Archive for the ‘Malaysia Stories’ Category

…and Destroyed Umno


Neither Umno nor Malaiyoos nor Mahathir seem to know what’s happened to them, those poor, stupid bastards. They just don’t get it, even when you spell it out in a sign poster: Disrupt, destroy, new beginning then another new. We didn’t miss anything, did we, Joey?


Born to Chinese parents, raised in Penang, educated in Wharton, can’t read Chinese (like Helen Ang, Hannah Yeoh, Liew Chin Tong et al), Low Taek Jho 刘特佐 or 劉特佐 is the quintessential Malaysia-Singapore Anglophile.

This Anglo-Christian quality has a morality dimension — greed, power and hypocrisy — that is best expressed in politics, he aligning with the Malay polity personified in Najib Razak as Lim Guan Eng did with Mahathir Mohamad.

Thank you Joey boy.

He was the key in bringing back Mahathir and, thence, to destroy Umno: the Malay kills the Malay in mutual self-destruction and behind all that a Chinese Anglophile oiling the process.

Next, wait for Mahathir to destroy the remnants of the Malay political forces, with much help from Guan Eng’s DAP, of course. Reason: Malaiyoos believe DAP Anglophiles are better to be trusted than the ‘ultra’ Chinese; they themselves are Anglophiles after all, Mahathir, Rais Hussin, Kadir Jasin, Syed Akbar Ali, Ahi Attan…. They are, in another way of saying the same thing, victims of their own anti-Chinese propaganda and Anglo self-delusional narcissism, believing that the true Chinese are a godless heathen, inferior to them, therefore, immoral and cheats.

But, like Joey, the banana Guan Eng-DAP, too, must be sacrificed, to die, for our sake, rightfully, necessarily, justly. Anglos call it poetic justice. We Chinese call it dao. Buddhists call it karma. You see it happening already.



The day she came down the mountains

The way she says it, this, in sequence, is what probably happened the day eight years ago she left her mountain home. It was an early autumn day, sun still behind the trees, clouds gathering in the horizon…

We returned recently to find that life had changed little, the road up and down, the cypress forest, the solitude, the fields grow, the old trees chopped for firewood. You can tell, everybody was glad you are back though they never say it. We brought back enough pork to feed a whole village, with which is served sweet rice wine on 30 plus percent alcohol. That night we slept under the stars and with the wide-tail nightjar hooting away somewhere. Soon Fall will come — in these mountains it’s always early — and it will be nine years to that day that changed not just our lives, Jian and I, but everyone else as well.

It worries us sick that we could lose this happiness. Cities give and cities take; they have such dangers lurking.




This just came in…

In Liaoning, next door to north Korea:

There is a movement in China calling on villagers to build houses like the one above, cheap, local timber, fast to build, easy to maintain and renovate, instead of a 10-room mansion that is empty for 11 months in a year.


In Henan, home of the Xi’an terracotta warriors:

All made in China: Bugs before, bugs after… the tree you see is the Chinese fir. It is, really, not bad. Tastes like fried Kentucky, without the salt.




Read Full Post »

If this keeps up for 10 years, I will shut down this blog for the next 100. Maybe even masuk Malaiyoo or turn into a Banana and declare my eternal allegiance to the Father, Son and Holy Hannah.


中文不错  谁写的? 您?

















TRX statement (minus the Chinese version)

Image may contain: text

Image may contain: text

Image may contain: text


Read Full Post »

…and they can’t even hide it.

Can you hear? In new Malaysia is a cacophony that fills you with despair.

Philosopher Byung-Chul Han, in Barcelona yesterday.

I. Political Correctness

The Korean philosopher Han Byung-Chul (above) was right: Orwell’s 1984 society knew it was being dominated. Today — and take Malaysia — they are not even aware of the domination so that supporting Mahathir seems the natural thing. Political correctness, says Mario Vargas Llosa, is the enemy of freedom. “It rejects honesty and authenticity…, (an attempt at) the distortion of the truth.”

To kill this enemy, cancel your Malaysiakini subscription. Demand for your money back, especially since they won’t and won’t listen.



II. Sell, sell, sell. Sell every fucking thing

For the first time, the DAP shall be defending — no, justifying — the actions of Mahathir Mohamad. In justifying, you can see why Mahathir, too, will destroy the DAP like he had sown the seeds of Malay destruction: After Umno, DAP next.

