Archive for the ‘Malaysia Stories’ Category

Something ain’t right with the title. Shouldn’t it be:

Ahi’s Hot Prick!


What’s the difference between that man in the clip below and Ahi and Sumi and ISIS?

None. There is zero difference in the attitude and Islamic worldview between the Turkish man and, running on a spectrum of Muslim bigotry, ISIS and PAS to Jakim and Ahirudin Attan or Annie of the Valley. For the simple reason, Islam isn’t for moderation; if it were, it won’t mean Submission.

But Ahi of Rocky Bru? The pig-tail liberal Malaiyoo motherfucker?

Yes, that motherfucker. Some time ago, also a Ramadan month, he complained at Rocky’s Bru that Chinese girls on the streets were dressed ‘insensitive’ (heard that word?) to Malaiyoos on supposedly a ‘holy’ month. (BTW, how does a month in a calendar become ‘holy’? Anyone know?)

And insensitive? Like the Turkish man seated behind the girl, Ahi called out on the girls, the Chinese, who wore hotpants! Tak malu, he’d say.

How then will Ahi make sure Chinese girls dress ‘sensitive’ for his sake and for Malaiyoos. Rape them? Go round town slapping people? Or, as with Jakim, put them in jail? Or, like ISIS, behead them (after the rape)?

(As an aside, we say to Ahi: try touching a Chinese girl and we’ll see what happens to you, motherfucker. Remember the Malaiyoo Uber driver?)


Najib’s Umno pre-paids; at one time they belonged to Mahathir when they don’t belong to PAS. These media motherfuckers; like the Malay prostitutes of Golok, and at a price, you can buy them any time. Own them you can make them quack. Or grunt like a pig.


Ahi taking bids for a selfie fund-raiser: “Seven thousand kali ini, ten thousand esok.” Big Fat Dog thinks it’s funny.


Sumisha Naidu, Ahi’s inheritor, not only of the same kind of prostitute media job but especially his entire worldview and value system and racist bigotry. Indeed, a whole white man’s way.

Sumi, go fuck Ahi — naturally, you’ll have to take off your hot pants. You got any hot pants, Yes? What about your color? It will show: so dark!


With these Malaiyoos, they, beginning with Anwar Ibrahim, imported an Arabian god named Allah and therefore brought in a whole war that had nothing to do with this part of the world. And all for what? To control the Chinese?

The Chinese were the least trouble, we knew our position in life. But, in Britain as elsewhere in Europe, Muslims arriving from Africa and Arabia have now told those White indigenous settlers: “We are taking over.” (Below.) Like Malaiyoos in Malaysia, they have declared themselves, the bumi; the native becomes the pendatang.

Matters of race and religion are not for debate because if these were matters of reason, then ISIS won’t exist (and the clip below wouldn’t have turned up), Jakim won’t be necessary, Hadi Awang dead, and Ahi would have been out of business long ago, he would have nothing to report — or blog.

This business of moderation, that is, reason, reminds of a judge trying a Malaiyoo for raping a White girl tourist in Annie’s Johor: In steaming hot Malaysia, the judge reasoned, she was insufficiently dressed. Therefore? She should take a part — provocation, the main part — of the blame.

In Malaysia, as in the Islamic world, is an inversion of reason: pendatang becomes the bumi; crime is the fault of the victim. Such a notion, finally wounding its way to the top of society, is no different should Najib Razak steal another 40 billion tomorrow. Najib: It can’t be my fault if the money is lying around enticing me. I am doing it for Islam anyway, for Umno, for Malaiyoos.

Some crimes have thus become non-crimes if you can offer justification, in Najib’s case, for a greater cause, and the greater is what Umno says it is. Other crimes become acts of righteousness when Islam is invoked and because Allah was supposed to have said so. (Long before Najib, Mahathir Mohamad led the way in this form of perverse reasoning. He still does.)

In this way, the Turkish man will argue his justification — his righteousness — for slapping anybody he dislikes, so that, arrested one minute, he is let off the next. Like he, Ahi would act, and all the Alis, and Sumisha Naidu…. Act because they are protected, not by law, not even by their reasoning, but by their immorality, the same immorality shared by judges, by policemen, found in Umno, in Najib Razak, in Mahathir. Evil becomes the ultimate good: we have arrived.

Importing wholesale this thinking, Malaysia also imports, in its entirety, a Christian-Muslim war, a Caucasian war, as Najib is today actively doing, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen. Of this war, think Marawi in the Philippines (that country because of its Christianity) where guns fire away at full blast; no going back for those Pinoys. Moderation comes out of the barrel of the gun; the dead: either you or I.

Importing this value system, Malaysia raises even more bigots and, among them, a person like Sumisha (above) makes sure she stands out.

In Malaysia, thus, this value system inversion means, the more bigoted you are, the more righteous, the louder you must shout, the more faces you must slap (recall Mat Over), the more heads to chop. Criminality becomes a function of Islamic holiness, or (Sumi styled) self-righteousness.

Is there a fundamental difference then between Sumi and the Turkish motherfucker? Of course not. To Sumi, to Ahi, the Malaiyoo judge, the Turkish, the Arabs, et al other people cannot be beautiful. Only the values of Ahi and Sumi must prevail and prevail over other people.

Then to impose their bigotry they go round blaming others for their assaults, online and off, like the judge. Or like Sumi, her racism is the fault of girls who like fair skin; like Ahi, his racial intolerance is the fault of ‘insensitive’ Chinese girls with a great looking ass. Perhaps, when all that doesn’t work, they will want to chop heads as well, easy after all if heads are on people who can’t fight back.

Want to try it, Ahi, chop heads? Don’t push your luck, Malaiyoo boy; you don’t know your station in life.



Read Full Post »

Thanks for the trouble. Nice, very nice, FT: colorful, precise, well illustrated. But, where is it in the charge? Where is even the charge sheet?

As they say in the movies: Move along folks, nothing to see … but below.



Inscription outside a China courthouse today: the two characters means, simply, People. This is in contrast to western (Malaysia included) concepts wherein Justice 義 yi (pix further up) is an end. In China and in Chinese traditions, we say this is wrong: Justice is purely the means; People is the purpose of justice and it is only with that in mind is justice served and not be corrupted.

In this regard, Malaysia is classic as an example: Everywhere today, in every circumstances, we see the corruption of people because justice (or fairness) failed.

Neither Najib Razak nor Umno (nor Anwar Ibrahim, nor Mahathir Mohamad) could properly understand what this sweep of injustice entailed. They see only a Chinese tsunami as an expression of ‘ungratefulness’ (the Umno and Utusan word) without cause.

Because of Confucianism/Daoism, the Chinese have a deeply imbued self of fairness and justice so that, in truth and in fact, the GE event was a massive Chinese revolt against injustice everywhere and in every facet of life. This being so, the appearance of 1MDB has to be treated not independently, as an aberration — like it happened only because of Najib — but within a larger context. The rot that is Malaysia is congealing, and fast. But it is also a great and wonderful opportunity to reset everything. Get it wrong though, we are back to square one, or worse. A sword cuts two sides: Don’t get into the wrong one.


In the traditional writing form, yi 義 or justice/fairness is a compound word and repeatedly mentioned in the time of Confucius and Laozi. It is composed of two words, lamb yang and an individual person wo. Yi‘s etymology isn’t quite clear; it first appeared 5,000 years ago then repeated by subsequent historians such as Sima Qian. Later when the word was sequestered by arriving Christian preachers (those motherfuckers), its association with the Christian conception of a sacrificial lamb became to us very uncomfortable. Reason: lamb is sacrificed as an expression of loyalty to a fictitious god? This is utterly false — and useless as a virtue.

To us, the Chinese and our ancestors, Justice, in its final expression, might require that an individual, such as a general serving the emperor or a minister or any public official, once disgraced would sacrifice himself like a lamb. Hence, with word and concept in the hands of the Japanese, in particular, injustice and, from it, shame ends in a seppuku, the act of killing oneself by disembowelment with a knife. The way a lamb is slaughtered.

Of course, no Malay, no Anglophile, nor Najib nor Jho Low (nor a White man) would do a seppuku. They have no shame nor little sense it. And why should they? They have Allah’s forgiveness, and Jesus Christ as well. This forgiveness thing… bah!

In ancient China, legal rules demand that any kleptocrat caught thieving would be executed forthwith. No trial, no seppuku.


Justice and 1MDB, Najib and the Americans

With so much evidence, why isn’t Najib prosecuted?


When they came, Umno’s responses, and the government’s, to the US Department of Justice were as thick as they were fast. Then, as sudden as were the deluge, they abruptly stopped other than to accuse a foreign conspiracy. (Nothing new there.) It is as if realizing, belatedly, people like Rahman Dahlan were simply peeing on poor Najib Razak and wife.

Nothing in DOJ’s latest deposition mentioned the two names, as if not even caring to grab the diamonds and gems she has locked up somewhere. Mostly it was about Jho Low, Riza Aziz, some Muslim Arab towel heads, and the reputation of Leonardo DiCaprio.

On the other hand, the government’s responses merely gave Clare Rewcastle-Brown and others something to mock at: What a bunch of stupid assholes. Comical Alis, she called them; comical being the stupidity; Ali the asshole, Malaiyoo, of course. (Strange, neither Kadir Jasin nor Ibrahim Ali nor Mahathir Mohamad, these great defenders of ‘sovereignty’ and ‘Malay dignity’, responded to this omputih, foreign, white girl interference and assault on the representatives of a ‘glorious’ Malay culture.) That white girl Clare had named Apandi Ali and Hishammuddin Hussein in particular.

We, the Chinese, say

鸟儿唱歌不是因为他们有了答案坦因为有个要唱 ‘Birds sing not because they have the answer but because they have a song’.

And so it is with the guilty as well, and the thieves, and Umno, ex and present.

Which then raises the question: why isn’t Najib, the man where the buck stops for 1MDB’s MYR50 bn money, investigated, named in the deposition, then charged? Malaysiakini took a stab at the answer (to justify the subscription you took out), but they just went round and round in circles without answering the question.  It was pathetic.

