Archive for the ‘Malaysia: Dialogue’ Category

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is Mahathir’s last gasp.


Mahathir’s Pipe-Piper Boys


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

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

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


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


Think Tong DAP


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

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

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


Mahathir, Malaiyoo Satan



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

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

Round and round Maryam goes in a merry-go…


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

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

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


三寸天堂 / 二胡

Three inches of heaven — erhu


Read Full Post »


Reply to Rais Hussin

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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


From Malaysiakini, by Rais Hussin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Predatory economics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To BRI or not to BRI?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »


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




Revisiting history avoids its future


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

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

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

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

Shuzheng: The Red Shirt platoon, I guess.

Kua: But let’s name names. Who?

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

Kua: Hahaha.

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

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

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

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

Shuzheng: Of course the truth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shuzheng: That makes them stupid. Morons?

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

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

Kua: They can fuck off.

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

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

Shuzheng: You feel sorry for Malaysia?

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

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

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

Shuzheng: Back to Anglophilia. Are you an Anglophile?

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

Shuzheng: Go ahead.

Kua: What have you got against Anglophiles?

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

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

Kua: Is there no other way?

Shuzheng: You tell me.

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

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

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

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

All that above was imagined, of course.


In Malaysia…


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


Read Full Post »

Rihaku is the given Japanese pen name for Li Bai. It is also the pen name of this author, the ‘I’ in the story further below.

An estimated 50 million overseas Chinese (海外华人) live outside Greater China, that is, people of China’s ancestry, imbued with its humanistic culture, its sense of self, its governing ethical values, and their love of the arts. The three largest congregations of overseas Chinese are in Thailand, Malaysia and the US, respectively 10.4 million, 7.5 million and 5.1 million.

Rihaku is the penultimate Malaysian Chinese living in China, a nation’s name so misunderstood and so badly maligned in every English language press that exists outside China. He reads and writes in three languages, speaks in four, and two Sino dialects, raised and was taught in three countries and whose heart belongs to only one, his Motherland. This is his story — and China’s as well.



Former China’s President Hu Jintao met in 2012 with leaders of organizations of overseas Chinese in China for a global conference. It was to us, really, a great honor the Motherland asked at the time we use the Great Hall of the People for the reception.

Below, 1967 photo taken in Indonesia of a three-generation family from Hubei, northeast of Chongqing, a lovely and harsh place where, as intersection, unrelenting winter winds bring sleet from the Tibetan plains and snow from Siberia. (Source: Wiki)




One of these days…

On the Shenzhen Metro, almost 300 km in total length, eventually to be 1,000 km, and crowded round the clock, ethical messages are broadcast inside carriages every ten minutes or so:

“The great traditions and values of our Chinese culture is that we respect our elders and care for the weak and the young. Offer your seat to the elders and our young!”

We take the point, but really was that necessary? I have seen countless times my generation and our youths do so without instigation, a reflection that something is going well within the individual homes and our families.

Once, in a crutch, with a broken left timia, leg in cast, I had arrived from a long queue at a security check with a post-dated train ticket. One look at my travel papers, the security man with a stern face cried out: “Mister, mister, you have come a day earlier!” he said, stabbing on the spot in the ticket.

“What shall I do? Come back tomorrow?”

His eyes broke into a flash of thought then seizing an internal phone, he spoke into it — the name of somebody, I guess. Within a minute, a security woman with a pear-shaped face and hair gathered into a bob under a hat turned up from nowhere. As he explained, he threw side glances at me in the universal gesture of eye pointing. Then without asking the woman grabbed me by an arm pit, like taking a man into custody, guided me behind the booth, and at a desk among the rows of X-ray scanners, she sat me on a chair brought out by a third person. My papers and ticket in hand, she ran — yes, ran — and disappeared inside one of those gargantuan, ten-story-high ceiling passenger halls and into a crowd of ten thousand. Or maybe it was twenty thousand. There wasn’t long to wait. When she reappeared with a fourth person, in a railroad uniform, my ticket dates had changed. The ticket went back to the first security man, stamped, and brought back to me whereupon all three, speaking at the same time, told me to get to gateway Platform 5 on the first floor (but 二 in China) and there to wait for the boarding announcement. They were genuinely more worried than I had felt at any moment.

“Next time,” said the officer, “pay attention to your ticket. Will you? Please?”

It had taken at least five people to sort out the mess of my making.

All the while, the queue had gotten longer, 24 columns by, say, 50 persons each. Bodies pressed against bodies, separated by barely an inch between them; the old farmers; weathered faces of fathers with sun-burn skins; middle-aged mothers hauling large sacks containing unseen things, my guess, foodstuff and clothes; young men in the latest hair fashion, some dyed golden yellow; and awfully pretty girls with long silky hairs and the world’s slimest, milk cream white legs you’d have to force to look away only because they are so startling beautiful that Jian would skin me alive if she ever catch me even just looking. She has those slim creamy white legs, she says, why look at another? Why indeed? Yet, nobody in the queues complained, to have to wait for one nameless, unknown, unheard of stranger huaqiao. Would security do the same for any of those tens of thousands what they had done for me? My answer is, yes, yes, yes, and yes and yes. I can imagine all this would be otherwise if it were New York.

Here time is measured by thoughts of people, not hours or minutes.

“We, in China,” my cousin said as we strolled under moonlight in between mountainside patches of paddy and maize, “have almost nothing. All that we have are people, and more people, and more people.” He was right in a way, I think, and which is also why this has been and will remain China’s greatest resource and therefore its penultimate strength and power — it is her people, not petroleum, nor money nor jet aircraft. Those are incidental.

“Yes, of course, my mistake,” I answered the security man, taking his arm with my free hand. “And a thousand thanks. Next time, should Fate permit us, let me buy you a drink.”

I meant it and he knew, so he’d smile without replying. Turning to go back to his booth and to endless days and a thankless job, the security man winked at me, the one in a million winks to last a life time. No Chinese wink, but this is a new China, a proud China — misunderstood, so what, we know what we’re doing. Government propaganda exhortations is one thing; a man’s conduct is another thing altogether, but they aren’t mutually exclusive. People going about their lives by their own internal moral volition works best, says Confucius, not rules of governance.

It was one of those winter days.

Jian hadn’t been home for the past two winters and so, she insists, that this time she must, and do so in time for the spring new year. There are just 60 days left between her Hope and the present reality. There was one condition to her insistence: she has to have 30,000 yuan (18,000 ringgit) to take with her. That, or she won’t return. In her bank account, there is under 2,000 yuan.

The money, whatever the amount, isn’t the moral core in her decision because if it were, there’s no dilemma to contend with. It’s what she does with it; that is, the ethics to be satisfied, towards her grandmother, her parents, her brothers. Upholding the ethics has primacy over all other things. Could you now, therefore, say ethics cost money. Maybe. Perhaps it does but if not money, what else could better express Jian’s ethical application? To non-Chinese, money ostensibly serves its own purpose. It’s a racist view of the Chinese held by the like of Petra Kamarudin and Mahathir Mohamad, and their fellow travelers Helen Ang and Joshie Hong, the wild tongues of Anglophile bigotry, snarling at emptiness from knowing nothing.

“Have you any idea,” Jian says, “how hard it was for me to ask grandma for money? Over 30 years — 30 years — she saved, penny by penny. And I’d take it all from her in one swipe. And she lets me do it.”

Jian was speaking introspectively about her mountain village where even the birds and the cows have a hard time to prosper. Two years since taking a chunk out of grandma’s savings, she wants to return it three fold — 10,000 yuan is what she has in mind. It is the ethics of 3,000 that had been given her without a second thought, no questions asked, in complete trust, without strings nor conditions.

“Take it,” Grandma had said, finishing counting the money retrieved from beneath a pile of clothes. “Only come back for the spring new year. It is all I want: to see you again, that you are well.”

“Don’t tell papa. It will break his heart and he would worry to no end.” Grandma said nothing. Silence had meant consent; only the rest of the world sees it the other way around.

I dried her tears, put away the iPhone, grabbed her by the shoulders, and buried her face in the breast of my wool jersey. It was one of those long winter nights, a rare occasion in the beginning hours of a holiday break, and the next morning we’d still be in bed, all day, under the sheets, the heater turned on to 30 degrees, played games on the phone and listened to each other. As to the other 20,000 yuan, those have other considerations and we shall leave it at that….


Next: Part 2



Read Full Post »

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 »

Older Posts »