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



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.


That Najib Razak has to go is a given and not for the reason he is corrupt (1MDB). Since the days of Mahathir Mohamad there have been an accumulation of more corrupt officials than all the fingers counted in the Umno supreme council.

More vital for the future is a complete break with the past, and this can only mean one thing: No country can bring forward the future without creating its own history, and this includes jettisoning Najib Razak because he simply builds on the sands of the old. Lim Kit Siang, Anwar Ibrahim and Mahathir are all transplants of the past, wedded to its politics then, implanted with its core ideas, and then to graft them into the new policies. These — and the likes of them — must be the first go.

The Pakatan Harapan banner slogan that such people constitute the spearhead of the Future, Hope, Reform and Change are therefore never going to be fundamental; the evidence of which is the presence of Bersatu and Mahathir Mohamad in the coalition and that only with Mahathir et al at the front is it possible to break Barisan.

Zaid Ibrahim is a classic representative of this past and this thinking — so, too, he must go. In making an argument that turned pure supposition equal to fact, he turned Mahathir into a fixture, irreplaceable in the circumstances. That is, the Malaiyoo must come first, power first, win first, and there’s no other way. These are all the classics in the ingredients of past ideological arguments that, over time, 60 years to be precise, has made pure fallacy into a self-fulfilling prophecy and turned ghost into reality. Such a line of reasoning is identical to this, held in the common and atypical Hannah Yeoh fascism and prejudices that in black is racism but not white.

Below are summary-extracts of three lines of thoughts which, read together, call out the fallacies of the past. They are worth repeating because in combination those arguments speak the truth to Pakatan power which now, at this critical juncture, is in danger of abusing the part of Malaysia who got them in, ‘them’ being people such as Kit Siang, Anwar and Mahathir, plus those they have turned into their image.

1. Begin with Sin Chew Daily because its arguments (reposted here in all its glory by Din Merican), so tiresome, laying out Barisan’s fundamental principles are, really, the underlying problem manifested today: (a) Barisan is a contradiction to itself — one component protecting itself from the other while ‘building on diversity’; these are utter absurdities; (b) religious and race matters are not for moderation or for managing, they are for eradication; and (c) if moderation is a Malaysian DNA, why the fuck is it missing from Ibrahim Ali’s balls? If it is true moderation is a Malaysian DNA, why bother reform? Or why reform Umno because it is not entitled to reform. It is for eradication. And can anyone find this moderate DNA in Mahathir’s scrotum or his offspring Mukhriz…?

Since the inception of BN, we can see that component parties have been able to handle religious and racial matters rather prudently despite differences in their beliefs and thinking, and that they did not sacrifice the interest of the entire nation for their own political gains.

Unfortunately, recent developments in the country  (since Mahathir and now Najib Razak) have sounded the alarm bell…. Such things have happened before, but what we are worried about is that if things get out of hand, racial polarisation could happen out of the political needs of some quarters.

…Bankrupt politicians are those who look at things and national development from their narrow monoracial mind frame, overlooking the nation-building principles built upon the basis of our diversity….

2. Next, William Leong. One has to read this man carefully because, as with numerous PKR motherfuckers, you can never tell: Is he offering arguments for their own sake, the power of their appeal or for Anwar’s sake? Original thinkers within PKR is near impossible to find. But, let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. (Emphasis added in italics.)

The proposal for Tun Mahathir to take over leadership of the opposition and for Bersatu to become the dominant party in Pakatan Harapan to win Malay votes, instead of securing victory will end in disaster. Firstly, the assumption that by adopting a racial supremacy policy, Pakatan can hold on to the 52% who voted for the Reform Agenda in 2013 is false.

If Pakatan Harapan trade Ketuanan Rakyat for Ketuanan Melayu-Minus-Najib in exchange for power, it will be a betrayal of principles, a selling-out of core beliefs. Pakatan Harapan cannot argue they are acting as statesmen or being pragmatic. The argument that such a compromise is justified by the higher objective of Pakatan Harapan forming the government cannot hold water. It is disingenuous to say gaining power is better than remaining in the opposition when the deal requires Pakatan Harapan to give up the very core reason to gain power — to institute change through implementation of the Reform Agenda. It is not a compromise. It is not even a rotten compromise. It is a capitulation. Power without principles is simply greed. Winning office without the power to implement the reform promised is a betrayal of the 20 years of struggle and the cause so many have sacrificed so much for.

Secondly, the assumption that by taking over the leadership of Pakatan Harapan, Mahathir will take over the leadership of the opposition is false. The opposition is not Pakatan Harapan. Pakatan Harapan is only a vehicle for the real opposition, the masses who arose from the Reform Movement. The opposition are the reformists, activists, civil society, the 62 NGOs that formed BERSIH, the thousands who with their own money, time and energy went to the towns, villages, estates, Felda settlements and long houses to spread the word for change, the hundreds of thousands that came out to the streets, and the millions that voted against BN.

There are no elections in the Reform Movement. The Reform Movement is an assertion of popular leadership by the people themselves. Democracy does not come from the government, from high, it comes from people getting together and struggling for freedom and justice. Politicians are elected and selected but mass movements do not elect officials or seek blessings or legitimacy from anyone. Mass movements transform society, they aim to persuade the courts, politicians and other actors to fall behind them, not the other way round. Mass movements accomplish this through appeals to shared sets of deep and widely held convictions among the people they aim to mobilise.

Thirdly, the assumption that an opposition coalition founded on the removal of Najib from office and not a policy-oriented coalition is sufficient to win the election and sustainable to govern is false.

Coalitions formed for the purpose of securing enough votes or combining a sufficient number of parliamentary seats to govern through power-sharing arrangements without an agreement on the policies and their implementation are referred to as “office-seeking coalitions.” Office-seeking coalitions are coalitions whose main goal is access to power. Cabinet portfolios are the payoffs. Office-seeking coalitions have been accused of being “unprincipled” because their members were ideologically remote and therefore perceived as political opportunists interested in short-term gains rather than long-term policy goals.

[Editorial comment: Citing the political experiences of Kenya, Indonesia and South Africa, Leong missed the forest from the trees. The primary issue underlying the coalition building in those countries was not about a fundamental break with the past but with merely certain aspects of past policies. Thailand and Japan are counterpoints to Leong’s analysis; there, new coalitions emerged replacing the existing but, soon enough, old policies returned.

On the point of severing with the past, the better examples are, other than South Korea (break with military regime): China (Deng Xiaoping breaking with Maoism), Taiwan (a dictatorial Kuomintang), and Indonesia, maybe (it has been tough going, so the jury is still out). With their break, life began anew. On the other hand, one never sees fundamental change in Selangor and Penang, despite being ruled by Pakatan. Instead, Sarawak, without a new replacement coalition, is seeing a fundamental break with the past, the trigger being Hadi Awang and Umno’s Act 355.]

3. Last, S Thayaparan, who begins with an attempt to demolish Zaid Ibrahim though not entirely convincing. Leong is better.

This writer (Wan Saiful), agreeing with Zaid Ibrhaim, wrote – “This is the game the opposition has chosen to play and if they want to win, they have to play for keeps. And that is the only way the former Prime Minister knows how to play.” I am, I suppose part of the problem. The problem I have with Wan Saiful’s rejoinder is that there is no new batch. There is no fresh blood. Malaysia’s men of always have seen to it that their imprimatur is stamped on the new political operatives that are supposedly stepping out from their shadows.

This is the main idea of Malaysia’s men of always. That we have no choice but to embrace their ideas because it is the pragmatic thing to do. That it is the only thing to do because people will never change and we are all ghettoised in our racial cocoons. The reality is that the Malay community has changed. This change was deliberate. The Chinese and Indian communities have changed. This change was reactionary. Change is not alien in Malaysia, just misunderstood.

[Editorial comment. Notice his contradictions: people will never change, then saying Malays, Chinese and Indians have changed. And he doesn’t say change in what? Or, to what? The gem of his argument is below, which summarized means that the Malay voting is not a behemoth bloc and requires merely a small tweak — an alternative to life — to break the Umno/PAS hold on them.]

There are literally hundreds of fringe Malay groups of young people who form the complex structure of alternate Malay politics, and instead of carrying on ghettoising them and appealing to them when needed, they should form the mainstream of Malay politics or, at the very least, the mainstream of Bersatu Youth politics.

So what is the real lesson we can learn from this? That the opposition needs a leader who, although dismissed by his own mainstream, resonates with a diverse, fractured voting demographic. That an election manifesto that takes into account the needs of the many, instead of the few, is a flashpoint for change. That the ruling establishment coasting on previous victories and running a poorly managed campaign is a soft target but more importantly, young people, if inspired, can wreck havoc on traditional political wisdom.


We are alone 獨角戲

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.


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


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.

The belly is an ungrateful wretch, it never remembers past favors, it always wants more tomorrow. — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich


One Day in the Life of Najib Razak

Sometime in 2012 or 2013 when hustling for votes, Najib Razak was often quoted to say, ‘Cash is King’. This is a curious remark because, if cash is king, what is the sultan for? What about Najib himself in his position as head of government? What are sultans and PMs? They count for next to nothing?

As the 1MDB saga unfolded the past two years there is also an increasing sense that, although money is king, it is also a lot of trouble. Sarawak Report‘s latest disclosures (mirror site) about the dozens of (mostly politician) recipients from Najib’s treasure haul at 1MDB and SRC are revealing into the depth of Umno’s political money culture, launched in the era of Mahathir Mohamad. That’s one part.

In another, SR disclosures explained, without meaning to, why Najib talked about ‘cash is king’. It reaffirmed a fundamental dilemma within Umno’s power structure which is, power and positions count for nothing without money.

Until Najib, the received wisdom (wisdom passed on by Mahathir and his fascist hotheads, Sanusi Junid being one) was the other way around: from power flows money, wealth and prosperity. This was also central to Umno’s determination to hang on its political hegemony. It became the guiding light in Mahathir’s national policies, teaching Malays, in turn, to believe that with power on its side, they are invincible and so could beat the Chinese financially.

In time those ideas turned up to be nothing more than a doctor’s pig shit, splayed out the last three decades that saw the rapid rise and equally rapid fall of towering Malaiyoos, from Perwaja, Proton to MAS, the depletion of institutional influences and the perils of power concentration. Worse for it, race relations got worse, not better: When Malays caught up, they got more greedy, more demanding and more fascist, and Umno was proof of Mahathir’s fallacy. Cash, taking the place of power, became king naturally.

Why when everyone was into it, including Mahathir; why, when everyone had a hand in pulling at the seams and sticking a hand in the pocket, pick on Najib to blame for the country’s state of affairs?

If people had wanted an icon for great misdeeds, Mahathir would be a far better representative, that man created the conditions for exploitation galore. If Najib is the indeed the country’s problem what then was his well spring?

Here was an Umno man before he was born, the Umno Mahathir would later refashion into his own image, a party dependent on largesse, forever demanding more, never letting up, perpetually dissatisfied. This set of situations is today acknowledged and reaffirmed in a party statement: Like head of some jungle tribe, the party chief is supposed to be the wealthiest who dispenses favors all round then once a year distributes cattle like they are Tan Sri badges.

But, Najib’s problems were also self-inflicted. They are the failures of a man made worse by circumstances then driven to insane levels. The two diagrams below explain how.


Two schematic illustrations of the same thing:

Diagram 1

Arrows indicate a direct connection whereas lines show relationships. Fraud and conspiracy are far more complex than murder so that the first requires a far greater and wider constellation of players (below), all of who must be paid off.

All of which merely goes to show that if Malaysia is rotten and if Najib is bad, Malaysians in general are worse. Worse because people like Steven Gan and Charles Santiago and Syed Akbar Ali and Wan Azizah, Lim Kit Siang think they are living saints. Counting starts from Mahathir Mohamad and Anwar Ibrahim.

Diagram 2


Murder was the easy part to cover because, with power and positions, Najib’s government could easily let Razak Baginda get away. Not where money was concerned though.

Note how, in the Diagram 1’s right side column, the number and range of people involved. This could only mean that for every one ringgit raised (by 1MDB or SRC) a large share of the monies would have to first go to an assortment of motherfuckers even before these whittled down sums of money are distributed to Umno divisions, to Sarawak and people like Shafee Abdullah.

Shafee is interesting because Najib could have gotten litigation for free from the Attorney-General Chambers. Instead Shafee, according to SR’s disclosures, was paid MYR9.5 million. In another way of looking at the same thing, Najib not only (like Ambiga) distrusted institutions, or their efficacy, he also faced limitations even with power and position on his side. Certainly, if SRC’s MYR 4 billion wasn’t enough to buy influence 1MDB would have to enter into the calculation, itself raising more than MYR 30 billion.

Najib having to pay for influence is entirely counter-intuitive. That’s also to say, there are things (laws and moral conduct, in this case) greater than the prime minister. But Najib’s personal experiences, and success, was to drill a hole right through Mahathir’s groins, which, all along, had proclaimed the supremacy of Malay government and with power on its side Umno will always be king.

Conversely, with all Malays united behind Umno, Malay power will be king.

Najib showed that if cash is king, then Mahathirism and Malaiyoo politics are a swine and a dog.

This raises a question about the Opposition coming into power, if at all: Can people in the DAP or Bersatu live on cow grass or run and manage the country on the fetid Tanah Malaiyoo air?

Cash might not be king to them — yet — and that’s easy to say when they have nothing and they live like pigs. But, sitting on the throne, it won’t look that way. Their hypocrisy and contradictions are already showing: attacking Najib for surrendering national sovereignty to China’s investments while, on the other hand in Penang, the DAP government borrows MYR 1 billion also from China.

For that, Mahathir and Malaysiakini have nothing to say, nothing to criticized about Malaysian dependence on the Chinese.

Such motherfuckers in Malaysia are a dime a dozen. They make up the standard quality of Malay and Anglophile politics that in combination have delivered the mess seen today.





Summer’s been raining without stop for a week, so I’m told. I miss Jixi, miss Jian, miss everything there is to miss in Motherland. Russia is just across the lake, left side.


O! Starducks…