Here is, thus, a man who, being a lot of noise, could only understand and therefore do things the way he had always done it — a generation ago. But they would lie to say he is a changed man, trying to ‘make amends’.

Najib Razak is a liberal to a fault, tolerating the like of PAS, Islamic crackpots and ISIS sympathizers. Being such a liberal, he could change. Not Mahathir.

His most serious adversary had never been Najib the man but his kind of liberalism that also sits comfortably with the Chinese, including Singapore and China. This is a liberalism against all things Mahathir — chummy capitalism (privatization and cronies), skin color racism, uncontested Umno power (ISA, Sabah immigration), political Islam, Malay hegemony (breed, breed, breed, he tells Malays). All this meant that, if he can’t kill the man, he kills the party that sustains Najib.

To Mahathirism is now added Malaysian First bigotry. Mario Llosa:

[Nationalism] is incompatible with freedom. You just need to scratch the surface to see that nationalism involves a kind of racism. If you believe that belonging to a certain country or nation or race or religion is a privilege, a value in itself, you believe you are superior to others.

You can, hence, see why Mahathir sits so well with Lim Kit Siang and son: compatible yet contradictory and self-defeating. The serpent gobbles its tail. True, three weeks of Pakatan was not inconsistent: it was Mahathirism reborn. He simply called Lim Kit Siang’s bluff:

I was a changed man, yes, before May 9. Now I have changed — again. Haven’t you heard, Kitty Lim? Change is the only constant. Ubah once, ubah twice, ubah always. Got a problem with that, Kitty?

Give the mamak another (maybe) two years, he could do as much damage as in his previous 22.

To repeat: If you are outside, stay out. Watch as Mahathir goes from Singapore to the East China Sea, he kills, kills, kills. We sell, sell, sell — to help him along with the destruction. (Pssst, we are not yet done.)

Your move next, Mamak. Or, are you still confused by the markets?


III. The Racism of the Anti-Racist

Take your pick of the lineup (above), starting from the center. After which, tell me who is “less” racist, counting especially from the time when they were not “at the top” yet?

Mahathir Mohamad began his political career then rose to the top as the top racist. Ditto Muhyiddin Yassin and Lim Guan Eng. After which consider the motherfucker at the extreme right. He has a funny Arab name, Maszlee something.

For Mahathir to be wrong — again — is standard intellectual fare in Malaysian politics. But for him to say that racism is most intense, most malignant at ground level? Saying that means the lower down you go on the social status — the street beggars, the homeless, street sweepers, garbage collectors, coolies, casual laborers and the like — the more racist is the person. Imagine, therefore, the Malay pauper, holding out his begging bowl, shouting “ketuanan“, “Malaiyoo bangkit!

No, the higher up they go, the more schooling they get, the more English and the more Anglophile they pick up, the more racist they become. Want evidences? No need to go far. Look up this man, who likes to think he works for kings and presidents as a Scribe. Just click. We Chinese have a name for such spineless characters: running dog. Or, look up this piece of Anglophile cunt, who imagines herself as a sort of English ‘creative writer’.

So, if Mahathir is wrong, why is he blaming others for his racism and deflecting it? For the answer, try perhaps 1981. Or to Lim Kit Siang in 1969.


IV. Malay Unity? What Holy Shit…

Sixty years ago, they talk of Malay unity. Sixty years later, they are still talking of unity… Aiyaah, as Anglophiles say.

When only Malays voted for Barisan in GE 12, Umno called for Malay unity. When a third of the Malays didn’t vote for Umno in GE 13, they call for Malay unity. When most Malays voted for Umno and PAS in GE14, they still call for Malay unity. These stupid Malaiyoos….

Helen ‘Aku Cina‘ Ang once imagined that PAS and Umno unity could simply rule with a simple majority — if only they were united. Well, what did Malays get for that unity?

Poor Malaiyoos. See the mess in the Malay unity states, Perlis, Kedah, Trengganu? Even Perak.

The Malaiyoo of the Valley who names herself (in the English) ‘Annie’ is pining after the same Malay unity. And this is at a time when, among Malaiyoos like herself, they can’t decide who and what is the Malay (see clips below). Malay unity? As Mahathir would said, ‘podah’.

Don’t leave new Malaysia yet, Pakatoon. Your Malaysia Baru is going to be fun. These Anglophiles….

Malaiyoos, bangsat Malaise


So how did this Malay unity thing get its start? Short answer, Umno and Mahathir…

The above photo, dated 1999, shows the mamak/Malay poking at the DAP as a bunch of racist Chinese. Archived by the Bar Council, it is suppose to prove to the lawyers that Mahathir is a changed man.

Now, consider the graphics below:



Of course, Lim Guan Eng et al will say they are merely using Mahathir. (So conceited in their stupidity, it never occurred to them it might be other way around.) This is the man who sits at the pinnacle of power, who, on top of his Cabinet, has an army of committees to give him justification to break with Singapore, which he considers as a Chinese proxy. China has since been added to his damnation list so you can see where he’s headed in his racism.

For further evidences into what that future will look like, look at Perak: it has already begun with a Mahathir hatchetman.


Chinese School Art & Intelligence

Jian showed me the two images, above and below.

When I dream, I remember.

Above: The painting is unique in the sense that it inverses everything that is conventionally known in the visual arts: objects cast a shadow on light, not the other way around; the wall substitutes as the front glass door; facing that wall of glass and brick, the girl’s back is the front; she loses a flip-flop that causes you to wonder, was she coming in or going out?; and, lastly, notice the paintings. They have nothing.

Below: It is a piece of homework on the theme ‘China, My Dream‘. Completed by a Primary 2 child (who in Malaysia is still learning ABCs), it is astonishing for (a) its highly regimented syntax, (b) the paired rhythmic lines identical to a couplet; and, above all, (c) an essay construction deploying analogical reasoning, a kind of logic even Malaysian university students have never heard of.

Dating back to the Han era, the Chinese education system is the oldest in any civilization. It is so profound that it typically produces the world’s best performing students. But Anglophiles (in all skin colors, from Lisa Ng, Sheridan Mahavera, Khoo Kay Kim and Steven Gan to Guan Eng and Mahathir), people who have never spent a day in a Chinese classroom, spit at us. They call for our schools to be destroyed. Because, so they say, Chinese is not a Malaysian language, although used by local Chinese, whereas English, a colonial, foreign language, should be made compulsory.

With Mahathir’s return Anglophile bigotry and demands have grown incessant and louder. Did you hear…?

Jian said she had to read the essay twice. Me too.


Lovers then friends

Ten years ago we were strangers on the same street.
Ten years later we are lovers that only friends know how.




Read Full Post »


Multiracial MCA? No shit

Liow Tiong Lay’s argument (clip above) rests entirely on the western, Anglophile cultivated myth that being Chinese or the word ‘Chinese’, like the word ‘black’ or ‘white’, is a racial group. This is patently false.

Look at China. Read its history, go back to Sima Qian (司馬遷 who wrote the shiji 太史公書). Look at the rule by Mongolians and Manchus. Chinese is not an ethnic notion that white is ethnic. It is a cultural term, and a civilization-state, so that it is not inconsistent to say there are today Miao Chinese, Yao Chinese, Zhuang Chinese, Mongolian Chinese, and 52 other ethnics within China today.

Jian is Miao but she is Chinese, talks Chinese, practices Chinese customs, reads Chinese, and loves me (to a fault), who is a Han Chinese. Likewise, Korean is culture, or Japanese, both of which have distinct identities that were shaped by Chinese civilization and ideas. For an example, look at the (south) Korean flag; it is Chinese, that is, the idea is Daoist, also having originated in a land called China.

Hence, being culture, it was easy for China to tolerate different systems of government, one in Hong Kong, in Taiwan and Macau without any of which losing the Chinese cultural identity.

Hence, too, being culture, it was easy for Anglophile Lim Guan Eng to say he is not Chinese, and we Chinese won’t throw a fit. He is welcome to leave — good riddance, we’d say — because we know, he knows, and everybody knows, he is an Anglophile, a fucked-up piece of Banana, yellow outside, white inside. Ridhuan Tee is only Chinese in name and so, too, characters like Yeo Bee Yin, KTemoc, Wong Chen, Lisa Ng and Joshie Ah Hong. If, on the other hand, Malay first Anwar Ibrahim were to declare he is not Malay, Pakatan will face a riot the next day in Putrajaya. Lina Joy discover that the hard way.

To conclude: MCA must remain true to its identity because that’s all you have, which isn’t something you buy in a supermarket — unless Liow wants to be an Anglophile or Muslim. Or, Allah forbid, Malaysian First, whatever the fuck that is.

Just be Chinese, Mr Liow. It’s the most natural thing; it’s what we are. And we’ll be okay. 无为, Mr Liow, 无为.