Hisham had a point which, really, is the bottom line at stake. Worse for the Opposition, his answer, is reinforced by the fact that not one person connected in any way to Najib has been criminally prosecuted. Not even in Singapore.

As a consequence, the Sarawak Report, Malaysiakini, the western media  and numerous others could go on and on and on and on and on about the so-many countries investigating 1MDB as if this was proof enough. To say Najib is Thief Number One is the easy part. But proving it was altogether different because not a single one of those investigations, including the DOJ’s, produced a thief. (Those bankers jailed in Singapore are not the thieves; they are the fence for the loot.)

Not one investigation strikes at the heart of 1MDB: Najib.

Why not? Especially since it is so plainly clear that 1MDB is set up for fraud in its design and reporting structure. Then, again, there is its unrivaled ability to raise USD10 bn (MYR40+ bn), almost all overseas, and to have these monies moved around, from one end of the world to another, as vigorous and as determined as the royal Malay sperms of Raja Petra Kamarudin swimming upstream in Manchester.

Instead all the banks, without exception, big and small, from Goldman Sachs and Deutsche to Falcon, an unknown before the 1MDB, would sit back and let it all take place, not once but multiple times spread over 7 years. They even help it along.

Is it because of Najib, with an influence so deep and global, more powerful than the President of the USA? If not, then how could seven years of racketing a ponzi scheme take place all the while without Najib being plainly in sight and detected! The same could be asked even today when everything is out.

But let’s take a stab at the answer to the title-question which, really, isn’t hard so that, after which, one can see why, even in the most influential country, the US, Najib is not named, prosecuted much less?

Begin with the fundamental task of discovery: what or where is the crime?

1MDB is a remarkably straightforward case: around MYR 40 bn was raised solely overseas (MYR50 bn plus all in) and these monies did not go into specific projects with the Saudis nor with the other Arab towel heads. Some of the money was turned into Edra and Bandar Malaysia. All the overseas projects were a flop; but why is this a crime?

Looked at in this way allows us to ask, If Jho Low et al was never caught living up with diamonds or cunts (white ones at that), at casinos, in bars and on yachts, then the mental picture of money as a hedonistic fuel for immorality won’t exist. Without this mental picture, the crime of MYR40 bn lost in some Arabian towel-head projects would be just that. We all would be wiser for it and, so, end of story.

That is, in another phrasing, the gradual, accumulated imagery of 1MDB growing from failed projects to money squandered (Mahathir: money ‘missing’; Tony Pua’s suit: malfeasance) and then to this, which is something remarkably familiar and, therefore, easy to pin down. With white women, diamonds, yachts, paintings and luxuries all around, 1MDB’s past and projects came together to create a morality problem, Christian and Anglophile in value system and scope. Now money, or crime, if there is one, had a purpose: It is called Hedonism.

Hedonism would be a cultural infringement in Anglophile Malaysia, or the US, but not in another cultural context which prefers to look at how money is acquired and not how it is spent. Which explains why the imagery of white women and liquor don’t matter much to the Japanese or Korean or Chinese media (SCMP isn’t Chinese; it’s Anglophile and gweilo), and not even among Arabs and Muslims who were distinctly involved. (Arab princes live on white women all the time.)

Flipped around, hedonism gave impetus to the discovery of crime. Or, in another way of saying the same thing: money is the established, the given, hand maiden of the immorality Hedonism. With money laced into Hedonism, a legal idea emerges and crime is born. Or needs to be.

Now that White girl Clare has discovered money in the crime — along with crime’s purpose — the next thing to ask is, what crime? Which is simply to paraphrase a technical, legal issue: what kind of crime?

This is the thing that vexes everyone, from Najib to his sycophants (people like Ahi Attan is repeatedly asking, where is the crime?) and from Mahathir to Tony Pua and Umno’s kampung coconut heads.

All the convictions in Singapore were related to breaches of (central bank) regulatory compliance — not statutory law — all under the umbrella of money laundering.


Innocent passage is an old feature of ancient China, governing movements of civilians, troops, goods and money across border regions, much terrorized by those marauding Mongolian and Turkic-speaking tribal barbarians in the north. In these areas, Chinese have right of passage. Violations would incur the wrath of the emperor’s troops and total war. And you, the Malaiyoos, don’t want to get in between.


Money laundering wasn’t seriously considered a crime until 9-11 when urgency grew into the task of tracing sources of money that were fed into terrorist cells or derived from narcotic sales. In those considerations, it was merely enough to cut off the middle process, sitting in the center connecting the financing, the source of money, and its end use.

This middle process is no more and no less the banal, normal human activity of taking a man’s salary, deposit it in a bank, then withdrawing it to buy groceries. So to call this activity money laundering is to cast illegitimacy not in the middle process — which would end all modern human activity — but to disconnect or severe the two ends of it: the source of money and its uses.

DOJ money laundering cases began with terrorism and drugs. Its kleptocracy unit was added on and so fairly new, perhaps because some government finances (Central America for example) were fueled by drugs. Conversely, the world’s biggest exporter of terrorists, the family state of Saudi Arabia is never investigated because its money is legit — oil. To drugs, kleptocracy investigation into money laundering or prosecution were added money sourced and passed through the US from bribery (Marcos of the Philippines) or theft and buying of state secrets (allegedly North Korea).

Legitimacy of money source and use thereof is important because it is only with illegitimacy that a simply transaction between two banks or between bank and individual is turned into money laundering. Which is, for dirty money to turn up and look clean.

Question: Is 1MDB money even dirty to begin with? This is where Malaysia’s kleptocracy case is remarkably different from all others: those motherfuckers (helped by Tim Leissner) actually raised the money in the open market, from loans and from bond sales, US ones at that. And all are legit.

This has the knock-on implication that, if money laundering is a crime because money came from an illegitimate activity then where is the illegitimacy in 1MDB fund sourcing?

To deal with this problem between legitimacy and illegitimacy is why Singapore avoided direct application of money laundering statutory law. Its next best thing was merely to get the fencers, the enablers, the banks and so on, by using breaches of reporting and compliance rules when money came in and money went out.

Why didn’t the US do the same as with Singapore? It could, but that’s duplicating the Singapore prosecutions. So, what for? Besides what about Najib or Jho Low and others, the ones truly behind the scam?

Unlike Singapore, America has this other, added predicament: because all 1MDB’s overseas debts were denominated in USD those monies had originated in the US. This includes the Deutsche USD1.2 bn loan. For such monies to subsequently pass through the US financial system would be a perfectly normal occurrence. You can’t quarrel with that. The idea of free, unmolested transaction-activity is akin to Innocent Passage or, related to it, Transit Passage wherein Americans in the South China Sea try to provoke the Chinese by passing near its installations then claiming that they are only minding their own business on the way to another place. China can’t touch those Marine Yankees unless we, the Chinese, invoke complete water territorial ownership.

This legal, money laundering predicament of the DOJ’s is expressed repeatedly by flipping around — to the other end, the use end of — the money transaction process. That is, the funds, the DOJ keeps saying, never went to its intended purpose.

Such a notion, the ‘intended purpose’, is central: that there is no innocent passage, or that there is violation of anti-money laundering rules, then the law kicks in. Hence, with law, one sees the necessity of detailing and tracing each step of the money’s progress ending up in some cunts (both white and brown), paintings, diamonds, casinos, condos and so on. The point is to prove the illegitimacy in the transactions by showing — and this is critical — that the expressed (or intended) purpose had been breached. It is an idea entirely different from Singapore which in all its cases were handled differently but easy to conclude and convict. In the US or elsewhere, this is quite ground-breaking.

If this, as a necessary first step, is established — and verified in a California court — then Jho Low et al are done in. They are the ones caught with knife in hand, after the murder. Or, if you like westerns, holding the smoking gun. Goldman Sachs? Tim? They are likely to go free. They’d say: Me? I didn’t use the money. Malaysia wanted it, I gave them. Yes I took my cut, but isn’t that legal.

So, at that, Leissner will at most get a reprimand like it was with the banks in Singapore.

Thus, to the penultimate question: Whereof Najib?

To answer that, answer this: where is his hand — his fingerprints — on the illegitimate use of the proceeds in the US? Where, in particular, is his name in the flow of transactions through the US system?

The DOJ’s deposition is not self-evident. Its purpose is purely to prove one point: that with USD4.5 bn going to a multitude of things (proof of which USD1.7 bn out of 4.5 bn is directly traceable) then there is no legitimacy in the transactions. It’s not the money that’s illegal; it is the transactions. (We’ll see.)

Let’s face it: there isn’t any crime either within the US or Singapore or elsewhere that can be pinned on Najib. Acknowledging this, the Opposition will have to re-calibrate its political strategies.

Jho Low did his dirty work, as did other Malays and Arabs. Even if in the unlikely eventuality Jho Low points to Najib as boss, there is still no incriminating evidence that Najib directed or was a party to the laundering. At best, there is just the AmBank account plus transactions out of Singapore, none of which falls within US jurisdiction. Even Singapore won’t touch the account because they have to ask the same question: What is the crime?

When the DOJ lacked the crime to link the money to Najib, then the PMO began to hurl insults at the DOJ; it is under a conspiracy agenda and so on. This is of course absurd, but then such claims are not for American ears. They are for the kampung.

This is also to answer why Apandi keeps saying, where is the evidence? (And the white girl Clare, so cocksure, thinks she has the answers.) It answers why Hisham so confidently bet his entire political and official career against the US on this one single rebuttal: If you got it, charge Najib! Why fuck around, spraying shit all over 251 pages?



Exquisite isn’t it? What do the movements resemble?

There is a surprise at 5:40





Read Full Post »

How is Jho Low Anglophile — and Racist

For proof he is honorary White, he badly wanted a White woman, went to White Wharton for credentials, gave her a White boat trip for impression, gave her loads of White diamonds (pink for Rosmah though)…

then … shocking Sarawak Report news! She goes off and marry someone else…. Poor Jhoey.



Yesterday, Jhoey emailed Miranda then it was leaked, deliberate of course, first to White Reuters:

Miranda, are your reading this: I want my diamonds back! Start with the one on your ears! That wedding photo.

After all that I have done for you!! You never loved me. You only wanted … diamonds. You used me. How low (sic) can you get? What do you take me for? A Chinaman? You heartless bitch!!!

I’ll fix you! And that Evan boy also!! I have connections!!!


Miranda replies the same afternoon:

What do you mean, fix? Yes, you are a Chinaman, and a sick one. I never asked for the diamonds. You were just stupid. A stupid and sick Chinaman. Go back to Malaisia.


That’s Anglophile racism; they like all things and anything White. Anglophile…

  • like Najib Razak (itu omputih Saudi are ‘authentic‘),
  • like Riza Aziz (Mwhahahaha $$$$ in USD please),
  • like Baginda Razak (Oxford, my home! My refuge!),
  • like Hannah Yeoh (I live for a White god),
  • like Shay Adora (poor baby, laundered at the age of 6 days)
  • like Sumisha Naidu (aiyaa, why you don’t like Watsons ah?),
  • like Charles Santiago (itu Chinaman semua tipu, omputih lebih honest),
  • like Dennis Ignatius (me, too, I got White woman — with Jesus thrown in!)….
  • like the whole of Tanah Malaiyoo… Podah


Yellow Boy, White Girl

White and white societies (both Arabian and Western; it used to be England only) become the defining standard — the ultimate benchmark — for everything, everything in Malaysia especially morality, law, justice, governance, god, progress, wealth, even love (Jho Low), getting a fuck (Baginda Razak, Ahirudin Attan), eating (Jamil Baharom), art and music (Francis Yeoh), where to holiday (Rosmah, New York), do business (Riza Aziz, New York), go to school (Hannah Yeoh, Australia), and giving a name (Shay Adora); collectively the value system. Loyalty to country becomes loyalty to these sets of value system.

Najib Razak and Jho Low, both simultaneously personify and epitomize this value system.

Najib, on the one hand, with his liberalism gone berserk, now eating its own tail, so that he has to look to yet another white society, the Saudis, for salvation. Jhoey; and he is not a Chinaman although motherfuckers like Kadir Jasin would label him so, because these Malaiyoo racists (raised in a diet of Mahathirism) can then claim, ‘Look this is what the Chinese do in Tanah Melayu; they steal from us.’ ‘Us’ being the Malaiyoos. The Chinaman is last person to splurge the way Jhoey does, even if the money is not his. Instead, he is the classic Anglophile, raised and trained in Malaysia, seeking acceptance from and into Western society. To do that he even resort to flipping his name around so that he would, at least, sound English, exactly the way Dennis Ignatius like to be heard and appreciated.

They are the Anglophiles, some below. The list is only a portion of the thousands. The trouble is this, these few thousands, big and small, are the ones who set the national agenda. Small wonder, the country is so fucked today.




Pig shuib, above.



You sendiri tengok: The blacker the Indian, the whiter the name.




The Magnificent 賈鵬芳 Jia Pengfang

长相思 The Longing


Read Full Post »


The two links above and below go back to the same document further below: DOJ’s latest court deposition.

06.15.17 Viceroy Complaint



Erhu piano, sino western combination

 By 賈鵬芳: 睡蓮 Water lily

Read Full Post »

Short answer: Because she is Indian, dark skin and can do nothing about it. Except, of course, to act the cunt that she is.


Super Cunt ‘Why-so-dark’ Sumi: She knew how to weaponize her prejudices — with a piece of phallic instrument called a microphone.


Cunt, Cunts and Cunts

As a child, I have heard in passing or said by neighbors umpteen times by Indians of Indians on the occasions such as, a child is born: “Why? So dark!”

Here, alluding to the same thing, is the confession of the brown skin Malay Zan Azlee (brown skin because some Malays are Caucasians, Middle Eastern, others Indian, and so Malay is not an ethnic but a political class; Ridhuan Tee is Chinese). Zan’s daughter:

I wish my skin was a little bit fairer, like Alethea. … Alethea’s skin is fairer and that is beautiful.

Zan’s response to her: Why would you want that? Your skin looks great to me.

That wasn’t just disingenuous, it was especially contrived because of the folly of his own arguments. Stupid Zan couldn’t see a straight syllogism that a child could: Given that color has shades then beauty, too, must be shaded. So far, nobody, not the Indians gossiping or Zan’s daughter or Alethea is saying dark is ugly; they are merely asserting that in fairer colored skins contain the gradations of beauty.

Beauty, like color preferences, isn’t a matter of truth or evidential fact; it’s a matter of individual desires angled on personal tastes.

Then along comes the cunt Sumisha Naidu, dark skin Indian, armed with a CNA phallic microphone. She grabs the Thing — it has power — sticks it into her mouth, masturbating for the world to see and she cums; Sumi dripping of self righteousness.

On what grounds does she beat up Watsons over the Alethea ad? This couldn’t be news because there could be no news in dog bites man nor, in the same vein, what an individual desires in a fair skin. Beauty, so they say, may skin-deep but that’s where it starts — at the skin. Michael Jackson wanted and got his fair skin after all (which costs money). Has Sumisha accused Michael of hating blackness? Or preferring white? Or racism? White girls who like a darker, tanned skin (and summer’s here!); are they ever accused of racism?

Because the accusation of racism at an individual level is impossible to defend (though in truth, it requires no defense), it is especially useful and convenient. But, how had Sumi arrived at black = ugly = racism? Or conversely white = beauty; but doesn’t equal racism.

The syllogism, that is, Zan’s failure to see the fault in his own argument — this stupid Malaiyoo — equally explains and defines Sumi’s personal prejudices: black is racism but not white.

This predictable black versus white dichotomous outcome has only one origin: white, western society (they invented Opposites fighting) which nurtured its beginnings from Christiandom wherein Adam and Eve, it was argued early on, have to be white. From that racial ideology grew, moving on thence to the slave trade, something already practiced by Arabs when the Europeans first docked at the western African coast, especially the country today called Benin.

Today, motherfuckers like Zan and cunt holes like Sumi and, of course, the eternal cunt named Hannah Yeoh knew how to employ the same racial ideology in an Asian setting: That is, to project skin tones strictly as a morality issue.

The matter of a young girl preferring a fairer skin is never interpreted on its own merits; girls being girls yet they aren’t allowed to grow up as teenagers. Instead their individual preferences, innocent as they may be, are hitched purely and solely to a (western) political ideology refined today into the form of personal abuse.

So, not by coincidence, it is with people like Sumi and Hannah Yeoh and Zan that are Anglophiles — people who like things white, English, marmalade and scones, Jesus and God-Allah, Shakespeare and snow. Hannah so despised the Chinese (not white enough) and Indians (too dark) she refused to give her children the appropriate names. Instead her first born is given a white name: Shay Adora.

The Lady of the Valley is named Annie, Malaysiakini‘s Gan is Steven, Malaysiakini’s Christian preacher Oh is Steve; Indians call themselves Dennis Ignatius when the Charles Santiagos are full up, the blacker they are the whiter their names become; Malaiyoos are all Mohammads, Khairy J thinks the world of Oxford, Najib Razak kisses the ass of a Caucasian camel named al-Saud, and on and on and on, all wanting white, and all shouting the loudest against racism.



The real Hannah, above: fat, bitchy and ugly. But below is how she pictures herself to the world, on Twitter: a Miss Universe sweetness to put a veil over the ‘evil’ (her word) in her heart.




Poor Alethea, above: Michael Jackson can have a fairer skin, but not her. Sumi and Hannah and Zan made sure of it.


Show Alone 獨角戲

We like beauty, and we prefer beauty white. What’s it to you, Sumi Cunt? Go get fucked by a Saudi imam; he’s white. Or this man — the Commander — but he’s dark skin, and old.

Now, after you’ve gotten your cum, see below.

Immediately below is you. After that is Taylor Swift. Who would you say is prettier, far, far, far prettier? And what color is that? That’s racist, No?


Black Sumi versus white Taylor: Why, so dark! And ugly… outside and in.


Read Full Post »

The Racism of the Anti-Racists


So full of herself, Hannah on Twitter imagines herself as a shooting rock star (below).




Notice how it is always with people like Hannah Yeoh and Sumisha Naidu (below, the one sticking out a lollipop), these white western imitations who are forever out to create fault, invent grievances and look for offenses (like Perkasa) when there is none; like looking for racism in the color black then making the two equal.

So full of self-righteousness, they would always pick on those who can’t fight back, the defenseless, or a company like Watsons which would find it suicidal to do so.

But, neither Hannah nor Sumi have the cunt to take on Perkasa and Ibrahim Ali, would they? Are they different from the Malay imam hate preachers? Of course Not; these two cunts simply pick a politically satiable topic to feed their Anglophile crowd, numerous of them can be found here, Malaysia’s version of a Brietbart. (Even here.) It is the same thing Ibrahim Ali employs to feed his anti-Chinese Malay audience.

The Alis have the backing of 14 million Malays whereas Hannah — infamous for peddling her 6-day-old baby to score political points — knows which side of her bread is buttered. Or what jam. And Sumi? Just another motherfucking auntie…. Channel News Asia is better off, for itself, sacking her; it will be decent at least.

Well, the two aunties are perfect made for each other: Brown skin fucks a yellow. Why not? Nothing racist in that.

Save Malaysia? Sure… save us from these Hannah and Sumi cunt holes


Sumisha Naidu



Yes, report that Sumi Cunt.



Better than cunt holes把悲傷留給自己


Read Full Post »

Dear Mr Karpal Singh …

Exhibit A


June 4, 2014

To: Mr Karpal Singh

c/o Kingdom of Heaven

Dear Mr Singh,

Greetings from Malaysia. How has, as they say, ‘life’ been treating you. Has it not been three years since, and we do miss you as … hell.

Let me come straight to the point: It is with great displeasure I must inform you that one Mr Tan Keng Liang, some Gerakan man from Alor Star, has the temerity to call you a ‘deity‘ — as a deity in a ‘tokong‘. You might consider it as flattery, but let’s see….

We will return to that. For the moment though, this is the other part of the news, also from Mr Tan (and hang on to your seat): He thinks you are able, like PAS, to guarantee people ‘safe passage to heaven‘. (See Exhibit A, screen shot above of Mr Tan’s tweet.)

I have no idea how Mr Tan came up with the notion that to get to heaven requires ‘safe passage’. Maybe — who knows? —  he got it from his wife who has dreamed of flying to heaven riding a unicorn and surrounded by Saudi imams wrapped in white bed sheets, PAS and Jakim mullahs in tow. In this way, she won’t be waylaid then to be ‘tested’ for virginity by ISIS terrorists out looking for girls; 72 for each person can mean a lot of work and muscle and blood vessel stress.

Yes, his logic is difficult to follow, I know, but stay with me please: PAS mullahs — you are acquainted with them, of course —  has been known to decide who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell. Your party colleague Hannah Yeoh is also an expert on that place, Hell; ask her about it should you see her one day.

(BTW, if you get a chance, please check out your neighbor. I’m simply terrified at the prospect that this letter will end up in the wrong place, heaven being so expansive. If that happens, we are in trouble. Blasphemy! I for writing, you for possession and we know how those desert Gods are easily angered and can be very vindictive and destructive. Think of hail and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah where, because a couple of guys behaved badly, Mr Tan’s Jesus God incinerate the whole town. It is what ISIS people also do today. I think we would call such an act genocide.)

Now, back to your goodself, Mr Singh. Whether or not you are seated in a ‘tokong’ is of no consequence to the powers Mr Tan has conferred on you as deity. His point is simply that you have been elevated in status, from human to a specie greater than human, from mortality to immortality. Even so, he won’t stand for your immortality: ‘DAP leader can really become deity?‘ he said.

From that, you can see how his logic between his two propositions — PAS promise of heaven being equal your conversion to deity status — is near impossible to put together. This is where Mr Tan’s confusion starts:

  • (a) PAS mullahs presume they speak for an Allah that, they insist, exist. Can you speak for Allah?
  • (b) PAS mullahs claim powers delegated by Allah. Do you make such claims? Have you such powers?
  • (c) PAS mullahs claim the grant of the authority of Heaven, deciding who enter and who can’t. Are you granted that authority? Please — and this is important — when you see Nik Aziz, who you are also well acquainted with, ask him about this point; he was a PAS mullah after all: How does he get heaven’s authority?

Can you now see the impossibility of our situation Mr Tan has thrown us? It is imperative, therefore, you address these points of contention because at stake isn’t just your reputation as the Lion of Jelutong. You are now the Tokong of Jelutong. More than that, your entire existence is in question: Are you man or God? Mr Tan is saying you are something in between, half man and half God. You are there, somewhere, up there, and we are trapped down here. Between us stands one Tan Keng Liang who is suggesting that infidels such as I now have actual hope of Heaven if only you give us ‘safe passage’.

Mr Karpal — or shall I address you as Lord Karpal — is now our salvation. You have done much good on earth so I implore you, once again, just for one more time, to assure me and my infidel friends passage to heaven.

We have no one else to turn to. We are neither Muslims nor Christians after all. Mr Tan has Jesus Christ to reserve for him front row seat in the Kingdom of God. What do we have? Nothing. Now, instead, we have you and we really don’t care if your heaven has no virgins. We — me and my girlfriend — just want to get in so long as it ain’t the same heaven for those ISIS people. (You understand our dilemma, don’t you? I am thinking of the girls.)

All this is cause for optimism and hope — provided Mr Tan is right. That is, if indeed you are God or, if not, as a God equivalent.

Here’s the problem: What if Mr Tan is wrong? That is, with all due respects, you are neither God nor half-God. No offense to you, please; it’s just that Mr Tan fella; he can be quite a nut.

Please understand this: not every man with a Chinese name (Tan Keng Liang is actually 陈庆亮 or Chen Qingliang) and born of Chinese parents necessarily know anything about Chinese philosophical ideas and culture.

By this I mean he may not even know how to read and write Chinese much less comprehend what it is he is saying when he tweets things like ‘deity’ or ‘heaven’. For instance, when he declared you a deity, he automatically presumes a deity has extraordinary human powers — like a PAS mullah! He doesn’t say why he should grant you the status of tokong deity? Who gave you deity power? Is there a king deity?

Your son Ramkarpal — and let me add this in case he hadn’t yet report back to you — has said this: “We don’t wish to offend any religion or tradition and prefer not to offer any comments on the matter.”

This reminds of the Wittgenstein line: ‘Whereof one cannot speak, thereof be silent.‘ That is, if a person can’t or has no language to convey anything meaningfully and with accuracy and truth, then shut up.

As an analogy I shall compare Wittgenstein’s line to your learning English laws. What is the ultimate source of those laws? Are they even true — to us? If they do have such a source, then there must be a source giver. If the English are able to draw their laws from some source, what about the Chinese? Will it surprise you to know that the Chinese have their own legal institutions. Because Malays, or Malaysia, have no backing of their own legal sources it was therefore necessary you learn and pick up law from the Englishmen. Yes?

Or, look at it differently, what is true to the English is not necessarily true for us.

One result of this legal deficiency in Malaysia is that the West define things and pass laws purely on their own terms: God, religion, belief, faith, culture, morality, sin — everything. The only tool for their understanding was and still is their language. In Malaysia, they didn’t adopt the Chinese language hanyu. Nor did they adopt the standards of Sikhism.

This sort of maladministration has profound consequences. For one thing, it turned our lives around, making us dependent on their culture. Our lives came to revolve on solely the English worldview.

The implication is no small beer. It took the West more than 700 years since their arrival in Asia to understand that, by defining other people on their terms, they caused great harm. Take blasphemy laws: imagine being jailed for talking about some non-existent thing called God!

Or take the constitutional provision, ‘freedom of religion’. We have no religion and have no need for one. This being the case, the law ought to have been, ‘freedom from religion’.

In the NYRB western society has only just discover that they, too, don’t need a religion or a God to build a community or to be good. It’s the other way around. Among the Chinese, the so-called religion had nothing to do with ‘faith‘ (whatever that is):

A village had its temples, its gods, and they were honored on certain ‘holy’ days. Almost every profession venerated a god…. The list is inexhaustible (all of which) spread over every aspect of life like a fine membrane that held society together.

Further on, White people has also just discovered what we had taken for granted for thousands of years:

Chinese ‘religion’ had little theology, almost no clergy, and few fixed places of worship. Confucianism was largely a moral code of what the upright person should aim to achieve by self-cultivation. In the Analects, Confucius famously advised: “Respect ghosts and spirits, but keep them at a distance.”

The passage also means this: The religions of Abraham are not our ideas of religion and all the theology they had been telling us was nothing but White man’s bullshit falsified on irrationality then dressed in savory English.

Now, if there is no God, there can be no ‘deity’, and so there can be no ‘worship’ nor ‘prayer’. So, you see, how the thoughts of Mr Tan, of Anglophiles and similar others are trapped in the language they picked up from childhood then shaped in school, all the while in contradiction to their native upbringing?

We, the Chinese, have never considered a so-called deity as an object of ‘prayer’ (whatever that is). This is because, in ‘prayer’, western voodoo theology assumes there is a recipient, that is someone listening in. But, Mr Singh, you are dead.

To us, your statue, whether seated in a temple or outside, exist purely as a physical representative form with which your ideals of humanity are contained. The temple pays homage to you, venerating in your ‘deity’ presence. Why venerate? Answer, for your conduct of those ideals that we see are identical to our Daoist/Confucian moral code of conduct. Among which are, fair play and just administration of law.

We, the Chinese, defy all gods, whether big G or small g. We have no need for them. Our lives, our experiences, our conduct and our morality are grounded on real life circumstances then inculcated by learning from the past and this is, in turn, reminded and reinforced by rituals. Putting you up in physical image form is an enforced reminder of that idealism and your standard of humanity that we, as Chinese, take to heart. Call this practice ‘tradition’, as Ramkarpal correctly did (recall the Wittgenstein rule), but it is certainly not deification which, intrinsic to the word, connotes a western, biblical god-like status. (These motherfucking Anglophiles, they never cease to insult us.)

Our practices and rituals are not drawn by picturing some wishy-washy pieces of timber strapped together into a cross or through some fictitious tablet commanded by thunder and delivered on top of Mount Senai. All those things, if you’d think it through, are nothing else but voodoo, pure hogwash made up by men to shackle others waiting at the foothills.

Can — or does — Mr Tan Keng Liang comprehend all that I have explained above? Of course not. How can he? He is a Western product, a thoroughbred Anglophile, like Hannah Yeoh or half-fucked Malaiyoos such as Annie of the Valley; they are complete bananas, yellow outside, white inside.

For a man such as Mr Tan to be trained in law, in the powers of reason, and then to give in to accepting the voodoo of a fisherman walking on water, he must be a truly fucked up person. He is almost certainly nuts who, omg, wants to be elected into Parliament, speak on our behalf, then to made more laws and to run our lives, his way, White man style, and on his terms. Mr Singh, please, return and deliver us from this baboon-toothed motherfucker!

Now that you have heard us, let me also suggest that, if you have the time, pay him a visit. Several actually. Scarce the shit out of his pants if you need to. Tonight is a good night to start. The moon comes out at midnight.




They are not ‘praying’ because nothing exists to listen. Dead people can’t listen, even if willing. They are honoring and venerating ideals in the hope that they, too, could do just as well, be just as successful.

But newspaper editors and reporters will caption this as ‘offering prayers’. We have not just the ignorant to contend with but also malicious motherfuckers, like those as moronic as Tan Keng Liang and Malaysiakini.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »