Update: 彭麗媛




Dear Najib,

When Robert Kuok said Malaysia today is owed to all Malaysians, it is not the same as saying a rich Chinese owes his wealth to government. We Chinese are what we are not because of the government but in spite of it. You can’t tell the difference, pondan? You piece of motherfucking kleptocrat. Now that your mother is dead, go fuck that Nazri Aziz boy of yours.



Postscript: Why stop at Robert Kuok? If you have the telur, keep it up. And, is that all you can do, barking like a mad dog at our doorsteps, Petaling Street, now a 94-year-old man. Come to Hong Kong and say it, if you berani. Babi. You seem capable of only taking on the weak, the old, children and Mongolian women. Come to China and say it again. We’ll be waiting, pondan babi.



Najib, you piece of Malaiyoo babi. Take on one Chinese, you take on all 1.4 billion Chinese; you take on China, my motherland. Now, do you have Nazri’s telur to go on? No have? Pondan!


Dear Nazri,

You are so Malaiyoo. Now go fuck your mother.




Postscript: Malaiyoo’s Tanah Malaiyoo…These fucked up Malaiyoo, Malaiyoo, Malaiyoo and lagi Malaiyoo…






Here’s a wager, Robert Kuok: name a Malaiyoo more twisted than the above. All your money against all of mine.


Dear Mr Kuok,

Read Petra Kamarudin and you get a sense of the state of writing produced online today. In him are repetitive words and lines, long airy passages in convoluted syntax, opinions faked as facts, and then for a semblance of veracity little nuggets of information strewn in between those lines. All that combined substitutes for true language. He manages to displace then subvert good and insightful thoughts. Of course, Petra is not alone in his endeavor. Articles produced online are so disreputable that its ultimate effect is cynicism. We eventually disbelieve what we would wish to believe.

When China entered the modern era the government’s information 宣传 xuanchuan department was named in English as the Propaganda Department (no kidding). Seeing the name, Westerners exclaimed: “Ah! So true of Chinese Commies.”

The Chinese language doesn’t have the equivalent word for ‘propaganda’. Xuanchuan 宣传 is dissemination and it is the duty of the government (and the imperial authorities before that) to spread word to the people its rules, regulations, ideas and proposals (health care and agricultural production, for example). 宣传 xuanchuan is, to us, what it is — dissemination — not an objectification of certain information in order to influence an outcome. We were so naive to the outside world of deception. To us, if it works, it works. That is, in our innocence, the Chinese never thought of dissemination as having a propaganda purpose, which we now know to be a western invention.

For example, when China disseminated ideas about the Belt, Road Initiative (BRI), the constant feedback from the western and foreign recipients (such as Malaiyoos and Anglophiles) was that it was propaganda and, worse for it, commie government propaganda. So deeply cynical and so acculturated are western notions of government that whatever we propose with all sincerity without hidden motives is invariably treated with skepticism when not outright hostility. China and we Chinese engaging with the world has become a dangerous enterprise. We are constantly interpreted on their, duplicitous terms — never the other way around, never honest, never forthright.

The same thing has come to be regarded over online material or content. It is also the way Americans and many westerners have come to regard us Chinese. This is also called paranoia.

There is little we can do about western prejudices and tian forbid we should change their worldview. Petra Kamarudin will be Petra Kamarudin, a Form Five dropout, illiterate, part time selling nasi lemak, full time on propaganda for Najib Razak (and doing it crassly with no finesse). 狗嘴里吐不出象牙 No ivory ever comes out of a dog’s mouth.

What we can do are little things — on our side — such as with changing the English name of the 宣传部 xuanchuan bu to the Information Department. What else we can do is what our forefathers have asked of us. Recall Laozi (Stephen Mitchell translation):

That which shrinks
Must first expand.
That which fails
Must first be strong.
That which is cast down
Must first be raised.

Better yet, consider this:

At rest is easy to hold. Not yet impossible is easy to plan. Brittle is easy to break. Fine is easy to scatter.

