Perkasa 'finger licking good' appeal to Najib

Another tale from my uncles and their friends wakakaka, and it’s a finger licking good story.

I sought my elders’ views on KFC after reading The Malaysian Insider’s news article Perkasa wants KFC chain to stay in Malay hands.

Malaysia’s favourite ultra-bogeyman has urged the government to ensure the local franchise for the popular Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) fast food outlets remains in the hands of Malays, specifically a Malay company and not even a Malay individual.

Uniquely in Malaysia, KFC is probably the most popular western fast food chain, with 445 outlets throughout the country. When I first came to Australia I was shocked by the midget size of a typical KFC outlet in comparison to a typical Malaysian KFC restaurant. Then, in Oz’s KFC, chillie sauce has to be purchased in small sachets, unlike Malaysia where (at least during my time) a bottle stands on every table.

KFC is so popular in Malaysia that it’s a guaranteed big money earner for the franchise owner.

Today’s news report on Perkasa does not offend me as I support Ibrahim Ali’s appeal to the UMNO government to ensure the franchise ownership remains with a Malay company, Kulim, which oddly for its company name, is owned by Johor Corp, the investment arm of Johor State.

I presume many Malaysians would be like me, who do not want to see the magic 30% equity chipped once again by any individual through subsequent sale of the lucrative KFC franchise, nor for it to slip into non-Malay hands, thus providing reasons for perpetuating UMNO’s 'Never Ending Policy' (NEP).

But you know, not many people are aware that KFC, before it became known as KFC, and under its original name of Kentucky Fried Chicken, was franchised to a Chinese who opened the first Malaysian outlet in 1973 at a location in Jalan Tunku Abdul Rahman (which I believe was originally called Batu Road).

How, what or why led to the change of the local franchise holder, from a Chinese businessman to a Malay one, is a bit blur even for my elders after 30 odd years.

But what they do remember was that the Chinese bloke kicked up a mighty big fuss when he realized he was losing it. The story went that he put up lots of theatrics to publicize his unhappy (and, according to him, most unfair) loss of the Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise, like employing people to wear Mickey Mouse masks and carrying balloons and streamers to stage protests at various strategic locations in Kuala Lumpur.

It would seem in those happier days (though obviously not for that particular Chinese businessman, but for us) the police were less politically inclined and more neutral. I doubt such privately organized shows of protest would have been allowed today, let alone tolerated.

Uncle also remembers his theme song, always played aloud at his staged demonstrations of protest, strangely or ironically one which ought to be ‘owned’ by Dr Mahathir, namely “I did it my way”.

And now the end is near
So I face the final curtain

Indeed, he lost the Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise forever more.

Regrets, I’ve had a few
But then again, too few to mention

I doubt that, as he was protesting vigorously with gimmicks and theatrics. The fact was the Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise was far too profitable to lose gracefully, especially if the loss had been due to, according to his assertions, unfair means.

My uncles and their friends couldn’t confirm the reason for the Chinese businessman losing the franchise but he sure reminded them of how he was not losing it without dramatic exhibitions of his anger and outrage at what he perceived to be unfair means to deprive him of that franchise. His constant use of the word ‘unfair’ was testament to his humongous dissatisfaction.

Another kaytee's unconfirmed story wakakaka.

OK and KO-ed Indian Malaysians

Malaysiakini reported in its news article Kula flays Palanivel's back-to-the-estates solution that:

DAP MP for Ipoh Barat M Kulasegaran has described the call to down-and-out Indian Malaysians in urban areas move back to estates to escape the poverty trap as "preferring a placebo to a panacea" in addressing the community's problems.

The proposal aired last week by MIC president G Palanivel that Indians caught in the poverty trap in urban areas stand a better chance of survival in the estates has drawn flak from several quarters. [...]

Kula correctly urged: "When it is established why crime and school dropout rates and incidence of single parentage are high among Indian Malaysians, we can begin to find the solutions to the problems of the community."

Indeed!

… which them made me remember the old Mamak (uncle) in my Ayer Itam village, from whom I used to buy an economy mee rebus ‘burger’.

Hah, you may wonder what kaytee’s economy mee rebus ‘burger’ is (or was)?

The ‘burger’ consisted of half of a whole (square-shaped) fried tau-knua (hard tofu), cut diagonal-wise; Mamak then sliced a slit along but not exceeding the ‘diagonal' (or the hypotenuse of the triangular-shaped half of a tau-knua – me the maths genius, seeing Pythagoras in my mee rebus man’s tau-knua wakakaka). The slit created a ‘pocket’ in the tofu.

Stuffing the tofu’s pocket with some mee rebus (hotly rinsed Hokkien noodles), julienned cucumber and lettuce, he completed the ‘burger' by pouring his renowned kuah (gravy) into the slit. Man, was he a genius in developing the ‘burger’ where pokkai (money-broke) kids like me could enjoy the economy version of his fantastic mee rebus?

When Mamak passed away, his rather dapper son took over and introduced the pasembur as an additional menu item to the already fantastic mee rebus & goreng. His business took off like a runaway American Atlas ICBM so it wasn’t at all surprising that (according to my mates in the village) he eventually bought over the kopitiam (coffeeshop) from the Chinese owner.

Aneh (Elder Brother) is now one big towkay (rich businessman). It’s the story of an Indian success.

Then there was Subramanian. Subra was a wandering barber in my village. He plied his trade by walking around and seeking out known clients (like young kaytee), while carrying an old small suitcase which contained his equipment including the barber’s sheet.

His village trade eventually disappeared in the face of growing affluence in society and the appearance and greater attraction of girlie barber salons, which provide not only haircut complete with shampoo and drying, but also ear cleaning (I could never take the ‘pain’ of the scrapping though I think it was more psychological than actual physical pain – I dreaded the very scary thought of the sweetie plunging her traditional Chinese-designed ear de-waxer right through my ear drums, ouch & gulp!); there was of course the massaging as well, yup, of zones way beyond the region of the head.

All poor Subra could provide by way of competition was the old fashioned Thuggee-style twisting of the neck to produce a couple of satisfying but frightening 'cracks' (or snaps) – at times I wonder whether he was going to break my neck. But poor Subra’s livelihood inevitably succumbed to modernity and his personal problems, mainly excessive toddy.

Unlike the mee rebus Aneh, he became a total failure. The last time I saw Subra was years ago when I returned home for Chinese New Year celebrations. Shabby, unwashed and smelling of various odour, especially stale toddy, he staggered into my house to pay me a CNY visit. Naturally I welcomed the elderly Uncle and invited him for a drink of, no, not toddy, but traditional F&N sarsi. Declining my welcoming drink he asked rather bluntly whether I could spare him a couple of ringgit.

I always have a soft spot for Subra, despite him occasionally giving a then very young kaytee a cuff or two on the head for not sitting still when he was cropping my hair. I gave him RM20 which saw him seeking leave from me straightaway to hunt down the village Chinese samsu shop man (because it was CNY and the shop was closed). I haven’t seen Subra since that sad parting.

Here we have two examples of Indian Malaysians where one has been innovative and extremely successful while the other gradually became a failure, owing to his inability to cope with the changing business scene of barbering and his own indiscipline.

So how man? In the last half a century there’s more Subra’s than mee-rebus Aneh’s. Yes, there were, have been, are and will be the Chinese equivalents of Subra but never to the shocking numbers in the Indian community.

May I, without offending anyone, say something about the difference between pathetically poor Chinese and pathetically poor Indians? There’s a noticeable lack of support for and within the latter group, unlike the poor Chinese. In this (kaytee’s observation) I believe the MIC has a lot to answer to, especially when you read of the son of a MIC bigwig boasting he housed his German Shepherd pet in an air-conditioned kennel.

Kula is absolutely correct in stating "When it is established why crime and school dropout rates and incidence of single parentage are high among Indian Malaysians, we can begin to find the solutions to the problems of the community." What's the point of running back to an equally miserable life in the plantation?

Related:
(1) The Toddy Syndrome
(2) Malaysia's Economic Pariahs?
(3) Hated by Indra

The mindset of Dr Mahathir?

Though he has ‘retired’ (wakakaka) for seven years, he has managed during that time to destroy the political ‘life’ of a PM (his politically short-lived successor Abdullah Badawi) and is perceived to be controlling (and helping) that of another, his protégé PM Najib Razak. We’re naturally talking about the one and only Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia’s longest serving PM.

Since the recent release of his memoirs, ‘A Doctor in the House’, there has been a flurry of both praises of wonderment and criticisms of the severest order about his side of the story – also see my previous posts Ku Li losing UMNO's presidency - a different story? and Dr Mahathir - Malays, Mamaks & Malaysians.

Now Josh Hong adds to the range of articles commenting on Dr M’s memoirs, though Josh qualified his piece in his Malaysiakini column as only a preliminary comment as he hasn’t yet finished reading Dr M's book.

Josh wrote succinctly in his MKINI essay Mahathir’s colonial mind, the title encapsulating Josh’s impression of Dr M’s mindset, as follows:

Most importantly, when the Malays finally found the bravery for change in the wake of the judicial crisis and police violence in 1998/1999, it was Mahathir that was shocked and terrified. Since then, he has been denouncing the people that he claims to love for their “betrayal”, “ungratefulness” and “rebellion”.

I never dispute that all colonial powers prefer timid, submissive, simple and changeless subjects because to rule over them would be a no-brainer. It just so happens that, after years of “racial engineering”, more and more people now find Mahathir's mindset is no different from that of the colonialists. The only thing is that the old man will perhaps never want to admit that.

Ironically, as Josh averred, Mahathir chastised the colonialists because they “liked the idea of a simple and changeless Malay world”, which was responsible for Malay backwardness. But if Josh assertion of Dr M having a mindset which is no different from that of the colonialists, then we have to draw the conclusion that both Dr M and his depised colonialists had shared the same preference for "timid, submissive, simple and changeless subjects" to easily rule them.

If such had been the case, then wouldn’t his accusation of the colonialists be a reflection of his own confused attitude?

There were several other criticisms of Dr M but the one meriting a mention here as well is Josh’s mention that:

Mahathir was right to observe that the lack of a good education had been a bane for rural Malays, but failed to see significant segments of the non-Malay communities were equally in need of it.

In his early years as education minister, his immediate concern was to reach out to poor Malays. For some bewildering reasons, he was persistently unable to identify indigenous, Indian, and Chinese children living in abject poverty. Their numbers might have been comparatively small, but it was nevertheless unjustifiable to overlook their needs.

In my earlier post, I stated that I admire Dr M most for 3 issues. In this post I need to criticise Dr M most for an equal three, namely:

(a) He left the poor nons (especially the Indians) by the wayside,

(b) He failed to apologise to Lim Guan Eng for the injustice done to the latter who was jailed (during his time as PM) for defending an underage Malay girl against the rapacious lust of an UMNO man, and

(c) His current divisive emphasis on race and why we cannot be equal Malaysians (without ignoring the need for affirmative action BUT on a needs basis).

Ku Li losing UMNO's presidency - a different story?

Love him or hate him, that’s Dr Mahathir.

Regarding his most recent book, ‘A Doctor in the House’, those who love him have crooned over his recounting of interesting events like Ops Lalang (which he claimed he was against), his asserted anti-ISA stand, Anwar Ibrahim’s alleged ‘escapades’, LKY's fantasy, and the missed chance of Tengku Razaleigh (Ku Li) in the 1987 UMNO presidential election, etc.

His supporters no doubt would have nodded in approval at the self-authored vindication of his conduct as PM, while his detractors naturally sneered at what they described as a brazen hypocritical attempt to white-wash his sinister record.

I personally believe the ‘Truth’ lies somewhere in between, though I have to decline defining ‘Truth’ because, unlike mathematics, it has various hues according to who views it ('Truth', that is).

Anyway, I won’t bother to touch on salacious stuff like the alleged Kenny Hill romp. Instead I will pass on what I learnt from my uncles about Ku Li in the UMNO civil war at that time (24 April 1987) when both Dr M and him went for broke in the UMNO party contest to be president and consequently the PM of Malaysia.

Of course I can’t vouch for the ‘Truth’ of the story I’m about to write, but as the Italians would say 'Se non è vero, è ben trovato' meaning 'Even if it’s not true, it’s a good story'.

In his just published memoirs, Dr Mahathir claimed, as reported by The Malaysian Insider that Ku Li’s impatience cost him the PM’s post.

But my uncles told me otherwise, that Ku Li's monumental loss was due to two factors.

The first, probably the minor one, had to start off with the telling that Ku Li was then UMNO’s treasurer. Due to his amazing efforts, he was responsible for having a new impressive UMNO building built [don’t know whether it’s the same one today?] It was a proud moment for UMNO, but alas, like Australians, UMNO members didn’t like a ‘tall poppy’.

The term ‘tall poppy’ means a person of real ability and commendable merits but who is resented and usually attacked and criticized because his achievements has put him significantly above his peers. Thus such a 'tall poppy' has to be chopped down. With the erection of the new UMNO building, Ku Li unfortunately became a ‘tall poppy’ to some.

Apparently, believing it would benefit his election prospects, it was said he arranged for the party assembly (election) to be held at the new building, perhaps to remind party delegates of his achievements as party treasurer through the high visibility of the impressive new 'monument'.

But some of his mates warned him the UMNO members might not take kindly to this, and could well vote against him. Hmmm, would that be a reflection of some members' resentment of a man they saw as not sufficiently humble enough to be a good Malay and therefore not fit to lead them, or was it just plain jealousy of a ‘tall poppy’? Who knows?

Hah, now we now come to the second factor, centred around a young bloke by the name of Najib Razak ;-). He had just become the party's acting Youth Chief, when his predecessor Anwar Ibrahim wakakaka vacated the post to stand for election as a party VP.

The story went that Najib was initially in Ku Li’s camp, with a voting bloc which would have seen Ku Li nicely into the party presidential post - remember, Ku Li lost by a mere 43 votes! But alas, it was said that Najib changed side at the last minute, and the rest is UMNO and Malaysian history.

My uncles remembered reading in the newspapers how Najib subsequently went to elaborate attempts to 'honour' Dr Mahathir, with a public show of fealty when the latter came back from an overseas trip. All the trappings and paraphernalia of Malay feudalistic honours and pledges of loyalty were unstintingly and ostentatiously extravagant, not unlike what Perkasa did for our former PM when he took on the post of patron to the so-called NGO, except of course Najib's efforts were far more stupendous wakakaka.

Perhaps the laddie was so petrified of his zigzagging ways right up to the last minute of the critical party election that post-election, he would have been humongously worried he won't be accepted or viewed with suspicion by the new No 1 wakakaka. But Dr Mahathir always have a soft spot for young Najib. I suspect it's the Old Man's hutang budi (debt) to the late Tun Razak who brought him (Dr M) back to the party after he was expelled by Tunku.

So, with all these stories by my elders, I wonder about Dr Mahathir’s claim that Ku Li lost the post because he was impatient.

Say if my uncles' rendition is not true, would it still be a good story? Wakakaka!

3 bowls of rice

Sometimes, through a combination of excessive praises (perhaps of the insincere type) and an enormous conceit, a person may come to believe he is a great man. But even then, that is not as bad as a person who thinks, through such similar persuasions, that he is sophisticated, highly cultured or culturally refined … so on so forth …, because such a person would start to talk in high-faluting language and with abstract themes that the ordinary people in the kampong, villages and the more grubbier side of town won’t be able to understand or appreciate.

It’s not unlike those Yanks preaching concepts of democracy and freedom of speech to Vietnamese during the 60’s and 70’s. The insincerity (or hypocrisy) was there, and worst for the Yanks, their high-faluting language and themes whooshed straight over the heads of most Vietnamese, who only wished for 3 bowls of rice each day.

I reckon our so-called Asia's Renaissance Man, Anwar Ibrahim, has fallen into this hubristic trap. He might not even realize he isn't 'connecting' with the kampong people. Who the f* in the kampong worries about reformasi, korupsi or demokrasi when all he/she wants are just the 3 ‘bowls of rice’ – of course the Malaysian 'bowl of rice' is a lot more than the ones the Vietnamese peasants wanted.

A few days ago Malaysiakini published The evolution in wooing rural voters, an erudite analysis of the by-elections by Bridget Welsh, who wrote (relevant extract only):

Many voters in the Felda schemes especially see the BN as their patron, and are deeply reluctant to move toward the opposition. Some even fear the removal of their livelihood if they do not support Umno, as the unspoken message also implies a threat that goes to the core of their daily lives.

While many in the urban areas call for these voters to "wake up" and unfairly denigrate their BN support, it is critical to understand that they are making rational choices with the information they have based on life experience. They cannot be expected to give up what they perceive as their livelihoods and opportunities for their family for a by-election result.

Exactly! It’s the principle of '3 bowls of rice'.

Apart from this survival attitude (which can only be changed gradually and not by mere conjuring tricks, nonsensical promises or sweet words by opposition politicians), Pakatan supporters, particularly PKR fanatics, have worsened the situation. These anwaristas have a lamentable and moronic behaviour of expecting everyone to support what they believe, or suffer vile condemnations, insults and be classified as BN running dogs.

Their despicable conduct are not unlike George Bush Jnr’s “Either you’re with us or against us”. This is of course highly offensive to the very voters they want to win over, and counterproductive to their efforts to win 'hearts & minds'.

Pakatan has only been doing it right in Selangor and Penang, especially the latter where the ‘3 bowls of rice’ have been served and seen to be served, such as cheaper or free water, angpows for the elderly, etc. Kelantan is of course a special case where the word of God is good enough for the religious Kelantanese, but alas, this won't work in the more secular-oriented states of Penang, Perak, Selangor, Sabah and Sarawak.

Something for Pakatan, or more correctly Anwar Ibrahim, to think about.

PAS losing big picture

Our favourite opportunist, Ibrahim Ali, has declared that the worst is over for BN, and that Pakatan (or more correctly, Anwar Ibrahim) can forget about its path to Putrajaya.

Much as we despise, disregard and disbelieve him, I’m afraid this time he may be right. Only the unrealistic Paktan supporter would believe otherwise.

Leaving aside the unsavoury outcome from the UMNO government use of its bag of goodies, bag of tricks and bag of lies, I fear Pakatan has lost its momentum from the 2008 tsunami.

Forget about Uthayakumar’s pathetic attempt to claim credit for Pakatan’s recent losses in a number of by-elections, the culprit or rather culprits for the loss of support for Pakatan are many. This post will deal with just one.

I’m targeting PAS. As a primer, please read my post 'Tis the nature of the beast (2).

With the help of DAP, PAS was previously (post March 2008) winning increasing Chinese support to an extent that alas, it felt (incorrectly) confident enough to revert to its tragic misogynist and oppressive nature. It showed its ugly fangs by wanting to police the morals of Malaysians.

The recent prohibition of officially permitted gambling facilities in Kelantan, the recent comments by its Youth Chief on issues such as Valentine’s Day and such like events, have not been helpful to Pakatan’s cause.

And that perhaps could have been part reason for its lack of strong Chinese support in Merlimau. Like most Chinese there, I am not comfortable with PAS metamorphosing recently from a tabby cat into the striped tiger that we had feared.

At times like this, we are faced with the dilemma of supporting PAS and its religious agenda or allowing UMNO and its corruption to run rampant again. Sadly, a divided PKR is in no position to spearhead the fight into the heartland, to provide Malays with a third alternative.

There are of course many other factors affecting Pakatan's slip in popularity, but the least PAS could do at this time is to f* stop frightening non-Muslims with its unwelcomed moral policing.

I'll stop here.

MACC's comms coincidence

Today The Malaysian Insider reported:

KUALA LUMPUR 7 Mac: The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the death of Teoh Beng Hock was told today that no information on short messaging service (SMS) and calls made, received or missed on the day the political aide was found dead could be retrieved from the handphones belonging to six Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers.

Six, that’s right, not one or two or three or even four, but all six phones! ... and on the very day Teoh perished mysteriously while in the MACC building where he was ordered by the MACC to report to.

Must be sun flares or a nuclear explosion somewhere which caused the electronic wipeout, or perhaps just one of those equally mysterious Malaysian coincidences.

An assistant analyst at the computer crime section of the Royal Malaysian Police forensic laboratory Inspector Mohd Zaidi Abu Hassan said the information that was available in the telephones were those made and received after July 22 2009.

… which was one week AFTER Teoh’s death. Halleujah, Alhamdulillah, Tien Kong be praised, at least the systems were back in order by then.

According to a Malaysiakini news report, police extracted a call by a female friend of a MACC officer which read a sweet innocuous conversation like:

“Why everyone is pointing finger against MACC? ...... Let it be, don't worry, sayang.”

Poor sayang, yalah no worries, it was suicide after all. Any Malaysian kid would have told you Teoh BH strangled himself (quite a common happening in Malaysia), on the eve of a wedding to a girl who was already carrying his future son. A tragedy no doubt but just another typical and not unusual "Malaysian" cause of death.

Dr Mahathir - Malays, Mamaks & Malaysians

Much as Dr Mahathir was (perhaps still is) feared, despised and hated by many in the opposition camp (and even some in the BN side), much more than when he was a young Turk, I personally don’t; I have to admit I even admire him for three things he did. These were:

(a) His correct and timely de-fang-ing of a certain royalty who conducted himself as if he was King Dewata Cengkar,
(b) His promotion of Malaysia as a proud nation, and
(c) His concept of Bangsa Malaysia.

But alas, since his retirement, he has been perceived as having reverted to what people suspected of him when he was a young Turk.

His strident critics have been rather feral in calling him by various insulting descriptions, with the major one persistently pointing out (wakakaka) that he is an Indian who refused to acknowledge his ethnic (Indian) origin.

For years, Dr Mahathir didn’t say a single thing in response to this particular insult heaped upon him … till today when I read in The Malaysian Insider’s article Malays are not immigrants, says Dr Mahathir where he said:

I would not say I am a Malay or Malaysian of ethnic Indian origin. My mother tongue and home language is Malay, my culture and tradition is Malay and I am a Muslim. The constitution defines a Malay as a person who habitually speaks Malay, practices Malay custom and tradition and is a Muslim.

He continued that: ... it was obvious some Malays were descended from people of the Indonesian islands, India and the Arabian peninsular.

Hmmm, what about Dr Ridhuan Tee who always writes, words to the effect: “Kita orang Melayu ...” instead of “Kita umat Islam ...”? Isn't it just hurtful to poor Dr Ridhuan wakakaka.

It seems Dr Mahathir has limited non-Semenanjung “Malays” to only those originating from Indonesia, India and Arabia. Why not those originally from China like poor Dr Ridhuan Tee and Omar Ong?

Anyway, I wonder whether Dr Mahathir’s assertion that he is a Malay (full stop) and not one of ethnic Indian origin had been finally his ultimate rebuttal of the tons of ethnic insults hurled at him. Could it be his long-suffered hurt has finally manifested itself in his rejection that he is a Mamak?

Then he made a very poor, in fact bad comparison when he said: Having come here they [Indons, Indians and Arabs] were assimilated after they identified themselves completely with the Malays by adopting the Malay language, their customs and traditions and by being Muslims. This is a common phenomenon. In America, Australia, Latin America the later immigrants accepted the languages of their adopted country as their mother tongue as well as the culture. After doing this they no longer think of themselves as being of their original country.

It’s a poor comparison because the languages and cultures of the Americas and Australia were imposed by foreign invaders, namely the British and Spaniards. That’s why English is spoken in USA and Australia while Spanish is in South America (with the exception of Brazil and a few kutu states).

In fact, the culture in Australia has been transformed in the last 35 years. And in the USA too!

But then, what really is culture? Well, it's basically everything in that society, from its customs, traditions, social practice, religion(s), beliefs, language, social interactions & communication, food, drinks, politics, dress, social values and activities, entertainment, so on so forth.

Can it be legislated? Only if you have a dictatorial bent and own a mind control machine.

Culture is something that grows gradually and subtly, and then, having been accepted without the acceptor even being aware of his/her acceptance, settles within a society. As I mentioned, most of the times we aren't even aware of the acceptance, practice, and growth of the new values in our midst.

Just as an example on food - today the Vietnamese pho is an intrinsic part of Australian cuisine. What about Malaysia? Are mee, meehoon and koay teow (noodles), and choy-sum (sawi) exclusively confined to Chinese cuisine? If not, can anyone tell of a date (just the year will do fine) when they were accepted/used by the other communities as Malaysian food?

Then, do only the Malays wear sarong and eat nasi lemak? As a kid I remember my dad changing quickly into a sarong whenever he returned home from work - he felt so comfy in one.

What about roti, capati, curry and pasembur? Are these made and eaten only by Indians? My late mum would cook mamak-style fish head curry with lots of brinjal (egg plant) and okra (ladies fingers) for me, knowing how much I love the dish and then teasing me that I ought to marry an Indian sweetheart to ensure I continue to be provided with the yummy curry.

The above are examples of how culture evolves – no legislation, no official enforced policies, no political bull, just free acceptance, practice and assimilation. This is what is meant by multiculturalism.

Thus I believe Dr Mahathir is both right and wrong in his attempts to define what should Malaysians do. Yes, I am aware he was describing ‘Malay’ rather than ‘Malaysian’ but his definition was meant to divide the people into Malays and non-Malays, when all of us are Malaysians. Thus I will talk about Malaysians, citizens of Malaysia.

He is right in that every Malaysian should speak fluent Malay or if you wish, Bahasa Malaysia. It needn’t be Dewan Bahasa type of Malay; colloquial Malay is good enough but the fluency should be there, especially among the younger generations. There’s no excuse in this regard.

But don’t get me wrong that I am against people learning other languages including their mother tongues. In Australia and the USA, their citizens do so.

On the issue of vernacular schools I’m personally against them as I believe they serve only to further divide us. Surprised? Never mind. However, we must examine the history of how vernacular school came about, and understand why it now has such a prominent position among the Chinese. Blame UMNO for their existence and popularity – for more, read my previous post A central pillar of Chinese culture.

As my old friend Helen Ang (I hope she still loves me wakakaka) observed astutely in her Malaysiakini column: [The Chinese education] boat has left the harbour and sailed too far to turn back now.

... which is why we have been left with a complex, sensitive and difficult legacy.

But then, when we read of the racist conduct of some headmasters in national type schools and one or two VCs of universities, it shows that national type schools alone do not, cannot guarantee unity when unrepentent racists exist in out midst.

Many Chinese parents are so glad that they have vernacular schools to minimise their children’s exposure to such blatant cruel racism by people who dare to call themselves teachers.

But Dr Mahathir would be wrong if he prescribes being Muslim as a condition. Since he mentioned Australia and USA as examples of what he saw as citizens accepting the nation’s principal customs and traditions, I would like to inform him that there is absolute freedom to practice any religious beliefs in those countries.

In Australia the authorities even fund some non-Christian religious activities (and ethnic festivals), including Islamic ones. Incidentally both Australia and the USA are secular nations, even though the Christian faith is widely practiced and is the principal (but not official) religion.

And that is the reason why, other than Dr Ridhuan Tee and his like-minded friends wakakaka, we cannot call ourselves "Malays" but Malaysians, because to be a Malay one has to be a Muslim. Thus religion, not language or customs, separates us.

The customs and traditions of Malaysia, needless to say, are dominated and thus based on mainly the (majority) Malay customs and traditions. Non-Malays don't have any issue with that. But we have to recognize our nation's customs and traditions would not be exclusively Malay customs aand traditions, as I’ve demonstrated by way of the food we eat.

Let me reveal something to be proud of - whenever I informed a new Aussie acquaintance that I'm a Malaysian, the usual reaction I received would be: Wow, you Malaysians are really renowned for your multi-linguistic abilities. Now, wouldn't that be a reflection of our unique and proud Malaysian culture?

I am very disappointed that Bapak Bangsa Malaysia had in recent times written a number of divisive and provocative articles, with his emphasis on Malays and non-Malays, reminding us of our differences rather than our similarities.

He also has a disingenous propensity to (or attempt to) turn the tables against his critics. They described his or Perkasa or Utusan's articles as racist but he'd then claim to the contrary, that those critics were the actual racist in criticising UMNO policies and Perkasa/Utusan concerns.

But, just as an example, isn’t an UMNO government with a known, undeniable and unabashed policy of reserving all top civil and military positions for only Malays racist in nature?

While I can appreciate affirmative action for Malays, I do not see such ethnocentric exclusivity for those positions as an intrinsic part of affirmative action. It’s nothing more than racial marginalization of non-Malays from positions such as Chief Secretary, IGP, Chiefs in the Military, VCs of universities, etc.

That’s a fact, and a very sad one!

Dilemma of an 'Eureka' Commission Chairperson

Dear Diary,

Every time some bloody MPs or ADUNs die, I’m in trouble. Boss wants to win, so I have to be creative, f* bloody creative. Why can’t those bloody MPs and ADUNs be young people, so I only need to kerja kuat once every 5 years?

Maybe I can sneak in a clause that anyone over 60 should not stand as an election candidate. Thank goodness sometimes Mother Nature intervened to help, when we could then direct where the boats should go to pick up voters [what? why Mother Nature? no no lah, I can't, dare not mention His Name swt (you know, like waving a red flag), because ... yes yes, He knows all but I don't want to particularly alert Him to the specific nature of my tasks].

Phantom votes, postal votes, proxy votes, pariah votes, pundee-pordah, pening-lah!

Why can we just stick to the traditional form of cheating, namely gerrymandering and disappearing-reappearing postal boxes?

Karn-neen-nare, [now, doesn't those swear words prove I'm truly 1Malaysian?] Also got to slow down pre-poll registration, make registration forms scarce, shift registered voters around, preferably, if I have my way, from Kota Kinabalu to Ayer Itam (the one in Penang) and vice versa, if only these realignment of voters' districts wasn't that blooming obvious.

Why the f* can’t the NRD people do their bit, like making people’s KP disappear or (as in Sabah) appear, as 'Blue' ones too!

Then got to act 'dunno' about violations of laws when Boss commits them during his campaigns, but jump on Boss’ lawan when they commit same stuff. Blast that woman Ambiga-whats-her-name for highlighting my 'acting dunno'. F*, of course I know but ...

And that Penang bloke got a nerve asking for local council elections. If elected, how to reward 'member' kita ler? I admit most of these snouts-in-trough twerps are super-arseh*le$ and won't have a hope of a snowflake in hell of ever being elected, but Boss punya agenda, so gotta bodek ler.

Tiu!

Goodnight Diary, though I’m still very much awake, thinking of new schemes to show boss. Alamak, what comes after postal and proxy votes? Putu piring polls? [you know that type, bits of brown sugar (and I'n not being racist here), bits of coconut shavings but lots of porous starch!]

If I were the Home Minister

Yo everyone, I'm back ;-)

Have been catching up with the news, and I see lots on HRP, Interlok and the usual police antics.

You know, if I were the Home Minister, I would NOT have permitted the police to jump on HRP as had happened. Instead I would have allowed HRP to protest, rally or rave and rant, do what it wants (short of perpetuating violence). Really, how much political impact could HRP make?

Likewise with other kacang putih protests such as candlelight vigils by small or fringe elements. Much as the participants might be sincere, the likelihood of such protests making political tsunamic waves were minimal. I know the average Malaysian. Most have already made up their minds so such politicking won't change their allegiance. The perceived brutality of the police towards such peaceful rallies would instead evoke sympathies for the poor anehs and tambis.

But then I’m not the Min of Home Affairs. Hishamuddin is.

Why he has allowed (or instructed) the police to come down heavy on those HRP rallies continues to puzzle me? He has played directly into Uthayakumar’s hands, the dumbo (Hisham that is, not Uthayakumar!)

Dear Uty, mandore master, craves attention more than ever, and dumbo Hisham has granted him his very wish.

Just ignore HRP for 6 months and I bet the party will turn out to be nothing more than a public nuisance, shunned by the average Malaysian. Just look at how the Penang government has ignored Uthayakumar’s attention-craving raves and rants. And how Pakatan has ignored his bullying blackmailing threats for 30 seats or HRP would split the Indian votes.

Thinking …

Now, if I were Home Minister, I would do a number of things quite differently.

For a start, I would place Hisham in Kem Kamunting wakakaka. But why? Being vindictive? No, no, no …

It’s actually to protect the good name and reputation of his illustrious dad and granddad. Hisham is an absolute disgrace to Tun Hussein and the magnificent Onn Jaafar. Usually the acorn doesn’t fall far from the oak tree but this particular acorn must have kicked itself wakakaka right across the field, into the cesspool.

Secondly … hmmm, maybe tomorrow ler ... ;-)

The yucky's

Dear readers, help kaytee on this.

I’m not sure whether I can continue to stand the yucky stuff on the media. I need to ‘boycott’ reading the muck. But my problem is there are so many yucky stuff, and for practical reasons I can’t afford to avoid all of them as I still need to read the news, yucky as some may be.

So if you can help me decide which is the yuckiest, I’ll avoid that one.

OK then, which of the following do you consider to be the pits:

(1) The sodomy case where each day we are cursed with yucky descriptions of peri-anal swabs, no-shit for 2 days, arse-holes, semen stains, genitals/rectal regions, oral bee-bop-a-lula, football team shagalag specimens, and other various shitty (pun not intended) stuff. Just f* spoil my appetite.

(2) The sleazy shameful sinful lies of Penang UMNO and its cohorts, those wishful wannabe (UMNO) wankers, against the current Penang Pakatan government. Most have been sheer fabrications. Don't they realize that Allah swt won't be pleased with their blatant lies for secular (political) purposes? One example has been the manufactured and instigated furore against a non-issue, a new exco portfolio to handle non-Islamic religious affairs, a portfolio exactly similar to the one the current Perak BN government had already set up.

Why don't those wishful wannabe (UMNO) wankers go over to Perak to make noise against their mate Zambry, and remain there! wakakaka.

(3) The pile of shit that’s called the PKFZ corruption scandal has been fermenting, rising and stinking to high heavens since the change of MCA Transport Minister, from Ong Tee Keat to CSL's buddy, Kong Chu Ha.

After Ong had the multi-billion dollar scandal investigated, he adopted the advice of external professional bodies and implemented several reform mechanisms, such as:

(a) an internal whistle-blower policy,
(b) requirement for contract bidders to sign an integrity pact, and
(c) most importantly, the appointment of three independent directors on the PKA board to ensure its integrity and competency. The independence of these directors can be assured if the minister stays clear of their appointment, but acts on the recommendation of the Board.

There are now deep concerna that these measures may be gradually dropped off particularly on the three independent directors.

Out of the original 3 independent directors, only one is left; one left for a new appointment while another, M Rajasingam, saw his term expired in November last year. When the Board recommended that Rajasingam be re-appointed, the new Transport Minsiter inexplicably refused.

Malaysiakini reported: Transparency International Malaysia president Paul Low, who chaired the PKA ad-hoc committee on governance, said Kong's decision has defeated the purpose of having independent director, averring:

"We (the committee) defined the independent director as someone recommended by the board without influence by the minister."

Shit all around!

RCI on Teoh's death - 9 inches could possibly be 11.5 inches?

In the RCI on Teoh Beng Hock’s mysterious death in the Selangor MACC building while the deceased was there (supposedly) as a witness in an alleged RM2,500 corruption case against his boss, a DAP ADUN, Selangor police forensic expert Chief Inspector Mazli Jusoh testified he found no evidence that Teoh had jumped to his death.

Golly be, this naturally shifted the spotlight on a cause of possible murder, manslaughter or, at the very least, an act of God.

But today, The Malaysian Insider reported:

Ultra-violet light showed a shoeprint on the window frame of the building where Teoh Beng Hock fell to his death, the royal commission of inquiry (RCI) heard today. DSP Sharul Othman Mansor who was part of the police forensic crime scene investigation team said he found a nine-inch shoeprint on the window frame on the 14th floor of Plaza Masalam Shah Alam.

Conducting officer Kwan Li Sa then pointed out that since the length of Teoh’s shoe was 11.5 inches (based on Sharul’s measurements of the court exhibit at the inquiry), that fact eliminated the shoeprint as belonging to Teoh.

But RCI chairman James Foong rejected that conclusion, chiding Kwan: “It is not your duty to prove one thing or another. It could be the shoe is slightly longer or concentrated part is shorter.”

A reader of The Malaysian Insider commented that Foong, in dismissing the conducting officer's point, sounded like he was cross examining the conducting officer.

But thank god in all his infinite wisdom that we are blessed with an observant still-serving judge as chairman of the RCI. Kaytee would have said the same thing as Kwan, that a 9 inch shoeprint obviously would not have belonged to a 11 inch size shoe. It does seem the logical conclusion to arrive at. But then, I’m not a judge so what the f* do I know!

RCI = Regrettable Conflict of Interest?

The Malaysian Insider - Teoh’s family boycotts RCI.

What can I say for the prestige and various expected values of a RCI when the Teoh family, who had pushed so hard for its formation, now withdraws in protest at the decision of the Chairperson to allow officers from the AG’s Office to serve as conducting officers?

The AG has recently lodged an appeal against the coronial inquest's open verdict, asserting that Teoh Beng Hock's death was suicide. Yet the RCI has confounded us by accepting officers from the AG's Office, an interested party in the cause of Teoh's death, as conducting officers for the inquiry into Teoh's still unexplained death.

The conflict of interest is so bloody obvious that I am amazed (on second thoughts, maybe not) that regardless of the personal integrity of those officers from the AG's Office, surely James Foong, the Chair of the RCI, would have heard of that old adage “Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done”, but yet has not only persisted in using members of the AG's staff but also rejected the Teoh family's appeal on this very grave issue.

Alas, so in his inexplicable decision, justice now won't be seen to be done, as it ought to be. His decision to disregard the Teoh family’s concerns over the obvious, glaring and flagrant ‘conflict of interest’ flies in the face of convention, perceptions of fairness and raises deep concerns about the RCI itself.

This regrettably comes after the Teoh family’s unsuccessful appeal for the RCI to include 4 additional personalities of the highest caliber and integrity. No, they didn’t ask for Lim Kit Siang or kaytee. In an earlier post RCI for Teoh BH's death - Najib fighting against public perception I wrote:

The Teoh family after consulting 126 NGOs had earlier proposed (a) former national police chief Tun Hanif Omar, (b) former Bar Council president Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan, (c) former Court of Appeal judge NH Chan, and (d) former Deputy Prime Minister Tun Musa Hitam. But Najib has failed to appoint even one of them to the RCI. Why?

Surely these four are Malaysian luminaries with impeccable credentials and reputations of integrity, with even an UMNO man in Musa Hitam. The only person, also of exceptional integrity and courage, former Justice NH Chan, may perhaps be seen by the Najib administration as being anti-government. If that is the case, kaytee suggests he be replaced by former Justice Gopal Sri Ram, who is also retired.

Most right thinking people would understand and support fully the decision of the Teoh family to withdraw from participating in the RCI.

Besides, as I also wrote in the same post, quoting The Malaysian Insider’s editorial Ensuring justice for Teoh Beng Hock:

All those named to the panel headed by Federal Court judge Tan Sri James Foong are people who are still serving in the government service. None are from outside the service as has been done in previous royal panels. Justice must be seen to be done. So it is hard to understand why no representative from the Bar Council or respected individuals are on the panel.

In other words, people who could (and the public suspicion is, they would) be beholden to the government, as the magistrate of the inquest, the government pathologists and the police have been suspected by the public to be, rightly or wrongly. And the street axiom about “never hold an inquiry unless you already know the finding” is already running wild among the public. Such is the public distrust of the BN government.

The Malaysian Insider’s editorial continues:

Perhaps it’s too early to judge the panel but the collection of judges, former judges and civil servants will have to show that they are interested in giving justice for Teoh Beng Hock, his family, the MACC and the country.

The thing is in the US, Australia and the United Kingdom, the presence of judges or former judges guarantees independence and impartiality. Unfortunately the judiciary in Malaysia has been under a dark cloud since 1988. Thus there is a danger that justice might not be served. This is something for the Najib administration to consider.

The editorial said exactly what has been on our minds.

Today The Malaysian Insider’s editorial Seeing justice done for Teoh Beng Hock ripostes succinctly to James Foong’s pompous statement to the Teoh family on Monday when he plain refused their appeal to change conducting officers: “Do not forget this is far bigger and wider in scope than just you and your family. The whole nation wants the truth. This inquiry is not just to appease you.”

The editorial stated: “True. This inquiry is not just to appease the family or to pay lip service to the pursuit of justice. It is more than that. It is about a country taking all the necessary steps to ensure no one ever goes in for questioning alive and leaves dead again.”

That's precisely what Ong Tee Keat (former MCA president) wrote in a letter to Malaysiakini, stating:

The loss of life, especially while in the custody of government enforcement officials, is always a serious matter of public concern.

There cannot be no answers for this particular case.

It's simply not acceptable that one can die in the MACC's custody without knowing what had happened.

Teoh voluntarily stepped into the Selangor Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC)'s office to give a statement as a witness. He failed to come out alive, while under MACC's custody.

And The Malaysian Insider concluded that: “The Teohs walked out today because they are not sure if justice will be served For Teoh Beng Hock and for Malaysia.”

Indeed and Amin to that.

Haris Ibrahim's MCLM candidates - a threat to Azmin Ali?

Why is MCLM offering its de-frog-itized candidates to only PKR but not DAP or PAS, or for that matter, the BN?

It’s not just a matter of minimising the froggie tendency of recent (and perhaps among existing) PKR politicians, but also of ensuring the credentials and competency of the PKR candidates for the next general election are up to speed.

Haris Ibrahim, conceptualizer and prime mover of MCLM’s current program to vet and offer PKR a list of 30 de-frog-itized and highly qualified candidates for PKR, has often voiced his utter amazement at PKR (in fact more Anwar Ibrahim’s personal) choice of candidates in the last election.

The prime example Haris had raised was Loh Gwo Burne, a person ‘renowned’ for his fame of “14 minutes from (video) photographer to parliamentarian” – for more of this ’14 minutes’ see my post Bahasa Mělayu - a letter to Yang Běrhormat wakakaka.

Anwar Ibrahim ‘invited’ him at the eleventh hour to stand in the Kelana Jaya federal seat. Haris challenged PKR to justify Loh’s nomination (though wakakaka, very successful election as the federal representative for Kelana Jaya) – see Haris’ PKR, why, why, why?

To be fair to Loh, he has remained faithful to PKR despite gibes and jeers that he would leapfrog over to BN. Loh also redeemed himself somewhat (though not to the anwaristas wakakaka) when he wrote a letter to Malaysiakini lambasting Azmin Ali during the party’s recent poll. Incidentally, Loh also was punched in the face by one of Anwar’s faithfuls during an argument on what I remember (vaguely) to be a squatter issue, so perhaps he might have shown some passion in his duties as a federal MP to earn the wrath (and fist) of his party colleague ;-).

We all know, and PKR members themselves do too, that the party is the weakest link in Pakatan Rakyat, with its problems mainly self-induced. A significant part of these problems has been due to its inability to sever itself completely from its UMNO past, practices and proclivities.

Haris obviously has an interest in seeing PKR develop into a party that is not a mere clone of UMNO, as it currently is (with a small appendix formerly called PRM, thanks to Dr Syed Husin’s misguided belief in Anwar Ibrahim’s reformasi).

This has been why, as reported by The Malaysian Insider in its Toe party line to get our seats, says PKR: “MCLM said that its candidates will decide on issues based on their conscience rather than the coalition’s consensus”.

However, I wonder why MCLM refers to the “coalition’s consensus” when it has been PKR it is worried about. Surely if the coalition, namely Pakatan, has reached a consensus, what then would be the issues which would so concern MCLM that its 30 candidates would vote on their conscience?

I can understand MCLM’s concerns with PKR, but what possible common grounds that DAP, PAS and PKR might have that could possibly worry MCLM? Can anyone help shed some light on Haris’s thoughts on this?

Meanwhile, Rafizi Ramli, PKR chief strategist, voiced his wariness of accepting MCLM-offered candidates because it wanted to avoid making the same “mistake” of 2008 where it had picked candidates who could not withstand the pressure and challenges of being a lawmaker".

But that’s precisely why MCLM is offering PKR 30 good and vetted candidates, because the reality is PKR is just incapable of selecting good candidates - a proven fact!

I’ve not an iota of doubt each and every MCLM-offered candidates will definitely be far superior in all respects to those erstwhile PKR MPs and members who defected to the BN, people like Zahrain. Tell me Rafizi, how far worse can MCLM’s candidate be compared to those your party had? When you’re at rock bottom, the only way has to be up! So, stop giving poor excuses.

Rafizi then went on to shoot his foot by stating: “While we are open to suggestions, the candidates must subscribe to our struggle. We are a political party with structure and rules. We have already gone through a painful experience with the ‘frogs’ where in the past we took people who were less experienced and they jumped at the first given opportunity. What was missing was the appreciation of the party struggle.”

This was precisely the reason some PKR leaders (those in the Anwar-Azmin camp) gave in supporting Azmin Ali as the preferred deputy presidential candidate over Zaid Ibrahim – essentially a ‘no’ to parachutist but 101% to those who ‘came though the reformasi struggle’.

But alas, not unlike our amazing judiciary, where on one day, white is right while on the next, black is correct, PKR has shown its double-standard cakap ta’serupa bikin in the Gobalakrishnan versus Surendran case. Nothing against innocent Surendran, but wouldn’t Gobalakrishnan be the one who had subscribed faithfully to the party struggle for the last 15 years? For more, see my posts The Poison within PKR - Part III and Gobalakrishnan leaves the poison behind.

So, Rafizi, what do you have to say? Your words have been totally inconsistent to the way your party has ill treated Gobalakrishnan.

But why is there this hypocritical UMNO-like bullsh*tting double-standard inconsistency?

Simple – because poor Gobala didn’t support Azmin Ali. He was in Zaid Ibrahim’s camp. And refusal to support Azmin Ali is not an acceptable status in PKR. Recall the furore over its party’s recent polling process, where there were 162 complaints about polling irregularities in the party race for the deputy president's position, but there was nary a twitch from the JPP PKR, the party body which is supposed to manage the party polls but which surrendered that management to ..... you can work that out!

Worse, and the absolute pits, there was the shameful silence of its President Dr Wan Azizah to Jonson Chong’s immaculate letter of appeal – see Dr Wan Azizah ignores Jonson Chong's plea?

Haris Ibrahim praised Jonson for his constructive approach but alas, not so Dr Wan as she ignored him completely - yes, we would like to know whether Dr Wan had even replied to Jonson?

Why did a party president ignore a constructive proposal from a sensible, fair and balanced gentleman like Jonson Chong which would have put to rest all complaints if the polls had been conducted fairly, unless of course she …..

Since that day, my once-respect for the lady plummeted to zilch. Yes, she may be a nice and kind lady but she is not fit to be the president of a political party.

So it’s hardly surprising Azmin Ali and Rafizi Ramli (no doubt supported by Anwar Ibrahim) have worriedly brought out ‘loyalty’ re the MCLM-offered candidates, meaning they don’t want them because they might not be (gasp gawd omigosh) loyal to Azmin Ali.

Speculative footnote: For Loh Gwo Burne who's no doubt in Azmin Ali's black book, I suspect his future candidacy for Kelana Jaya (or any other post – perhaps Pekan, wakakaka)) may well depend on the size of his dad’s contribution to PKR funds (which incidentally is NOT illegal). But in all likelihood, he will be what I said in my earlier post Loh Gwo Burne & Gobala - one-term MPs?

Visionary betrayed by himself

Malaysiakini - Private varsity 'squanders' RM100 mil gov't grant

If you read the above MIKINI article you will see that the wannabe-premier postgraduate technical university of Malaysia, named by the exciting inspiring acronym of MUST (Malaysian University of Science and Technology) was a concept conceived by Dr Mahathir when he visited the world famed Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

As I have written before, Dr Mahathir as PM was a visionary. Certainly MUST like the Multimedia Super Corridor, etc were worthy projects. But alas, a visionary or strategist’s concept could only be realized if he had the correct and competent people or staff to put flesh to his idea.

Many had been the times Dr Mahathir was let down by his blue-eyed boys. Remember MAS, Sime Darby, BIMB? Hey, in fact, once Anwar Ibrahim too was one of his blue-eyed boys wakakaka.

Let me share with you a couple of other stories that I heard recently from my elders during the Chinese New Year celebrations. I have no idea whether they’re true, but hear me out anyway ;-)

Once upon a time wakakaka, it was said that Dr Mahathir, when he became PM, was downright pissed off with the way the development and beautification of Kuala Lumpur was going. He saw so many f*ups that his blood pressure must have shot up with such force it would have easily escaped Earth’s gravitational pull.

I bet he must have been grinding his teeth at the thought of LKY down south nyah-nyah-nyah-ing him. Obviously in those days, when one talked about the ‘greening’ of a modern city, Singapore would have been a prime model. And there was nothing that pissed Dr M off more than for KL to be upstaged by that (to him) f*ing lil’ red dot down south wakakaka.

Things came to such a frustrating stage for him that it was said he hired a bus (aircon, of course wakakaka) and ordered the top KL civil servants including the Datuk Bandar into it. He then went around KL with himself in the role of (let’s put it in simple terms) a ‘tour guide’. As he passed each place or item of f*up in the greening/beautification program he would lecture his public service ‘generals’ on where they had gone wrong and how they should have done it correctly.

One related incident I still remember from the recent CNY gossip was Dr M’s admonition to the person in charge of greening the city. Words to the effect, he said that if one wanted to plant a tree or plant in a city, one should have the commonsense to choose a tree or plant which didn’t continuously shed its leaves off as that would have required more cleaning up.

When I was a kid I hated the star fruit (belimbing) tree in my garden. That arboreal monster shed and shed and shed its leaves everyday to my utter frustration, disgust and despair, because as the only kid left in my household I had the responsibility of sweeping the leaves each and every evening, finally escaping the Sisyphean ordeal only after I left home for KL when I completed my schooling.

Thus, if the story is true, Dr M was very correct in his admonition of the civil servant. Why add on unnecessarily to the cleaning cost and the untidy look of KL, when a little thought in selecting the correct plant could have help? But it’s a reflection of the lack of competency in his officers. The man had to turun padang himself to provide detailed directions. How many Dr M's would we need to spoon feed his underlings?

Another story gleaned from the gossip – again, I’m not sure whether it’s true but let’s treat it just like a story for the moment.

One day (or, once upon a time wakakaka) when Dr M went to America (which part is not important) he saw something he thought interesting and possibly useful for Malaysia. It was a Grumman Albatross (designation HU-16), a seaplane, taking off and landing on a lake.

The story went that Dr M thought such a plane could be used to land on, say, the Ringlet lake, and take off from there. He was always thinking of new ways to expand on the mode of transportation. So I presume he must have mentioned this to a staff.

So the staff went about his or her way (could it be a young 'no-crucifix' HK? wakakaka – well, a clone then) into getting ('ordering' was more like it) the TUDM to operate a couple of seaplanes. But this is the stupid part - it was not any modern seaplanes (say, like the Donier Seastar) but the Grumman Albatross, yes, that HU-16.

Just ponder on that moronic buy, or robotic mindlessness of the staff, because the Grumman Albatross was developed and produced in 1949, with its production ending in 1961. The last flight by the Americans was made in 1976.

Our southern neighbour Indonesia who had a few in its air force (or navy) had by then consigned theirs to the scrap yard long before the two HU-16’s were ordered by our Wonder for the TUDM sometime after mid-1980, a quarter of a century after production of the plane had ended.

Did those Yanks sell us some leftovers from their war museum, or more likely, a scrap yard? So, imagine how successfully(?) the TUDM operated those WWII relics? My Unc heard one nearly sank at sea but was fortuitously rescued by a RMN vessel which came upon the HU-16 wannabe-submarine and towed it back to land, wakakaka. I bet the Indonesian Air Force must have had a good laugh at Malaysian stupidity.

All these stories, if true, tell us that while Dr Mahathir had great vision and good ideas he was severely let down in the implementation by his so-called ‘generals’.

The MUST debacle is merely another example of poor implementation to a great idea by Dr M.

But in the final analysis, Dr M must bear the greater responsibility because he failed in the 3 necessary steps to ensure his ideas brought forth the correct fruit, namely:

(a) have the correct and competent people to implement his ideas or vision,

(b) ensure they conduct their business in accordance with good practice, governance and ethics, and

(c) most important of all, hold the implementers totally accountable.

Had he ever? Just think Tajudin, former CEO of MAS!

Anwar's Indian bid - too little too late

The Malaysian Insider - Anwar in bid to win back Indian support.

Nallakaruppan, Jenapala, Gobalakrishnan, etc!

A stupid case of stopping the Indian temple bells from ringing (in PKR), as Anwar had threatened when he was DPM.

But I reckon his survival-driven bid, galvanized by the recent collapse of his Sabah house of cards, may be too little too late. Anwar’s dream of Putrajaya is becoming more of a nightmare.

As I had mentioned in my 3-part The Poison within PKR, that so long as Anwar Ibrahim blindly supports Azmin Ali to the extent of unfairly sweeping the latter’s competitors aside or stacking the odds up for Azmin’s supporters, this poisonous policy will eventually destroy his party.

The lamentable Sabah situation for his party is yet another case of this poison. Does anyone really believe Dr Wan Azizah has her heart in settling the Sabah issue, or the ability to do so? She’s nothing more than a puppet of either Anwar or Azmin, or both. The poison continues to prevail.

The Anwar-Azmin poison has affected more than just the Indians. Zaid Ibrahim has been the biggie, but soon we may see Jonson Chong, Chegubard and other good people leaving the ‘party-for-two’ in sheer frustration, as Zaid Ibrahim and Gobalakrishnan, the latter once his biggest supporter, had recently done.

And then Anwar doesn’t have to worry about stopping the Indian temple bells from ringing, because there won’t be any Indians (including a number of good non-Indians) in PKR anymore.

The 'Extra-Milers'

In Malaysiakini’s Ex-US envoy launches broadside at M'sia's racism we read of former US Ambassador to Malaysia, John Malott, shooting down Najib’s 1Malaysia as a policy reeking with hypocrisy, when the PM failed to unreservedly repudiate the many racist-bigoted incidents/utterances conducted or perpetuated by his UMNO colleagues, media mouths or staff.

But the one which most shamed me, yes me!, was the instruction that no crucifix be displayed at the residence of the Catholic archbishop of Kuala Lumpur when Najib visited the cleric during a Christmas Day open house.

The person who issued that instruction was a top Najib aide, Hardev Kaur, though she claimed that she 'had made it clear that it was a request and not an instruction'.

But for f* sake, no crucifix in a Catholic archbishop's house? Where did she f* come from?

John Malott sneered at her excuse, questioning the ridiculous notion that any Malaysian would or could say no to a request from the prime minister's office.

Though I was ashamed by our ‘country woman’ for her totally needless & moronic 'extra mile', way way way beyond the 'call of duty', in reality I wasn’t surprised. It’s the non-Malay aides of Malay ministers who would be more likely to try to do such stupid things to either please or 'protect' the boss.

She reminds me of a certain DNA Denier who always write “Kita Melayu ...”. when the more appropriate (& far more dignified) declaration for him should have been 'Kita orang Muslim ...'.

Just bloody make the hair on my neck stand up, but alas, these 'nons' just love to go that 'extra mile'.

Bangsa Malaysia & bangsa malaysia

Tun Dr Mahathir was the Father of Bangsa Malaysia or 'Bapa Bangsa Malaysia'. We Malaysians like to confer our leaders with ‘Father’ of this and that. Tunku was ‘Bapa Merdeka’, Razak was ‘Bapa Pembangunan’, etc. Maybe Anwar Ibrahim hopes to be a ‘Bapa’ something too wakakaka.

But alas, when our Bapa Bangsa Malaysia talks about a national identity, where all Malaysians would be able to identify themselves with the country, speak Bahasa and accept the Constitution (presumable Article 153), he actually has many categories of Bangsa Malaysia in mind.

Initially, he wanted to create an inclusive national identity for all Malaysian citizens, full stop.

When the concept of Tun's Bangsa Malaysia was raised some years ago, the Johor MB, Ghani, was furiously against it, insisting that the Malays must continue to be the ‘pivotal’ race, whatever that word means, though of course we know Ghani’s concerns (and those of many others in UMNO) about Malays continuing to hold key positions in the Malaysian political leadership, such as PM, DPM, Finance Minister and various crucial ministries, and the most important part (his crucial concerns), that the gravy train steams jolly fully forward for selected UMNO members.

Well, after all, Dr Mahathir himself admitted that UMNO today is just a party of contracts.

Then last year Dr Mahathir qualified his call for a Bangsa Malaysia. As I recall, he said his concept of Bangsa Malaysia had been premised on the Malays doing well, when he then claimed they hadn’t. In other words or rather his words, Malaysia’s social-economic situation wasn’t ripe yet for the implementation of Bangsa Malaysia. Malays must continue to have special privileges and benefit from the official socio-economic engineering program.

It would seem then that he came to agree with MB Ghani about the latter's pivotal race.

But then, when will Malaysia's socio-economic situation be ripe for the acceptance and emergence of his wonderful Bangsa Malaysia?

No one knows, nor will there ever be an agreement on the achievement of that nirvana-like socio-economic state, because it all depends on the Malay share of the economic cake.

Unfortunately, the fact on Malay economic equity has been yo-yo-ing from a measly 19% to well over 45% and down again, depending on who made the assessments.

It’s no point arguing who had been right or who was bullsh*tting, because politics rather than statistics have dictated that Malay share of the economic kueh is still low, and therefore the NEP must continue.

Thus the less-than-happy socio-economic assessment, according to the gospel by Dr Mahathir, requires that the concept of Bangsa Malaysia be postponed further.

But wait, he has now changed his mind. The Malaysian Insider just reported in its Malaysia is Tanah Melayu, says Dr M that Dr Mahathir is revisiting that rather smelly ikan kembong called Bangsa Malaysia. Apprently he wants to have his cake and eat it as well.

Wondrously and wonderfully (well, initially) Dr Mahathir asserted that “… non-Malays must accept the concept of “Bangsa Malaysia” (Malaysian nation) to help strengthen national unity. … the communities must place country before race and identify themselves as Malaysians.”

Yay! High-5's!

But alas, he then spoiled it when he qualified the above noble aspiration. The Malaysian Insider quoted him as saying that Malaysians (presumably non-Malays) today must accept/admit that the country belongs to the Malays. He reminded us that Malaysia used to be called Tanah Melayu.

Hmmm, I wonder how Sabahans and Sarawakians would say? Besides, I thought Malaysia would belong to Malaysians, all Malaysians [sigh].

He urged non-Malays to accept the culture and language of the dominant community, which I personally believe that’s not only okay but already a given. I love wearing my sarong and eating nasi lemak, and certainly look forward to dating some sarong-kebaya-ed nyonyas (or nonas in Indonesian, which defines nyonyas as married women).

Then he launched into that old tired argument that the Malays gave the Chinese and Indians citizenship because they expected the communities to respect Malay sovereignty. Thank goodness he didn't use the 'grateful' word.

But what does he mean by ‘Malay sovereignty’?

The rulers? No problem, I sembah their HRH with utmost respect and loyalty.

But I suspect he wants the non-Malays to accept that the rights, privileges and whatever of Malays must take precedence over nons. Something like what is/was practised in Israel, White Zimbabwe and White South Africa? Okay, maybe not as bad, but certainly we can forget about equality.

In other words, there are Bangsa Malaysia and (in lower cases or uncapitalised) bangsa malaysia.

But he said: [the] Malays will feel less threatened if the country adopts the concept of Bangsa Malaysia. Former Philippine President Corazon Cory Aquino is Chinese but she identified herself as a Filipino. Former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is Chinese but he speaks the Thai language and lives the Thai culture.

It is different in Malaysia. We still introduce ourselves according to our race. This is why the question of race will continue to haunt us.

I have to admit he’s right in the above second paragraph, but alas, Tun didn’t probe a bit deeper and ask why so?

Tun, I think the answer for you lies in fact in the above first paragraph, where ethnic Chinese like Corazon Cory Aquino and Thaksin Shinawatra could become the top political leaders of their respective countries.

Could that happen in Malaysia?

As Tun had alluded, there are Bangsa Malaysia and bangsa malaysia [sigh again].

The more cynical political observers have analysed his pitch to the non-Malays, particular the Chinese after the Tenang by-election showed that BN-UMNO, even in its (MCA) heartland have lost Chinese support. They suspected Tun has strategized, in an apparent willingness to accord a common national identity to the nons but one which would be spelt with lower cases - bangsa malaysia.

PKR - a sinking ship?

Today I feel like having a bit of PKR bashing, mind you, not Anwar bashing but PKR bashing wakakaka! Apart from Anwar Ibrahim, PKR was noticeably conspicious by its absence in Tenang. This party is in deep disarray, and I don't have an iota of sympathy for it.


The Malaysian Insider - Azmin says Tenang a victory over MCA

Now, since when has he appointed himself as Pakatan spokesperson?


The Malaysian Insider - Pakatan wants local elections in KL

My dear Tian Chua, considering your party is in deep spin (downwards), shouldn't you be focussing on far more important things than to ask for the currently impossible? Incidentally, when were you appointed to speak on behalf of Pakatan?


Malaysiakini - PKR goes on a roadshow to repair dented image

So … attempting to close the stable doors after the horses (Zaid, Gobala, and soon a few more) have bolted! How about first answering the complaints about the party polling irregularities by Chegubard, Jonson Chong and Mustaffa Kamil, if not those by Gobala and Zaid? And what about the Jenapala scandal?


Malaysia-Today - The sour grapes syndrome

RPK wrote: Whenever anyone resigns from PKR or Pakatan Rakyat, the opposition supporters always say it is because these people are ex-Umno or ex-Barisan Nasional people; so what do you expect? These ex-Umno or Ex-BN people are not reliable or honest and eventually they betray the opposition cause and go back to their old party, is the argument we are given. Does this argument apply to all ex-Umno or ex-BN people in the opposition who are yet to leave the opposition to go back to the ruling party?

Wakakaka … see my related post Gobalakrishnan leaves the poison behind

The truth behind the US' Egyptian nightmare

The US Administration had hoped Mubarak would continue to remain in power, which lead Hilary Clinton to foolishly say something she must now be regretting: "Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people."

Stable? Yeah, as stable as a pyramid made of jelly!

Now those US authorities are weaving and weaseling their way around the Egyptian imbroglio. As the Chinese would say, those Yanks have each foot on a different papyrus sampan.

They still hope for Mubarak to come up tops but realizing that is a fast fading dream they are now ready to dump him for, best case scenario, another strong man to ensure US-Egyptian business runs as normal, and worst case scenario, to ingratiate themselves into the good books of the revolutionary forces as a beacon of freedom and democracy which had 'supported' them, yes, the type of 'freedom and democracy' they had allowed their strong man Mubarak to demonstrate in the last 30+ years.

Why all these farce? Why not truly support local democratic forces? Silly question, because the Americans had and will never care about freedom or democracy for the people of the Middle-East – for examples , consider Iran under their local strong man the late Shah, Iraq under their buddy Saddam Hussein, Afghanistan under their bosom friends the Talibans, Saudi Arabia and Jordan under their clients the respective rulers, and today their nominated and propped up local dictators in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On the other side of the coin, the Americans have demonized two true democratic forces there, Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which came to power genuinely through the ballot boxes. So much for the US hypocritical call for democracy.

The answer to the American hypocrisy can be summarized in one word, Israel.

They’re worried about the fall of Mubarak only because of Israel’s security.

For the last 30 odd years, since post Yom Kippur War of 1973, the Yanks have pumped at least 2 plus billion dollars per annum into Egypt (4 billions for Israel) to ensure the Egyptians remain in its pocket. That’s to ensure Israel could enjoy its ‘peace’ with Egypt.

Egypt is the only Arab nation which has the potential to cause grief to Israel. In 1973 in the Yom Kippur War it came close to defeating Israel. It was reported that Golda Meir was already contemplating suicide.

Alas, the Egyptian army then, under an innovative commander, while having an impressive start, failed in its finishing – typically of the Malaysian ‘style mahu, kalah ta’apa’.

There were many reasons analyzed for its poor finishing, but suffice to say, with a better trained Israeli army and massive infusion of American aid via its Operations Nickel Grass, using the formidable USAF Strategic Airlift Command, the USA poured weapons such as F4 fighter-bomber aircraft, tanks, advanced (then) weapons such as Maverick, Tow etc, into an embattled Israel. That turned the tide. Golda Meir personally awarded each pilot of the USAF Airlift Command an award.

Ops Nickel Grass

The prioritization of Israel's needs over its own (American) interests in Vietnam, as demonstrated in Ops Nickel Grass, nearly brought about the near-resignation of then United States chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) General George Brown.

Wikipedia said: Brown was reportedly livid that American weapons and munitions were being sent to a foreign country at the same time that the American command in Vietnam was protesting a lack of supplies in its theater of operations.

Maybe the US would not have suffered as many as 58,000 dead in Vietnam if those weapons had gone there instead?

That’s the lamentable story of the USA vis-à-vis Israel, such as witnessed in its recent sacrifice of over 4,000 young American lives and several thousands wounded to fight an Iraqi war (Gulf War II), ostentatiously against Saddam's non-existent WMD, then the hypocrisy about 'regime change', for oil as a second dupliticious mask (to fool its own American people), but in reality, deep in the heart of its agenda (as manipulated by the American neocon Zionists), purely for Israel’s regional interests.

It very nearly and foolishly did that again with Iran, until the American military advised against getting embroiled in Iran. But it's not off the hook yet on this one. The Israelis and their American supporters have a way of getting what they want from the US Administration, and they want Iran emasculated like Iraq, the two nations in the region (when Iraq was under Saddam) with the money, will, and hatred of Israel to cause Israel sleepless nights.

It’s all about Israel. That’s the millstone around each American Administration, perhaps forever. I had hoped President Obama would be different from previous US presidents but alas, he is in many respects worse than them.