MCA, Umno treaty: No more wedded under Barisan

Six decades of Umno maligning the Chinese have led to DAP’s victory. Behind the backs of the Chinese, the DAP is now doing Umno’s dirty work so, if this seems bizarre, consider this: it took the most conservative, hawkish American president to make a deal with communist China, leading thus to US-China normalization.

The same counter-intuitive rule applies because who would believe it? Lim Guan Eng is suppose to be Chinese. How could he be maligning Chinese? But therein is the catch…. Is he Chinese? Looks like one, sounds like one, but is he?

In the circumstances, an MCA and Umno alliance treaty is a feasible alternative, going forward. The Barisan coalition of tying together the two parties within a single, superstructure is proven counter-productive and, now, passe.

What is there to object anyway if Barisan breaks up: Umno has repeatedly said, it never needed the Chinese. Nor, do we need Umno.


Y Z, you poor thing, having to write in English: Try the spin again, Taiping woman, and tell us truthfully next time, why.



The following is taken from YZ Chin in LitHub (the title is mine):

Malaysian in NY wonders why she writes in English

One of the very first questions I wrestled with as a writer was this: Why write in English, the colonizer’s language, when I have others at my disposal? I grew up acquainted with three languages; my grandparents immigrated from southern China to Malaya, which was a British imperial territory. So if I didn’t write in Malay, didn’t that make me unpatriotic? And if I didn’t write in Chinese, didn’t that make me a “race traitor?” Why English?

English is intricately woven into my family history. When my grandparents first came to occupied Malaya, they worked for the British. For some time they lived apart, my grandfather cooking meals for colonial officers while my grandmother worked as a nanny for British children in a different part of the country. I never heard either of them speak English, but in my imagination, the few English phrases they did know formed the language of intimate care: Please enjoy the food. Are you warm enough? Have another helping. Did you sleep well? Don’t cry. I’m here.

I suppose they learned as much English as allowed them to forge new lives. It was both a choice and not, just as it was and was not for me as I haltingly attempted to piece together a self through literature. I did not see myself in my Malay textbooks about boys who formed interracial friendships. Neither could I find myself in the Tang poems my parents encouraged me to memorize, which featured ancient men in long-sleeved robes drinking alcohol and being sorrowful (only later in life would I come to relate to that). It was in English books that I saw a sense of adventure and escape that I identified with, as embodied by British children daringly solving mysteries or circumventing adult cruelty.

I acquired English differently from the other languages I used in daily life with my parents. I became proficient solely through reading, without a corresponding speaking component. So at first English seemed to be an abstract, fantastical thing with no real-world application, and this lent itself to boundless dreaming much more than the other languages did. I gravitated toward the stories in my English books because I thought the lives depicted within were so far removed from mine; they gave me the space to imagine new ways of living.

It wasn’t until I encountered the poetry of Shirley Geok-lin Lim that I saw how naïve this view was. I was introduced to her work in the last place I’d thought to look: school. It was a place I associated with casual disdain for the arts in favor of science and mathematics—literature wasn’t introduced as an official component of English language studies for secondary school students until the 21st century. I was among the first waves of students who got to read fiction and poetry for school; prior to that, literature was considered fluff, extra, a hobby. School also seemed propagandistic to me, so I was prepared for dreary, moralistic tales about the value of being upstanding citizens. And although some of the assigned reading did fall into that category, what I remember most is Lim’s “Monsoon History”:

Again we are taken over
By clouds and rolling darkness
Small snails appear
Clashing their timid horns
Among the morning glory

Drinking Milo,
Nyonya and Baba sit at home.
This was forty years ago.

My mind was blown. Here was a poem set in a Malaysian fishing village, written by a Malaysian writer who obviously had intimate love for the landscape, from its damp air to its snails, gnats, and termites. And people in the poem drank Milo, something I did every single day! But they also read Tennyson (“Reading Tennyson, at six / p.m. in pajamas”). The reference seemed jarring at first, yet wasn’t it a mirror of my own life? Was it any stranger than a girl in small-town Malaysia reading Archie comics from the library? That was when I started questioning: why Tennyson? Why, for that matter, Milo? It wasn’t a local invention, but the drink had become such a staple of everyday life in Malaysia. There must be a reason for that.

Once I started trying to find answers, they were everywhere in plain sight, like the hill my small town was known for, which has two names: one that belonged to the colonial officer who “discovered” the hill, and a local name people started using after the colonizers left. I gained an inkling of understanding that, as a postcolonial writer and reader, I am not as removed from the problems of English as I’d assumed. I drew a line from Tennyson in Lim’s poem to my grandparents’ careworn faces, their tight-lipped refusal to speak about their pasts. I finally saw that English was not a language of escape for me, but that it rather represented a painful negotiation between myself and my environment. My family had used English like a tool to carve out a living. Perhaps I, too, could wield English to reinvent myself—or my selves, as in the case with writing fiction.

So yes, I decided to write in English. I don’t see this as capitulating to a colonizing language, however; I see it as an act of acknowledging history and of claiming space. Lim’s poem, “Learning to Love America,” speaks to this:

because it has no pure products

because the Pacific Ocean sweeps along the coastline
because the water of the ocean is cold
and because land is better than ocean

because I say we rather than they

The magic of this poem is that Lim has assembled, out of English words, a declaration of identity that is ambivalent and full of turns, a kind of feint that claims a space (“American”) while leaving room for so much more. It got me thinking: what kind of layered identity could I create for myself, if I, too, claimed the language and used it the way I wanted to? Even the resignation in the poem’s ending lines—“because it is late and too late to change my mind / because it is time”—spoke to me, reminding me that I, just like anyone else, am shaped by forces that are beyond me, long in motion. This has a kind of perverse comfort; if I am thus shaped, then might I not be participating in the shaping of forces to come, even though my efforts may seem puny and the effects invisible so far? And why not participate while wielding the language that so shaped my family? As Elaine Castillo puts it in her essay: “The reason I write in English, and the reason I use untranslated words, are one and the same, the punchline to that rambling, viciously grim joke also known as history.”

Here I am, writing in English, which is mine because my grandparents used it to survive, and because I have written my truth in it. Encountering Tennyson in a monsoon poem helped me become more critical of how I pieced myself together and of my relationship to language. I believe in literature’s ability to connect us. But I also think it can help us discover the ways we are ensnared. And that is the first step to doing something about it.



YZ Chin, The Horror, The Horror

No doubt, the essay merely reflects Chin talking, arguing, to herself. So we’ll take her word at it. Which is to answer, “Why did she write in English?”

The question is pivoted on the unstated assumption (conveniently left out) that she is equally proficient and good in the two other languages she grew up with, Malay and Chinese.

But is she equally proficient in all three?

1. On Malay, she asks, “So if I didn’t write in Malay, didn’t that make me unpatriotic?” Which then begs other questions,

  • (a) Patriotism is demonstrable only in the Malay language? So then, ethnic Malay equals Malaysia? There is only one ethnicity equaling nationalism and this is Malay? To be Chinese is implicitly not a Malaysian?
  • (b) Where and what is the causal relationship between language and patriotism?

2. On Chinese, she asks, “And if I didn’t write in Chinese, didn’t that make me a “race traitor?” Who, which Chinese, has ever call her a ‘race traitor’? What is being a ‘traitor’ to a race? I write in English yet nobody in China calls me a ‘race traitor’. Instead, I am encouraged to do so, presenting China to a hostile Anglophone world. If this is true of me, then she must be imagining ethnocentrism as a peculiar Chinese trait.

Although proficient in Russian and English, Vladimir Nabokov in his later years, wrote only in English (Lolita). Does that make him a traitor to Russia?

If Chin were simply to be honest as to why she writes in the ‘colonizer’s language’ (English), she would say she isn’t proficient enough to write in either Chinese or Malay. Besides, writing in America in Chinese or Malay will not sell books. No buyers. And that would be the end of the matter.

But, for her to justify her ‘colonizer’s language’ suggests the Anglophile in her and her Anglophile prejudices: Tang poems … featured ancient men in long-sleeved robes drinking alcohol and being sorrowful whereas Tennyson brings out, gloriously, her “identity” in a ‘low-class’ mosquito swamp called Malaysia. And, if that’s all she has learned in Tang poetry, it showed she has learned nothing about Chinese literature.

Like numerous western educated up and down Malaysia, Chin is case exemplar not only of a disgusting, deceitful Banana (like Yeo Bee Yin and countless others) but a completely fucked up woman.

If Chin wants to write in pigshit, write. Whining about it, playing a ‘colonizer’ victim, will not hide her racist character — and a lying, fucking cunt that she is — all that on display in third-rate English. Eat your heart out, Chinny.



China will not be made fodder

Every five years, when Malays fight Malays and the local Chinese are required to choose sides, they are used as ammo. To which the Chinese have paid with blood.

Because the DAP has chosen Mahathir Mohamad, MCA must now break away from Barisan in order to free the Chinese to decide.

Unlike the local Chinese who are turned into dedak at every internecine Malaiyoo war, China will not be made into fodder.

Don’t mess with us, you piece of mamak. Consider this, as yet again, a warning… Ignore it at your peril.



Behind the smile, the Salafist fascist


All the smiling faces above are Salafist fascists. The one brought to the seat of central power, thanks to the DAP (again), is the one on the left.


In the way, Anwar Ibrahim let into Malaysia radical Islamism 30 years ago, and also the way the DAP let PAS and hudud into mainstream politics and, now, Pakatan Harapan has let into the Cabinet yet one more fascist, Maszlee Malik.

Malaysia never learn, Malaiyoos never learn; they fall so easily for smiles, appearances and propaganda.

The propaganda: Ten years ago radical Islam was touted as ‘PAS for All‘. Now, DAP’s Ong Kian MIng has declared Maszlee Malik clean as a whistle. Look at his “impressive CV,” says Ong,  who himself — surprise? — is the sort you would imagine of Jerry Falwell.

Maszlee’s CV is impressive?

Durham is impressive? The International Islamic University is impressive? Before he was recruited into active politics, Maszlee taught at IIU, the sort of den (Guess who set it up?) that breeds the like of Osama bin Ladin and others who’d recruit some out-of-work assholes to mow down people on European streets.

…on second thoughts, we should let him into the Cabinet.

He will help speed up Malaysia’s self-immolation, like in the Middle East and the north African Muslim countries. In fact, the more Maszlees the merrier. Related image


Read Full Post »

…49 years to the day. And Umno is destroyed in the same hands that made it. Justice, balance, harmony are restored. Zhuangzi莊子 was right:Wuwei 无为; most effective way is, act but effortlessly.

Truly, home. 心爱的 还有十个小时到

Read Full Post »

The Game isn’t Over

Perhaps the most succinct explanation for BN’s defeat is provided by Leslie Lau: he isn’t sure. He isn’t sure because Mahathir Mohamad doesn’t represent a new Malaysia. There is not even an addition of new players: PKR is not a new player, nor is the DAP.

On the contrary, everything about Mahathir, including all that he has spoken up against — abuse of authority and corruption in particular — represents the old. Even the craft of deception is older than Mahathir. Lionizing him, as they now do in Malaysiakini as if he is invincible, won’t change that fact of history.

Lau isn’t sure perhaps because the question could have been the wrong one. Another way of asking is to look at why and how it is Mahathir won. Even there we find the same answer that goes back to the year which birthed Mahathirism: it is on the back of (a) May 13 and, (b) the political organization Umno to which he was readmitted in 1969.

(a) Mahathir begun anti-Najib on the back of a campaign that Najib Razak was too cozy with the Chinese, Singapore included, after which China was added. Up until yesterday, he saw nothing intrinsically wrong with Umno.

(b) He couldn’t because, doing so, is to concede that (Umno) Malays shouldn’t govern Malaysia, much less Malays. His argument is that Umno was merely hijacked having been turned into a ‘Najib Umno’, a political party loyal only to Najib, thus losing its way. So that, if Umno was not supposed to be loyal to Najib, Mahathir wants Umno loyalty to him.

This is a Mahathir wish that, in its turn, sidetracks the inherent contradiction within Umno. It works towards its own death: as Malays progress, Umno’s redundancy grows. The party’s reason for existence as a ‘protector’ of Malay interest diminishes as that protection is made secured.

This leads to a further problem: as Umno’s redundancy grows, there is lesser need for it. Mahathir invents another Umno, today called PPBM. That is, without Umno, there is no Bersatu, the former’s successor

Not even the post GE14 power structure has changed. Recall that Umno begun politics on less than equal standing, both within Malaya and especially after Malaysia’s formation. Penang, Selangor and Perak could be considered as opposition states until the formation of Barisan. Sarawak and Sabah then weren’t fixed deposits, a situation so precarious then that it lead to Project IC in Sabah, then hoisting up Taib Mahmud as the primary Sarawak force, producing the endemic land grab witnessed today.

There is one hope left for Malaysia: Neither Harapan nor Bersatu can nominate Mahathir prime minister. Harapan is not a registered coalition and Bersatu is not a legal party. All the propaganda won’t change that fact so, it’s just as well the three originators of Pakatan boot out Mahathir. Here is the actual GE14 parliamentary seat standing:

  • PKR 47
  • DAP 42
  • Bersatu 13
  • Amanah 11
  • Warisan 8
  • Bebas (Tian Chua’s Batu) 1

Total: 122.

Less Bersatu 13, the total above drops to 109, three short of a simple majority.

There is, however, also this permutation: Bersatu was never an actual Opposition. PAS is. PAS, with 18 seats, taking the place of Bersatu, is better as an avenue to depoliticize Malaysian lives and end Mahathirism: Hadi Awang has less reason to give (Islamic) trouble in the future and the new federal would have two more state governments to work with.


What’s wrong with this propaganda picture? The two parties add up to 24 seats but Mahathir is made to look like the victory is his. If the 18 seats from PAS replace both Bersatu and Amanah then, 90 + 18 = 107. Add Warisan’s 8 = 115. Bingo! End of Mahathir.

That, think about it, would be truly the People’s wish. For Mahathir’s party to get 13 seats proves nothing, not especially the People’s Wish. On the contrary.

“All is fair in love and war.” Besides, both the DAP and PKR have repeatedly stressed, Mahathir is just to be used, like a fucking horse. Well, the use-by-date has expired.

A new federal government would have Perak and Kedah comfortably, on top of Trengganu and Kelantan and still keep Johor, Negri Sembilan and Malacca (there are ways about it, of course).


Below shows why Mahathir is never to be trusted. From among Annie’s Assholes:

1. Malay rights and privilleges (sic)
2.The supremo position of Islam in the country
3. The rights and position of Malay Rulers
4. The special position of Malay language.

“We’ll do anything possible to defend all those rights; such as going to the streets in huge numbers TO FIGHT and PROTECT what is rightly ours!”

Oh ya? That Annie’s asshole just don’t get it and why yesterday’s results are what they are.

Goodbye Annie. See you in hell…(Update: But no hurry. Hell will still be there.)

Update 1: Mahathir relaunched democracy? Is there a claim more ignorant and more stupid than this?


Other Updates

Postscript A: A Grand, Natural, Anti-M Coalition

PKR+DAP+BN (all others fuck off)


Postscript B: Watch this space…

Late night, update 2: Move along, nothing to see. Go home, get some sleep.


Read Full Post »

Although it is polling day, this has to be said…

Fiscal Reform? That’s bullshit

When Pakatan Harapan issued its fiscal policy at the 11th hour of polls, it didn’t give enough time for scrutiny.

But scrutiny was easy. Pakatan’s policy showed that its politicians know nuts about financial economics (I see Wong Chen’s hand in it, a sweet talking lawyer believing he is some top Malaysian economist). Here is to teach those deceitful motherfuckers real world, fundamental economics as a father would teach a child in the letter below:

Under privatization, Mahathir became the world top crony

My dear Daughter,

As you grow up and experience more of the ups and downs of the economy, you will notice a piece of mindbending hypocrisy: during the good times, bankers, entrepreneurs—rich people in general—tend to be against government. They criticize it as a “brake on development,” a “parasite” feeding on the private sector through taxation, an “enemy of freedom and entrepreneurship.” The cleverer among them even go so far as to deny that government has any moral right, or duty, to serve society, by claiming that “there is no such thing as society—there are just individuals and families,” or “society is not well defined enough for the state to be able to serve it.” And yet, when a crash occurs that is brought on by their actions, those who have delivered the fieriest of speeches vehemently opposing substantial government intervention in the economy suddenly demand the state’s aid. “Where is the government when we need it?” they yelp.

One of the most prevalent arguments they make against the state is that wealth is produced individually, by heroic individuals. Taxation is therefore seen as an unjustifiable confiscation of what is rightfully theirs. Nothing could be further from the truth. To see this, let’s go back to the beginning of market societies for a moment—to the time when the serfs were being kicked off their ancestral lands.

How do you think the landowners managed to get rid of the serfs so efficiently? The answer is: with the help of the state. The king and his government lent the landowners a hand, sending their soldiers in to put down any rebellion by the peasants. And how do you think the new order, underpinning market society, was maintained? How were the majority living under conditions of abject dehumanization in the slums of Manchester, Birmingham, and London kept under control when a few streets away the minority lived in the lap of luxury? To put it simply, private wealth was built and then maintained on the back of state-sponsored violence.

In fact, it is not just the state that provides the conditions for wealth creation. If you think about it, all wealth has always been produced collectively—through recycling and through a gradual accumulation of knowledge. Workers need entrepreneurs to hire them, who need workers to buy their goods. Entrepreneurs need bankers to lend to them, who need entrepreneurs to pay interest. Bankers need governments to protect them, who need bankers to fuel the economy. Inventors cannibalize the inventions of others and plagiarize the ideas of scientists. The economy relies on everyone.

While consistently demanding that the state continue to provide the conditions in which their wealth can grow, every time the high and mighty have received the bill for the state’s services from the tax office, they have grunted, moaned, whinged, and protested. And since the powerful have great in influence over the state, this has led to a curious phenomenon: the taxes asked of them have always tended to be low in relation to the amount the state has actually spent, directly or indirectly, on their behalf. As for the workers, their wages have for most of history barely been sufficient to feed themselves and their children, so their taxes have never amounted to a sufficient sum either. So where has the additional money come from? The answer is: public debt. And who has provided the government with the requisite loans? The bankers, of course! And where have the bankers found the money? I hardly need tell you that they have conjured it from thin air. You can start to see how paying low taxes works doubly in the bankers’ favor.

Yet, watching television, listening to politicians worry themselves sick over the size of the national debt and making all sorts of promises to rein it in, you might be fooled into thinking that government debt—or public debt, as it is known—is an awful thing, something like the smallpox virus, in need of permanent eradication. The argument made by those who consider the state an obstacle to private business is that a government that spends beyond its means and can’t balance its books is heading for disaster. Don’t fall for that nonsense. While it is true that too much public debt can cause major headaches, too little is also a problem. Even Singapore, whose government is forced by law not to spend more than the money it receives in taxes, finds it essential to borrow money. Why? Because a market society’s bankers need public debt as surely as fish need water to swim in. Without public debt, market societies can’t work.

When the government borrows, say, $100 million from a banker for, say, a ten-year period, in return it provides the banker with a piece of paper, an IOU, by which it legally guarantees to repay the money in ten years’ time as well as pay an additional yearly amount to the banker in interest—say, $5 million a year. This IOU is called a bond, implying that the government is now bound for ten years to whoever possesses this piece of paper. Given that the rich refuse to cough up the kind of taxes that would make government borrowing unnecessary, the state issues bonds and “sells” them to banks and rich people in order to pay for the things that keep the whole show on the road: streets, hospitals, schools, police, and so on. By spending this money on its various projects—buying supplies, paying salaries—the government directly boosts the whole recycling process of the economy from which everyone benefits, including the banks.

But this is far from being the only reason that government bonds are useful to bankers. The one thing that bankers hate most is cash: money sitting around in their vaults or on their spreadsheet not being lent in return for interest. But as has hopefully become clear by now, banks become precarious and vulnerable if even a few depositors want their money back all at once. At that point bankers need to have access to something that they can sell in a jiffy so as to pay demanding depositors. Government bonds are perfect for this. To the extent that everyone trusts that the government will be true to its word, its bonds will always be in demand. Indeed, they are exceptional in this way—no other debt can be recycled quite as easily. This means that bankers love government bonds: not only is a bond a loan that earns a nice rate of interest very safely (so much so, in fact, that it can also be used as collateral for taking out further loans from other banks), but it can also be used as a commodity—a piece of property exactly like a painting or a vintage car that can be sold immediately if the banker is in urgent need of cash. Bonds are, in bankers’ parlance, “the most liquid of assets.” As such, they lubricate the banking system to keep its cogs and wheels turning.

In fact, in bad times, when bankers pick up the phone to the government and demand that the state’s central bank bail them out, it does so not just by creating new money, as we have already seen, but also by issuing even more bonds and using them to borrow more money from other bankers, often foreign ones, to pass on to the local bankers.

You can begin to see why public debt is something much, much more than ordinary debt. It is a manifestation of our market society’s power relations, the necessary response to the refusal of the rich to pay their share. It is also a shock absorber that allows accident-prone bankers to avoid many of the major mishaps that would otherwise occur in its absence. It is like an elastic band holding everything together, capable of stretching during the bad times to prevent the system from breaking.


The letter was written by Greece’s former finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, an economist by training. The title is mine.


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »