Monday, October 20, 2014

Man's best friend recognized as good mates

TMI in its article ‘I want to touch a dog’ event a big hit with Muslims reported:

TMI photo

Siti Sakinah Meor Omar Baki has been afraid of dogs all her life. Not only that, she was told that touching dogs is not allowed in Islam. That was the mentality and teaching instilled in her by her conventional family.

But today, Siti Sakinah, along with her four children, turned up at Central Park in Bandar Utama, Selangor, to participate in the "I want to touch a dog" event to overcome her fear.

"It is also to show that touching a dog is not haram. People are worried about touching the dogs more as it’s a sin instead of worrying about the biggest sins," said Siti Sakinah, a former religious teacher who currently works with an NGO.

She said her husband, an ustaz, gave her the permission to attend today's event.

"I wanted to jump for joy when he said 'yes' and I told my children they had to go. And all of them came today with me to overcome their fear and to learn that dogs are also creatures created by Allah that need love and care," said Siti Sakinah, who touched and petted a few dogs at the event.

"I am still scared of big dogs so I am touching the small ones first," she said gleefully.

Siti Sakinah and her children were among the many families who turned up at the event which was attended by more than 1,000 people.

The organiser of the event, Syed Azmi Alhabshi, said he was satisfied with the turnout.

"We only expected 60 but this is way more than 60. This is overwhelming and I hope I provided enough water for the dogs and apologise for any shortcomings," he said.

Syed Alhabshi expected 60 people but WoW, more than 1000 turned up.

wish I had been that lucky dog, wakakaka

The real gain is that Muslims are no longer prepared to believe what those false prophets or people who misused the good name of the Prophet (pbuh) said. Read this article about dogs (reproduced below) from the website of True Islam which claims its teachings are derived from the Quran.


"You would think they were awake, when they were in fact asleep. We turned them to the right side and the left side, while their dog stretched his arms in their midst" - 18:18



Are they dirty, prohibited animals?

It is traditional among Muslims all over the world to regard the dog as a dirty animal that when touched would void the wudu (ablution) and infect the one who touched it with "nagasah" (dirty impurity)!

Sadly, this concept comes from fabricated hadith which claims that the Prophet ordered the killing of dogs and gave numerous hadith that prohibit the keeping of dogs except for hunting and guarding, due to their dirty status!

However, by studying the Quran we find no such truth. No where in the Quran are dogs prohibited, nor is there any mention of any contaminating effect of these lovely animals who are man's best friend. Consequently, we must dismiss all these hadith that fabricate lies against the Prophet.

1- God tells us in the Quran about the story of the dwellers of the Cave (Surah 18). In verse 13 God tells us that they were good believers and that God guided them. In verse 18 God tells us that they had their dog with them.

Now if dogs are prohibited and dirty, would God speak of those dwellers of the Cave (who had a dog) as good believers?

2- In 5:4 God tells us that it is okay to eat what the trained dogs catch (dogs are used in hunting). Now if the dog is an animal which causes contamination by mere touch, would God tell us it is perfectly okay to eat what the dog catches with his mouth (let alone just touch the dog)?

3- The Quran contains a very important rule for all believers, and the rule is:

Nothing is haram (unlawful) unless it is prohibited by God Himself, and since God describes the Quran as complete, perfect and fully detailed, thus all the prohibitions decreed by God are found in the Quran. The following Quranic verses confirm this truth:

Say, "Who prohibited the nice things God has created for His creatures, and the good provisions?" 
Say, "Such provisions are to be enjoyed in this life by those who believe. Moreover, the good provisions will be exclusively theirs on the Day of Resurrection." We thus explain the revelations for people who know.” - 7:32

“Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed?” - 6:114 
“You shall not utter lies with your own tongues stating: "This is halal (lawful), and this is haram (unlawful)," to fabricate lies and attribute them to God. Surely, those who fabricate lies and attribute them to God will never succeed.” - 16:116

There is not one verse in the Quran where God says that dogs are dirty or that they are prohibited to keep.

4- Is it logical that God would create an animal to be man's best friend and serve him in many ways, and then prohibit such an animal?

5- If this is what the Quran has to tell us about the issue of dogs, then where does all the prohibition come from? Where do the claims that dogs are dirty animals which if touched would void our ablution and render us impure come from? As most other corruptions which have crept into Islam, the source is always the fabricated hadith which are falsely attributed to prophet Muhammad!

Hadith tell us that the Prophet prohibited the keeping of dogs as pets. Other hadith tell us that angels won't enter a room where there is a dog. Other hadith tell us that if we touch a dog our ablution is void and we become impure, and that we have to wash seven times to clean this impurity, the final time in dust. That seems inconsistent with the Quran saying you may eat what they catch for you! Some other hadith go even beyond that to say that we must kill all black dogs!

The following are some examples:

Malik's Muwatta, Book 54, Number 54.5.13:

"Malik related from Nafi from Abdullah Ibn Umar that the Messenger of God ordered all dogs (other than sheepdogs or hunting dogs) to be killed".

Ibn Hanbal's collection: The Messenger of God said: "You shall kill all black dogs, because they are devils."

The question is: Did the Prophet really issue these prohibitions? In addition, did the Prophet have the authority to issue these prohibitions?

The answer is given in the Quran:

"O you prophet, why do you prohibit what God has made lawful in order to please your wives? God is Forgiver Merciful" 66:1

Obviously God did not include the words in 66:1 in the Quran to belittle the Prophet in our eyes, but these words are placed in the Quran in order to confirm to all believers across all time that the Messenger of God does not have the authority to prohibit anything which is not prohibited by God. God is the only Law Maker (6:114) and the only duty of the messenger is to deliver God's message (5:92).

The outcome of all the above is that we must discard all the lies attributed to the prophet regarding  prohibiting dogs and be focused on the Quran as the only source of guidance and religious law.


Kassim Ahmad has been right all along that the 'priesthood caste or ulama have become 'dictators' of the Muslim's understanding of his Islam. He had stated: "This class of priests control the interpretation of religion to the masses. They are dictators. There is no freedom."

As reported by TMI, He riled up Muslims on both sides of the divide when he questioned the use of hadith to interpret the Quran, and described the Prophet as "just a messenger of Allah".

In his lecture titled "The Nation's Direction in the Next Thirty Years", Kassim also questioned the hijab (Islamic headscarf) worn by Muslim women, saying that "the hair is not part of the aurat" (parts of the body which need to be covered according to Islamic teachings).

We have also heard (from TMI):

Dr Syed Farid Alatas, an associate professor at the Sociology Department, National University of Singapore, expressed disbelief over the recent proposal by Kelantan to impose jail term and fine on Muslim men who miss Friday prayers for three consecutive weeks.

"I read that the Kelantan state government intended to fine Muslim men RM1,000 and sentence them to a year's jail if they skipped Friday prayers three times in a row.

"While I agree that society needs rules and regulations, it is immoral and unethical to propose such drastic action on those who do not perform Friday prayers regularly.

"There is an imbalance here as respect for the sanctity of personal life has been completely disregarded. This is bordering on coercion without taking civil liberties into account."

There is this obsessive need by clerics to bully and threaten people so the ulama can hold on to unchallenged power.

See my earlier post Theocratic 3 P's - prohibit, persecute & punish.

TMI also reported: Syed Farid cited another example of a controversial fatwa issued by a former Saudi Arabian grand mufti that the sun orbited the earth instead of vice versa.

The fatwa was issued in 1966 by the late Sheikh Abdul Aziz Abdullah, who claimed that the sun orbited the earth, as the earth was fixed and stable.

My God (sorry, I can't use the 'A' word) or by Jove (Jove or Jupiter was the Roman God), a fatwa on heliocentrism in 1966!?!

This moronic stupidity was exactly what had caused Galileo Gallilei to be charged for heresy more than 300 years ago, in 1633.

Then, Galileo Galilei got into a whole lot of trouble with the Catholic 'priesthood caste', wakakaka, for saying the exact scientific truth, that our Earth moved around the Sun. He was charged for heresy and placed under house arrest for life (yes, for life) because his scientific statement had questioned the teachings of the Holy Scriptures which emphasized on the 'centrality' of Earth in the universe.

What upset the church was Copernicus' theory of Heliocentrism (Sun as the central body in our solar system with Earth orbiting it) conflicting with or threatening the biblical story of the Battle of Gideon as narrated in the Book of Joshua.

where Amorites were when Israelites invaded their country

About one and one-half thousand years before Yehoshua ben Yosef was born (hope you Christians know who he was, wakakaka), the Israelite army led by Joshua in their invasion of Canaan was winning their battle against the native Amorites, but their enemies were likely to escape once daylight gave way to nightfall.

So, according to the bible (written of course by Joshua's descendants, wakakaka) Joshua prayed to YHWH and caused the sun and the moon to stand still in order for the Israelites to finish off their slaughter of the natives in broad daylight (excuse the pun, wakakaka).

Joshua causing the sun to stay still so the Israelite army could continue their genocidal slaughter of the natives of the land Israelites were invading

The bible claims YHWH was the Creator, but alas, like an unfair parent who favoured one child over another, YHWH even gave the Israelites a hand with his heavenly artillery, raining hailstones on the natives of the land (supposedly also his creation), an act not unlike the usual massive USAF bombardment of a country prior to an American military invasion.

The Bible in Joshua 10: 11 -14 (KJV) tells us:

And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Bethhoron, that the Lord cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword. 
Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. 
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. 
And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the Lord fought for Israel.

Joshua and men slaughtering the Amorites with YHWH's help

Amen. But that Saudi Arabian grand mufti memang ta'boleh harap dan ta'boleh dipercayai. Pordah to his 'priesthood caste'.

And Wikipedia tells us:

The historian William Montgomery Watt states that Muhammad's kindness to animals was remarkable given the social context of his upbringing.

He cites an instance of Muhammed, while traveling with his army to Mecca in 630 CE, posting sentries to ensure that a female dog and her newborn puppies were not disturbed.

On the other hand, in a tradition found in the Sunni hadith book al-Muwatta, Muhammad is reported as saying that the company of dogs voids a portion of a Muslim’s good deeds. However, in "two separate narrations by Abu Hurayrah, the Prophet told his companions of the virtue of saving the life of a dog by giving it water and quenching its thirst. 

One story referred to a man who was blessed by Allah for giving water to a thirsty dog, the other was a prostitute who filled her shoe with water and gave it to a dog, who had its tongue lolling out from thirst. For this deed she was granted the ultimate reward, the eternal Paradise under which rivers flow, to live therein forever."

According to a Sunni narration classified as authentic by Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, black dogs are a manifestation of evil in animal form; Khaled Abou El Fadl states that the majority of scholars regard this to be "pre-Islamic Arab mythology" and "a tradition to be falsely attributed to the Prophet".

Thus, according to Khaled Abou El Fadl, for a Muslim to believe black dogs are a manifestation of evil in animal form is in fact to believe in pre-Islamic Arab mythology, and to indulge in

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Tradition? (2) - new budget briefcase

Remember my post Tradition? just a week ago, in which I discussed the loss of many traditions, not just in Malaysia but elsewhere.


I have just read an article by Tunku Abidin Muhriz, one of my fave columnists in the Malay Mail Online, titled Saving money transparently. Tunku Abidin is also the founding president of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (Ideas). It's a good article in which he lamented, among many important budgetary points, that:

The Finance Minister’s speech is perhaps the only remaining guaranteed set piece of parliamentary oratory in Malaysia; rarely are there long speeches tackling constitutional issues to arrive at powerful conclusions.

Now it’s mostly short and punchy statements for easy media consumption, assuming the YB in question isn’t being shouted down by other members or being reprimanded by the Speaker. (For an example of a proper speech, see Tengku Razaleigh’s 20-minute tour de force in denouncing the 1993 constitutional amendments, available on YouTube.)


Surely it has been a gradual but inexorable sad loss of an important parliamentary tradition, one of beautiful or long-winded (wakakaka) debates where the people's representatives would demonstrate their mettle and competency in looking after the people's interests via their public show of understanding of issues and ensuing policy proposals (or counter proposals).

But on a trivial though indicative note, Tunku Abidin wrote (perhaps with tongue in cheek) on an aspect of our loss of 'tradition', as follows:

The budget speech is usually preceded by a photo session featuring the minister showing off the briefcase containing the budget documents outside the Treasury. I cannot find pictures of Tun HS Lee or Tun Tan Siew Sin doing the same, but I presume they did it too, since it’s a Westminster tradition, although in the UK they use a red ministerial box embossed with the royal cypher, of which only four have been used since the 1860s. Photographs suggest that the leather briefcase used last week is different to the one used in 2009.

tradition but with new briefcase

from Lederer de Paris or Montblanc Meisterstuck Selection?

Note in particular his words "... in the UK they use a red ministerial box embossed with the royal cypher, of which only four have been used since the 1860s. Photographs suggest that the leather briefcase used last week [by PM Najib merangkap-ing as Finance Minister] is different to the one used in 2009."


One thing about the Poms, just leave it to them to anchor themselves to and lay it thick on traditions a la Sixteen-K'ong-K'ong (1600 or 15th Century), where the Penang Hokkien word K'ong-K'ong means zero zero (kosong kosong) and also a dig at the pomposity of such declared or hinted vintage pedigree, wakakaka.

Once there was a certain brand of cigarette which avoided the prohibited advertisements of cigarette or smoking per se but laid it on thick about a piece of smoking accessory being made in the 'finest British tradition of craftsmanship of exceptional quality', etc etc etc, ... probably since the days when King Arthur lost his burning torch, wakakaka - that's what was meant by something-something K'ong-K'ong, wakakaka.


Mind you, observation of such traditions a la the Poms would have at the very least saved the taxpayers the cost of a new leather briefcase, wakakaka.

I trust the current taxpayers-owned briefcase is still with the Finance Ministry and not on 'permanent loan' to a lil' Napoleon, wakakaka, which will then require another purchase for a new budget announcement - maybe this time one from Bvlgari or Hermès or Bottega Veneta.

Hope the Auditor-General will make a point to check on this, wakakaka.
Bottega Veneta (crocodile skin)

aiyah, only US$30,000

My uncles, who were officers in the military and also the police, told me that whenever there was a new CO (commanding officer) in their battalion or station, or a new PMC (president of the mess committee) had taken over management of the officers' club, the officers would be instructed to re-do the mess, especially the bar - yes, in my uncles' days, officers' mess bars were standard features.

Of course with limited financial expenses coming from the officers' mess funds, contributed by the officers themselves, each re-do or attempted renovation was at best a limited or even superficial attempt.

When the British Armed Forces in Malaya/Malaysia went home, they left behind the facilities in excellent conditions, such as officers' and sergeants' mess (clubhouses), each with a good bar.


Many Malaysian officers felt that consolidating the already fine facilities left for them would have been a far more sensible and more effective 'renovation', but alas, many of those COs and PMCs obviously wanted something new which could be recognized as their 'personal' achievements, for their bosses to consider in their annual performance reports.

In more than many a case, the already excellent features of a bar left by the British military were unnecessarily destroyed in the do-over.

Anyway, the above discussion is moot since the officers' mess bars of our military don't have bars anymore but only machines dispensing cans of soft drinks, or what the Yanks call soda machines.

Officers' Mess with soda machine? Alamak, no class liao lah, wakakaka.

Officers' Mess bar, RAF High Wycombe

I think we can reasonably assume that in the general case, behind each vandalizing or destroying of traditions and traditional features of an institution in such frequent do-overs lies someone's personal 'interests'.

Yes, BTW what had happened to the previous Budget briefcase? Wakakaka, and like Tunku Abidin, we'll be looking at the Finance Minister's briefcase in the next budgetary presentation.


Friday, October 17, 2014

Final chapter for Anwar Ibrahim?

Malaysiakini - We won't hit the streets for you again, Anwar

aisehman, so cruel lah

A NGO, which is often seen as leaning towards Pakatan Rakyat, has called on Anwar Ibrahim to retire, saying that the people are "tired" of him.

In a hard-hitting statement, Lensa Anak Muda Malaysia (Lensa) coordinator Ekhsan Bukharee reminded the opposition leader that it is no longer the era of 1998 and 1999, which witnessed the birth of the reformasi movement.

I won't say a word as I'm biased, wakakaka. But what do you think?

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Ridhuan is ironically the ultimate ‘ultra kiasu’

My letter to Malaysiakini published today as follows, wakakaka.


7:14PM Oct 14, 2014
By K Temoc

Ridhuan is ironically the ultimate ‘ultra kiasu’


I refer to your news article ‘Ridhuan: How can pigs outnumber cows in M'sia?'

Dr Ridhuan Tee Abdullah has complained that Malaysia has to import livestock such as cow, goats, sheep, etc but has such a surplus of pigs that the last is exported. He voiced his unhappiness at what he sees as an imbalance in our national husbandry.

Of course he ignores issues such as the remarkable National Feedlot Centre project, or local conditions for rearing certain types of livestock, market forces, and farming preference. He would not be unlike a durian-loving New Zealander asking why her country with a population of 4.5 million and over 70 million sheep does not have one single durian tree.

The truth is Dr Ridhuan Abdullah is at it again, politicking and pushing his standard fare of bangsa dan agama (Malay race and religion). Sometimes I wonder whether he does it on his own accord, perhaps to gain attention and relevance, or has been pushed forward by known forces to ‘attract and distract’.

And right on time in regards to my pondering above, he has challenged the new Selangor Menteri Besar Mohamed Azmin Ali on whether the latter would be willing to approve the RM100 million integrated pig farming project in the state.

We all know Dr Ridhuan Abdullah, his political proclivities and yes, his favourite term for those he dislikes or considers as political-social foes, namely, ‘ultra kiasu’. We also know he constantly reminds everyone he is a Malay, no doubt a Malaysian constitutional one but nonetheless a Malay. He informs readers of his column on this via his ‘kita Melayu’.

But there’s no denying he is an ethnic Chinese, one even with a Chinese surname Tee. I only raise this in order to remind Dr Ridhuan Abdullah that he ought to know what the Chinese (Hokkien) word ‘kiasu’ means. If he doesn’t then he ought not to brandish the word so liberally as he has been doing. Instead, he should take note that he ironically is the ultimate ‘ultra kiasu’ in his political-social polemics.

But Dr Ridhuan Abdullah is not the first Muslim in this country to raise the issue of pig farming in Malaysia. Back in 2004, a blogger by the nickname of Aisehman posted an intriguing article which raised some health questions related to the rearing of pigs in Malaysia.

He quoted international health officials (then in 2004) on an imminent pandemic - a possible hybrid strain of avian influenza and human flu virus, with Asia as its likely epicentre. According to him the pandemic may be even worse than Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). He mentioned the World Health Organisation (WHO) raising the possibility that bird flu could mix with a virus carried by pigs, giving rise to another mutated and deadlier progeny.

He posed the query as to whether we Malaysians ought to think about a pre-emptive and massive culling exercise of every single pig in our country (then I asked, would this include wild pigs in our jungles?), and a total cessation of pig-farming activities, of course to prevent the feared pandemic.

He stated he was mindful of the adverse economic cost and cultural impact, but nonetheless he queried whether this might come about, and whether it would be worth the inevitable sacrifices?

I then replied that if we select pigs to purge completely from Malaysia, on the basis of a viral danger to health, then what should we do about the problem of Avian Flu? I reminded him that Avian Flu was then the imminent danger rather than pigs. I asked further whether we should also cull all types of fowls (and eggs), and ban Malaysians from indulging in their hobbies of keeping merbok, merpati and various other birds as pets?

Never seeing a satisfactory conclusion

The problem with the culling-elimination approach would be that we would never ever see a satisfactory conclusion, even if we ended up shooting every bird that dares to fly over peninsula Malaysia, Sarawak and Sabah.

And I posed the question of mad cow disease (BSE) and the foot-and-mouth disease which affected hoofed animals like cows, sheep, goats, perhaps even camels.

Now why did the blogger not see the answer to our health concerns was not in removing any particular species completely, but rather those conditions that promoted the development and spread of a pandemic virus.

We could and can do this by developing and practicing good personal hygiene, quarantine control, management of healthy and clean animal farming, and public education. Australia, New Zealand and Denmark have these procedures and practices in place. The USA, Canada and UK dealt extremely well with their respective BSE problem, which for the last had been in the magnitude of a national disaster.

Their people and the Japanese and Europeans continue to enjoy pork, beef, lamb, fowls, etc without undue fears.

Alas, for him then and perhaps Dr Ridhuan Abdullah today, the pig, unfortunately for us Malaysians, is an animal that represents a very real divisive politico-religious-social factor, because to Muslims it’s religiously an unclean animal and thus haram [forbidden, not kosher], while to non-Muslims especially Chinese Malaysians, it’s the source of a delicious and popular meat.

But to non-Muslim Chinese Malaysians, the pig continues to be a significant part of so many aspects of their culture. For those who can afford them, roast pigs are used in cultural, religious and social ceremonies such as offerings to deities, pre-wedding exchange of gifts with new in-laws, funeral offerings, Cheng Beng festivals, pièce de résistance at birthday dinners, etc.

Then there is the uniquely world famous and by now (thanks to the Alvivi couple) politically-socially notorious Malaysian bah-kut-teh, a popular pork herb-soup dish that started its fame in Klang before sweeping through the country. Even foreigners in their own country ask for it when they shop at Asian grocery shops.

Not quite the same without pork

Indeed, many other Chinese dishes wouldn’t be quite the same without pork.

All the above Chinese delicacies are of course forbidden to Muslims, who viewed the meat as unclean stuff, and for some of them, also utterly repugnant. The pigs reared here in Malaysia for their meat have never been meant for Muslims but for local non Muslims and for export overseas. I was informed that prior to the Nipah virus problem, Malaysia was exporting RM2 billion worth of pork - yes, RM2 billion, not million.

Incidentally, one of the oft-heard complaints from non-Muslim has been the unequal treatment by Muslim-dominated city councils and municipalities. At some public centres where food are served, the authorities would prohibit food stalls from serving food containing pork, such as wan tan noodles which normally are accompanied by char siew (barbequed pork).

The complaint has not been so much the prohibition in sales of pork-related food per se, but more because, as non-Muslims would point out with much chagrin, beef-related food has not been similarly prohibited despite the meat being haram (forbidden) to Hindus and some sects of Buddhists (eg. of Pure Land Buddhism).

Once my friend, a very staunch Hindu, and I had beef served to us while we were attending a course run by a government department. I wasn't even asked whether I could take beef but it’s fortuitous that I didn’t and still don’t subscribe to my family’s religious belief which considers beef as haram.

My Hindu friend went ballistic not so much because the centre had served beef to him but because when he told the catering supervisor he was a Hindu and couldn’t eat beef, the manager responded insensitively, “I don’t see what's wrong with eating beef?”

Imagine what if the table has been turned around...? Would my friend be charged with sedition?

Of course most fair-minded non-Muslim Malaysians understand that it’d be only natural for Muslims to want pigs and its farming rid of from Malaysia. There are substantiated complaints of pigs’ excrement polluting rivers and other water sources. We recall what the Malacca government did to the pig farmers in that state some years back.

There is no doubt that pig farming had contributed to pollution though it's not the only cause - in fact there are worse, like certain industries. Unfortunately because of the religious-emotional implications the solution seems to be to ban pig rearing rather than enforced strict health and hygiene controls over pig farming activities.

Export item

The pig is reared successfully in many western countries, outstanding examples being Denmark and Australia, where piggeries are very well kept and maintained to the highest health and hygiene standards. Denmark has been doing so with the highest standard of hygiene for eons, making pig related products a multi-billion dollar export item.

Just to remind everyone, the pig and its pork were once Malaysia’s multi-billion ringgit export item, too. I wonder whether it still is today?

I think we should give credit where it’s due, that it’s wonderful Dr Ridhuan Abdullah said, “I do not insult pigs because pigs are Allah's creatures.” But alas, when racial and religious emotions step in, logic and consistency of arguments have to exit.

It’s a pity that a pair of pigs, and indeed birds, chickens, cows, rats, were allowed on board the ark of Noah (pbuh).

Monday, October 13, 2014

Char koay teow-ing?

TMI - Khairy can be next DPM if Najib steps down before GE14, says veteran journo

Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin has the potential to become the next deputy prime minister should Datuk Seri Najib Razak decide to step down before the 14th general election, a veteran journalist said today.

Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin must be positioned in an important spot in order to become the next deputy prime minister, said Datuk A. Kadir Jasin. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, October 13, 2014.In his latest blog posting, Datuk A. Kadir Jasin said this could only happen if the prime minister post was held by his cousin Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, who is also the defence minister.

“If it is fated that Najib has to step down before the next general elections and the current Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin has no interest in the top post, then the PM post will go to Hishammuddin. In this situation, Khairy will have the potential to become his deputy,” he said.

We know that the erudite writer, Pak Kadir, is one of Dr Mahathir's henchmen. And for Dr M, there's no one he hates more than KJ, wakakaka.

Dr M hated KJ since AAB, KJ's father in law, became PM. I heard that during that time with AAB's ascendancy and Dr M's slight loss of political power, KJ sabo or frustrated one of Dr M's sons in a fairly lucrative business deal.

KJ's second sin in the eyes of Dr M, perhaps even a bigger one than his first sin, was during the last UMNO party election, when Hisham nearly lost to Mukhriz in a race for the last VP position. It was KJ and Sharizat who marshalled the Youth and Women's votes behind Hisham. We know that Hisham then had a very narrow escape.

No UMNO member can ever dream of becoming party president and thus PM, if he is not at least a party VP. To Dr M, KJ had screwed up his (Dr M's) plans for Mukhriz to ascend to the top of UMNO's echelon, to be one of the 3 VPs. Of course KJ has his own reason to ensure Hisham beat Mukhriz, wakakaka.

So what do I think of Pak Kadir's statement?

Now, why in the world would Dr M's staunch henchman promote Dr M's bête noire?

I suspect the aim is to tempt KJ into betraying and kowtim-ing Najib.

Will KJ fall prey to temptation?

I believe he's not that stupid, though one can't tell about a person's burning ambition?

But KJ and Mukhriz both are young and have time on their side, so I reckon with KJ being the smart bloke he is, and youth still on his side, he will ignore the bait from Dr M's camp.

The post title reflects the role of Pak Kadir, a char koay teow man for Dr M, wakakaka.

In life I have a friend who was a real street hawker selling char koay teow, but one not in the league of powerful and affluent people like UMNO leaders such as Dr M or Pak Kadir despite the latter's role a la goreng goreng, wakakaka.

Read of him in my post at KTemoc Kongsamkok, titled The 'rich' char koay teow boy.

No, Tan Ah Kow most certainly didn't grow up nor will he ever belong to the world of powerful UMNO people like Pak Kadir, notwithstanding their 'shared' char koay teow role, wakakaka.

Sunday, October 12, 2014


Recently I met an elderly gentleman at a social function (at a church, wakakaka) who during the course of our friendly tête-à-tête over a range of issues, complained to me about the loss of tradition. I wonder whether he was in fact lecturing me, wakakaka.

He was formerly in the Royal Air Force (British RAF, not Australian RAAF). Sighing with nostalgia and a wee sadness, he informed me that the RAF, once so full of proud traditions ("Never in the field of human conflict ..." etc etc as eulogized by Winston Churchill), has lost much of those.

On a trivia note, he said that even the nicknames for doctors and dentists were no longer in use. In the RAF, which adopted many traditions including medical nicks from the far older Royal Navy, doctors were once referred to as 'Bones' (that's where the Star Trek doctor's nick came from) while dentists were 'Fangs', but alas, according to my matey, no more.

Nina Dobrev as Elena in The Vampire Diaries
my preferred 'Fangs' wakakaka

He then looked at me and asked whether I share any such experience of known traditions being lost.

I thought for a while and then recall the traditional hospitality of the Arabs who emulated the Prophet Ibrahim or Abraham (pbuh) and his nephew Lut or Lot (pbuh).

According to the Bible (wakakaka, bearing in mind the 'good book' was written by Judeans and not Hebrews) the latter (Lut or Lot) was particularly hospitable to their strangers-guests.

Remember how the lascivious people in Sodom wanted Lut (pbuh) to hand over those jambu-looking male strangers (supposedly angels) for a wee bit of gang banging sodomy?

Lut (pbuh) stood steadfast against their lustful demands and warned them of the wrath of Allah swt

"O' my people! Here are my daughters! They are purer for you! Beware of Allah and degrade me not in (the presence of) my guests. Is there not among you any upright man ?" (11: 78)

But those wannabe sodomizers said:

"Well, you know that we have no right to your daughters and well, you know what we want." (11:79)

A very much distraught, dismayed and disgusted Lut (pbuh) said:

"Would that I had strength to resist you or had some strong support." (11: 80)

Anyway from that Quranic teaching, the Arabs consider or had once considered that in-hospitality to or worse, mistreatment of a stranger was likely to invite the anger of Allah swt.

By now, the former RAF gentleman asked me in a rather frustrated manner, what was my point about loss of  tradition?

I replied that the Arabs no longer traditionally treat strangers as Lut (pbuh) did, but instead would chop off their heads, wakakaka, thus in their modern practice, we see both a loss of tradition as well as of the strangers' heads.

The Malays, renowned for their traditional courtesy and hospitality, also have a saying on this issue, which goes "Biar mati anak jangan mati adat".

Meanwhile, wakakaka, the Chinese have a saying "All Men Are Brothers", which was a quote taken from one of the four great classical novels of Chinese literature, namely, Water Margin (Shui Hu Zhuan), believed to be written by Shi Nai'an and much revered traditionally by Chinese.

Have these Malay and Chinese traditions been lost?

Friday, October 10, 2014


Malay Mail Online - Grenade attack linked to gambling kingpin, source says (extract):

Malay Mail Online photo

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 10 — The grenade attack in Bukit Bintang that killed one man and wounded 13 others yesterday was targeted at a top Imbi gangster involved in a boiling online gambling war, Malay Mail can reveal.

A source close to the police investigations said the 53-year-old man known as “Ah Hai” was seeking to expand his gambling empire by recruiting bookies from other syndicates with the promise of higher profits.

This angered rival gambling syndicates that are believed to have put up a hit on him.

Note in particular the source of the news!

"A source close to the police investigations said  ..."

A 'source close to the police' could likely be a police source who wanted the information issued though NOT as official police information but nonetheless information the police likely wants people to learn and believe, to wit, that the grenade attack was caused by gangsters and not terrorists.

Taking it further, the police may even have a different take on the incident altogether, but in the interim wants to assuage public concerns about terrorist attacks occurring in Malaysia.

Today there's no more communist terrorist to blame. What a f**king inconvenient shame.

But I suppose for the moment the gangsters would have to do (until we can get hold of Chin Peng's ashes), though I would imagine gangsters weren't likely to resort to hand grenades when a handgun or handguns were more their tools of trade.

Hand grenades kill indiscriminately, which would be more of terrorist behaviour, namely, to terrorize.

I suspect that apart from the distant scene of interests, politically it would not do to blame terrorists or bandits from the southern Philippines.

Far far far worse, politically that is, the authorities don't want people to even imagine that the grenade attack was an act of sheer terrorism against a place serving alcohol.

I bet there would be more than one people in KL, let alone the nation, who are also entertaining similar thoughts.

Mind you, I am not saying I am correct, but alas, as Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi once said: “The moment there is suspicion about a person's motives, everything he does becomes tainted.”

And why are we suspicious of the police?

You see, it's not just planes, naval boats, billions, fairness, etc, that are missing in Malaysia, but also the credibility of the authorities, including and especially now, that of the police.