Umno, the Malays with it, is so brittle that it is, therefore, easy to scatter. You don’t have to lift a finger to produce that outcome. This Malay weakness, of Umno, is deeply inherent, and you don’t have to look far to see why. Petra Kamarudin is prime example: mother is white and Welsh, sells nasi lemak, carries a dagger to ceramahs, works for PAS, takes money from Umno, prays to an Arab god named Allah, writes in English, argues in biblical, Anglophile terms, married to a Chinese, titles himself a Raja ‘prince’, lives in Manchester, yet calls himself a bumi and Malay — son of Tanah Melayu soil. I wager you, Robert Kuok, to find a Malay more twisted.

Petra’s assumption in this, farting aloud (to say he wrote the article is saying it nicely because how does an imbecile know what’s writing, a most noble of many human endeavors?) that you have a target in Umno by supporting the DAP rests on two further premises. Assumptions resting on more assumptions:

  • (a) you are able to influence the course of history (so that makes you a What? Jesus Christ?); and
  • (b) that the outcome of that influence is for the better (than the present? than what?).

Petra’s argument recalls your acknowledgement in your memoirs that you once visited Hussein Onn in the hope of stopping the NEP because once it were placed on the train (your analogy) then it would head towards a disastrous destination place. That is, Petra used your memoirs as evidence of intent. This is, of course, false association of past with present and an argument internally self conflicting and contradictory. Since you are a beneficiary of Umno policies, why have the party destroyed? Since the NEP is itself flawed and would therefore bring ruin to Malays, why bother dismantling it?

A lot more needs to be said about your worldviews, but we’ll leave it at that excepting this: Your ideas don’t work and your persistence to want to shape Malaysia’s national affairs goes nowhere other than bring more pain — not just on yourself but to other Chinese. Leave it, Mr Kuok. Your time has passed. We, the younger Chinese, are taking over and our methods are not yours which, it must be added, are counterproductive. You are saddled on Anglophile terms which, to put it politely, are incoherent and absurd. Stupid is as stupid does. For your remaining days, be rid of it.

We have a better way. Wuwei 无为, Mr Kuok. Wuwei.



Postscript: We, our generation of Chinese, would today argue that, as a matter of rational, strategic choices presented, Umno vs DAP or BN vs PH, the first is worth keeping. Knowing when and how to tilt to the winds is a Chinese virtue; it’s also our ancient and an excellent self-preservation device.

Update: In case your understanding of Chinese governance culture is rusty, here’s a reminder. Our ancestors have beaten and beaten on us what we should do and not do, and we forget when we ignore. Even our Motherland has forgotten the advice of the sages, but we are working and not working on it. And, James Kuok think the DAP is the answer? They are just a bunch of bananas… all these Jameses, Tonies and Ponies.

Here’s a thought from our forefathers: Govern a great state as you would cook a small fish. You know how to fry a fish, Mr Kuok?



Reply to Rais Hussin

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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


From Malaysiakini, by Rais Hussin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Predatory economics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To BRI or not to BRI?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A severe cold spell has struck again. Tianjin for the past three days has not been higher than minus 7 degrees. I wonder if the bullet trains or planes will be delayed because Jian and I are to reunite in several days. Weather forecast says it will be minus 1 then.


The clip above reveals the ignorance and stupidity of Malaiyoos in their worldview, their imagination and their narrative of the Chinese Communist Party, as if it were some sort of Umno-type political system. How stupid, these Malaiyoos, these Annie’s Assholes.


Before going into, Why return to China — and then to stay — here’s some background. Start with Martin Jacques and the notion (not his though) of “civilization-state”. Understand that background and, after that, it’s easier to see why China matters to your life, which isn’t just for the fact that you are Chinese and China is our motherland.

Next, listen to what our compatriot Xi Jinping is saying. When China’s government says it serves the people, it isn’t an Umno political slogan. It’s an action plan: how to make China’s dream yours as well.

Now to outside China, the overseas Chinese.

China is seriously looking at bringing back the diaspora, and this isn’t just for ethnic and security reasons. If, once in China, you do nothing else but walk around your house the whole day, we don’t care. Fine, too, if you (Annie?) merely want to find a husband and only to serve his needs, in bed and out.

Those are reasons for returning to China. What’s needed, instead, is individual purpose. What would be your purpose?

What, on the other hand, is China’s purpose? China can only restore its old glory and become great again if its people, each of the 1.4 billion people inside and 70 million outside, have something to look forward to. In epistomological terms, a person is a constantly becoming being, constantly evolving. A nation is like that but more; it is the sum of the individual’s purpose.

How can China forsake its people if people are not to forsake themselves, their families, their friends?

We — China and us — are one and the same so that as individual characters evolve so, too, will the country. I am China and China becomes me. This is what it means to be Chinese. All that the state can do to help is to suggest a sort of guide not on the whys of living (that’s your problem and is self-evident) but how to live. A fisherman is not given fish but taught how to fish. Malays instead are given fish and BR1M. The Chinese rely on themselves and we know this way is permanent and, therefore, more fulfilling. Today, compatriot Xi Jinping would say, try it this way. Three thousand years ago, Laozi would say, think about it that way. Or, consider that other way, Confucius would later suggest.

We want our people to have a good life, says Xi. One person with a good life affects the people around him, starting with the family. This is what I, too, found: the people around me become better off, and they in turn affect those around them, and on and on in circular fashion looping back to my person.

So, what do you want to do with your life in China? Try technology. Try finance. Try anything. Stop believing and start unlearning the fairy tales of Anglophiles (people like the Lim father and son, people like Tony Pua and Ong Kian Ming; they have outdated thinking): that a person trained in accounting is best at being an accountant, that lawyers, doctors, engineers and politicians are the pinnacles of society, looked up to, and upon who everyone is dependent.

Those mamak Anglophiles named Syed Akbar Ali and Mahathir Mohamad say the same thing and, so, spits at people who wash toilets. But that’s garbage talk by infantile minds. Chinese culture never, never says this of other people who earn an honest living. Consequently, in China, academic certificates don’t count because education is not eventually about skills acquisition; it is about how best to live. Jack Ma started working life teaching in a village school. He evolved. Other than war and peace, Xi Jinping is also interested in public toilets — how to keep clean when, hourly, two hundred people use it. He is interested in android technology, not Apple computer nor iPhone because those are passe. That is, he is interested to apply technology on a scale beyond the phone call for the benefit of fellow Chinese.

Xi has been right. The results are showing (see clip, above). Chinese (not Anglophile) humanistic culture supports, favors, indeed calls for such an approach to life: an archer misses his shot, looks at himself and then ask, why?

To automate, you see, is human. To excel is intrinsically Chinese. Whereas Mahathir and Syed Akbar tell Malaiyoos to avoid washing toilets because it is a lowly job, Chinese culture encourages us to ask, how do we make the toilet visit worthwhile. See the difference in approaches, in thinking?

(Update: DAP MPs have the identical Syed Akbar, Anglophile notion that see jobs in terms of class. Looking after longkangs is not their job, one MP said to his PJ constituents who brought complaints to his office. The same Anglo cultural attitude inhabits other DAP people like Hannah Yeoh who denounces opponents in condescending terms of ‘low class’.)

Syed Akbar yada, yada away about thinking outside the box. We say, why the fuck have a box in the first place. After all the world, reality, people’s minds aren’t like that — boxes — inside-outside, believer-non believer, top-bottom, big shot-small shot, bumi-non bumi, low class-high class, evil-good and so on. All these make for an endless diabolical, dystopian, Jesus/Mohamedan claptrap. Chinese cultural approach to life is not linear nor dichotomous. Without boxes, there are no limits to our endeavor.

Come to China. There are still 40 million in poverty; help them because that helps us. Join us to make yourself great and make China and the Chinese great at the same time. Malaiyoos and Anglophiles need not apply; fuck off and stay in your Syed Akbar coconut tree boxes.

Below are for further examination into China’s transformation, evolution, rejuvenation; don’t miss the show:

1. ANDROID TECH. Lee Kai Fu versus Silicon Valley. From imitation to innovation: How China became a tech superpower.



2. DRIVERLESS TAXIS: The story of Jean Liu (below) and how she beat Uber.




That wasn’t the only Chinese engineering marvel.


4. CRIME AND PUNISHMENT: Facial recognition in bio-technology.

Using facial recognition technology, police had picked up seven fugitives related to hit-and-run and human trafficking cases, plus 26 others for cases of identity fraud. These arrests were made with the use of the glasses at four entrances of a Chongqing railway station, according to cnrail.net, a website that covers China’s railway news.

The spectacles were designed for police use and are linked to a tablet device. After scanning the face of the passenger coming into the station, the device activates software to search faces in a database, looking for a match with suspects.


5. TOURISM CULTURE: Fenghuang below, built 2000 years ago, is a whole town drifting on a river. Then there is Guilin and Yangshuo, both updated and still stunning. Collectively, they and more, tells why my motherland China is such a great civilization.

Jian loves Fenghuang. She’s half Miao.



That man walked 42 km in the snow just to get home in time for chunjie. A country at peace begins at home. Confucius: If the family is harmonious, so will the country.

Elsewhere, snow thaw leaves behind icesicles, above — a clear sign spring has arrived.

May our ancestors protect us and keep us free from Mohamed and Jesus. (Got the above on my WeChat)

Jian in a greatly distorted studio touch-up portrait.


Much has happened the past year: Jian’s circumstances are far, far better; she kept her beauty, we kept our love; there was a lot, lot more snow than the two previous winters combined; the dirt road passing my family’s mountain, lakeside home was finally paved, 12-feet wide, eight inches of concrete running along the maize and rapeseed farms, now in winter fallow; the high speed trains that bring us back and will soon return us to the cities continued to be on time, right to the second; and my motherland remained Islam free and Jesus free. We kept our freedom — from God.

This year, we will keep on with our progress.

Once Upon a Time…


China Acts to Bring Home the Chinese Diaspora

“I so happy to balik tongsan“: The above ad was put up on several social web sides, such as Linked-In. You can come home now. But what does it take?


China’s immigration treatment of the overseas Chinese are in two broad categories: (a) those in Greater China, meaning holding passports from Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao, and (b) all other nationalities. The first are permitted into China and then to stay almost as long they wish with all the same social and economic rights as mainland nationals. The second follows whatever bilateral relations are agreed upon.

This year, February onward, immigration policy for overseas Chinese has been modified. Like those in Greater China, overseas Chinese will be entitled to a resident card (which is not a ‘green card’). The offer is discriminatory and is for native Chinese only. All other ethnics, white people, Caucasians, Malaiyoos, Pinoys, Javans, whatever, are not entitled to it.

There is only one requisite to be eligible for the diaspora card: a Chinese must have official, documented evidence that one parent or grandparent or any ancestor was once a Chinese, regardless of how long ago. It could go as far back as the Song dynasty and even Han, 2,000 years ago. Such an evidence, for example, may be a disembarkation/landing card that would show a Chinese forefather had traveled, say, in 1930, arriving in Singapore from ‘Amoy’ (today Xiamen) on such and such a ship.

The diaspora resident card replaces the passport and visa for entry and for an uninterrupted stay in China for between five and 10 years. Residence comes with nearly all the rights of China nationals and dependents: opening bank accounts, access to credit cards, loans, schooling, setting up a business, owning landed property, and so on.

With this Chinese freedom card, we are one step away from the 2016-proposed Ethnic Chinese Card, the EEC. The EEC is the equal of Hong Kong’s 回乡证, ‘Native Home Returning Certificate or the 台胞证 ‘Taiwan Compatriot Certificate‘. Although named differently, the two certificates — actually they look and function like your ID card — serve the same purpose: uninterrupted residence in China with associated rights, all without losing your nationality status. (Naturally, taking up China nationality after that will be a breeze.)

When the card was launched in January, non-Chinese, westerners in particular, begun complaining — as usual. They had expected China to copy the West on immigrant policies. Labeling the new immigrant card ‘racist’, they say that what America has, as for example, a ‘green card’, China should follow. As usual, too, the English language, anti-China press was wrong. Two years ago, Singapore’s Straits Times had said a special permanent residency card won’t be issued to overseas Chinese. (Told you so: never trust the Anglophile. What the fuck do they know? They can’t even write their mother’s name in hanzi.)

Annie of the Valley is eligible to apply. So, too, Ridhuan Tee. But Ah Tee better watch his tongue when in China…. We are watching you, boy.

Below are samples of English language comments from some overseas Chinese:

oriental‘: I now rest my hope with the PLA of the Peoples Republic of China to at least safe-guard and protect the overseas Chinese community world-wide…..particularly those in Indonesia under the hands of the politicians and Armed Forces! You and I know this Muslim BINATANG’s mindsets.

malaysianconcerns‘: That’s a welcoming news. Thank you, China.


Below are three versions of the same, 80-year-old folk song. It is one of the glories of China’s performing arts and Jian’s favorite (which she insists it be posted).