Where's Nathaniel Tan when he's needed?

Last month PKR's Nathaniel Tan wrote lots of bullshit against Lim Guan Eng. But hey, it's to be expected of him as an PKR-ista who like most PKR-ista hates DAP (and I'm merely using his usual weapon of accusing others of hating Anwar Ibrahim, wakakaka).

DAP's loss is my loss

wakakaka

Note I now call him a PKR-ista instead of an Anwarista because he has fallen out of love with the Man in Bamboo River. He now sucks up to those in PKR top echelon - sorry, 'sucks up' is an unfair exaggeration and I apologize - let's put it better by saying he's totally committed to PKR politics, no matter how nasty they were, are and will be - in other words, he has blind-as-bat loyalty for PKR.

And just as an example of that loyalty or more correctly, stupidity, Nat recorded such a blind-as-bat black mark in his Malaysiakini’s September 2008 article for advocating and justifying Anwar’s frog-ology, where I wrote as follows:

... towards the end of his article, Nathaniel put in his bid for Anwar Ibrahim. He wrote appealingly: One controversial option to forestall any such drastic measures by the powers-that-be is for Malaysians to push for a change of government – either by crossovers, or calling for a snap general election (a potential last resort for BN, which is good for democracy, but unlikely to forestall the ruling coalition's demise).

In other words, Nathaniel was shockingly justifying and asking the public to support the insidious political frog-hunting which Anwar had successfully demonstrated as his specialty way back in Sabah in 1994 when he as DPM and thus BN's director of election campaign in Sabah, turned Pairin from democratically elected CM into opposition leader with just a few croaks, yes, that disgraceful deformasi subversion of the ballot box to seize power via the grubby back door.

Nat Tan apologetically rationalized, attempting to fool his own conscience and values: While less than ideal, these remain some of the few ways we can avoid a descent into chaos and desperation within BN, and by extension within Malaysia.

Less than ideal? F**k, that's deformasi of the most grubby kind.

And now a parallel tale from Anwar Ibrahim’s favourite author who had, in Anwar’s own words, succoured him while he was in prison: 

... Hie thee hither, that I may pour my spirits in thine ear, and chastise with the valour of my tongue all that impedes thee from the golden round ... (Macbeth 1.5.25-28)

Macbeth & Lady MacBeth

What does that mean?

We are told that the ambitious Lady Macbeth (who wants to be Queen) said the above to persuade her husband to 'rise above his goodness and accept her evil ways’ if he wanted to succeed.

In other words, she wanted to make Macbeth ashamed of everything in him that was 'preventing' him from being evil enough to be king.

Sounds familiar? It’s certainly vintage Nathaniel Tan in his rationalizing to justify the evil ways taken (frogology, 916, etc) to make Anwar the PM, wakakaka, and that's what I meant by his blind-as-bat devotion to a hopeless PKR.

Oh, he was once labelled as effete snob by Zaid Ibrahim, meaning Nathaniel lives in an ivory tower totally out of touch with us lowly proletariat hoi polloi. Zaid lambasted him as follows (extracts only):

In Nathaniel’s calculus, one has to be blindly loyal at the cost of one’s own principles to qualify as having integrity.

There must be many Nazis that Nathaniel is proud of, seeing as they stood by Hitler to the bitter end. On the other hand, Sir Winston S Churchill must be a spineless party-hopper since he crossed from the Conservatives to the Liberals then back again.

Churchill had many qualities - some good, others bad - but lacking principle or integrity is not one of them.

Who is this pompous writer to go around with his own constructed “integrity-barometer” castigating others for lack of principle? If he wants to test his mettle and is willing to let others measure the level of integrity in his system, then I bid him welcome to the world of politics.

Accusing Zaid of 'lack of principle' and he recently wrote the bullshit about Lim GE, one full of untruths and half-truths? Wakakaka, what a f**king hypocrite.

Just in case you may still wonder what Zaid had meant by ‘effete snob’, well, it means a range of things, but I will attribute to Nathaniel the mildest one, namely, an ‘over-protected elite’, someone who is residing in an Ivory Tower – a dreamer protected by his fortunate accident of birth and thus disconnected with reality or the real world where we less-fortunate-than-him hoi polloi live in, wakakaka.

Incidentally, Nathaniel is the scion of a well-to-do family where he was known to be picky about his food, as once revealed by his ex girl friend, Soon Li Tsin, a one-time Malaysiakini journalist. In July 2007 when he as an Anwarista was confined by the police for a couple of days, Li Tsin was allowed to visit him in the cell with some food (probably a local dish like char koay teow or nasi lemak, wakakaka, but truthfully I don't know), but what I and dozens of bloggers knew from the blog of his erstwhile sweetie was that he asked her instead for gourmet sandwiches, wakakaka.

Gourmet sandwiches ;-) hmmm, maybe he was already living up to his 'effete snob' image, several years before Zaid dug into him. wakakaka.

If you recall my letter to Malaysiakini titled Nathaniel Tan’s cherry-picking and missing the elephant in the room I mentioned how Nathaniel Tan was so supposedly concerned about the DAP maverick in Penang, Teh Yee Cheu, that he (Nathaniel) wrote an article in Malaysiakini slyly, slimily and sarcastically accusing Lim Guan Eng of running Penang like North Korea - see his nasty shitty lil' article titled Will Guan Eng be Dear Leader for life?

Sadly in his article he told us lots of half-truths and also shocking untruths in his vain and desperate hope to convince us Lim GE has become dictatorial as CM Penang and will even be more so if we don't remove him.

He then started hitting Lim GE below the latter's belt and preposterously compared Lim GE's term in office to those of Benito Mussolini, Italy's WWII fascist dictator and Silvio Berlusconi, Italy's recent scandal-ridden PM. What did he have in mind when he selected two of Europe's worst leaders, one from even as far back as WWII, to compare with Lim GE?

But in shameful shocking contrast he studiously remained silent on Mahathir who ran this country for 22 years in a style we have been lamenting on for years since he (supposedly) left office. Neither did Nathaniel Tan even whisper about the reign of Perak's MB Zamry Abdul Kadir who took office around the same period as Lim GE and who is still Perak's MB.

I can understand why a PKR-ista like Nathaniel Tan would attack Lim GE in unfair comparison to Mussolini and Berlusconi but I cannot about his studious and very loud omission of Mahathir - more of this soon, wakakaka.

As for Zamry Abdul Kadir I wonder whether the Perak MB has a bigger shlong than Lim GE such that Nathaniel Tan was shocked into silence about the term of his MB-ship, wakakaka.

In my letter to Malaysiakini, I mentioned that Nathaniel like most PKR people has an invincible prejudice against the DAP, and gave my opinions on his brains-baffling bullshit (B-cube) article about limiting Lim GE's term as CM Penang but, just as one example, not that of Zamry Abdul Kadir as MB of Perak. 

So I expressed some of my concerns for Nathaniel’s biased letter questioning Lim Guan Eng’s tenure as CM of Penang and the proposal to set a term (not time) limit on Lim's CM-ship, brought up recently by a DAP assemblyperson, Teh Yee Cheu. Nat’s thrust is that long tenure in high office lends substance to the old political adage that power corrupts, especially long term power.

He then wrote in his article about the creeping dominance of feudal culture within the [DAP] party and its supporters ..... and his concern for Penang assemblyperson Teh Yee Cheu, who he believed will not be named as a candidate anywhere for anything for the next elections, because Teh had apparently violated DAP party discipline.

I now raise all the above because I'm disappointed Nathaniel Tan has not made even a teeny weeny lil' old squeak about Pak Haji Hadi Awang booting poor Husam Musa out of PAS on grounds that Husam violated party discipline.

Yes indeed, why has Nathaniel Tan been so concerned about DAP's Teh Yee Cheu for violating DAP party discipline (bucking the party's whip) but has totally ignored the plight of Husam Musa for the same allegations of allegedly committing the same offence.

Is Nathaniel a hypocrite or what?

Silent on Mahathir, silent on PAS' rather dictatorial action in botting Husam Musa out. Silent on UMNO's Zamry's reign as MB in Perak.

What's the common denominator in the above three (Mahathir, UMNO, PAS) with Nathaniel Tan of PKR, a party now with a new de facto leader by the name of Azmin Ali?

Wakakaka.

PKR the millstone for DAP

From Malaysiakini:

BN wins Batu Kintang, gets more votes than PKR, DAP combined

8:20PM: DAP candidate Abdul Aziz Isa has conceded defeat in the Batu Kitang seat, where he was fielded at the eleventh hour in retaliation against PKR, following its refusal to budge from five other seats.

In posting on Facebook, Aziz congratulated BN’s Lo Khere Chiang for winning the seat.

"Although I lost with marginal votes but it was a great fight. The battle of the year! This is my first time contesting and I would like to thank to all of our DAP supporters," he said.

Both PKR and DAP have blamed each other for the failure of the seat negotiations.

As of 8.20pm, DAP garnered 4,628 votes, while PKR has 889 votes. The combined votes of both parties still falls short of BN’s 6,494 votes.

.

BN votes = 6494

DAP (4628) + PKR (889) = 5517

BN clear of DAP + PKR combined votes by 977.

However there is no telling what would have been the real majority (or even if BN would have won) if PKR had not played the mischievous spoiler, insisting on getting the seat where the voters favoured DAP far more than PKR.

Indeed, who knows how many voters had given their votes to BN in disgust at the totally unnecessary and shameless scuffle between the two so-called Pakatan allies?

Malaysiakini reported that DAP and PKR have lost all the six seats in which the two Pakatan Harapan allies locked horns following the failure of seat negotiations.

Mind, it's true that Bridget Welsh wrote in Malaysiakini's A 'fixed' result - Sarawak's electoral distortion (extracts only):

There is another dimension of what is going on - gerrymandering. The EC is changing districts and redrawing their lines. The international standard is to follow administrative lines, and not to split communities. Largely in Sarawak this has been done in the past, especially compared to the peninsula. There were exceptions, such as the competitive Bukit Assek seat in Sibu.

Yet, in the last 2015 re-delineation exercise, there was considerable more movement of polling stations outside of boundaries. In seats such as Batu Lintang, Piasau and Tanjong Datu (formerly Kidurong), polling stations were carved as these seats became less Chinese, and to weaken the opposition’s chances (although they are likely to still hold onto these seats). In the case of Batu Lintang, a new seat was created that aimed to give the BN a chance to win around Kuching. This seat, Batu Kitang, is competitive this contest.

Merdeka polls had placed DAP's support in Batu Kitang at 60%, twice that of BN. PKR was estimated at only 8%. But f**king PKR merajuk and brawled like a spoilt brat to get it.

Batu Kitang has 17489 registered voters but the turnout was only 68.7%.

The 8% support that Merdeka polling gave PKR works out to be an estimated 961 votes (based on the 68.7% turnout, as with other stats in this post).

PKR's actual vote count is only 899 or 7.4%, which indicates the Merdeka polling had been reasonably correct, unlike the UUM poll which I commented on in my previous post PKR reaching 'escape velocity' in Batu Kitang? The UUM survey had preposterously put PKR securing a bullshittish 33% support.

But as I said in that post, I don't and cannot rely on the UUM poll apart from the self-confession by PKR that it was made known to (only) PKR by an "unidentified" source, wakakaka, at the eleventh minute, wakakaka again.

DAP's 4628 votes worked out to be 38.5%, not good enough to win nor near the predicted 60%, but decently respectable than the humiliating PKR's 889 votes, especially considering DAP had courageously put a Malay candidate against the BN and PKR Chinese candidates who had hoped to capitalise on the 59% Chinese majority constituency. BN-SUPP succeeded.

But DAP is to be applauded for its courageous multiracial venture, a la Teluk Intan when it stood a young Malay woman against Gerakan party president who alas for Sweetie Dyana Sofya, managed to scrap though.

But in the final analysis, PKR should be f**king proud that it had sabotaged DAP kau kau in 5 other Sarawakian state seats by reneging on the signed agreement between PKR (by Wan Azizah) and DAP, a treacherous act, one so unrepentant that led an angry DAP to step into Batu Kitang as payback.

But in doing so, at least DAP gave BN a fight because if DAP had not stepped in to contest, the BN candidate would have walked away laughing with a won seat uncontested as the PKR candidate would have been disqualified on nomination day, wakakaka.

F**k PKR.

PKR reaching 'escape velocity' in Batu Kitang?

MM Online - Study shows PKR leading DAP in Batu Kitang, but BN beats both

KUCHING, May 5 ― A new survey by Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) found PKR’s candidate was preferred in Batu Kitang over that of its ally DAP, the former said today.

Citing the survey carried out just after nomination day, PKR said its candidate, Voon Shiak Ni, was favoured by 33 per cent of respondents, ahead of the 31 per cent who chose DAP's Abdul Aziz Isa.

The poll showed, however, that Barisan Nasional candidate Lo Khere Chang beat both at 35 per cent. One independent registered an 11 per cent approval.

“The survey, conducted from April 27 to May 1, is authentic and we have no reason to dispute it,” PKR communication director Fahmi Fadzil told reporters in a daily briefing.

“The survey was conducted independently and without our knowledge. The result was handed to us by persons we do not want to identify,” he said.

He said the result proved Sarawak DAP chairman Chong Chieng Jen was wrong in saying that 48 per cent of the voters interviewed by an independent research group Merdeka Center supported the DAP.

The Merdeka Center survey was commissioned by both PKR and DAP, and the latter released the findings to back its claim over overlapping seats.

Now that may well be, but apart from my inherent bias against PKR and for DAP, wakakaka, there are 2 other major reasons for my doubts about this UUM survey.

Doubt One - the survey was conducted by UUM. I am not a fan of UUM, wakakaka (I am being polite).

Much earlier the better known and independent Merdeka pollster found that in Batu Kitang the DAP would secure 60+% of the votes, PKR a mere 8%, leaving 32% +/- to BN.

The UUM's polls apparently obtained for DAP only 31% voter support (plummeting from an earlier 60+%), while PKR miraculously exceeded Earth's escape velocity to now attain 33% voters support (from a mere measly minute 8%) ...

... with BN remaining at the 30 percentile mark, this time creeping up from 32 to 35%, a reasonable possibility.

Thus the only humongous sea-change is supposedly for PKR, from 8 to 35%, wakakaka.

Doubt Two - 'Twas a PKR man, Fahmi Fadzil, who came stumbling forward in over-eager indecent haste to assert (rather defensive, wakakaka): “The survey was conducted independently and without our knowledge. The result was handed to us by persons we do not want to identify.”

Yea right, so the result was handed to PKR by persons the party do not want to identify, wakakaka, which sounds like a familiar PKR line.

I heard that before some years back when a FMT reporter, wakakaka a Sweetie, quoted an un-named (wakakaka) Pakatan shadow minister when such a creature (shadow minister) did/does not exist, wakakaka again.

In that FMT article , I mentioned must be an amazing reporter (or journalist). In one of her previous article Pakatan's 'shadow cabinet' list she claimed she could even speak with a non-existent Pakatan 'shadow minister', so shadowy that he seemed like a miasmatic mist of ........, wakakaka, okay lah ...mystery then, wakakaka. Of course that 'shadow minister' was not identified, like today's case regarding the UUM survey finding being handed over to PKR, wakakaka again.

I had then commented her so-called Pakatan shadow cabinet was a Kafkaesque joke – and if you don’t know the meaning of the word 'Kafkaesque', please ask Mr Manmanlai as he had used the word on a few occasions, wakakaka - with the potential for Pakatan to outdo BN in the numbers department, where Pakatan would allegedly have 15 ministries including shared deputy prime ministerships, with each ministry having at least 3 if not more names as ministers, making a total of no less than 45 and probably exceeding 60 ministers. WTF or rather, wakakaka.

Sweetie admitted that her list has been compiled from a combination of:

(a) discussions with a Pakatan MP who wished to remain anonymous (see this word 'anonymous' or the phrase 'wish to remain unidentified' in Pakatan, wakakaka, and you can straightaway pinpoint the source, wakakaka again) ...

... but who I suspect was probably from PKR, wakakaka. As usual, by suggesting some key nominees in the secret list, he was pre-empting his party's supposed allies from choice ministries wakakaka,

(b) observations from the performances and statements of Pakatan MPs ...,

... and undoubtedly, the most mysterious of all, wakakaka ........

(c) personal conversations with the (unidentified, wakakaka) "shadow minister", their friends or their acquaintances, when in the first instant, "shadow ministers", other than the PM-designate during the previous Pakatan Rakyat days, didn't (still don’t) exist ........

I admit I was very cruel to her when I wrote: No, I won’t hold much store by the list that Sweetie has written, perhaps more to mitigate against the BN sarcasm that Pakatan was incapable of coming up with a shadow cabinet.

Of course I then had my opinion as to why, but the far more important point was my amazement at Sweetie's claim of talking with non-existent "shadow ministers" ..... unless she had the conversation with the self-appointed wet-dreaming "Shadow Home Minister" (cum "Shadow Finance Minister" cum "Shadow DPM" cum ..., wakakaka.

Thus the current so-called UUM survey, mysteriously or coincidentally handed over to only PKR by an unidentified source, wakakaka, would in my suspicious mind, be a last ditch desperate do-or-die effort by PKR in its psychological and PR (public relations) campaigning to persuade Sarawakians in Batu Kitang and other constituencies who are still undecided on their political choice, ...

... though well-known political analyst Bridget Welsh informed us, the Sarawakians have already long decided.

Apart from not holding much store in a UUM survey with its findings handed by an unnamed source to PKR, wakakaka, I am, quite frankly, far more interested in seeing whether Baru Bian can hold his seat in Ba'Kekalan. Bian only managed to defeat his 43-year-old nephew Willie Liau (BN) by a very narrow 473 votes - wakakaka.

I wonder what the UUM survey has said about Ba'kelalan, wakakaka.

Our professors, our universities!

In 2012 Professor Dr Khoo Kay Kim dismissed the belief that the Malay much-vaunted hero, Hang Tuah, had ever existed, stating there was not a reliable source (other than stories) to support the belief in the popular myth.

an un-named Malacca grave allegedly that of Hang Tuah

Sun Daily - Khoo: Show me proof that Hang Tuah existed

KUALA LUMPUR (Jan 18, 2012): Renowned historian Prof Emeritus Tan Sri Khoo Kay Kim has asked critics disputing his findings to show proof that legendary Malay warriors such as Hang Tuah existed.

"If you don't agree with me, bring out the sources to show I am wrong. You cannot simply say you don't agree (but) on what basis?

"I am saying that these things were not true because no reliable sources confirmed they existed," Khoo told reporters when met after the at the Global Movement of Moderates conference at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre today.

The Universiti Malaya don on Monday created a stir when he said in a radio interview that there is no written record of Hang Li Po, Hang Tuah and Hang Jebat and the stories that have made it into the history books are just myths.

Three days later (also in 2012) Malaysian Archaeologists Association president Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Nik Hassan Shuhaimi Nik Abdul Rahman stepped into the debate and was reported by The Borneo Post as follows:

"I believe he existed but we can’t be sure of the era; if we look at the Hang Tuah tales, he existed during the era of a sultanate. The name ‘Hang’ does indeed exist in the Malay world."

"However, further studies on his four peers (Hang Jebat, Hang Kasturi, Hang Lekir and Hang Lekiu) may be needed. The name ‘Hang’ exists in Padang Lawas Sumatra, Indonesia.”

He said although there had been no specific studies carried out on the matter, indirect ones indicated that the warrior did indeed exist.

“And then there is also the Hang Tuan tomb. We can’t deny that it is not. Although there is no specific name written on it, it is from the 15th century,” he told reporters at a convention on the Malay cultural roots here yesterday.

Historian Prof Emeritus Tan Sri Khoo Kay Kim had previously said that Hang Tuah might be mythical and that there were no strong evidence to prove the warrior’s existence.

Dr Nik Hassan said DNA tests on the remains in the tomb might prove to be difficult due to religious sensitivities.

“This is a Muslim tomb. We don’t want to disturb this tomb because there may be sensitivities involved in terms of religion. We can perform tests on pre-historic findings,” he said.

For a start, I find it difficult to accept that said unnamed tomb belongs to Hang Tuah just because it's from the 15th Century. Was Hang Tuah the only person existing in 15th Century Malaya? I'm quite taken aback that an archaeologist would lean towards such an assumption.

And even if Islamic authorities permit a DNA on corpse, how would that be done? More of this soon so please hang on for a wee while, wakakaka.

Then late last year Dr Rohaidah Kamarudin, from the Malay Language Department, Faculty of Modern Language and Communication, Universiti Putra Malaysia, asked for funding of more than RM1 million to continue with its project to prove the existence Hang Tuah.

She said: “The fund is needed because there are a lot more to be done to prove Hang Tuah’s existence, including to look for the necessary evidence, like in Indonesia, Turkey and Japan, and to conduct DNA tests on them.”

The Japanese connection is about a keris there, which is believed to belong to the Malacca Malay Sultanate and thus may have connection with the existence of Hang Tuah.

While Hang Tuah's keris, as legend tells us, was appropriated by Tuah after he somehow killed the Javanese warrior Taming Sari (the original owner of the keris who gave his name to the legendary keris), it is also believed to be now in the possession of the royal House of Perak.

which one is the real Taming Sari? 

A wee digression - The keris Taming Sari is said to have magical properties and would always ensure its owner would be protected from harm, thus I wonder how then in the world did Hang Tuah defeat and kill Bapak Taming Sari, its original owner, who was then holding the so-called magic weapon?

On top of that, when Taming Sari was in the possession of Hang Jebat, how did that so-called magical keris allow him (the then-owner) to be defeated and killed by Tuah?

These are typical kaytee questions that had gotten me, when I was a young laddie, slapped or at the very least angry stares for asking such annoying, irritating and difficult to answer but quite reasonable queries of logic, as I mentioned in my post Midnight at Batu Lanchang published in my other blog KTemoc Kongsamkok. Wakakaka.

But back on track to Dr Rohaidah Kamarudin's request for RM1 million to conduct research which will include a DNA test, I believe that she and archaeologist Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Nik Hassan Shuhaimi Nik Abdul Rahman were the ones who mentioned DNA testing to identify and confirm the existence of Hang Tuah, and not Dr Khoo as alleged by the following news:

FMT - No need for DNA test to prove Hang Tuah’s existence:

MALACCA: There is no need to prove Hang Tuah’s existence through deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing as the legendary Malay warrior’s existence has already been proven through various studies by local and foreign historians, about 60 years ago.

Malaysian Institute of Historical and Patriotism Studies (IKSEP) chairman Professor Dr Mohd Jamil Mukmin said Hang Tuah’s existence was also evident in local books such as ‘Sejarah Melayu’ and ‘Hikayat Hang Tuah’, as well as other documents from abroad.

“There were many world-famous heroes from the Greek empire, China and so forth in the past, but no DNA tests were done to confirm their existence,” he said at a special press conference here today.

As mentioned by Professor Dr Khoo years back, the issue of the Hang Tuah existence has been in the absence of reliable sources testifying to his existence and not about DNA testing - more about the latter soon, wakakaka.

So would Sejarah Melayu and Hikayat Hang Tuah be reliable sources? I'm not sure about the former but I would consider the latter as only story telling.

In ancient Egypt, Greece and China, there were ample documentary evidence and artifacts from reliable sources which may still be found today in the historical-archaeological archives, museums and historical sites of those countries.

For example, the Chinese classical literature Romance of the Three Kingdom is only a work of fiction authored by Luo Guanzhong but based on the (real) historical Three Kingdom period in Chinese history (AD 220 to 280), which existence, events and personalities have been supported by ample and reliable historical documents, artifacts and historical sites.

Alas, one glaring example in Egypt (or its omission) has led to the now questionable existence of the Hebrews in that ancient land, where the Bible is its only source but a religious document, one which scholars don't automatically rely upon because of its 'unreliability' in the academic world, but for kaytee this has to be another story, wakakaka.

However, in the meantime for your reading pleasure about reliable historical and archaeological sources, the following extract was from an article in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz written by a Jewish World blogger, Josh Mintz, in 2012:

The reality is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt. Yes, there's the story contained within the bible itself, but that's not a remotely historically admissible source. I'm talking about real proof; archeological evidence, state records and primary sources. Of these, nothing exists.

It is hard to believe that 600,000 families (which would mean about two million people) crossed the entire Sinai without leaving one shard of pottery (the archaeologist's best friend) with Hebrew writing on it.

It is remarkable that Egyptian records make no mention of the sudden migration of what would have been nearly a quarter of their population, nor has any evidence been found for any of the expected effects of such an exodus; such as economic downturn or labor shortages.

Furthermore, there is no evidence in Israel that shows a sudden influx of people from another culture at that time. No rapid departure from traditional pottery has been seen, no record or story of a surge in population.

Indeed, apart from the fact that the ancient Egyptian who were fastidious, meticulous and prolific in keeping all sorts of records, from flooding, droughts and bountiful (or lousy) harvests to royal coronations to war and victories, births and deaths, and religious and secular-political issues, etc, yes sir, in a land of such fastidious recording of events, there was NOT one single line of hieroglyph or hieratic or demotic in Egypt’s famed and vast repository of recording and artifacts, mentioning the existence Hebrews or Israelites, let alone their slavery or their mass exodus from Egypt.

Only the Judeo-Christian Bible has that.

But DNA testing to prove the existence of Hang Tuah interests me lots, wakakaka. However, instead of writing my own views on this so-called academic approach, why don't I copy and paste a few comments (extracts only) on subject from Malaysiakini of 2012, as follows:

James Khor: ... How can DNA testing prove that the remains from the tomb in Tanjung Kling are those of Hang Tuah?

To determine the origin you need another verifiable sample as cross reference. Is there such a sample? Can such a sample be found?

There is no one living today who can conclusively prove they are even remotely related by blood to Hang Tuah.

So without such persons to collect a sample from, how can you prove that the remains in the grave are those of Hang Tuah's? Do please enlighten?

Multi Racial: ... Prof Nik Hassan Shuhaimi Nik Abdul Rahman's argument is based on the assumption that Hang Tuah is a Malay warrior and his tomb has been found. Therefore he existed.

In the case of Prof Nik's argument, even if we manage to exhume the remains of the so-called Hang Tuah grave. How are we going to prove it is Hang Tuah?

And the best of the lot, I thought, would be:

HangTuah: What are you going to do with the DNA sample from the grave? Compare it with a sample from Hang Guan Seng of Prangin Road Market, Penang? [...]

Wakakaka.

Yes sir, I wonder about our universities!

Wonderful sex

Sweet dahleeng kaytee is just like all Malaysian red-blooded males, in that we love ... er ... sex, yes we do, though not to the extent of discussing our 'love' in public, wakakaka.

Thus in a way I admire the Muslim clerics who talk openly and publicly about yummy and not so yummy sex.

In Malay Mail Online's Muslim husbands can’t ‘pull out’ during sex without wife’s consent, says Perlis mufti, we have been informed by the mufti that:

... a Muslim husband is obliged to fulfil his wife’s sexual desires, to the point that he should not even perform coitus interruptus without consent from the wife.

Weighing in on the marital rape debate, the Perlis mufti said that despite the obligation, sexual relations between husbands and wives must happen in a “harmonious situation” without physically harming each other.

“Rough and painful sex is forbidden in Islam. Therefore, all couples must find the best sexual method that fulfils the personal desires of both parties,” the mufti said on his official Facebook page.

“Although the act is allowed in the hadith, it must receive consensus from the wife since the wife might have yet to savour the intercourse. This shows that forced and rough intercourse that is not enjoyed by one party is indeed forbidden in marriage,” Mohd Asri said of coitus interruptus.

By the by, MM Online tells us that 'Coitus interruptus refers to the act of withdrawing the penis from the vagina before ejaculation as a form of birth control during sexual intercourse.'

It's just marvelous that Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin is looking after the interests of women on matters of conjugal union. Contrast his balanced advice to the one from Kelantan about 10 years ago.

Yes if can recall, in 2006 the mufti of Kelantan, Mohamad Shukri Mohamad, then only as the deputy mufti of Kelantan, told Berita Harian that wives would be deemed to be unjust and abusive if they cannot satisfy their husbands' sexual needs.

See the difference with Dr Asri's caution to hubbies?

Wakakaka, and which has been why I applaud Dr Asri's advice because prior to his recent statement, it's always women who have been blamed and bullied, even on matters of conjugal interaction.

Mind, the Kelantan religious edict was not unlike what our world-famous Perak Mufti, Harussani told us, that Muslim men can always have sexual intercourse with their spouses even if the latter did not agree, saying that a Muslim woman has “no right” to reject her husband’s demand.

And it may be timely at this juncture to remind ourselves of what Dr Asdri has just said, that “Although the act is allowed in the hadith, it must receive consensus from the wife since the wife might have yet to savour the intercourse. This shows that forced and rough intercourse that is not enjoyed by one party is indeed forbidden in marriage.”

But alas in Perak, to pound home his authoritative warning to wives, the Mufti just had to drop names, that of the Prophet (pbuh). Quoting the Prophet (pbuh) Harussani said that couples, even when riding on the back of the camel, have to have sex whenever the husband demands of the wife an immediate conjugal "union" - no ifs nor buts.

dromedary camel 

Yes, our remarkable mufti was talking about doing it right on the back of the dromedary, and not about dismounting (excuse the unintended pun) to "roll in" the hay desert sand. After all, the camel is also known as the ship of the desert, thus it would be a "romp" on a "love boat".

In this sense, Chinese Muslims have an advantage - stop dreaming Ridhuan (wakakaka) as I'm referring to those in NW China - as the camels that live in their domain are Bactrian camels and not the dromedary species which the Arabs have - see photo to know what I mean, wakakaka. The Bactrians are virtually built like 'love machines' and true 'love boats' of the desert, wakakaka

Thus, if mufti Harussani is thinking of importing camels into Malaysia to make his point in any 'show & tell' I would strongly recommend the Chinese- Central Asian Bactrian camel, where one can get two humps (excuse the unintended pun, wakakaka) instead of a mere one, wakakaka again.

Of course Harussani also said that there’s no such thing as rape in marriage as that silly belief was conceived by European people and therefore there was no necessity for Malaysians Muslims to follow such a stupid idea.

But let's now return to the Kelantan religious edict on wives being potentially abusive to their hubbies' sexual needs.

In his (note ‘his’ and not 'the') most brilliant exposition of Islamic doctrines, mufti Mohamad Shukri Mohamad explained that in a marriage, it's not always the wives who were abused as it could also happen to the husbands. He advised that Islamic laws protect both women and men.

He warned: "Thus wives who do not provide proper care for their husbands, including not fulfilling their sexual needs, can be considered as being unjust and abusive towards their husbands."

"These women can be charged under Section 128 (1) of the Kelantan Islamic Law Enactment 2002, which provides for a fine of RM 1,000 or jail of up to six months or both upon conviction."

But in a manner not unusual of either important big shots (CEOs, ministers, preachers, etc) or impossible big bullshitters, he skipped the details, yup, by neglecting to elaborate on how the syariah courts would determine any husband’s claims of his wife abusive failings to satisfy his sexual needs as per, wakakaka, Section 128 (1) of the Kelantan Islamic Law Enactment 2002.

As we know, some husbands may have excessive sexual needs, so the poor wives could be required to perform to super-human standards, you know, 'above and beyond' the call of duty.

Dahleeng, use a Kryptonite to 'soften' his super sex needs

wakakaka  

If their wives cannot satisfy their super sexual needs, would those poor wives be still deemed as unjust and abusive by this mufti as per, wakakaka again, Section 128 (1) of the Kelantan Islamic Law Enactment 2002?

But truthfully, I would be very interested in how he would impartially gauge that a husband has attained sexual satisfaction in his legal act of consummation.

I've been informed that in the West it's supposedly measured by how loud the man (or woman) screams 'OH GOD', wakakaka again.

perhaps inspiring the drafting of an Enactment

wakakaka

Or would he just rely on the hubby's say-so, that the undutiful wife should be jailed for 6 months while hubby gets a new young doll of a wife?

Poor Malaysian Muslim women.

And it seems SEX SEX SEX would always be in the picture if you were to read Malaysiakini's K'tan deputy MB admits error on 'unnatural sex'.

We gather from Kelantan's Deputy MB Mohd Amar Nik Abdullah said last year that: "Some scholars argue that since wives belong to their husbands, their husbands can do as they like."

The wife belongs to the husband and he can do as he likes? Wow. Incidentally, the deputy MB of Kelantan was referring to anal sex between the married couple.

And he added that this wife-as-a-chattel (mere property) comes from the differences of interpretation of the Quranic verse which states that "wives are tilths for their husbands", and therefore, they can approach their wives in any sexual manner they choose.

And on that let me remind wives that the Mufti of Kelantan, Mohamad Shukri Mohamad had already warned that "... wives who do not provide proper care for their husbands, including not fulfilling their sexual needs, can be considered as being unjust and abusive towards their husbands."

"These women can be charged under Section 128 (1) of the Kelantan Islamic Law Enactment 2002, which provides for a fine of RM 1,000 or jail of up to six months or both upon conviction."

I've to admit I'm jealous of Muslims as they have such wonderful priests standing strongly as their Guardians of Men's Sexual Needs.

Ain't sex just wunderbar?

Sarawak political unpleasantry

Adenan Satem plays a clever and cunning political game.

Though he is virtually guaranteed a big win in the Sarawak state elections, he wants to crush the opposition completely, in preparation for the federal elections (GE-14) to support Najib's BN.

Thus his principal target is Chinese votes. And he is abetted in this by federal ministers - see my previous post Chinese beautiful once more?

First, he did a clever stunner by saying Sarawak will recognize the UEC certificate, a vernacular education qualification so much valued by the Chinese community and their educationists that they (the Chinese) would have rushed into their respective bathrooms on hearing of that "Adenan's good news" to do whatever people do when they're terribly excited and want to bring their excitement to a "boil", wakakaka.

Adenan even became a local Chinese hero by criticizing Putrajaya's stand against the UEC as 'stupid and senseless'.

But I sense he has been cunning because his promise may yet turn out to be an empty promise as Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS) has given the two-fingers to that proposal, refusing to recognize the UEC as a recognized entry qualifications for any degree course in UNIMAS.

TMI (long gone but this news reported by Yahoo News) said (extract):

Datuk Fatimah Abdullah, the Sarawak minister holding a watching brief on education for the state cabinet, said she is puzzled and does not understand why the state’s public university Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (Unimas) issued a position statement that it would not recognise the independent Chinese school's Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) as an entry qualification.

The state welfare, women and family development minister said what she understood from Chief Minister Tan Sri Adenan Satem's announcement that the state would recognise the UEC, was that holders could now use the certificate to apply for jobs in the state civil service and for entry into the two private universities which the state has a stake in – Curtin University in Miri and Swinburne University of Technology, Sarawak campus in Kuching.

She said nothing was said about using the certificate, which was not recognised by the ministry of education, to get into Unimas.

Unimas vice-chancellor Prof Datuk Dr Mohammad Kadim Suaidi on Friday issued a statement that the university could not accept UEC holders at the moment as it was “bound by regulations of the higher education ministry”.

Kadim had said Unimas, being a public university, is obliged to follow directives from the ministry regarding the national education policy towards UEC and also the current admission requirements to public universities.

And has Adenan said anything since the VC for UNIMAS said f**koff to the UEC?

However to be fair, we need to first ask whether Curtin University in Miri and Swinburne University of Technology, Sarawak campus in Kuching are governed in their admission requirements by what the UNIMAS VC had stated?

I hope not but alas, as I had posted in Bad-Blood Brothers that some of our higher education policies have been much influenced/governed by the 'Promote & Suppress' stratagem, an evil pincer strategy, so I would not be in the least surprised if my fears regarding the admissibility of the UEC for Curtin and Swinburne local campuses are realized. But let's hope my suspicions have been completely unfounded and I apologize in advance for my hope-for error and unwarranted suspicions.

Nonetheless I trust he will keep his promise to accept UEC holders as civil servants in the state government. Let's hope his promise is not a clever but cunningly cheap promise, one of no value at all.

Then he unashamedly bars opposition leaders from Peninsula from entering the state, abusing the apparatus of autonomy that Sarawak enjoys under the merger agreement but one for an entirely different reason.

And he knows he would get away with that draconian worse-than-Peh-Mor measure because, I am sad to say this, most Sarawakians would silently approve of his decision as they too dislike (or even hate) Peninsula Malaysians. Now, should I even be using the now-apparently useless term 'Malaysian' in this context?

Just a casual reminder especially to Sarawakians: many Peninsula Malaysian police and servicemen shed their blood and lost their lives defending Sarawak from the Indons during Confrontation and the communist menace during the Emergency years back. Don't forget their sacrifices.

Annoyingly Adenan also plays a nasty threatening game, warning Chinese Sarawakians that only BN Chinese politicians elected will be the (Chinese) voice in the state government.

While it's plain obvious that DAP and PKR Chinese (elected) ADUN won't be part of his cabinet, has there been a drastic necessity to make such a crude racially oriented threat? Besides, opposition ADUN are also legitimate 'voices' of the people, so Adenan might have gone too far in his unnecessary warning. I had hopes he wouldn't descend to such gutter levels in his political campaign.

We all know that DAP and PKR will definitely be the state opposition even if they don't compete in 3-corner fights in the 6 seats mentioned in my previous posts, but Adenan's warning smacks of a racially disagreeable unpleasantry, perhaps showing his true colour.