Archive for the ‘Malaysia: New Deal’ Category

In the works: A new tyranny

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles,” so-said the Communist Manifesto, 1848, written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Though right about European societies and wrong about the rest of the world, Asia in particular, the manifesto became a great global political influence.

If a manifesto is the sum of stated intentions and views of a person or group, what is Pakatan Harapan’s?

Designed by philistine, small town out-of-work school teachers, it sells instead like a tontine scam that’s been made to read like an insurance plan — in a 100 days you get this, in five years you get that. All commission free?

And what’s in it for their peddlers, the like of Rais Hussin, Liew Chin Tong, Mahathir Mohamad and Lim Kit Siang? Let’s not even go into that….

Kua Kia Soong has said much that needs said about the Harapan manifesto. Take the proposals to curb ministerial and institutional powers. This is the work of victim politics, not rational political idealism. Harapan politicians got whacked and so, if they got into Putrajaya, they’d want to get even.

If reform is indeed the motivation, the proposals would have started with the Constitution, the fascist political parties and not the ministers. Harapan’s manifesto politics is the actual spring well of the problems in Malaysia today; it was, from the beginning, the product of Harapan politicians who now promise — and it’s only a promise — some tinkering to their product, not full eradication.

With the release of the Harapan manifesto Malaysia comes a full circle: It shows those motherfuckers don’t have a clue what is a manifesto. And that ignorance is the greatest takeaway not just about Harapan’s political design but especially its motives: They sell tontine (those 100-day promises of pyramid interest and delivery) but calls it ‘reformasi’.

Always judge a book by its cover because, in a scam, book cover matters, not content.

Then listen to their newly inducted snake oil salesman, their princelings like Wan Saiful Jan and now Maszlee Malik. Layered over their politics of victimhood and poor-me declarations, they do the same song and dance routine — Malays are disadvantaged, yada, yada, so Malays get this, Indians get that, and so on. But nothing for the Orang Asli for the obvious reason the scam isn’t after their money, nor their vote. They have no money, no PayPal, and their vote is a pitiful sum.

The exclusion of an entire indigenous population is revealing into the Harapan motives, drugging a country with dizzying promises as opposed to specifics for their visions of a prosperous and united and a freed people that manifestos are meant for.

So: Along the same broken rail track are, therefore, just different players on new trains (and mostly their head honchos are decades past expiry dates).

No wonder Umno gets its way so easy.

This Opposition bunch is so over-rated (by themselves and by Steven Gan and Malaysiakini), without any sense of what it is to be basic, for tackling real fundamental problems and for true, honest change to be effected.

This failure is what happens when the DAP couldn’t get real talent to give some intellectual force to their politics. They settle instead for salesmen who count beans (Tony Pua, Lim Guan Eng) and some bald-headed, barking orang utan (Ong Kian Ming), all never stopping to show as if they are some wily Socratic scholar.

Without intellectual muscle for their politics, Bersatu, similarly, shops around at — of all places — the Islamic University Malaysia for some Malaiyoo lecturers to pad up their membership roll. And what they did they find? The like of Maszlee, Wan Saiful, Rais Hussin, intellectual dwarfs and useful fascist idiots in liberal masks. Equal to their bigotry is that they are tyrants in the making (see clip below) because, it must be remembered, Hitler began as a third-rate mind, all of it on display in Mein Kampf. So shoddy was his manifesto, nobody cared.

Short of election candidates, Harapan must hence recruit the like of Saiful who in their Malaysiakini interviews rehash fascist stuff sweet coated in liberal jargon that follows the party line.

Alternatively, consider the tweets of Hannah Yeoh and those stomach churning online postings from Yeo Bee Yin, Ong Kian Ming and Liew Chin Tong, all these think-tong Anglophiles. They show what’s called the Dunning-Kruger Effect:

The less competent people are, the greater the belief they tend to have in their own competence.

Bersatu does today what PKR and DAP have done best in the past: a quick ticket into Parliament, inducting Elizabeth Wong, Tian Chua. These are among their finest who in 10 years of political performance are best known for biting the ears of policemen, sleeping in their sarongs on tatami mats, and whispering liberal sweet nothings into the ears of Hilary Clinton (clip below).

Is this then a surprise that Harapan should  be a mirror image of its rival Barisan Nasional? Hardly. Both sides were bred and they wallow in the same fetid pig swamp called Malaysia. You only have to read Malaysiakini, its judgmental headlines and its lynch mob comments to get a sense of this Malaysian malaise (passage in the Harvard Magazine review of Death of Expertise by Tom Nichols):

Voters increasingly see political figures as extensions of themselves—“He’s just like me!”—imagining shared personalities and values. Narcissism elevates feelings above facts, and it breeds social resentment, a major driver, Nichols believes, of the revolt against expertise. “People cannot accept ever being at a disadvantage in a conversation with anybody else,” he says. “It’s a persistent insecurity that goads people into having to say that they know something even when they don’t. Which didn’t used to be the case—we used to be a much more reasonable culture. You know, everybody doesn’t have to know everything.”

Reformasi? My ass.


Beware the Liberal. Beware the Democrat.


Beware Hope

Kua Kia Soong’s full rebuttal to the so-called Harapan Manifesto, and it is so easily done.

A malaise is haunting Malaysia

The Pakatan Harapan manifesto for GE14 promises many things, the most welcome of which are the calls to repeal draconian laws, make several commissions directly answerable to Parliament and trim the fat from the Prime Minister’s Office, which are long overdue.

Beyond these critically needed reforms, the manifesto is long on populist concepts but short on actionable specifics. The current water crisis in Selangor is yet another reminder of the dire consequences of such cavalier populist policies as Selangor’s free water policy.

Is providing cheaper cars the answer to our traffic problems or purely populist?

The manifesto proposal to “resolve issue of unilateral child conversion in a harmonious manner” is no doubt well-intentioned, but wishful thinking in the current toxic climate without spelling out the clear constitutional and juridical positions on this issue.

Fundamentally, the manifesto lacks three vital changes sorely needed to take our country into a new beginning after 60 years of BN rule, namely: a race-free agenda to unify the nation, a progressive tax structure to redistribute wealth, and a truly democratic society.

A truly democratic society

Term limits for the posts of prime minister, chief minister and menteri besar are welcome and overdue. We are told that it will not be applied retrospectively to Selangor and Penang, the states that Harapan already rule.

Why not? The democratic principle behind the term limit for these posts is simply that elected officials can over time obtain too much power or authority and thus makes them less representative of all the citizens. It is also to prevent chances of corruption.

As we have seen only recently, even within a two-term service, corporate interests including those in property and finance can provide inducements to the incumbent leaders such as drastic discounts on house purchases.

There is clearly a correlation between the length of time a politician serves and the degree to which he or she has opportunities to engage in corruption. So, if Harapan truly believes in democracy, it should adhere to the two-term limit for their menteri besar in Selangor and chief minister in Penang as of now.

A national agenda

Now with Harapan having embraced the leader of Bersatu as the prospective prime minister, there is no mention of an end to the New Economic Policy in their GE14 manifesto. This is indeed bad news for those who had hopes of a more liberal economic policy, and also for all who have criticised the government for its racially discriminatory economic and educational policies.

Harapan tries to suck up to the “Malay agenda” by proposing puzzling proposals such as “restoring state sultans’ powers”. Which sultan’s powers are Harapan referring to that have been weakened? The ones that Mahathir effected during his reign? Please be specific.

And are we going to go through the same “statistical charade” that we have seen through the 50 years of NEP with the manifesto’s proposal to “increase bumiputera equity through GLC management buyouts?

Which class of bumiputeras is going to gain from this? Doesn’t it matter whether or not the poorer bumiputeras benefit? The statistics on “bumiputera equity” are meaningless when such equity can be resold to non-bumiputeras as soon as it is allocated, and when bumiputera companies fail such as happened during the 1997 financial crisis.

Instead of needs-based measures that target the lower-income and marginalised sectors, the Harapan manifesto follows the same divide-and-rule method practiced by BN. Thus, Indians have been specifically identified for special treatment as increasing their numbers in premium schools and Mara institutions. But the manifesto does not specify by how much.

And what about the Chinese, Eurasians and the Orang Asli? Harapan would like to “invest in training schemes for Indians” but a needs-based policy would be more cost effective and unifying to open the “bumiputeras only” institutions in this country to all Malaysians.

The NEP was scheduled to end in 1990, but has become a populist never-ending policy to win over the bumiputeras while benefiting mainly the political elite. Instead, it is common sense that poor rural Malaysians should be assisted based on their needs according to the particular economic sectors in which they live and work.

Today, with the lack of ethnic diversity in the civil and armed forces, it is high time that recruitment and promotion in these services are based on merit. Does Harapan address this? Does Harapan propose an expiry date for the NEP or is this not going to be realised in our lifetime?

Progressive taxes on the super-rich

Harapan does not tell us how their many populist promises will be financed. There are no fiscal policies to redistribute wealth, never mind fundamental changes in economic policies, including nationalisation of utilities. Malaysia is one of the few countries where the super-rich do not have to contribute part of their wealth to finance state welfare.

How much do the top 10 percent of earners contribute to total tax revenues?

Across the developed world, the rich are expected to pay a substantial share of taxes and this share has risen in recent decades. According to the OECD, the top 10 per cent of earners contribute about a third of total tax revenues – 28 per cent in France, 31 per cent in Germany, 39 per cent in Britain and 42 per cent in Italy.

The wealthiest households in the US contribute a larger share to government than in any other OECD country, at 45 percent. In Europe, they certainly have more to show for it – social services, unemployment benefits, a national health system and other social benefits.

Despite this, William Buffett, one of America’s richest men recently criticised the US tax system as manifestly unfair since he is taxed at a lower rate than his secretary!

Malaysia’s income tax system grants greater tax savings for the rich as well as encourages tax evasion. We rank among the world’s top countries for illicit outflow of money.

What reforms does the Harapan manifesto propose to prevent tax evasion? The limited coverage has resulted in poor revenue generation. Without sufficient revenue, individual income tax cannot provide substantial funds for poverty lifting projects.

Similarly, we do not see a higher marginal tax rate on high-income earners and a correspondingly lower tax rate for lower income earners; an incremental capital gains tax on property; a progressive inheritance tax; a tax on all international financial transactions and hedge funds; a progressive tax on all luxury goods.

A progressive economic policy

Harapan has all along stood for the same neoliberal capitalist policies as the BN. Consequently, their manifesto does not have a progressive economic policy, including nationalising all utilities and essential services including water resources, health, public transport and energy.

They have not proposed measures to ensure that government enterprises such as the GLCs are owned and controlled by the Malaysian peoples at federal, state and local levels and to bring respite to our lowest paid workers, who deserve a decent standard of living, and not populist crumbs.

Mother tongue education as part of the national education system

The Harapan manifesto pledges to recognise the UEC and to build one Tamil Secondary school. That is good. But are the Chinese and Tamil schools still going to be treated like step children in this country , with a few schools being allowed to be built and the Chinese secondary schools getting occasional funding at the pleasure of the government whenever elections are round the corner?

Defence cuts

The Harapan manifesto is silent about their defence policy, which is surprising as they speak vociferously against the commissions that are creamed off from big arms deals. While we are agonising over giving our lowest paid workers a guaranteed minimum wage of RM1,500, the government is coolly shopping for the next generation Multi-role combat aircraft to replace the MIGs.

British Aerospace is trying to flog their Typhoons and other special offers in a RM10 billion arms deal. It is expected that the government will go through with this deal as soon as they get their mandate after GE14.

Beyond GE14

It is time that BN and Harapan take human rights seriously and respect all Malaysian citizens irrespective of ethnicity, religious beliefs, gender or sexuality so that we can march forward as a unified nation.

Furthermore, in the states under both BN and Harapan, deforestation by developers goes on uninhibited, highways, tunnels and land reclamation continue unabated without concern for the environment, the public commons and the marginalised people living there.

A just, democratic and progressive alternative calls for a living wage and rights for all workers; a reasonable pension at retirement; affordable and liveable housing; free tertiary education (means tested for the well-off); formal or informal elected local government; commitment to international human rights practices and covenants.

The neoliberal ideologies that both BN and Harapan practice involves allowing private developers to buy up public assets. Such a practice has serious consequences in that it overrides and neglects the people’s interests and degrades our precious environment which is regarded as a free resource.

As a result, we are left with polluted air, questionable water quality, and limited green commons. We want a government that will take the lead in sustainable development initiatives such as renewable energy, that will benefit ordinary Malaysians and their environment.

The current reliance on the private sector results in environmentally harmful and socially destructive projects. A people’s government would enforce recycling measures, responsible waste disposal and enact laws to protect animal welfare.

Such a progressive government would also make it a priority to put the rights and livelihood of the Orang Asal at the top of the national agenda by recognising their rights over the land they have been occupying for centuries, prohibiting logging in Orang Asal land and ensuring all Orang Asal villages have adequate social facilities and services.


Train Station


Read Full Post »

“Bersatu must lead Harapan to counter DAP bogeyman narrative”


Wan Saiful Jan: the duplicitous face of Mahathir’s agenda.


The Malaysiakini headline title above, because it juxtaposes two political parties, one Malay and one Chinese, says much about Mahathir Mohamad’s ultimate intent in Harapan: there, he would recreate an Umno.

Mahathir has himself said many times: Umno today is Najib’s Umno, not his. That is, Umno is not the Umno he would wish for it to be — Mahathir’s Umno.

Najib’s biggest sin, in Mahathir’s eyes, isn’t therefore 1MDB which, by the standards of the man’s heydays and the losses incurred then, is paltry.

The primordial sin is, Najib didn’t follow Mahathir’s script, a fact the latter had acknowledged many times early in his anti-Najib campaign, then without Harapan. Like the accusation made against Tunku Abdul Rahman 50, 60 years ago, Najib was simply pro-Chinese.

Even in Harapan, Mahathir’s racism remains insufferable.

His anti-Chinese fascism this time is the same and his excuse no different: the Chinese bogeyman tale that he himself had strung together then perfected. Wan Saiful (above image) is his new mouthpiece, so as to give an intellectual sheen to the deception.

Saiful’s duplicity follows this logicism: If Umno says the Chinese in Harapan will rule Malays, then let Berjaya rule Harapan, so Malays will rule Malays. Ruling Harapan, Bersatu will win the Malay vote. Winning the Malay vote, Harapan gets Putrajaya.

Here comes the rub: With the Malay vote in the pockets, what policy will therefore govern the future Malaysia?

The fact that this racist thinking is already congealed inside Bersatu — and this is before voting has started — speaks volumes about the future of Malaysia under Bersatu and under Harapan. Now, contrasts Wan Saiful’s call for Bersatu dominance against the Harapan apologists who said of the coalition’s power structure: no party dominates, everyone has an equal say.

In another manner of speaking, Bersatu already wants to be an Umno power, even before it takes Putrajaya,

It isn’t enough, hence, to deny Bersatu that pole position in Harapan or to balance it with the like of PKR and Amanah. It will be inevitable Bersatu becomes an Umno when Harapan seizes power; the more seats Mahathir gets, the more convincing is Harapan’s mirror reflection of the bogeyman tale. Harapan becomes the beasts it eschews, and Bersatu becomes Umno.

The point, on the other hand, is not to let Harapan get Putrajaya because Harapan is Bersatu’s vehicle to a renewed fascist dictatorship. The point is to kill Harapan before it takes off, to drain the swamp filled with worms like Wan Saiful and Rais Hussin carrying out Mahathir’s agenda. All the talk of reforms and manifesto remains as they are: cream for the pudding.

To see what party manifestos are worth, look at the Constitution, Malaysia’s own manifesto. Instead of offering protection, it was used by Mahathir to turn against the Chinese and other ethnic groups: although a mamak, Mahathir’s personal power as Malay; Islam as ‘official’ religion; schools; and so on.

The Chinese, to save themselves from another, fresh round of fascism, to avoid repeating the political mistakes of the past, must return to Barisan. Here then is the unfortunate irony: to kill Mahathir, first kill Lim Kit Siang and the DAP.

The bogeyman dies. And, along with it, an insufferable DAP that got where it is today on the back of pontificating about ‘beyond race politics’, about nepotism and their holiness, about all for PAS, opportunistic sins, and on and on.

The bogeyman dead, what political justification is there left for Malaiyoo Wan Saiful (and Bersatu) to be ‘Tuan‘? Answer, nothing.


Read Full Post »

Name one fucking patriotic Malaiyoo then tell me what he (in Malay-Muslim society, women don’t count) looks like?



Patriotism Means Masuk Melayu

…therefore, they are no patriotic Chinese.


Talking of Malay power and Malay culture, is there a difference between the Malaiyoos seated above and those below. They still weaponize patriotism to threaten the Chinese.

All of them, from top to bottom, had never wanted the Chinese around, only saying the same thing — patriotism — in varied tongues, arguing as if the Chinese are a chain, holding back Malay progress. In short, if the Malay is miserable, blame the Chinese. In consequence, therefore, even Chinese citizenship rights are controlled by Malays — Mahathir has made this plain and clear a thousand times. When he had much to gain politically, from the Malays especially, all the pretense of tolerance vanishes.

Today, after Mahathir, those below don’t even bother to pretend anymore: keluar, they say. Now they again threaten the Chinese, this time with our children who, they say, will never, never get scholarship and also with our businesses which will be forced to hire Malays. In the past, under Mahathir, they threatened with the IC and the passport.

Malays — and Malaysia — have taken so much and stolen from us, yet they aren’t satiated. From the looks of things, the only way they will be satisfied is we Chinese are ‘patriotic’, by which they mean (a) become or ‘masuk’ Melayu, and, (b) dirt poor, crawling on our knees begging Malays like dogs.

Here’s our Chinese answer to Malaiyoos, all of you, Mahathir and Umno in particular: we aren’t going to take anymore of this shit. We, all Chinese, aim to fix the Malays and Malaysia even if this means ruination for some of us, even if this takes decades, but we are patient. Unlike you, crowing and thumping your chest, we won’t be bragging about it once we are done with you because you won’t know what hit you.



The Patriotic Malay is a Dead Malay


Malaysiakini has hundreds of reporters, editors, columnists, correspondents, commenters especially, who, if they don’t simply regurgitate, will daily filled up the online newspaper with shit. Sometimes, amid the garbage, you might just find a gem. There are only two writers who can produce anything close to resemble original thinking. S Thayaparan is one of them.

But his latest essay, ‘Why would non-Malays be patriotic to this country?’ is not (yet?) profound thinking. It is nerve wrecking though because, more than likely, what he said has lay in the hearts of millions. You would have read most of those thoughts here already.

Even his essay heading is mangled. The word ‘would‘ ought to be ‘should‘ and the phrase ‘to this country‘ is simply redundant, therefore, meaningless. There are no non-Malays in Malaysia, there are just Chinese, Indians, the Natives and assorted Others. By non-Malays, the speaker Ismail Mina Ahmad mean Chinese, and only Chinese.

Most Chinese are not patriotic to Malaysia — what is there to like anyway, waved the fucking flag and shout from the rooftop? What we Chinese understand by patriotism and what Malays want in patriotism from Chinese, Thaya doesn’t say. Nor do the Malays. Let’s then say it for them. Patriotism means to keep the Chinese as minions, as Malay slaves, only then will Malays be satiated and only then will we be considered by them to be patriotic. (Related definitions of patriotism are also given above.)

Hence, all that Ismail Mina and his coterie of the Malay ummah say are not new: keluar Malaysia, only Malays are good and loyal, and so on. You would have heard versions of it countless times before Ismail, in the past by Mahathir Mohamad, and, after him, versions of it from the like of Utusan, Kadir Jasin, Ridhuan Tee and Annie of the Valley. When Najib Razak and Umno politicians claim that the Malays will suffer if DAP controls the government, we, including Malays, know what they mean: It’s the Chinese — again.

Since The Malay Dilemma, Mahathir repeats the thing to no end — Chinese must not come to power — except these days he has substituted local Chinese for China’s Chinese. But still Chinese. A matter of nationality difference is no difference because local Chinese were never considered as true Malaysians anyway. (Remember ‘pendatang’?) This, so convenient, is why the DAP, hankering after the Malay vote, that is, power, are into the same game. But, are today complaining that they, too, after having joined Mahathir in beating up China, had got nothing back from the Malays, not even a terima kasih. (See here, for example, and also Yeo Bee Yin.)

Why then is Ismail taken so seriously, meriting a personal response from Thaya?

The pivot of Thaya’s argument is this: Because Malays are considered bumiputra (bumi as in Mahathir’s bumi party Bersatu), “it is always the (Chinese and Indians) who have to prove that they are patriotic.” When Ismail says non-Malays, he meant Chinese, not the Orang Asli who don’t own businesses nor Kadazans who don’t go to Chinese schools, and not even the Indians. We, too, know all that.

Ismail Mani’s diatribe buttresses the central message of Umno’s (and past Mahathir) to the Malays, that is, never vote for the Chinese, not even friends. This is because, if the Chinese, were never patriotic, they, in their hearts, would never kneel to the Malay nor accept Malay superior status — in all respects, including king. To put it another way, by the fact of our existence, Chinese is a danger to the Malay, in everything. The point to which isn’t, however, in the fallacy of Umno’s making, and Mahathir’s, but in its flip side acknowledgement that no amount of apartheid and no amount of pressure applied on the Chinese, will make us kowtow to Malay power. Sixty years proved it. Ismail Mani just acknowledged it. Otherwise, why the threats?

Even Mahathir most lately has acknowledged that failure of Malay getting ahead of the Chinese as if it were fact. When Malays hadn’t progress far enough, it was because, he said, culture held them back. Tomorrow, having gotten the Malay vote, he could easily flip the argument to say, “True, it is culture but that was culture made in response to Chinese greed and Chinese malevolence. Malays are simply too innocent, too good and too pure to want to accept those Chinese values.”

All the tongkats he distributed had simply made life worse for the Malays but, in the end, he could simply revert to a time-honored Malaiyoo tradition: blame the Chinese. Because — and note this — he didn’t blame Najib Razak. Najib has gotten blamed for everything wrong with Malaysia, from diesel to government project failures. But where it concerns the Malay existential being — Islam, individual material progress, the retarded Malay mind and so on — he reserves judgment.

It wouldn’t be so bad if we Chinese were denied, say, subsidies or, as Ismail Mani threatens, no scholarship. Everything Umno did at present and Mahathir in past wasn’t just to improve the Malay lot; more than that, they did everything to block us, to put us down, our own schools, our language, our culture, our business, and especially our political rights.

But the situation has gotten worse because of this inescapable truth: Malay insists on comparing themselves to the Chinese. So that, if Malays are better off today than, say, a generation earlier, they would still be worse off than the Chinese. Therefore, Malays hadn’t progressed. That was, after all, Mahathir’s core message and Bersatu’s as well. It can’t be Najib’s fault because, to say that, comparing two time periods, it is to acknowledge Mahathir’s own failure.

Enter Ismail Mani, talking of denying scholarships and forcing Chinese businesses to employ Malays or else go to jail. In the circularity of the argument, the Malay is never satiated if the Chinese progress and not stand still. We Chinese will always be at fault. Always. It’s an impossible situation for the Chinese.

Ismail, you see, is picking up from where Bersatu/Mahathir/Umno left off. So that if Malays aren’t going to get the Chinese votes, and if Malays still have to rely on only Malay votes to stay in power — which is today distributed six ways — then they will fix the Chinese into subservience and into delivering.

(The terms Mahathir and Umno are used interchangeably because the like of Ismail Mani, talking of Malay absolute power, is, agree or not, the fruit of Mahathirism. Malays will never be satisfied simply because the endurance and the existence of the Chinese; the latter being the reflection of Malay delusion into their supreme status.)

All this has only one everlasting consequence. Until and unless the Chinese are broken, forced like Ridhuan Tee to masuk Malaiyoo, then made subservient, in schools, in language, in culture and religion, and in business, no Malay will ever progress. Which is good enough reason why, like Umno, Mahathir and Bersatu can never be trusted. These are not Umno rejects or traitors but they instead represent the sine qua non of Umno’s original ketuanan mission that Najib Razak failed to complete — for whatever reason. (Recall that when Mahathir began his anti-Najib campaign it was an exclusive Malay affair for the stated, expressed purpose of salvaging Umno that Mahathir himself said did not reflect on the Umno he knew. It was, he said, Najib’s party.)

Thaya is, therefore, right to assert that the Chinese and Indians will never be equal to Malays. Never. But that’s also not the point.

What he missed to see in Ismail and in the Malaiyoos is that they prefer to see a Chinese dead than patriotic. And the evidence of this? Each time, each time without exception, the Malaiyoo beats up the Chinese, the Harapan Malaiyoos and their Chinese/Indian hangers-on are muted. This can only be for the same reason Ismail is speaking up to the Malay electorate, the Malay kampung and Felda belt. Since the beginning of time, they have been convinced (by Umno, of course) to consider the Chinese as a bunch of whores (Petra Kamarudin), greedy profiteers (Mahathir), even dirty (Hishammuddin Hussein said that) and so on. PKR, Bersatu, Amanah, all dare not go for Ismail for the same reason Umno would not condemn him. Mahathir least of all because the words of Ismail Mani are his especially, updated 40, 50 years later only to suit the times and election year 2018.

Why should the Chinese be patriotic, therefore?

Because to be patriotic to Malaysia means, by Malaiyoo standards and definition, is to be loyal to Malays, to bow to Malays, to speak Malay, dress Malay, sing Malay only songs, hire Malays only, become Malays. Malaysia’s entire national identity is Malay so that in Tanah Melayu they would leave no place for the Chinese; it is exclusively Malay. We’re worse than second class citizens not just because our political rights have been disenfranchised but especially because we are made to not exist. We Chinese just don’t count, in everything that concerns Malaysia.

Mahathir et al has talked about this a thousand times so that today Najib prefers Chinese from China, who have more money, for his projects than the local Chinese who have little. Which, really, is all right by us; we are in it together. …?

So, Thaya, do you see the point in Ismail Mani’s bigotry? It is not to remind the Chinese their subservient, lowly position in Malaysia. That’s an old song. It is to reinforce a point in Mahathir’s The Malay Dilemma — put away the Chinese — and to warn us that if we Chinese don’t bow to Malays, and this includes who to vote, then everything will be taken from us. Annie of the Valley has made the same point: If you don’t vote Barisan or say good things of the government, it is likely you are unpatriotic. And she never, never, never says that to Malays who don’t vote Umno. Want to know why, Thaya?

Patriotic to Malaysia, did you say, Annie? Parliament is rigged, elections are rigged, five Chinese votes equal one Malay vote, Malays grab our banks, abduct our daughters, steal our dead, not to mention cell phones then shout ‘Cina pukul Melayu,’ forced us to sell our business…. And you still want patriotism?

Here’s our answer again, for the thousandth time, Annie: Patriotic, never. Fuck Malaysia, fuck the Malaiyoos. And go fuck your Malaiyoo father, too.


We Blew Up the Church.

So What, Yeo Bee Yin?

Taliban-style, did you say? Wrong, Hannah Yeoh. Taliban is child’s play. We’ll do worse because, Hannah, your God told us to blow up your church. It is a devil’s nest occupied by Jesus impostors, people like you.

Freedom from God: We had it with these religions, Christianity and Islam. Next, if Muslims don’t behave and believe and act as if they are superior to everybody else, we will, for good measure, blow up a fucking mosque that will even shock Donald Trump.



Read Full Post »

Malaysia is a country of no stories but one; a country wrecked by that one story, manufactured in Umno party meetings then told and retold by the same man who having conceived it now wants to salvage it for reuse.


Objective = The Sum of Subjectives

We see how things are from a subjective point of view, and because they really are that way, a form of objectivity is achieved. This is a lesson that our present age needs to learn again. The most complete, objective point of view is not one that is abstracted from the subjective: it is one that incorporates as many subjective points of view as are relevant and needed.

This also provides the link between imagination and rationality. A detached reason that cannot enter into the viewpoints of others cannot be fully objective because it cannot access whole areas of the real world of human experience. [This is..] the importance of attending to the internal logic of positions, not just how they stand up to outside scrutiny.

In a pluralist world, there is no hope of understanding people who live according to different values if we only judge them from the outside, from what we imagine to be an objective point of view but is really one infused with our own subjectivity. Atheists need to know what it really means to be religious, not simply to run through arguments against the existence of God that are not the bedrock of belief anyway. No one can hope to understand emerging nations such as China, India or Brazil unless they try to see how the world looks from inside those countries. — Julian Baggini, Aeon 2017 November (emphasis added).



A Machiavellian? Or a snake oil salesman story teller that he is?


A Machiavellian Realist World by a Non-Machiavellian


Democracy is suppose to deliver a set of nice results and when that fails it becomes purely an end to itself — holding an election.

The trouble with democracy, and this happens not only in Malaysia, is that people wish for it to deliver things that can never, never happen try as you might, and even with elections after elections. One is left, as a result, holding bags of promises DAP and Umno politicians made.

Yet people remain hopeful and continue in their delusions. That Mahathir Mohamad did irreparable damage to everything becomes irrelevant but people still pine after him because the justification is, first get the power. Lim Kit Siang criticizes endlessly but when his turn came, the DAP repeat the same policy, administrative and ideological failures, in Penang for example; over the hotel tudung issue, another. (Those issues are stark revelations that the Pakatan can be equally stupid, no matter how they make of themselves. They are as quick to hang you as jihadists slice throats so that, for power’s sake, the liberal becomes illiberal, the godly the satanic, the national Destroyer become the Savior.)

Democracy was never a realistic proposition; if it were then life, to borrow Gabriel Garcia Marquez, would be a breeze.

What’s wrong with democracy? For the answer Niccolo Machiavelli is instructive, the infamous author of the ‘The Prince‘ and whose name is latched to the term Machiavellian. People (editors and columnists at Malaysiakini in particular) who use the expression have typically never read him — you can tell by their references to it — so that to describe Mahathir as Machiavellian is a fucking joke.

Below are eight talking points from and about Machiavelli. In it are described the fallacies of the republic, a democratic form, compared to, shall we say, an authoritarian regime (China is the current Anglophile favorite). This list was compiled by Erica Benner from her book Be Like the Fox: Machiavelli In His World (below).

Machiavelli, Benner wrote, was never even a Machiavellian. He was instead the first, true realist produced by the West. Yet delusions about his ideas persist to this day. Ideas cross oceans and leap over mountains. At the mosquito home of Kadir Jasin and the coconut tree offices of Steven Gan, you know they have arrived when they arrive, the same talking points, the same yada, yada:

Machiavelli’s realities aren’t just “hard facts” that anyone of sound mind can agree on. Historical memories are among the stubborn realities that can kick back against political ideals. So are desires, fears, and patterns of behaviour that seem rooted in unchanging human nature. “In any city whatever” and in states big or small, Machiavelli says, one sees frictions between two kinds of people. On the one side are those who aim to climb to high and higher up social and economic ladders. On the other there are people who worry that high-flying elites might end up controlling public life, monopolizing every advantage, and dictating terms of social interaction to everyone else. Realistic policies need to face these tensions head-on, Machiavelli says, and take both sides seriously. If you whitewash the conflict, suspicions fester. If you play one side off the other, democracies get sick, sometimes fatally.

Machiavelli knew that it isn’t easy to cultivate a sense of political reality. Doing so is less a matter of formal education or native smarts than of coming to understand the dire consequences of un-realism. People are so caught up in their present troubles, he says, that they’re easily “deceived by a false appearance of good” and moved by “great hopes and mighty promises”—even when “the ruin of the republic is concealed underneath.”

It might seem perverse to seek help from a man routinely portrayed in popular culture as an adviser muttering darkly in politicians’ ears, telling them to use shrewdly crafted appearances—lies and spin—to control people’s minds and actions. It’s true that Machiavelli sets out this arch-manipulator’s path to power in his Prince—but only to highlight its follies. The hyper-ambitious leaders who populate his book fly high for a while on big promises, popular fears, money, and foreign support. Then they crash, leaving their countries in a sorry mess. No wonder early readers were sure that far from being a treatise for would-be tyrants, the Prince was a brilliant exposé of princely stratagems: a self-defense manual for citizens. “The book of republicans,” Rousseau called it.



Here is Benner’s list of uncomfortable truths (some retitled) — the myths of, shall we say, Zaidgeist/Pakatan democracy:

Delusion 1: That (democracy or Save Malaysia) politics would unite citizens.
“Those who hope that a republic can be united,” Machiavelli says, “are very much deceived,” and want something harmful to freedom. Why: because one of the unalterable realities of political life is that people have different brains, interests, and values. Orderly clashes of rival political parties ensure that differences are represented and allowed to breathe freely. When one part of society—whether left- or right-leaning, traditional or progressive—tries to dominate the other and control public space, this infuriates the other parts, and threatens everyone’s freedoms.

Delusion 2: That equality once imposed, corruption ends, freedom prevails.
Machiavelli isn’t a strict egalitarian, but he does insist that personal and political freedoms are eroded when people lack the resources and social respect needed to enjoy them. To avoid corruption, democracies need to preserve “an even equality” among citizens. Excessive inequality destroys public trust because it makes it easier for the wealthy few to dominate the rest. It makes the less well-off feel that the system is stacked against them, and upsets the overall balance of freedoms that keeps democracies stable. 

Delusion 3: That strong leaders and strong states are all for the best.
Nothing could be less realistic than the idea that the powerful can do whatever they want with impunity. No matter how strong you are, in politics “one inconvenience can never be suppressed without another cropping up.” So realistic politics is the art of “choosing between inconveniences”—including the awkward fact that even much weaker people and states can find ways to upset your power. Those “who do not know how to measure themselves and put limits to their hopes” usually come to ruin.

Delusion 4: That leaders or the ‘system’, never the people, are the root of all problems.
Machiavelli has no time for this kind of easy blame-game. Bad leaders and corrupt institutions are symptoms of democratic ailments, not their root cause. In manically competitive trading and banking societies like Machiavelli’s Florence—which had much in common with commercial democracies today—corrupt leaders and the super-rich aren’t the only ones who make life harder for poor and middling citizens. People from status-conscious middle levels are often the fiercest defenders of social hierarchies. They can be ruthless about pushing ahead of the pack lest they fall behind, “since it does not appear to men that they possess securely unless they acquire something new.” Such people should ask whether the policies they support can sustain healthy democracies in the long run.

Delusion 5: That bad leaders/policies happen because of ignorant voters.
Machiavelli was brutally realistic about how easy it is to pull one over people. “He who deceives,” he observes, “will always find someone who will let himself be deceived.” But the deceivable aren’t necessarily uneducated, lazy, or stupid. In his day, Machiavelli points out, intellectuals and citizens of all social classes were among the devotees of Girolamo Savonarola, a rabble-rousing Dominican friar who claimed to get his political directives straight from God. It wasn’t ignorance that made people fall into his demagogic snares; he appealed to their longings for self-assured guidance in disorienting times. Citizens who “let” such leaders mislead them aren’t so much ignorant as impatient and irresponsible: too ready to put their faith in quack doctors of state instead of searching hard for better remedies. 

Delusion 6: That in troubled times (Malaysia), a Strong, Savior-Politician is needed.
When democratic foundations are cracking and political practices look rotten, it’s tempting to give audacious leaders a free hand to purge the rot, shake up the system, and save the nation. Machiavelli says: resist it. Frustrated citizens often “persuade themselves” that some leader’s lawless conduct and “wicked life can make freedom emerge.” They let him or her override constitutional checks on their power, trample on the laws in the name of safety or necessity or national greatness. But it almost never happens that someone who bolsters his power in these ways “ever wishes to work well, or that it will ever occur to his mind to use well the authority that he acquired badly.” A leader “who can do whatever he wants, unshackled by the laws, is crazy.”

Delusion 7: That to save a nation, first build walls.
Physical barriers against enemies and the movement of peoples are, in Machiavelli’s opinion, basically “useless.” Citizens who won’t talk to one another, corrupt practices of government, poisonous inequalities: these things make states vulnerable from within, while frail alliances and shoddy diplomacy weaken them from without. Walls and heavy policing just advertise your failure to deal with them. Massive migration has always caused turmoil, Machiavelli observes. But free countries can always find ways to manage the floods that are more effective than adding border guards and red tape, and that show more self-confidence. The ancient Romans were “so generous in admitting foreigners,” he says, “that Rome began to depart from its old customs.” So what did they do? Believing that free movement helped make their city great, they gave newcomers better representation so that they wouldn’t attack ancient Roman ways as outsiders.

Delusion 8: That crushing the defeated will save a nation. (Recall Mahathir’s 100 day in power pledge: pulverize Najib Razak.)

No fantasy beloved of powerful leaders, classes, or states is more damaging to their health, or that of their countries. Viewed realistically, power is changeable and relative. Today you might have oodles of it compared with your neighbour, but tomorrow theirs may wax and yours wane. You might find that your power rested on “very constant and unstable things” such as other people’s temporary misfortunes, or money and favours used to buy fair-weather friends. Real political power needs stable props, and the best props, Machiavelli tells us, are other people whose support you can count on through thick and thin. To get and keep them on side, you need to treat them reasonably well, even if you’ve just crushed them in a war or political campaign. After all, as we read in the reputedly amoral Prince, “victories are never so clear that the winner does not have to have some respect, especially for justice.”




Read Full Post »


Shafiqah Othman


The term Malay Muslim is an oxymoron because if there is a Malay who is Muslim then, by extension of argument, there is a Malay who is Christian. This, though, isn’t pivotal in deflating the notion of the Malay Muslim.

More to the point, the term conflates the idea of Muslim and Malay so that anyone who is Muslim and Malaysian, resident in Malaysia, holds an identity card, subject to its laws, invariably become Malay (Zakir Naik, Ridhuan Tee), that is, speaking Malay and practices the Malay custom. But the Malay custom, like the terms Malay Muslim and Malay race, is yet another invention, that is, a fiction because if there is one, where is it? Where or what is the idea in the custom?

Malay custom by appearances has been long gone, of course. It has to happen because the more Muslim and the more Islamic is, say, Hadi Awang, the farther he is to being ‘Malay’ or to practice the Malay custom. In his entire life he conducts it like an Arab does. That, after all, is the whole idea of ‘Submission’ under Islam: it neither tolerates nor does it permit anybody to be anything else other than being Arab.

Islamic culture is the dominant Arabic culture. In the name of a God and under the power of one man’s predilection, even the Persians and the Africans have found themselves subject to not just speaking Arabic or eating dates during Ramadan or wearing towels on the head, but to the Hadith (written testaments based supposedly on utterances or acts by Mohammad) and the Quran. How could the Mohammad have possibly conducted his life in anything other than the desert culture of his time, that is, Arabic? Thinking of paddy fields and monsoon rain? Of course not.

How did descendants of Java, Sumatra and the Indonesian archipelago become subject to this Arab tyranny, but not the Indonesian? How does one become a conquered ‘race’?

It is easy to blame this state of affairs on the British but the Dutch did not hold sway on Indonesian thought. European, that is, western ideas were, of course, far more pervasive in Malaya than say Borneo. Ideas in themselves can’t do much though. If the British had taught Malays the world came into being by the zap of a magic wand from Allah, then that is just good for a laugh not serious study. Nobody is going to give a fuck.

What really change things fundamentally — and this is a hypothesis — is ways of thinking. By that, think of the creation story, that is, this God and the magic wand theory.

What underlay the mythology is the division of the world into two: the external and the internal, a creator and the created, the outside and the inside, heaven and hell, true and false, the good and the evil, and so on. Once the entire universe, indeed, once all reality is framed in this manner, anything to be discussed or talked through has to go down this pathway.

When Syed Akbar Ali at outsyedthebox doesn’t want to think along those terms, he calls it ‘thinking outside the box‘. But, that’s to presume there is even a box or a framework, so that, really, his way of thinking is still Anglophile (western).



Shafiqah: she has an uphill task not only to debunk the mythology that there is only one kind of Muslim, the Arab kind, but after that there is even a thing or a person called Malay Muslim, such as the photo below. Because, if Allah is only for Muslims, who are Muslims for if not Allah that is Arabian? Where then is the Malay in the Allah?

Shafiqah falls into her own trap once her arguments are framed along the lines of liberal versus illiberal Malay because there never has been a Malay that is liberal. Islam, by its internal mechanics and its definition, is illiberal, however liberalism is defined. The fight she needs to address is, Malay life versus an Arab life. Doing that, you cut off the Malay from orthodoxy at its Arab roots. (Weeding, you see, is most effective from the roots up.)

The Crown Prince of Johore TMJ alluded to the gem of this idea and got that part right: ‘A country that abandons our local traditions such as our traditional clothes and chooses to adopt foreign customs, wanting to be like the Arabs.’

Therein, you know, is your ally. But, Malay versus Arab life? Yes, and think about it, Shafiqah, why? In another place, in the Arabia that Najib Razak (and Hadi Awang) wants to emulate, can you even sit behind that wheel?


We, the Chinese, will let the Christians fight the Allah-cause. It is none of our business anyway: You guys can kill each other for all we care. But no Hudud, for the simply reason it is a bad name; it has too much Hadith in it and conquered minds are never worthy of our trust — or anyone’s else.


Now come to Shafiqah Othman. (Shafiqah who? If anyone has to ask, that’s only because you think too much of Anwar Ibrahim. Forget him, that guy is just an ideas-parrot: gawk, gawk.) Though nothing new, there is no doubt that her charge, Malays are hypocritical, is persuasive. Indeed, it has been said that no Malay during Mahathir’s days, or even earlier, say in 1969, would dare make such an indictment.

But each time this argument is presented, the counter argument (careful there; click goes to an IS-styled Malaiyoo fascist rag sheet called ‘My Nation’) emerges and everyone is back to where they had begun: who the fuck is right?

It is as if there is no truth in anything so that Anglophiles simply return to the most convenient starting point. It is called a point of view (POV). All Anglophile journalists, without exception, are famous at invoking it, so you see this caveat all the time — This is the personal opinion of the columnist — as if there are opinions that are never personal, that is, at one with the rest of the world or the fucking editor.

Philosophers call this POV subjectivism, sometimes relativism. But there’s this problem: if a POV is subject to the person holding it, then only that person has a hold on the viewpoint. That being the case, no viewpoint ever stands independent of, or outside, a person but lasts or persists so long as it is held by the holder. That is, no POV is ever universally true or has any lasting value; and, ‘I think therefore I am’ (from Descartes) collapses into its own self-contradictory defeat.

The consequence? All political fights in Malaysia are therefore reducible to either, for one side or for the other. Ideas are only fought out from and stemming from whoever you stand with. Ideas are never fought out, for or against, because such ideas are simply bad or good, workable or unworkable, useful or not useful, just or unjust, fair or not fair. Ideas are right only when they are dependent from which side they are issued.

In such a circumstance there is no neutrality, neutrality in the sense that you hold two conflicting arguments in abeyance until you figure out the side that is right. Yet, you can never figure out which side is right because there is no thing as a right idea; only whose idea.

This sort of conflicting dichotomy as a way of thinking is at the root of much western thought, ranging from the creation of the world stories, theology and ideologies (communism, socialism) to the structuring of analytical philosophy (logic), its language and its sciences.

Dichotomy is Greek in origin. In its modern Marxist form it is called dialectics wherein history advances in an endless progression of thesis and anti-thesis. In America, it becomes pro-Life or pro-Choice; in Christianity, good or evil. Among Malays, it has become either liberal Muslim or orthodox (i.e. Arab) Muslim. There is simply no way out because everything depended not on the argument in and of themselves, but where you first stand. Are you with Najib or with Mahathir? Are you with PAS or DAP? Are you Malay or Chinese?

The result? Dedak bloggers like Ahirudin Attan or Kadir Jasin, these motherfucker editors who one day will be this and another day will be that. Another result? Lots of frogs, sometimes they are dedak politicians, sometimes they are self-righteous ones. Contrary to popular assumptions, there are no principles at stake because if the fights were over principles then problems arise: what principles, when derived, how, and especially belonging to who?

In this way, arguments never produce consensus or agreements; arguments become the basis for war. More people are today killed from war waged on the basis of principles than from the want of material need (women, grain, territory).

A third result is from Zaid Ibrahim although he is not entirely convincing as to how Malaiyoos came to be so lazy and stupid. Maybe it is the other way around.

In any case, on and on and on, this state of affairs spiral downwards.

Chinese philosophical ideas and thoughts have answers and methods to get off this merry-go-round. (Which explains why, against a robust Chinese culture and civilization, Islam and Christianity stopped at the Turkish-speaking borders, the Himalayas and the South China Sea.) How? That is for another time… maybe.

For now, face it, the Malay is no civilization: he/she is already a conquered mind. And Anglophiles (think Lim Kit Siang or Hannah Yeoh)? They are a complete write-off. The only solution to DAP politics is, wait — for them to die!


时间都去哪儿了 A woman’s life in 33 frames.

彭丽媛 Peng Liyuan (in the days she sang professionally)


Read Full Post »

The Malays Post Najib. Series Part 2


It is to Malaiyoo motherfuckers like this Ara Damansara Shuib  — above, the one pretending to be some botanist from Mara! (does it teach scam or science?) — that Pakatan must appeal for votes. See post below. Imagine then if, after the vote, that piece of shit ketuanan pig shuib also tells Pakatan how to set national policies….


The Accursed Paradise on Earth:

Tanah Melayu is to Malays as Islamic State is to Muslims

Free medical, jobs, money, lots of it, even virgins…


This is second part in the ‘Post Najib’, Post GE14 series: What happens next? Not just to Malaysia but to the Malays especially.

The first part is here which essentially — in case you didn’t get it — deals with the question about the character quality of the Malays, in their general attitude towards Malaysia. That is, would it change with a new leader or a new government?

With Mahathir Mohamad it didn’t. That piece of mamak prick drove the inanity that Malays, like he, were heirs of the land when his father arrived from India only because the old man needed a job. Since there were no Malays to begin with — they simply aren’t a bona fide ethnicity — how could they have a single defining culture? (The Chinese have it, in case you think we are godless creatures.)

Arabs came to sell trinkets; Sumatrans, those from Palembang in particular, came to do piracy; Najib’s Bugis ancestors to expand territory; Kadir Jasin because his were starving; Hadi came to sell an Arab god named Allah. After which, when they could go no farther, they’d call themselves Malays and Tanah Melayu was paradise — not much different from the way the ISIS do their Islamic caliphate business, only more violent. As for the motherfucking Scottish and English, they want no part of this scam. Their skin color gave away the game and, besides, they were on their way to Australia; more land than there is to be imagined.

If Malaysia was, and still is, treated as a destination place to make money, how was the Malay to show loyalty when the Sulus invaded? During that time, Kadir Jasin blamed the Chinese for the Malay casualties because, he says, they were no dead Chinese — they weren’t loyal to country, you see. As it turned out, Malay loyalty was meted out by Malay ‘comrades’ betraying Malay soldiers. (Yes, let’s have a few more.)

Malaysia is not a deviant in world history. Following conquered territories, Americas and Australia, it was entirely made-up by White people. Nor is 1MDB. It wasn’t a historical accident nor is it an aberration of economic or social policies. If it was either then 1MDB would have been a single, stand-alone event as well. But no: it happened alongside endemic cases of police corruption, state-backed extortion and murder, disappearances of individuals, kidnap (even a school girl) and so on.

Only in scale and intensity are today’s cases different from the past. Even the justifications are the same: Mahathir did it in the name of a fiction called ketuanan; Najib in the name of another fiction called Malaiyoo upon who Umno speaks its name.

Because such criminal acts are in combination so peculiar that 1MDB and other events could only have happened within a Malay/Umno political setting; no such framework exists anywhere else. To consider this Malay setting or framework, consider  this: What give Malay authorities — the prime minister, the police and so on — the right to feel they are so empowered as to go to such lengths to steal and plunder? (The Low Yat phone theft and Mat Over are but tiny manifestations, but representative, of that power.)

The answers, self-evident, are traceable all the way back to Umno political culture, its tribal thinking, its fascism and, most pertinently, the thing that Mahathir Mohamad gave widespread legitimacy; it is Malay entitlement by ketuanan. All this constitute the heart of the Malaiyoo, who if one will were think of the continued Malay support for Najib, should be call the 1MDB Malays: power, money, positions.

Those are the daily Malay thoughts growing up. Those subjects make up the core of general discussions, parleyed in the Umno supreme council, even Pakatan and Mahathir’s Bersatu, played out in writing from Chedet to Zaid Ibrahim to Annie of the Valley. It is to these creeds that they live by: from the flunkies (Sabak Bernam fish sellers doubling up as national politicians) to the Felda farmers (preoccupied today with the FGV stock price instead of tending the trees); from the dedak-fed Islamic preachers (meting out useless fatwas for the lack of anything useful) to the top echelons of Malay, hence Malaysian, society.

It is to this fucked-up Malaiyoo marketplace, this Tanah Melayu artifice and with their connivance, that Mahathir and Harapan are peddling votes in competition with Umno. The proposal within the pro-Mahathir faction to let Najib have a ‘workable and peaceful‘ exit is, on the one hand, an old trick. On the other, it underscores the corrupted Malay soul, contemptuous of society overall, never trusting the general population while treasuring the positions some, still there, risk losing, others to get there faster and easier.

In the event Najib doesn’t walk away — he has more to lose — what will Mahathir promise the 1MDB Tanah Malaiyoos because that society will decide whether Umno makes or breaks. Or, in parallel, they are going to determine, crucially, the electoral outcome and hence decide the country’s future. (And, we, the Chinese don’t want to know what Mahathir might promise. Say what you want, we don’t give a shit.)

Now, let’s suppose Mahathir/Harapan get to these Malaiyoos and after that their votes. How will this Malay, post Najib look like? (Forget about the Chinese or Indians; whichever way things go, we know how to look out for our backs.)

The question above is centered on this Tanah Malaiyoo society because it is to them that Mahathir and Bersatu and PKR must answer to and especially them because political characters like the Muhs and the Mahs, the Zaids and the Ibrahims would have just managed to scrap through. Their positions hang on to a single Malaiyoo thread, hence the future of their positions, their bank accounts, and so on. How, therefore, will they speak, act and conduct themselves on behalf of the Malays? What?

The Chinese has internalized the concept of public service. We have been raised for thousands of years thinking about it. Malays? The default Malay political position, since Mahathir in particular, is to ‘protect’ the Malay person and Malay welfare. Protect what if not their material gains, their assets, money, 30 percent, and on and on and on?

Mahathir and the new government will find itself back to where this whole business had begun.

Surely something has to give because this jungle Tanah is so paved with Malaiyoo dead twits and their bones, you are bound to step on one. Save for lying to Malaiyoos or breaking electoral promises or simply ignoring their demands, is a clean break with the past not the only long lasting option left?

Such issues are rarely on the table because of the preoccupation with power rather than its uses, that is, with policies and with public service at heart. At Twitter, as it is inside Pakatan, the same banal desire for power are captured in one-line, two second tweets to solve a problem that has been building for 60 years. This is the trouble with Twitters (below), who like Anglophiles and politicians, are clever at substituting clear thinking with catchy one line solutions which, of course, reads juicy — and trite and so full of pig shit.

A fellow Cina: Usually sharp, very sharp, as sharp as the clothes he wears, this time though he goofed. Why? Who knows…. Anwar can ‘get us there’? You’re sure. There…where? Which hole?

First Thing First?

Wrong! Umno isn’t the First.

It’s those Malaiyoos


Start with this man, Cina @ YouTiup who repeats a standard Pakatan-Mahathir tripe: ‘first thing first: defeat UMNO‘.

Riza Tan @ RizaTann: defeat umno, then? elect leaders who act, function and work in the same way that umno does. nice. short term thinking at its best

Cina @ YouTiup: it’s very simple, if your goal is to dislodge umno, there’s only one free man who could get you there. fuck your feelings, it’s not abt you.

Danny Lim @ Danny_LimNoooooo, we must “teach the opposition a lesson” until they become perfect & spotless & tick-all-the-boxes !!!

Cina @ YouTiup: 1. decide what you want to achieve, eg. winning, 2. know how to get there, 3. keep your feeling to yourself, unless you’re a child.

Cina @ YouTiup: our focus ought to be on governance, the politics will survive us by a few generations, but it may not thrive if we do the right thing now.

You catch the drift of the ongoing inanities? Twits on Twitter.
Not Cina, not Tamil, vaguely Malaiyoo, but Riza Tan? Anglophiles and Christians have English names; Malays and Muslims have Arab names; the blacker the Indian the whiter the name (think Charles Santiago and Denis Ignatius). But Riza Tan? That’s new….
Anyway, welcome home. How do you find the Malaiyoo sun? Careful with what you wish for though….  Many motherfuckers, from Mahathir and Kadir down (that includes your friend Khairy J), will tell you, sooner when not later, that even the sun over the pantai belongs to Malays — exclusively. They were the first to spot it, you see.
Fuck off Malaiyoo, I came first.

The Shepherd Girl
Over at the mountain a girl stands over a flock
For who do you guard them?
Why have tears wet your clothes?
Why be you sad?
Are the mountains desolate?
Grass yellow?
Sheep hungry?
The master’s whip lift smoke on you…
Image result for 牧羊姑娘







Flowers for Funeral

She’s like, on her knees, begging her Love: Death would have been merciful….


Reduced to pure (western form) craft, good as it is, the South African soprano missed the nuances, the pleadings, in the story.


Dream of the Red Chamber





天盡頭 何處有香丘
天盡頭 何處有香丘



Read Full Post »

This is a repost


What Makes the 1MDB Malay?


Malay village drawing, captioned in French; circa 1839? (Image via Pak Pandir)


Theory of the Chicken Head

In ‘Belajar dari warisan budaya sendiri‘, Pak Pandir offers a brief, philosophical discourse into the need to sack Najib Razak. Pertinent lines:

Bangsa Melayu hari ini, kesana kemari bagaikan ayam tidak berkepala hanya kerana kepimpinan bangsa itu buruk.

Janganlah kita lupa, jatuh bangun bangsa Melayu ini bergantung kepada baik dan buruk pemimpin dan pimpinan. Baik pemimpin, baiklah kerajaan dan negara. Buruk pemimpin, maka buruklah negara dan bangsa.

Itulah pengajaran yang paling asas dalam tulisan klasik bangsa Melayu yang sudah tidak dibaca lagi dan dihargai oleh bangsa Melayu.

Maka hari ini, gerakan dan usaha mengeluarkan Najib ialah langkah yang bertepatan dengan pengajaran dari sejarah. Dari sejarah Melayu, mengeluarkan, mengalahkan pemimpin itu membawa akan kemenangan kepada pihak yang mengeluarkan.

Dari lembaran sejarah bangsa Melayu jua, bahawa rakyat lah yang menetapkan the terms of leadership atau rukun raja dengan rakyat. Janji Demang Lebar Daun akan bertaat kepada Sri Teri Buana bersyaratkan Raja dan pemimpin itu jangan menzalimi rakyat jelata walaupun bagaimana jahil dan buruk perangai, jangan dihina dan dicerca.

Sri teri Buana mewajibkan bahawa rakyat setia dan jangan derhaka kepada Raja walaupun zalim. Kata akhir tetap juga pada rakyat bila Demang Lebar Daun menegaskan , perjanjian terbatal, jika raja dan pemimpin yang memulakan penganiayaan terlebih dahulu.

Rakyat lah yang menentukan terma2 pemimpin dan ber-rakyat


The thrust of Pak Pandir’s argument rests of the notion that leadership defines Malay society and in its present state it is like a headless chicken (‘ayam tidak berkepala’). So, for the sake of concision, let’s call it the Theory of the Chicken Head.

On the shoulders of that leadership, Malay society either go forward or backwards or nowhere. So critical is this position, the Head, that unless Malays in general take it upon themselves to shape, alter, and put in their say into its constitution, that is, its qualities and characteristics, Malay destiny, indeed its very identity, shall begin to slither away, waffle, acts directionless and, in time, even face degeneration. Nature abhors life standing still, doing nothing.

If that interpretation is correct then Pak Pandir’s reasoning, taken to its end, suggests that without the head, a Malay ceases in being. No Malay head, no society, no culture hence no Malay person, as is commonly understood.

Such a line of thought puts enormous pressure on the Malay to put in the kind of leadership society desires. But what does the society want? What does the Malay — in the aggregate — want? Under a certain set of circumstances, or a certain generation, who is to say one Head is better than another? What makes for an ideal Malay head?

Answers to those questions ought not to be difficult so that the problem then isn’t switching from one Malay head to another. It is, how does the Malay society breeds, raises, produces its Head?

Without intending to, P. Ramasamy has had a comment on that:

“It would be difficult to undermine Umno even if the new party is going to be headed by a popular former prime minister, that is, Mahathir. Personal credentials and experience are important, but …. [M]ost ethnic or racial political parties are sustained on the basis of powerful patronage that stems from holding political power.

That answer, by way of a comment, is trite by now (we all know that). Dig deeper though, it does illuminate some characteristics of Malay society. For one, it is deeply political (why can’t it be normal, like every society in the world?) and its politics is ultimately concerned with money. Mahathir Mohamad greatly expanded on that notion, and made to look like money is an important means of securing identity. Najib, flipping it around although without meaning to (he isn’t some intellectual, he is just Rosmah’s coffee boy): Identity is already there (he proudly displays his Bugis), so let’s just keep the fucking money. No! Let’s make more!

The Malay is politics is the government is the money. Like Umno, Felda, Felcra, MARA, PNB, Ismail Sabri and the like, all started on materialistic objectives (poverty alleviation is the nice econ word) but there was no escaping their political roots that eventually flowers into the image of its ketuanan mother. And the theological basis for this politics? The Chinese peril. Perhaps if all the Chinese were dumped into the South China Sea, there won’t be Umno, therefore no Najib. Perhaps. But Malay society might get worse. The Arabs.

PAS grew up on camel dung. The only thing standing between the kampung and that dung, and so suborning all Malays to its will, is the Chinese; hudud‘s failure in Parliament is a clear example. Still, there is the party: its attempts to distance life’s purpose from the kind Umno keeps regurgitating to no end, indeed to roll back the materialism, could only produce the Islam that, after decades of trial and error, would look no different from a thing 1,400 years ago in a foreign desert land called Arabia. That’s the Wahhabi-ISIS kind.

Under such exacting, sometimes distressing circumstances, under such pressures, how is a Malay to be other than being an apologist for Najib. 1MDB is not difficult to comprehend, not even to present, as a form of political ammo, to the kampung. It’s just that the kampung seems to find it banal — boring. Is that why they pretend to hear nothing? Because, to criticize Najib, to agree about 1MDB, is to spit at themselves in the mirror, to curse the society on which everyone went along. After Malaysian Official 1, there has to be Pemuda Asshole 2. No wonder Razlan Rafii (Umno FT) reminded Muhyiddin Yassin about his benefactor, Umno. Razlan wasn’t stupid; he was just being Malay. In this era, a 1MDB Malay.

Below is another perspective to the same problem, a foreigner’s perspective.

pak-pandir (800x250)https://i2.wp.com/www.newmandala.org/wp-content/uploads/cache/2016/08/MeredithWeiss/1757356462.jpg

Malay/Malaysian Society on the Rocks

While Pak Pandir appears to hold out some hope for Malay society at least (he was talking only about them), Meredith Weiss (above) is far less optimistic. Pandir’s optimism is the logic of hope, Weiss’s pessimism is the inevitability of despair.

In ‘Lamenting 1MDB‘ Weiss argued that the prospect of political, social and economic change is as hopeful as the Malay becoming Malaysian. And this is not just in the sense of Malay existing as core national identity (actually a stupid, unworkable and unnecessary idea) but in the deeper historical and cultural sense.

[T]he overall failure to translate aggravation into action indicates problematic ossification within UMNO, the opposition, and civil society alike. That ex-prime minister Mahathir Mohamad has been reconditioned in his 90s as a reformist hero is startling, and speaks poorly for the availability of younger, newer, less baggage-laden opposition alternatives. …

At this point, enough countries are investigating 1MDB and its and Malaysia’s leaders that surely (surely?) something has to give. But the sad reality is, at this point, a court case, a criminal conviction, even a full overhaul of political leadership would not fix the problem. 1MDB has both laid bare and made worse deep weaknesses and ruptures in Malaysia’s politics, economy, and society.

As a quasi-neutral observer, my only hope is that we have hit rock-bottom…

Weiss’s argument is that even jailing the leader doesn’t undo what has in effect been (as seen in Najib) a progressive, step–by-step, year-on-year degradation of a society from the top down so that, unless this systemic failure, was addressed from bottom up, all the measures undertaken by a change of leader becomes just band-aid.

Yet, Malay society can’t seem able to produce something outside of itself, that is, a new, different leader replacing Najib. Anwar Ibrahim disappears from sight and almost immediately the quarreling starts. Why is it so difficult to produce a replacement Malay: Tuan-tuan dan puan-puan, fellow Melayu, fellow Malaysians, maybe I present you, Melayu Supremo Bolshevik Trotsky! That is, why so difficult to produce, by extension, a Malaysian leader? Why?

  • One, up to 40 percent of the population (Chinese, non-Malay bumi, etc) are prohibited from participating in the discovery process that takes decades. They are not even permitted to be seated alongside the Malay, a propaganda now made a lie by relying purely on the presumption — now made a political truth-condition — that no Chinese or Indian or Dayak would be willing or able to serve Malays, even in terms of their religion, Islam. Here says it plainly. And that’s some ‘professor’ but, really, just another arsehole. (In case you wonder, ass is American spelling, arse is Queen’s English. Or is the other way round? One forgets.)
  • Two. The lie is so entrenched, so ‘ossified’ (Weiss) into the system, that it validates the psychology that only politics through Umno is permitted to present any new generation of leadership. Not even PAS is permitted, without Umno consent. The result: simply more of the Umno same. Mahathir begets Najib, Najib begets more Najibs. This is another result: It’s found in the bedroom. In which case is the poor Malay child, powerless as a victim and she doesn’t even know it. Instead of leveling the distribution of power, which ought to be a feature of a progressive society, a Malay people upends it deliberately. So disenfranchised is the society, that those at the Bottom accepts their lot, their Fate, which is in turn given a stamped seal of approval by the Top, the judges and the prosecutors, the very persons entrusted to protect them from harm.

Malaysia has society’s values gone to the dogs. It doesn’t even know anymore what’s good for it. Meanwhile… the muftis, the imams and the Ridhuan Tees, the Petra Kamarudins, and Ahi Attans continue their platitudes, occasionally spitting at Chinese girls as immoral infidels while they watch dismissively the perversity going on next door and in their backyards, among their lot. Not a whimper from them. Too bad, they’re busy on dedak.

Cry for Malaysia? Yes, please. Here’s a hanky.

Of course, Malaysia needs a change of guard. Normal societies do, without blinking an eye; it’s called spring cleaning. But how; how soon? Anyone for a revolution?



天啊 Another Umno

Not only has Umno live past its use-by date, it has become a poison.

So what does Mahathir Mohamad do to remove Najib Razak who, to all intents and purposes, is an Umno created poison. Mahathir doesn’t create an anti-dote. No, he distills another poison. Of course, Mahathir, Kadir Jasin (above), et al have their reasons and we know what they are. But, if Khairuddin Abu Hasan could see through into the origins of the present malaise, what’s with people like Mahathir and Kadir?

This is Kadir, a Mahathir poodle dog:

Ia bermatlamat mewarisi, meneruskan dan memperbaharui perjuangan Melayu/Bumiputera dalam era globalisasi, reformasi, ketelusan dan keterbukaan. [In translation: The party aims to renew the fight of the Malays and bumiputera in the era of globalisation, reformation, transparency and openness.]

The ‘fight of the Malays/bumiputera’? Transparency? Openness? Reformation?

How might this ‘renewed fight’ shape up? On a ceramah night, deep in Kedah, a Mahathir henchmen will say this: Najib has sold the country to the Chinese! And not just the local Chinese mind you but China.

Well, below, in the clip is the bumiputra, the indigenous people of Kuala Lipis. And they, too, are fighting: to get back land an Umno government sequestered from them — as Umno likes. It happens all the time, not once, not twice, thrice, but everywhere, year in, year out. And Kadir has the gall to invoke the Malay/bumi name? It’s convenient isn’t it? Makes it look like you are what? Malay hero?

Kadir, really, we all had had enough. You’ve no credibility. Like Najib, you can’t be trusted. This country is tired. Why don’t you do us a favor since your ultimate intent is to ‘Save Malaysia’, the same Malaysia you help start to destroy. That way, Kadir, it’s a beginning. Fuck off, arsehole.


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »