiwan, HK or China Mainland) the child would have picked up 3,000 characters, sufficient to read from front page newspaper to the last page. In Malaysia, because of Malay encroachment, heavy syllabus requirement in multiple languages, and motherfucker Anglophiles like Khoo Kay Kim (above), the child’s vocabulary is probably down to fewer than 2,500 words. In comparison, the English dictionary has something like 200,000 words.

What makes for Chinese usability — and this is derived from the multiplicity in the Chinese language or hanyu 汉语 — is its flexibility which, when passed on into Anglophile Khoo racist language, is termed the ‘pragmatism’ of the Chinese. To express a meaning or an idea shouldn’t need any more words than necessary. That’s pragmatism. Our ancestors took it and went further, one single word/character could produce multiple meanings but one closely associated with the other. String two together produce a sentence and this delivers an incredible result because each word/character is the engine to a train of history trailing behind.

Engine of a train?

Yes, because each word/character is a standalone idea, hence the term ideogram. At most times it expresses a picture which is called a pictograph (or a ‘pictorial-gram’). An ideogram is harder and this is an example: 天 tian, day/sky/heaven, is comprised of the number yi, one 一 plus 大. In this ideogram-idea, the sky is one enormous, gargantuan firmament. And not just that. Da 大 has 15 adjectival meanings from big, vast to deep, wide, great and older person.

Alternatively, you could read 天 tian as the number one 一 written twice, one on top of the other, after which add the character for person 人. This is the actual correct written sequence: 一 + 一 + 人. What does that idea present, ‘one’ plus ‘one’ plus ‘person’, 一 + 一 + 人?

No answer will be provided. The point instead is to show how a single word/character, either stitched/bound together from its components or strung into two or more words, produces a profusion (and a profundity) of multiple concepts. It’s fantastic intellectual training, unavailable in any other language (except maybe kanji 漢字).

We are now ready to return to Cina and CreditSights.

The CreditSights tweet decomposition of bao is correct, 亻ren + 呆 dai. But does 呆 dai mean stupid, although you might find that translation in some dictionaries. One simple test, which you can conduct on your own, is to take its etymological construction because 呆 is itself composed of 口 kuo or mouth and 木 mu or wood or tree, the first on top of the second.

Question: what was the ideogram-idea in that combination? We ourselves are not sure. As a guess it could mean, logically, the act of feeding out of trees or the woods. Rarely do dictionaries give its meaning as ‘stupid’ which can only exists as a consequence of a mental state. But the ideogram speaks to, and of, a physical state, referring to someone unable to care for himself. Meaning, stupidity is not even inferred. In general and common usage, therefore, 呆 dai refers to the simple-minded or dull-minded, someone, as Cina says, ‘mentally challenged’ which affects the physical ability to be independent or self-sufficient.

Stupid, on the other hand, is always rendered not as dai but as 笨 ben or 蠢 chun.

Now, return to the Chinese word ren 人 or 亻. A person beside dai 呆, that is, one person beside another person who is physically dependent has to connote some kind of support. This then gives rise to the sense of, ‘to protect, to safeguard, to defend, to care for’.

Those are verb ideas, arising from the acts or intentions of protecting something but, more likely, caring for someone. Because these verb ideas don’t denote a personal noun, the term 保 can’t mean ‘guarantor’ which is a third person reference. Guarantor is instead written as 担保人 danbaoren, and note the repeat of the pronoun word ren.

Cina is therefore correct. So that CreditSight is actually a bunch of assholes who have managed through their stupidity to insult all the world’s insurers, in Chinese 保险公司, baoxian gongsi (notice the word bao again) from AIA to CIMB Life as a bunch of morons.

This is the trouble when Anglos and Anglophiles try to lecture Chinese from the outside. They, including people like Khoo Kay Kim, know so little and each time they open their mouths, and even if we grant them the logic employed on western terms, they have only utter idiocies to show. They don’t even know their English, or histories. Here they are, right on queue:


老外混蛋 laowai hundan: Want an accurate translation, boys and girls?


Below is another of their attempts: These snake oil salesmen, running around in Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia, using (and abusing) the Chinese hanzi language in order to make themselves look profound.

They succeed only because they preach to the equally ignorant. Small wonder Tim Leissner and Goldman Sachs got away with selling USD6.5 bn worth of useless bonds. That’s billions of useless — literally, if you were to think it through — completely useless bonds.

We aren’t bothered to tell them anymore where they are wrong. It isn’t just bad language but that their faulty, perverse analytical method is identical to that employed by  Sumisha Naidu and Hannah Yeoh, both of who equated black and racism but not when white people want to have tanned or black skin. No, for white people that isn’t racism; it’s liberalism. What a motherfucking lot.


Why reject the Opposition

The smartest person in the room speaks softly and intelligibly, no need for chest beating because the force of the argument is not in the sound but in the substance. Thus Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj (clip below) comes out immensely sensible but he’s well received for the wrong reasons — it is about Mahathir Mohamad.

Return to the clip. Out of five minutes, four are devoted to explaining one crucial problem among the Malays that underlies the failure of the Mahathir’s NEP, along with a host of other failures: the subsidy-schemes don’t make economic sense. And Jeyakumar was very specific about what’s wrong with those schemes, rubber, padi, fertilizers and so on. But, all these, too remote for Harapan to tackle, too much trouble to figure out, taking too much work, they go for the easy thing at which they spend endless hours — 1MDB.

Why is 1MDB easy? Lots of morality, especially Anglophile morality. With morality, you could beat Najib till kingdom come but the subsidy scheme will probably continue to rot under a Harapan government. That is precisely the likely result from Zaid Ibrahim’s position when he says: 1MDB is the best thing to beat up Najib Razak. For Mahathir, the same idea, although his determination to remove Najib precedes the 1MDB.

For further evidence into the stupidity of the Opposition, consider the Malaysiakini headline and report. Again, it’s about Mahathir. Not one word on the fucked up subsidy scheme.

To Haris Ibrahim. Five years ago, he went on and on about ABU — Anything but Umno. Thus was PAS catapult into power and influence then. ABU five years later and, Mahathir is not Umno. What now?

The contradiction stares in his face and Haris cannot see the problem in his slogan: it isn’t about Mahathir and Umno but Harapan. Which is why, we, the Chinese, will hold Lim Kit Siang and the DAP to account not because they support Mahathir but because they have demonstrated to be completely untrustworthy. They won’t have our votes nor our support. More than that, we’ll skewer the fucker.

In combination, Jeyakumar and Haris reveal several things about Harapan: as incompetent as Umno, as opportunistic as Umno, as duplicitous as Umno, out of all of which emerges the most prominent characteristic — a bunch of lying motherfuckers. They will pay, and we pray Najib locks them up and throw away the key.


Tun Mahathir Fascism, Kit Siang U-Tun Politics

Mahathir Mohamad spent decades, indeed devoted his entire life, all 70+ years of his adult life, cultivating a fascism called Ketuanan Melayu, so that in his twilight years he is still saying this…

Malays are in control

And Lim Kit Siang devoted his entire life and all of DAP’s resources for 50 years to harvest Chinese votes in order to fight Mahathir fascism and, now, in his twilight years he finds himself agreeing to it.

Is there a greater betrayal? Is there a greater hypocrite? And Haris Ibrahim and Zaid Ibrahim, these models of liberalism and real politics, the Third Force, have nothing to say? The DAP in the like of Hannah Yeoh have nothing to say about their New Politics, their politics beyond race?

All these cunts and motherfuckers…. No wonder there is a simmering revolt within the DAP and it has already lost 20 percent of votes without even the general elections. Truly, a fucked up country. Good riddance.


Somewhere in my Motherland…





People at QQ circulating the photo above are calling that man, president of the world’s oldest civilization, stupid, chun 蠢, standing there looking like a helpless idiot when he should be seated beside her, one arm over the shoulders, and giving her hugs.


Read Full Post »

We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. — George Orwell


False Choices:


How Thaya Got It Wrong


This responds to S Thayaparan who wrote Why vote for the Opposition?

Thaya’s case is persuasive but still doesn’t convincingly say why, why, why the Opposition? All that Thaya has dealt with is the fact that, given the two sides are quite nearly the same, an overbearing Barisan has done more than the Opposition to alienate itself from the populace: You could trust it no more.

Yes, and true.

Follow that Thaya line of thought arrives at his ultimate proposition, there is a chance — and it’s just a chance — the Opposition could go a little side way. A “little better,” he says. A little better here, little better there.

Malaysia’s political pathway, already paved and set in concrete, (meaning, for example, the Constitution) would however stay the same. But — and this is where Thaya detours — change the politician tour drivers, you might find the baggage different, perhaps lighter, less antagonistic, less poisonous, more useful, a little better to travel with.

All that, mind you, is a just a hope — Harapan. Hoping is good, but wait a minute….

Where would they take us? Thaya doesn’t say, and doesn’t need to. Remember the road is already paved. But, wherever it takes Malaysia, keep your eye on the politicians. Thaya:

Vote because you hope that regime change will make it possible, easier for actual change to happen….

‘Hope’ for a ‘possible’? What gobbledygook is that because Thaya is actually saying, let’s hope on a hope!

More to the point, Thaya’s terms constitute the entire electoral vocabulary of the Opposition and he, stepping right into it, could ignore and then threw out an established fact he started out with, which is, the two sides are the same color, only shaded differently.

Put it another way, a vote for the Opposition, since it being fundamentally the same as Barisan, is basically a bet. And it is not even a calculated bet. It’s a throw of the dice — betting on one number only, going one direction only, and stopping at only one color .

Thaya bets that things might — this is, may — be a ‘little better’. He’s not even hoping for ‘much better’ or a turn around, instead just ‘a little’.

A little? Is our vote so pitiful because, if things turn out going the opposite direction, what then? This is entirely possible. The Middle East is up in flames today on the same bet: an existing regime is so useless and corrupt, everybody — from Americans to Arabs and English girls — fell for ISIS and variants thereof.

Orwell was right:

One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship.

In that situation, Thaya regurgitates the Opposition apologia: should things fail to turn out as ‘hoped’ for, vote them out the next time. Vote them out? Like trying to vote out Barisan in 2008 and 2013? He means like vote back in Najib because Thaya is today going to vote for Mahathir Mohamad!

There is, of course, nothing good to be said about Barisan. But this is wrong! It’s not Barisan. In the Peninsula and in Sabah, there’s only Umno. It is, after all, the only thing left inside Barisan so that, really, the dilemma — Harapan or Barisan — that Thaya has presented is essentially a false dichotomy.

Or, look at Harapan now.

Using seats, using numbers, two-thirds of Harapan are ex-Umno. If you add PAS, which was born from the rib of Umno, the proportion rises to four-fifths. (Which explains why Thaya sees, rightfully, that there is little or no difference between the two coalitions.) Mahathir, equaling all the Malays present in Harapan, represents the start of that trajectory downwards.

A vote for Harapan is a vote for the back to the beginning of Malaysia’s problems. In that, Thaya refuses to say, or he simply doesn’t see. (Maybe his mustache is getting in the way.)

This raises the question: If the Barisan is not the problem central, what is it about Umno, as the nation’s driver, that makes it so despicable since, as it is established, the road is already set? The answer, really, is simple: It represents all the things that showed Malaysia has had a wrong driver for 60 years.

The operative word where Thaya is concerned is, driver — not the driving.

Therefore, as Thaya suggests, keep an eye on the driver-politicians. But, if he were to replace one bad driver for another, what hope is there? This is where Thaya mistakes one tree for the forest: it is not the driver per se but what the driver represents that’s utterly wrong with Umno — whether the wrong is inside Umno or outside is not the point. Outside would include Harapan.

In another manner of speaking, we are, when voting, looking for traits in driver not looking for driver. Here’s a suggested list of traits:

  • bigotry, via religious & race morality,
  • duplicity,
  • lying,
  • fraudulent conduct, and
  • stupidity.

Note that race per se or religion per se aren’t present in your vote considerations. Note also that all the above are negative qualities for the obvious reason the positive can only be known by its opposite, which is easier to discover.

We all like fault finding. How to find fault? Answer, listen to what they say and see what they do. Also recall the dictum, we are known by the company we keep: God keeps Satan, Angel Gabriel keeps Serpent, Ong Kian Ming keeps Yeo Bee Yin, Najib Razak keeps Hadi Awang, Lim Kit Siang keeps Mahathir Mohamad. You know God for what Satan is. You know Lim Kit Siang because of Mahathir, both opportunistic for power.

Start, therefore, with the first of the five criteria and the rest falls into place. Seeing that as the first criterion in your decision, you simply vote for its opposite, regardless if that’s a Harapan logo on the ballot or a Barisan flag.

[Example: In a Selangor constituency where it is Yeo Bee Yin (DAP) versus Siti Zabedah Kasim (Independent), I’d pick Siti, without much thinking because Yeo and Siti have already made my decision. No need to attend ceramahs, no need to listen to speeches because those are created only for the moment.

[Example again: Between Najib and Mahathir, your choice seems befuddling but it can’t be Mahathir using the five-point trait list. If, however, there is a third candidate then your decision clears up immediately. In another situation that’s a contest among PSM, Harapan and Barisan, fault finding and the principle of association will again help. Pick PSM obviously. Between PAS and Umno, choose Umno because, adopting negativity as a principle, you don’t want PAS to win.]

Like the inevitability that morning will happen when you go to sleep, so too it is with political characters. When Yeo’s fraudulent character shows up on the ballot, you will see her contestant-opposite. If still in doubt, two weeks after the candidacies are announced, then go home. Do nothing. Either way, you aren’t betting, and the vote is too precious to make a Thaya bet. Nothing is lost. Nothing. Nothing can get worse than it already is. After that let the dice find its place. Embrace anarchy, embrace uncertainty. Let the river flows where it wills. Your vote done, you are free from the false Thayaparan dichotomy — Harapan or Barisan — free from two equally bad options.

The point in all that is not to let Thayaparan and a two-sided, Barisan v Harapan contest narrow down or, worse, negate your choices.

That’s what a Thaya false dichotomy leads to, it cuts down your options to just one and so explains why the Opposition refuses to tolerate a third party in a contest. This refusal is against everything democracy stands for. So, in pleading language, it says give Harapan a chance. And how to give it chance? Thaya adds: Let’s go back and begin from the same point in time, the same spot that led to Malaysia’s ‘failed state’ (Kit Siang’s words) — Mahathir! After that, let’s hope about Mahathir even though the man is a matter of written record, in book-thick sizes. This utter illogicism is incredulous and that’s coming from some mind called ‘Commander’.

Pray tell, Thaya, what happened? Got up from the wrong side of bed? Missed your daily Masjid India goat’s milk? Or age catching up fast. You poor fella; you should change your reading list. Orwell:

If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.


Here’s something youthful to wake you up, Commander.

Within two days 2 million hits and that’s just outside China mainland.


Read Full Post »

 The Fraudulent Life:

Sister in Christ, Sister in Deceit

Image result for Yeo Bee Yin

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


Mattala, Rail & the DAP


Why Yeo Bee Yin?

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

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

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

China simply doesn’t think in these terms.

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

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

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


Image result for Port of Hambantota

Related image



1. ECRL in DAP Christian Economics


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

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

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

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

In that, there is actually a precedent.

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

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


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

Related image



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


ECRL in Bee Yin Racist Bigotry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s wrong with the passage above?

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

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

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

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

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

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


2. Mattala in Bee Yin Immorality


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related image

Image result for Port of Hambantota

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

Image result for Port of Hambantota

Image result for Port of Hambantota

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Mattala isn’t a Chinese airport

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

We know, why, of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Image result for SJK (C) Hwa Nan

3. Born Again Bee Yin:


Saved by the Son, Fucked by the Father


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Bee Yin & Hannah Yeoh: Sisters in Deception



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Image result for pas yeo bee yin





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


Read Full Post »

With one letter, Hadi Awang imagines himself sitting underneath that dome, above.


Dear Ustaz Hadi Awang,

Thank you for your letter and your offer.

Addressing us as non-Muslims, one must assume you are talking to us. But, you should never, never, never again address us as non-Muslims like you are fond of saying ‘non-Malay’ and ‘non-bumi’. If you are talking to Christians, you know you don’t stand a chance with your preaching. If you have a mind to speak to ‘infidels’ or ‘kafirs’ (and Christians in your Islamic lexicon is not ‘infidel’?) say so because those labels are the badges you pin on us.

Some of us might be Buddhists, others Hindus — who you treat not respectfully as humans but as targets for conversion, like the Christians do. Any which way you look at it, we are a people ultimately free from the shackles of your desert import and your kind of a God. Call us a Free People. You see, Hadi, in your manner of speech, even in your opening lines, you start disrespectful. Any wonder why we don’t give a fuck for your Islam? Allah or God or whatever you call ‘It’ — this Imagination — has been the curse of humankind.

Then there is the matter of language. Since you write and talk to infidels, here is what we suggest you do next time: Write in hanzi. Or get a translation and email it. Malaiyoo also boleh. Otherwise, I don’t see how we are going to talk fruitfully and productively. What’s this gobbledygook:

إِنَّمَا ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنُونَ إِخۡوَةٞ فَأَصۡلِحُواْ بَيۡنَ أَخَوَيۡكُمۡۚ وَٱتَّقُواْ ٱللَّهَ لَعَلَّكُمۡ تُرۡحَمُونَ ١٠ يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ لَا يَسۡخَرۡ قَوۡمٞ مِّن قَوۡمٍ عَسَىٰٓ أَن يَكُونُواْ خَيۡرٗا مِّنۡهُمۡ وَلَا نِسَآءٞ مِّن نِّسَآءٍ عَسَىٰٓ أَن يَكُنَّ خَيۡرٗا مِّنۡهُنَّۖ وَلَا تَلۡمِزُوٓاْ أَنفُسَكُمۡ وَلَا تَنَابَزُواْ بِٱلۡأَلۡقَٰبِۖ بِئۡسَ ٱلِٱسۡمُ ٱلۡفُسُوقُ بَعۡدَ ٱلۡإِيمَٰنِۚ وَمَن لَّمۡ يَتُبۡ فَأُوْلَٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلظَّٰلِمُونَ ١١ يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ ٱجۡتَنِبُواْ كَثِيرٗا مِّنَ ٱلظَّنِّ إِنَّ بَعۡضَ ٱلظَّنِّ إِثۡمٞۖ وَ لَا تَجَسَّسُواْ وَلَا يَغۡتَب بَّعۡضُكُم بَعۡضًاۚ أَيُحِبُّ أَحَدُكُمۡ أَن يَأۡكُلَ لَحۡمَ أَخِيهِ مَيۡتٗا فَكَرِهۡتُمُوهُۚ وَٱتَّقُواْ ٱللَّهَۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ تَوَّابٞ رَّحِيمٞ ١٢ الحجرات .

ٱتَّبِعُواْ مَن لَّا يَسَۡٔألُكُمۡ أَجۡرٗا وَهُم مُّهۡتَدُونَ ٢١ يس

You fill half of your letter with that worm-stuff and the other half explaining them, what then does it say of you, your intellect and your offer? Even my computer has trouble computing. I read that the only official Islam is the one written in Mecca; even translations won’t do, so have you written permission from those camel herdsmen?

Now to your talking points, which boil down to two because your letter is so filled with trash.

I borrow the first from Malaysiakini, in which you compare your kind of Islam with Karl Marx and Adam Smith. I assume you aren’t talking about Marxism or laissez faire market economics, but Marx as communism and Smith as capitalism. Those two broad categories, the latter as ideology, the former as disciplines of study, are different; you know that, of course, smart towel head like you.

Let me, therefore, grant you the validity of your comparison, but have you read the Das Kapital? How about The Wealth of Nations? Yes or no?

O! I see, you have read excerpts. Wonderful. Tell us then what do you understand by these books? (This is becoming tiresome, talking to you.)

Point Two, you say:

“Why can’t they give the Islamic approach to politics, economy and society, without any compulsion to leave their religions, a try?”

A ‘try’? Why don’t you instead give it a try, converting to Hinduism? It makes more sense, and you have nothing to lose, not even your head should you later change your mind, and Allah — and this is the god-damned divine truth — is worth losing. Compulsion? Leave my religion? But, Hadi, we have no ‘religion’ to leave, and we have no God to forsake. As for compulsion, you know what happens once we get into Islam; into it Yes, Out is only possible after detaching head from neck. Yet you have the nerve to lecture us on ‘compulsion’.

Let’s us grant your generosity — offering ‘no compulsion’ — but to accept the Islamic way is actually submerging our lives into your religion, that is, living the Islamic way of life. Are you a con artist, Hadi? Like Najib Razak?

You mentioned specifically three fields of endeavor in living but we’ll just forget ‘society’ because you don’t what you’re saying. Let’s talk politics and economics.

Pray tell, what is Islamic politics? Please explain. After that, also explain what’s Islamic economics? Even to grant you that these are disciplines in the Quran what do you understand by their modern-day terms, politics and economics?

We don’t expect you to answer though, Hadi, which are necessary to decide whether or not to accept your offer.

In truth of matter, then, we are wasting time even reading your letter and answering it. All you want is a Chinaman’s vote and you can’t even be straight and come out to say so. Instead, you go on and on and on about the Quran this and Quran that, then went on about no compulsion and yet want us to live the Islamic life you live.

Was all that necessary? Let’s not even talk about rationality, but do you think that’s argument? Meaning, is all that verbiage, your verbiage, grounds for accepting your offer? Next time, when the elections come and if you’re going to go down this road of asking for a vote, make it stick even if you can’t say why. If not, at least say, what’s in it for us?

Now to the penultimate question: Why would you want our votes? So you can create a model Islamic universe in this shitty country call Malaysia? But you don’t need us, according to Helen Aku Cina Ang: You have all the Malaiyoos and all the kampungs under your thumb. Are you going to contest in Seputeh? Cheras? These are godless, filthy, prostitute-ridden infidel areas, according to Petra Kamarudin, the Moron of Manchester.

You know, Hadi, you aren’t a very good con artist. You might try learning from Najib Razak though. You know Najib? The man with a mighty fork tongue and a swift deft of hand.

Come elections, you want our votes, let us see you suck Najib’s dick. Meantime, Salam and fuck off,

Yours truly,






Read Full Post »



Yellow men without White women#

Anglophile Malaysia, White Society

Malaysiakini is having a field day with this, But money can’t buy Jho love. In their hands, Steven Gan et al could feed the appetite and entertain their battalions of Anglophile subscribers, eliciting 221 comments, all, with few exceptions, in Manglish.

But, was it about love? The diamonds.

The short answer: Of course, not. Think about it, why not?

If it was about love, truly, why spent 25 million on stones especially if the money, since it was loaned, had to be returned to the banks, sooner if not later. Diamonds on Miranda Kerr is, in effect, a transfer of Jho Low’s loot, leaving not just a money trail but would be unhelpful for, and almost certainly disastrous to, the love that (Steven Gan assumes) bound their relationship. Miranda knowing about this, even if after the fact of the theft, would doom the relationship.

Miranda’s reputation wouldn’t be merely tainted as a result (like Leonardo DiCaprio’s) but such large sums of money involved invariably raises the suspicion, Was Miranda, since she benefited, a party to the fraud?

Such a scenario presumes, of course, that Low thought about it and is capable of thinking, both being unlikely. MBA types — Low graduated from Wharton —  are never thinkers, much less original thinkers. Though highly sought after in the job market (by the same graduates entrenched in these companies), they are like ponzi scheme peddlers, skilled in the craft of persuading you to part with your money then skimming off from the process of moving it around.

(To see what that means — skimming — go to Jynwel Capital which is typical and representative of the Low character MBA types. There it talks about ‘vision and values‘, as if they are in the clergy prophesy and soul salvation business. There it adopts the language of snake oil salesmen found identical to those in Goldman Sachs and peddled by analysts like Bagainda Razak then re-sold by Reuters and Bloomberg. Remember Baginda? Remember Bloomberg that helped Goldman distribute 1MDB bonds? Remember their so-called due diligence process that doesn’t care for the ethical reliability of borrowers, who these men are associated with, much less care where the money will end up?)

Back to the loot….

The money was never for Jho Low to keep because a loot on his person would be precariousness, even dangerous and especially incriminating. Money on Low is like a thief’s loot found in his bedroom.

On the other hand, money outside Low leaves behind a big question: to who does it belong?

Outside Low, an Umno propagandist such as Faisal Aziz, was bound to say, ‘What evidence is there to show that the money going into the diamonds belongs to 1MDB and not Low himself?’ DOJ’s document money trail is the not the same as establishing ownership of money — hence ownership of the diamonds — and this is the trust of Faisal’s claims. Besides, his rebuttal also means that until the money trail is independently and impartially verified (by the court, in this case), it remains speculation. The DOJ cannot have it both ways: take the proceeds to prove their case instead of following its present cause of action, prove case then take diamonds. This is clearly an abuse of the law.

Here though is the catch: Once Malaysiakini editors (those stupid Anglophiles) assume that it was love that bound the two, though for just a year, then money on Miranda is the same as money on Low. Such is the power of love and its inference. Malaysiakini has managed to lent Faisal a helping hand in his arguments: The money has to belong to Low or else it would be suicidal for his Love to support it with loot.

This way of seeing the diamonds in the Miranda-Low relationship parallels Low’s gift of 100 million ringgit pink diamond to Rosmah. On Rosmah’s person, loot is still outside Low. Malaysiakini editors straight away assume it is 1MDB money. But if one is for love, what’s the other? Why is love worth less?



Miranda: Oh, papa! I miss him so much, my Joey boy.

Papa: But he’s just a Chinaman in a bow tie.

Miranda: Bow ties don’t matter. Love does! The Chinaman Stevie Gan says love conquers all. I believe him.



Loot for Love?

Why only is it with Miranda must editors insist there is love? Perhaps because she is young, and Anglophiles can’t imagine another motivation other than love. Which comes to a next question: If the affair isn’t love, what is it?

For the answer, one has to go back to those editors again because they, and, frankly, a good portion of especially urban Malaysia, are after the same thing. Only the routes to the destination are different.

So, to examine Malaysiakini, examine the character quality of its subscribers, all of who are on display in their comments. Below are a random sample of 221 comments related to Low and Miranda on just two articles out of a dozen.

  • Jho Low thought he was smart. He has thought money can buy love. But no, he went to the wrong “shopping” centre!
  • This fat cinababi don’t know the horse face is long.
  • Ok ok, the fat boy spent a king’s ransom on these broads…but tell me, did he get any?
  • Tis jho low has got no shame.
  • My goodness! The fat arsed face cannot get girls on his own merits. He has to use the stolen money from the poor rakyat to satisfy his lust with beauties. What a champion of a criminal is he.
  • Is this a case of like father, like son in JLow family? Are the father and son / the whole family all involved in this hideous crimes against the people and country?

Those comments run through several common threads: racism, condescending, English moralising, and, of course, plain jealousy, that is, they won’t be saying the same things if they had 25 million to throw on a pretty White girl. On racism alone, Sumisha Naidu and Hannah Yeoh, these beacons of righteousness, are nowhere around to criticize the statements as ‘obscene’ and ‘racist’ that they did against Watsons.

Of course, Low isn’t alone who is keen to buy into White society.

Others hankering after it are a dime-a-dozen, adopting usually cheaper routes: Sumisha Naidu (through Australia’s ABC and shouting racism), Hannah Yeoh, Elizabeth Wong, Steven Gan & editors (Australian universities, shouting truth to power, liberalism), DAP’s Pujut Assemblyman in Sarawak (Australian citizenship), Petra Kamarudin (runaway, Manchester nasi lemak), Baginza Razak (another runaway, Oxford), Francis Yeoh (money and god, YTL and Jesus Christ, Wessex Water), Isa Samad & Felda (London hotels), Lim Kit Siang (European social democrats), Zaid Ibrahim (law), Tunku Aziz Ibrahim (Shell and Transparency Int’l), Syed Akbar Ali (Bach), Kadir Jasin (NST and Rolls Royce), Mahathir Mohamad (Buy British Last; who would have known, Britain was always first?) and every PAS towel head you can think of.

Shouting racism, shouting morality, debauchery and sin are all cost-free and safe ideological and religious ways to get into White society.

It’s the same if some White girl name Clare Rewcastle Brown starts shouting, ‘Hidup the Alis‘. Would Umno not sit up and make her honorary member as was Zakir Naik so made by Perkasa’s Ibrahim Ali? Mrs Brown could masuk Melayu the next day and Tony Pua would have one less white person for a white-credential support in England.

For a number of reasons, buying into White society has its uses, naturally. For that listen to PKR’s Wong Chen, while addressing the Hong Kong Foreign Correspondents Club. For him, White society is like an escape hatch, an insurance policy as it were. In case things go terribly wrong at home for him personally and his family, he has stashed away a nice tidy sum.

Lowly characters like Hannah and Sumi would be contented just to get into White society. (Notice how Anglophiles like Hannah often call her political opponents, ‘low class’ as if she has in mind some class standards without specifying which and where from if not English?)

With Low, though, Miranda wasn’t his only ticket into a White society: paintings, condos, you name it. Raised in a diet of scones and marmalade and on Wharton standards, he couldn’t possibly settle for just any class. And all the things he has picked up outside Malaysia show that preference: it has to be top society; it has to be high-street, Wall Street type, in the luxury class, something reflected in Miranda.

Anglophiles picking on Low because of Miranda is easily juxtaposed with what Americans have to say about the same thing: there is never, never, never such a condemnation from Americans over American fraudsters, say, Martin Shkreli (charged with securities, wire fraud) or Eric Conn (USD600 million, Social Security fraud). Shkreli also gave money away and has been described as (currently) the most hated man. But that’s it: who he sleeps with, white or black, isn’t fought over.

That Jho Low should want to buy into White Society is hardly news anymore but that love is, it reflects the inversion of Malaysian values. Every Anglophile wants in because at home, and in private, they felt it to be superior in countless ways to Malaysian society.

Yet they go around beating others against the same value system they so badly want: a whiter skin, blonde hair, white names (think Charles Santiago and Dennis Ignatius), a white government, white papers, white bridal gowns and, of course, white diamonds. Try dropping one of those things in front of Annabelle Lee: you think she won’t run after it with her life? It’s her ticket to London — after dropping by at the Amsterdam jewelers.

One last point remains to be cleared: Why would those editors and Anglophiles assume that love was primarily at stake between Miranda and Low?

The answer is easy. In tomes of western literature on Christian mythology and in English liberal and, hence, Anglophile culture sits the core of their values contained in the following dichotomy:

  • money and evil (Bible: ‘love of money is root of all evil’),
  • money and betrayal (Judas),
  • money and materialism (Jesus ransacking a pre-Jewish Mount temple),
  • money and devotion (Bible: why worry, even God feeds the birds),
  • money and women (D.H. Lawrence, Lady Chatterley’s Lover),
  • money and impurity (only poor can afford to be good),
  • money and aesthetic culture (measured by works of art instead of, as with the Chinese, by education)….

But, none of the Malaysiakini subscribers (and editors) could ever get, or hope to get, anywhere near that which Jho Low had gotten: White society, white women, and all the things related thereto.


#Apologies to Hemingway, ‘Men Without Women‘ (Scribner)


Among the World’s Greatest Anglophiles

Below, spot the difference.


Malaysia White First, Chinese Second

The Great Anglophile above is Francis Yeoh of YTL on the occasion of a non-bow tie event. See how happy he is in white society home. ‘Great’ combines the elements of Christianity, the Englishness in his self-given name, his small English twang, remoteness from his roots and awareness, prejudices and bias, his general English imitative qualities… In a word, his racism.

When Yeoh bought Wessex Water, Englishmen were so incensed — and speechless in the face of a Chinese fart face — they could only manage this: Who the fuck is YTL? Yeoh must have been so disillusioned. He, stupid fucker like Jho Low, had missed this: Tried as he did, he wasn’t welcomed to White society. They didn’t want a Chinaman, no matter what he had named himself or if he believe in Jesus or how much money he has.

Malaysia never had great nationalists; its ruling class began and remain elitist (today, Tengku Razaleigh, Najib Razak, Tunku Aziz). All being English copycats, they invariably created a class and a cultural distance from the general mass that were, in turn, held together by little brown-skin racist generals to whom the elite depended upon for their political lives. The like of Perkasa is not a nationalist. It’s a fascist outfit pretending to be racial, and Zakir Naik proved it. PAS is also fascist but pretending to be religious.

Chinese can’t be Chinese because chauvinism is a badge of dishonor as opposed to being true to identity, a distortion in outlook that’s a consequence of English liberalism. Unable to differentiate between these two facets, their political class (Lim Kit Siang) were invariably Anglicized. Like the Malay elite, they were as incompetent as they were stupid, but with the distinction of looking down on the mass of Chinese without English as un-cultured and backward. Kit Siang’s Chinese Second (article; commentary) is reflection of his western politics gone berserk.

To ‘save Malaysia’ or voting Opposition is, really, keeping the same elites going, a mere exchange of one bunch of motherfuckers for another bunch, only more hypocritical. Hannah Yeoh being an example. They should be driven instead into the Malacca Straits.

Or, if you are so inclined, pray: Malaysia is going to crash. Allahuakbar!



Love Song Heard on the Western Shore

For Miranda… a blue blood Chinaman’s love song. Lyrics below:





还记得你 You still remember us?
答应过我不会让我把你找不见 You had promised, I won’t find you gone,
可你跟随 but you had follow
那南归的候鸟飞得那么远 the birds fly so far south,
爱像风筝断了线 out of sight, like a kite broken off its line.
拉不住你许下的诺言Should I hold you to your promise?
我在苦苦等待 To which, I wait in sorrow
雪山之巅温暖的春天 till the warm spring melt the snowy mountains.



Read Full Post »

Older Posts »