A common denominator in comments about the shameful and truly lamentable PKR-created stoush among Pakatan members over their respective rights to seats in the pending Sarawak State elections has been for Peninsula Malaysians to keep their bloody nose out of Sarawakian affairs.
The critics want Pakatan leaders from the Peninsula to stop manoeuvring, manipulating and mangling politics in Sarawak, and to leave the local leaders to resolve the current imbroglio. Alas, according to Haris Ibrahim, it would seem one PKR leader just can’t help himself – see my previous post Sarawak CM Taib can thank Azmin Ali for saving his hide.
It’s known that Putrajaya (previously Kuala Lumpur when it was the seat of govenment) keeps a constant beady eye on not just Sarawakian politics but Sabah’s as well, with a readiness to rapidly intervene where and when necessary.
Though it’s also equally well-known but rarely whispered out, Putrajaya (KL) fears two situations, both deemed as closely related.
The first is that of a Christian CM, like Stephen Kalong Ningkan or Donald Stephens (before he became Stephen Fuad) with both of mixed parentage, the former being Iban-Chinese and the latter being Kadazan-British-Japanese - neither having Malay blood.
In the aftershock of Brunei refusing to join Malaysia and the aftermath of the Singapore expulsion, Stephen Kalong Ningkan asserted his Iban-Chinese muscles over Sarawakian rights vis-a-vis the Peninsula Malays, leading KL to fear the second situation, that of secession, an ugly word in the minds of UMNO as it means losing Sarawak or Sabah or both forever.
Thus, sometime in 1966, immediately after the Sarawak constitutional crisis was forcefully resolved by federal parliamentray fiat, in KL (later Putrajaya) was born the doctrine of ensuring that it shall have to be a Muslim or Malay (preferably both) presiding as CM in both non-Peninsula States.
Today PKR (a baby born out of an UMNO miscarriage) has inherited that besieged ultra-federalist ethno-centric mentality. Hence it meddles to ensure the same doctrinal arrangement, either for the same UMNO strategy of retaining Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysia or just out of instinct because of its UMNO-evolved genes.
But nonetheless, Peninsula meddling in the politics of both eastern States is certainly not welcomed by the locals. You can hardly blame the locals, whether they be Sarawakians, Sabahans, Kelantanese or wakakaka Penangites.
However, on the same token, regarding Peninsula involvement (but leaving aside UMNO-PKR-ish fear of secession that could well be initiated by local non-Muslim/Malay leadership especially in today’s political climate of fear, hatred and suspicion of Peninsula-UMNO political leadership and policies) Sarawakians and Sabahans need to also remember and consider Peninsula past investments of lives and resources in the defence of those two states during the dangerous days of Konfrantasi and Filipino expansionist ambitions.
As I posted in Proud Sarawakian, Proud Penangite, Proud Malaysian?: Then Konfrantasi started. President Sukarno had delusions of re-creating the great Sri Vijayan (or Majapahit) Empire that stretched all the way up north to Cambodia, perhaps fantasizing himself as the maharajah Chakravarti Devaanaampriya [Emperor, Beloved of the Gods] of Nusantara Indah. OK, KTemoc is just being creative in allocating the late Sukarno with those Hindu names here - blogger's licence ;-) But you know what the God do to those they love - yes, the divine ones made them mad first!
Apart from Commonwealth forces, many Peninsula servicemen and police served in Sarawak to resist the Indonesian intrusions. After Konfrantasi, the Malaysian communist insurgency that was still prevalent in Peninsula Malaysia was also experienced in Sarawak. A number of Peninsula servicemen and police died in those two conflicts in Sarawak.
If we hadn't resisted with many sacrifices, even of Malaysian lives, today we would be addressing Kenny* as bapak Sia - ya dong?
* Kenny Sia
'Twas not an easy stretch of period for any development to take place in Sarawak! Lots of money were thrown into the counter-insurgency campaigns which we won after years of effort and many sacrifices.
Also, it should be noted that Sarawak has generally been keeping the central government out except on matters which they couldn’t, like defence and internal security.
However, I have many Sarawakian friends over in Peninsula Malaysia who have benefited from the lack of restriction for Sabahans and Sarawakians seeking employment or domicile in Peninsula. And to rub it in our faces, many married beautiful Peninsula women - yes, lots of nyeh nyeh nyeh from those blokes.
On matters of oil and gas, these are national resources that come under the control of the national government with royalties paid to the state. It would be unreasonable for states to demand total control and benefits of such assets while the central government remains responsible for national defence and security arrangements and miscellaneous services such as health.
The perception of being cheated could well lie in the effects of the above reasons and events, and also the consequences of corruption including those perpetrated by Sarawakian officials themselves - the benefits haven't drizzled down sufficiently.
It’s a vicious circle. Sarawakians-Sabahans insist on keeping Peninsula Malaysians out, in exactly the same manner as UMNO-putras insist on keeping the 'nons' out of a fair share of the national economy, public service-military and social benefits, yet they moan about lack of development in their states, though of course corruption there, especially in Sarawak, is wholely indigenous.
So, next time a Sarawakian-Sabahan sneers at or criticises UMNO-putras for the Never-Ending-Policy (NEP), he/she should be mindful that his respective State is doing exactly that, and he/she is supporting it. And he/she knows the outcome of such a uncompetitive ultra-protectionist arrangement.
Related:
(1) Quo Vadis Sarawak?
(2) Malaysians divided & conquered!
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Sarawak CM Taib can thank Azmin Ali for saving his hide
"A startled PKR came back to ‘offer' four seats, instead of three. Snap responded to this infantile insult by announcing 11 more candidates for 11 more constituencies" - Paul Kadang of SNAP, as reported in Malaysiakini’s Snap: Seat talks with PKR on the brink
Imagine we're back in school. Forget about Interlok for this post. Instead let’s revise a bit of maths.
Divide 71 by 4, and the result is … 52?
OK lah, divide 71 by 3, and the result is … what? 52 again? How can?
How about 71 by 2? Yet 52? Sheeesh!
Division!
That’s the sad story of Pakatan cohesion (or lack of) in Sarawak on the eve of the State elections. Much as I hate to agree with Peh Mor, he’s right in that Pakatan can’t work together, because the maths PKR is employing, regardless of whether it's in the English, Malay, Chinese, Tamil or Iban language, is hard to follow or swallow.
And if Pakatan can’t agree in Sarawak, thanks to PKR, how do you expect them to agree federally?
Poor gentlemanly Lim Guan Eng has put on a brave face to save the coalition, stating that DAP and PKR have agreed to the sharing of some seats. He was trying his decent best to save the coalition that PKR is recklessly jeopardising or will one day destroy.
But decent and honourable as Lim has tried to be, he can’t hide the known greed, arrogance and deceit of some PKR leaders in pre-emptively declaring (via a media release) it will be contesting in 52 seats in Sarawak. It’s the same underhanded undermining and under-the-belt tactic it used against DAP in 2007.
Then Tian Chua was the prime mover, or Big Chief Sittinghitting Bull. He heads the ‘Chinese’ section of PKR and saw that his section and himself would become redundant if DAP swept all the Chinese-majority seats (which incidentally Anwar Ibrahim agreed with Lim Kit Siang that DAP should stand in while PKR campaigned in Malay-majority constituencies).
Today Tian Chua is singing the same old song, and even has the hypocritical cheek to preach to the DAP that 'PKR needs Chinese-majority seats too' in Sarawak to demonstrate it (PKR) is a multiracial party.
Tony Pua dismissed him as nothing more than a lil’ Napoleon (obviously trying to find a role for his Chinese section in PKR) who has the shamelessness to come up with such a hypocritical declaration (kaytee’s terms here) when he fails to see his own party has arrogantlydenied SNAP the Iban-Dayak majority seats.
Not only that, PKR has the unmitigated arrogance or (to borrow/paraphrase a term used by Paul Kadang) ‘infantile insult’-ing propensity, to talk-down to SNAP to contest only 3, then 4 seats and to DAP to contest only (initially) 13. Hey, who the f* does it think it is?
Now, who has been the responsible PKR a$reh*le behind all these unmitigated Pakatan greed and arrogance, leading to its Pakatan allies’ anger in the Sarawak pre-election seat-sharing negotiations, much as Lim GE might have wanted to put the best spin to the whole PKR-created disaster.
Well, on 24 March 2011, Haris Ibrahim in his post Dear Azmin wrote in an open letter to Anwar Ibrahim’s pretty blue-eyed boy, as follows:
FreeMalaysiaToday reports that negotiations between DAP and PKR in relation to overlapping seats in the imminent Sarawak state elections have broken down.
DAP, represented by its Sarawak state chief, Wong Ho Leng, it seems, wanted to contest 18 seats, but PKR, represented by you, insist that DAP only contest 13. DAP, it is reported, were prepared to come down to 16, but to no avail.
You are still adamant that they only contest 13 seats whilst PKR contests 52 seats.
FMT quoted DAP secretary Chong as saying that “Sarawak PKR had made its position very clear that it had no authority to negotiate seats as the real power lay with the PKR central committee, which made decisions”.
Yet, in the Malaysian Insider report of 5th March, you were quoted as saying that your ‘presence in Sarawak was not to dictate terms to the state leadership but to obtain feedback to update PR’s national leadership’. “We always try as much as we can not to intervene in their process, but of course, certainly we will have a role to play if there is an overlap in any seat. Then, we will provide assistance and advice”, you are quoted as saying.
What, truly, is the position?
And if that stated in FMT is closer to the truth, on behalf of the many Malaysians who want to see a regime change in Sarawak, could I please request that you return to your constituency immediately and leave the negotiations to the local leaders of PKR Sarawak?
In this recent outrageous, preemptive, selfish, arrogant and unrealistic claim (through its usual unilateral media release) for 52 seats in Sarawak, leaving only 19 to be shared between DAP, PAS and SNAP, it either believes it is the ‘boss’ of Pakatan and the world revolves around it, or
… … hopes to win 2 seats by doubling its 2006 efforts (25 got 1, maybe 52 will get 2?). Sometimes PKR leaders have forgotten which party (DAP or PKR) has done well in the last State election.
As Paul Kadang commented in MKINI: PKR had never won nor come close to winning a native-majority seat in three federal elections and two state elections in the 12 years of their existence in Sarawak. In fact, a number of their candidates lost their deposits. So much for PKR's desire to contest in 53 [sic] seats.
What is far more annoying than its unrealistic greed and selfishness has been its overbearing arrogant presumption it can dictate terms to the others, DAP, PAS and especially SNAP.
And the anwaristas naturally see no wrong in their leader's pseudo-imperious high-handedness, even chiding SNAP for not being (that UMNO word) 'grateful' and accepting the crumbs cast down by Azmin Ali the Great.
I do not see much future for Pakatan’s likelihood of winning in the next general election with such an insolent overbearing group of PKR leaders like Azmin Ali.
You can take some PKR members out of UMNO but you sure can’t take UMNO out of them.
F* utterly disgusted with PKR!
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Anwar Ibrahim came out swinging at police
At last!
I am glad to see Anwar Ibrahim has dropped his silly pretentious man man lai Asia’s Renaissance bullsh*t to come out fighting as he should have done ages ago.
As I mention in a previous post 3 bowls of rice (extracts only):
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. […]
I reckon our so-called Asia's Renaissance Man, Anwar Ibrahim, has fallen into this hubristic trap.
Once a sweetie [who I adore very much ;-) ] asked me what Anwar meant by ‘Kafkaesque’, wakakaka – that’s Anwar all right!
But I’ve just read in The Malaysian Insider’s Anwar function turns ugly as crowd attacks cops that Anwar said of the police attempt to stop him from speaking at the function, also bringing into focus the stark contrast between the police treatment of Rahim Thamby Chik and him (referring to his overnight arrest on July 16 2008):
“This Rahim is a criminal, a rapist but he is made a leader; they record pornography and they are free to walk. I was arrested and treated like a dog but you let them go free after recording statement.”
Now Anwar, that’s the way to go, as such an appeal to the people to view the double standards of the police would/should find better proletarian purchase. Common folks want their politics simple and straightforward instead of bullsh*t like reformasi, or other equally high falutin rubbish, which mention every time would be a Kafkaesque nonsense to me (and sweetie) wakakaka.
Incidentally, just as a side note, Rahim Thamby Chik is a Tan Sri just like Harussani Zakaria, the latter being the bloke who sent a seditious SMS to Muslims that massive Christian proselytizing of Muslims at a church was happening (a blatant fabrication). The misogynist coward then blamed a woman for the whole sickening affair. See my previous posts:
(1) Perak Mufti unusually meek!
(2) Perak Mufti blamed woman; SIS condemns him!
Subsequent to his seditious bullsh*t, he went from Datuk to Tan Sri, but I've to admit I wasn't surprised.
It would seem that under the BN government all some people need to do to earn a Tan Sri would be to have an 'astonishing act' on their CV.
I am glad to see Anwar Ibrahim has dropped his silly pretentious man man lai Asia’s Renaissance bullsh*t to come out fighting as he should have done ages ago.
As I mention in a previous post 3 bowls of rice (extracts only):
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. […]
I reckon our so-called Asia's Renaissance Man, Anwar Ibrahim, has fallen into this hubristic trap.
Once a sweetie [who I adore very much ;-) ] asked me what Anwar meant by ‘Kafkaesque’, wakakaka – that’s Anwar all right!
But I’ve just read in The Malaysian Insider’s Anwar function turns ugly as crowd attacks cops that Anwar said of the police attempt to stop him from speaking at the function, also bringing into focus the stark contrast between the police treatment of Rahim Thamby Chik and him (referring to his overnight arrest on July 16 2008):
“This Rahim is a criminal, a rapist but he is made a leader; they record pornography and they are free to walk. I was arrested and treated like a dog but you let them go free after recording statement.”
Now Anwar, that’s the way to go, as such an appeal to the people to view the double standards of the police would/should find better proletarian purchase. Common folks want their politics simple and straightforward instead of bullsh*t like reformasi, or other equally high falutin rubbish, which mention every time would be a Kafkaesque nonsense to me (and sweetie) wakakaka.
Incidentally, just as a side note, Rahim Thamby Chik is a Tan Sri just like Harussani Zakaria, the latter being the bloke who sent a seditious SMS to Muslims that massive Christian proselytizing of Muslims at a church was happening (a blatant fabrication). The misogynist coward then blamed a woman for the whole sickening affair. See my previous posts:
(1) Perak Mufti unusually meek!
(2) Perak Mufti blamed woman; SIS condemns him!
Subsequent to his seditious bullsh*t, he went from Datuk to Tan Sri, but I've to admit I wasn't surprised.
It would seem that under the BN government all some people need to do to earn a Tan Sri would be to have an 'astonishing act' on their CV.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Hell hath no fury as ......
When I am challenged about my sympathetic comments for Zaid Ibrahim against his current sniping at Anwar Ibrahim I would think of the idiom ‘don’t get mad, get even’.
Anwar Ibrahim, due perhaps to his mystical support of and very obvious and invincible allegiance to Azmin Ali, has offended, upset and made enemies of many of his erstwhile supporters - Nallakarupan, once partner in tennis and various other activities, Gobalakrishnan, once chief bodek-er and an anwarista fanatic, Ezam once right-hand man of the so-called Great Reformer, and of course Zaid Ibrahim, the comparatively less intimate colleague but nonetheless one who left his ministerial post to be Anwar's supporter, and many others.
I’ll talk of three only to arrive at what I believe might explain Zaid’s recent conduct against Anwar, whether he is working directly for BN against Anwar, as he has been naturally accused of.
We know that years ago prior to a PKR party election, Nalla was instructed directly by Anwar to stay out of the contest for a VP post. The quite credible story was that Anwar wanted to ensure his blue-eyed boy, Azmin Ali, secure an unimpeded place among the VPs, which was essential to Azmin’s climb to the deputy president post and eventually the No 1 position in PKR.
Poor Nalla was once threatened with a walk to the gallows because of his closed relationship with Anwar. One can imagine how betrayed he would have felt when his so-called ‘best friend’ instructed him to stay out of the VP race in which he was certain to win the contest, given the large Indian membership in PKR at that time. He realized he wasn’t all that valued by Anwar after all.
Gobala’s case was slightly different. While he wasn’t instructed to stay out of the party’s election, he like many others contesting in the last PKR party election felt cheated by the many still-unexplained unaccountable irregularities in the polling process. To add insult to injury, post party election, when the consolation prizes were handed out, he was dumped in favour of newcomer Surendran. The final stab into his once-loyal (bodek-Anwar) heart was when he was issued a show cause letter, to be replied within 7 days.
How does one get even when one’s mad or even broken hearted, deserted by a man they had idolized, who betrayed them for a lang chai (pretty boy)?
Nalla formed his own half-past-six party but really with the real aim of moving into and using BN to get at Anwar.
Gobala remained as an independent but no doubt is fully aware his political life as an independent has a shorter lifespan than a Mayfly. He lashes out as much as he can at Anwar while he still has the public attention, before he fades off into obscurity as one line in history’s footnotes.
Then we come to Zaid Ibrahim – just read my post Zaid Ibrahim - suffers no fool gladly to appreciate his disgust with Anwar Ibrahim and PKR.
But unlike Nalla and Gobala, Zaid is wealthy and has a leadership persona that Azmin Ali worried deeply about when he was in PKR. Worse, unlike Indians Nalla and Gobala, Zaid is a Melayu and more likely to be listened to, even as the head of a newly formed kutu-ish (mite-like) party.
So Zaid could afford to form his own party to get at Anwar. Of course it’s all about getting even. Call it spite or sweet revenge, whatever. It’s a very human nature, no doubt a weakness but nonetheless a natural human nature. Zaid gleefully snipes at Anwar.
However, to be fair to Zaid, in the latest of Anwar's series of headaches, the sex video a la CSL's escapade, Zaid has been fairly reasonable and fair - please read Malaysiakini's Zaid: I saw the sex video too.
I once lamented Nalla’s use of the BN platform to rail at his betrayer Anwar, but unless Nalla has the wealth and more authoritative Melayu-ness of Zaid Ibrahim, as a virtually unknown individual what could he do to have a sweet-sour go at Anwar Ibrahim? Nalla's outrage at his betrayal was such he was even prepared to enter into a Faustian pact, and he did.
Of course the anwaristas do not see these. They dismiss the expressions of dissatisfactions against and outrage at being betrayed by their leader and lang chai, conveniently and self-deceptively as nothing more than the avarice and weakness of the frogs, or that those who left were moles. Alas, it's true that none are so blind as those who refuse to see.
Related:
(1) Gobalakrishnan leaves the poison behind
(2) The Poison within PKR - Part III
Anwar Ibrahim, due perhaps to his mystical support of and very obvious and invincible allegiance to Azmin Ali, has offended, upset and made enemies of many of his erstwhile supporters - Nallakarupan, once partner in tennis and various other activities, Gobalakrishnan, once chief bodek-er and an anwarista fanatic, Ezam once right-hand man of the so-called Great Reformer, and of course Zaid Ibrahim, the comparatively less intimate colleague but nonetheless one who left his ministerial post to be Anwar's supporter, and many others.
I’ll talk of three only to arrive at what I believe might explain Zaid’s recent conduct against Anwar, whether he is working directly for BN against Anwar, as he has been naturally accused of.
We know that years ago prior to a PKR party election, Nalla was instructed directly by Anwar to stay out of the contest for a VP post. The quite credible story was that Anwar wanted to ensure his blue-eyed boy, Azmin Ali, secure an unimpeded place among the VPs, which was essential to Azmin’s climb to the deputy president post and eventually the No 1 position in PKR.
Poor Nalla was once threatened with a walk to the gallows because of his closed relationship with Anwar. One can imagine how betrayed he would have felt when his so-called ‘best friend’ instructed him to stay out of the VP race in which he was certain to win the contest, given the large Indian membership in PKR at that time. He realized he wasn’t all that valued by Anwar after all.
Gobala’s case was slightly different. While he wasn’t instructed to stay out of the party’s election, he like many others contesting in the last PKR party election felt cheated by the many still-unexplained unaccountable irregularities in the polling process. To add insult to injury, post party election, when the consolation prizes were handed out, he was dumped in favour of newcomer Surendran. The final stab into his once-loyal (bodek-Anwar) heart was when he was issued a show cause letter, to be replied within 7 days.
How does one get even when one’s mad or even broken hearted, deserted by a man they had idolized, who betrayed them for a lang chai (pretty boy)?
Nalla formed his own half-past-six party but really with the real aim of moving into and using BN to get at Anwar.
Gobala remained as an independent but no doubt is fully aware his political life as an independent has a shorter lifespan than a Mayfly. He lashes out as much as he can at Anwar while he still has the public attention, before he fades off into obscurity as one line in history’s footnotes.
Then we come to Zaid Ibrahim – just read my post Zaid Ibrahim - suffers no fool gladly to appreciate his disgust with Anwar Ibrahim and PKR.
But unlike Nalla and Gobala, Zaid is wealthy and has a leadership persona that Azmin Ali worried deeply about when he was in PKR. Worse, unlike Indians Nalla and Gobala, Zaid is a Melayu and more likely to be listened to, even as the head of a newly formed kutu-ish (mite-like) party.
So Zaid could afford to form his own party to get at Anwar. Of course it’s all about getting even. Call it spite or sweet revenge, whatever. It’s a very human nature, no doubt a weakness but nonetheless a natural human nature. Zaid gleefully snipes at Anwar.
However, to be fair to Zaid, in the latest of Anwar's series of headaches, the sex video a la CSL's escapade, Zaid has been fairly reasonable and fair - please read Malaysiakini's Zaid: I saw the sex video too.
I once lamented Nalla’s use of the BN platform to rail at his betrayer Anwar, but unless Nalla has the wealth and more authoritative Melayu-ness of Zaid Ibrahim, as a virtually unknown individual what could he do to have a sweet-sour go at Anwar Ibrahim? Nalla's outrage at his betrayal was such he was even prepared to enter into a Faustian pact, and he did.
Of course the anwaristas do not see these. They dismiss the expressions of dissatisfactions against and outrage at being betrayed by their leader and lang chai, conveniently and self-deceptively as nothing more than the avarice and weakness of the frogs, or that those who left were moles. Alas, it's true that none are so blind as those who refuse to see.
Related:
(1) Gobalakrishnan leaves the poison behind
(2) The Poison within PKR - Part III
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Scum of the (Malaccan) earth
Anwar Ibrahim, like the batter in a game of softball, has had three strikes against him. He should be out but in the name of fairness under the eyes of heaven, and not of the umpire or court, I hope he won’t be.
Okay, let's start off this game or discussion by what or who we understand to be ‘supporters of Pakatan’. Well, they could be those who support all the three or four parties within the loose coalition or are just backing only one of them, like for example, a staunch Muslim Pakatan supporter backing only PAS, or kaytee rooting just for SNAP wakakaka, anyway Agi Idup Agi Ngelaban.
Now, it’s an undeniable fact that some or even many of Pakatan supporters don’t like Anwar Ibrahim, yes, even those in PKR who initially joined in the hope of achieving an idealistic dream but who are now somewhat disenchanted but still bravely soldiering on.
Though I am not a card member of any of the Pakatan component parties I am nonetheless a supporter, and certainly one of those who don’t like Anwar Ibrahim or Azmin Ali. My reason? I find both to be even worse than some (though not all) UMNO blokes.
But when I examine the three strikes against Anwar which should sent him out, namely:
(i) the sodomy II charges,
(ii) the recent reversal of judgement by the Sodomy II judge on the trial within a trial, about the illegality of Anwar’s arrest in 2008 and the non-admissibility of illegally obtained evidence, an outcome not entirely unexpected, and
(iii) the current brouhaha about the sex video a la Chua Soi Lek's self-admitted escapade ...
... I find the whole disgusting politically driven nonsense utterly repugnant, more so when the sex video was brought out just as the sodomy charge began to lose its momentum and credibility, because the unfolding events became more and more incredulous, as incredulous as various types of spermotoza swimming about in gay (excuse the pun) abandonment in a shitless @r$eh*le (excuse the second pun, wakakaka).
And to add grievous insult to injury, the man who now claims joint ownership of the initially-mysterious Datuk T (the 'producer' of the sex video) is none other than Rahim Tamby Chik.
You don’t know who Rahim Tamby Chik is?
Ask Lim Guan Eng! He knows him only too well.
By the by, some years ago Lim GE was unjustly incarcerated as a common criminal in prison. And his crime? For daring to stand up to his public duty and expose a case of statutory rape to defend the rights of an underage Malay girl against the iniquity of her rapist. In so exposing a crime which no other dared do, Lim spent years behind bars. The PM of that dark era has yet to apologize for the grave injustice to Lim.
That cruel episode, where the hero was imprisoned for the evils of a rapist while the villain laughed his way out of a disgusting crime, was the classic tale beloved of Hindi, Chinese and Malay film making. The injustice made the heavens weep but alas, unlike the script in the films the hero wasn’t cleared of his criminal record. Only the Malaysian public defiantly redeemed his virtue by electing him to be the Chief Minister of Penang.
I find it particularly brazen of Rahim Tamby Chik to say of Anwar’s alleged sexual acts captured on video, as reported by The Malaysian Insider, that he (Rahim) … wanted to show that a person with high ambitions of wanting to be national leader and prime minister of Malaysia was not qualified, and that the matter is important especially to Muslims because they will not accept a person without honour and integrity to represent them.
Honour? Integrity?
Look who the f* is talking?
Excuse me while I puke … and it’s not because of the sex act on the video.
And just to remind you, my dear readers, I am a bloke who don’t even like Anwar Ibrahim.
Okay, let's start off this game or discussion by what or who we understand to be ‘supporters of Pakatan’. Well, they could be those who support all the three or four parties within the loose coalition or are just backing only one of them, like for example, a staunch Muslim Pakatan supporter backing only PAS, or kaytee rooting just for SNAP wakakaka, anyway Agi Idup Agi Ngelaban.
Now, it’s an undeniable fact that some or even many of Pakatan supporters don’t like Anwar Ibrahim, yes, even those in PKR who initially joined in the hope of achieving an idealistic dream but who are now somewhat disenchanted but still bravely soldiering on.
Though I am not a card member of any of the Pakatan component parties I am nonetheless a supporter, and certainly one of those who don’t like Anwar Ibrahim or Azmin Ali. My reason? I find both to be even worse than some (though not all) UMNO blokes.
But when I examine the three strikes against Anwar which should sent him out, namely:
(i) the sodomy II charges,
(ii) the recent reversal of judgement by the Sodomy II judge on the trial within a trial, about the illegality of Anwar’s arrest in 2008 and the non-admissibility of illegally obtained evidence, an outcome not entirely unexpected, and
(iii) the current brouhaha about the sex video a la Chua Soi Lek's self-admitted escapade ...
... I find the whole disgusting politically driven nonsense utterly repugnant, more so when the sex video was brought out just as the sodomy charge began to lose its momentum and credibility, because the unfolding events became more and more incredulous, as incredulous as various types of spermotoza swimming about in gay (excuse the pun) abandonment in a shitless @r$eh*le (excuse the second pun, wakakaka).
And to add grievous insult to injury, the man who now claims joint ownership of the initially-mysterious Datuk T (the 'producer' of the sex video) is none other than Rahim Tamby Chik.
You don’t know who Rahim Tamby Chik is?
Ask Lim Guan Eng! He knows him only too well.
By the by, some years ago Lim GE was unjustly incarcerated as a common criminal in prison. And his crime? For daring to stand up to his public duty and expose a case of statutory rape to defend the rights of an underage Malay girl against the iniquity of her rapist. In so exposing a crime which no other dared do, Lim spent years behind bars. The PM of that dark era has yet to apologize for the grave injustice to Lim.
That cruel episode, where the hero was imprisoned for the evils of a rapist while the villain laughed his way out of a disgusting crime, was the classic tale beloved of Hindi, Chinese and Malay film making. The injustice made the heavens weep but alas, unlike the script in the films the hero wasn’t cleared of his criminal record. Only the Malaysian public defiantly redeemed his virtue by electing him to be the Chief Minister of Penang.
I find it particularly brazen of Rahim Tamby Chik to say of Anwar’s alleged sexual acts captured on video, as reported by The Malaysian Insider, that he (Rahim) … wanted to show that a person with high ambitions of wanting to be national leader and prime minister of Malaysia was not qualified, and that the matter is important especially to Muslims because they will not accept a person without honour and integrity to represent them.
Honour? Integrity?
Look who the f* is talking?
Excuse me while I puke … and it’s not because of the sex act on the video.
And just to remind you, my dear readers, I am a bloke who don’t even like Anwar Ibrahim.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Was Tun Razak murdered?
Time for another uncles’ story wakakaka.
To start off, I have to quote Terence Netto’s Malaysiakini article Factual veracity of Dr M's memoirs questioned, which commented on Dr Mahathir’s memoirs.
However, my story is NOT about Dr M - sorry to disappoint you admirers and haters of Dr M ;-)
Terence Netto wrote [relevant extracts]:
One of the puzzles of his [Dr M’s] standing as a champion of the Malay position in the country's politics is that he ascended to that status despite the dim view of the race's capacity for advancement, as evidenced by what is said in ‘The Malay Dilemma.’
Attempts were made by contemporaries to rebut those opinions, most notably by the late academician Syed Hussein Alatas, who was responsible for a slender tract ‘Siapa Yang Buta?’ (Who is More Blinkered?), which exposed as unscientific and poorly researched the opinions espoused by Mahathir in his diatribe ...
… the banning of ‘The Malay Dilemma’ had the unfortunate effect of giving a spurious legitimacy to Mahathir's views, as if the fact that his book was contraband meant that the opinions propounded in it were necessarily cogent.
If the book had not been banned and the author not been sacked from Umno, it is doubted that Mahathir's career would have gained the springboard from which he vaulted to the top positions in Umno.
In the event, terminal illnesses to Abdul Razak Hussein and Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman, Razak's unease with Harun Idris' Umno Youth-fuelled ascendancy, Hussein Onn's being unduly enamoured with Ghazali Shafie, Ghafar Baba's lack of tertiary education and Razaleigh Hamzah's unpreparedness due to relative youth - were the potpourri of factors that enabled Mahathir to ghost through to the No 1 position.
Essentially, Mahathir came in from left field and upended the whole arena.
Let’s consider the second last paragraph, where my story, true or just typical Malaysian rumour-mongering, centres around Malaysia’s second PM, Tun Razak.
From stories I heard in my teenage years, it would seem that Tun Razak, rather than Tun Hussein Oon, was the one who was (to use Terence Netto's word) 'enamoured' with Ghazalie Shafie. Hussein Oon merely continued his brother-in-law’s plan to have Ghazalie groomed as a potential PM.
The tale went that Razak was so taken by the intellect of Ghazalie Shafie (one of 2 men he was impressed with*) that he persuaded that top civil servant to leave his government job, join UMNO, participate in a general election and become a minister. Ghazalie eventually rose to become the powerful Home Minister after the late Tun Dr Ismail passed away. As mentioned, Razak was grooming him to be a future PM.
* the other bloke Razak was immensely impressed with was Tan Sri Haniff Omar who as a young police ASP (or DSP?) (and golly be, with a university degree too, which was very ‘wow’ in those days) served in the NOC after the May 13 riots, which was where he attracted Razak’s attention. Haniff was fast tracked by Razak into the IGP post.
Ghazalie was an avid anti-communist crusader. Even in the very sad f*up days of his declining UMNO/political star he continued to belabour this point, where following a disastrous air crash in which he survived, he claimed to spend a night in a wild boar’s pit, hiding from the communist insurgents.
Anyway, after Razak’s demise, Ghazalie made his move and arrested a number of Malay leaders close to Razak, including renowned journalist-editor Abdul Samad, for (alleged) communist leanings/affiliations. There was another bloke, a minister who my uncles couldn’t recall his name, one who was virtually whispering in Razak’s ears daily while the former PM was alive, who was also detained for (alleged) communist connections.
My uncs and their friends weren’t too sure whether the expulsion from Malaysia of several USSR (Russia’s predecessor state) embassy personnel around that time was related to the above arrests of prominent Malaysians (close to the late Tun Razak).
Like most events in Malaysia, the story would not be complete without some kind of outrageous rumours ensuing from these collection of events, namely, Razak’s death from leukaemia, arrests of (alleged) communist or pro communist Malay leaders, expulsion of USSR embassy stff, etc.
The story wakakaka went that the Yanks were worried about the closeness of the (alleged) Malay communist leaders to Tun Razak, and had him (Razak) ‘done’ – you know, gave him something to cause his death (something that ended up like leukaemia), not unlike those Israeli terrorist assassins poisoning Palestinian leaders.
They also allegedly alerted Ghazalie Shafie to the USSR infiltration at the highest level of the Malaysian government, namely the close confidantes of the late PM himself. It was also said that Ghazalie only dared act against those (alleged) communists close to Razak after the PM has passed away.
Of course, subsequently, after Dr M (the Malay street-wise fighter) became the PM, Ghazalie who was more of an intellect than a wily politician like Dr M, suffered a bad turn in his political fortune. His (alleged) Malay communist leaders were politically resurrected (or as Ghazalie preferred to describe it, ‘rehabilitated’).
What do you reckon? Is it another of those the Italians would describe as: 'Se non è vero, è ben trovato' meaning 'Even if it’s not true, it’s a good story', wakakaka.
But perhaps the far more interesting question to ask would be: what if Tun Razak didn't die, and his plan for Ghazalie Shafie to be his successor eventuated? What sort of Malaysia would we have?
To start off, I have to quote Terence Netto’s Malaysiakini article Factual veracity of Dr M's memoirs questioned, which commented on Dr Mahathir’s memoirs.
However, my story is NOT about Dr M - sorry to disappoint you admirers and haters of Dr M ;-)
Terence Netto wrote [relevant extracts]:
One of the puzzles of his [Dr M’s] standing as a champion of the Malay position in the country's politics is that he ascended to that status despite the dim view of the race's capacity for advancement, as evidenced by what is said in ‘The Malay Dilemma.’
Attempts were made by contemporaries to rebut those opinions, most notably by the late academician Syed Hussein Alatas, who was responsible for a slender tract ‘Siapa Yang Buta?’ (Who is More Blinkered?), which exposed as unscientific and poorly researched the opinions espoused by Mahathir in his diatribe ...
… the banning of ‘The Malay Dilemma’ had the unfortunate effect of giving a spurious legitimacy to Mahathir's views, as if the fact that his book was contraband meant that the opinions propounded in it were necessarily cogent.
If the book had not been banned and the author not been sacked from Umno, it is doubted that Mahathir's career would have gained the springboard from which he vaulted to the top positions in Umno.
In the event, terminal illnesses to Abdul Razak Hussein and Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman, Razak's unease with Harun Idris' Umno Youth-fuelled ascendancy, Hussein Onn's being unduly enamoured with Ghazali Shafie, Ghafar Baba's lack of tertiary education and Razaleigh Hamzah's unpreparedness due to relative youth - were the potpourri of factors that enabled Mahathir to ghost through to the No 1 position.
Essentially, Mahathir came in from left field and upended the whole arena.
Let’s consider the second last paragraph, where my story, true or just typical Malaysian rumour-mongering, centres around Malaysia’s second PM, Tun Razak.
From stories I heard in my teenage years, it would seem that Tun Razak, rather than Tun Hussein Oon, was the one who was (to use Terence Netto's word) 'enamoured' with Ghazalie Shafie. Hussein Oon merely continued his brother-in-law’s plan to have Ghazalie groomed as a potential PM.
The tale went that Razak was so taken by the intellect of Ghazalie Shafie (one of 2 men he was impressed with*) that he persuaded that top civil servant to leave his government job, join UMNO, participate in a general election and become a minister. Ghazalie eventually rose to become the powerful Home Minister after the late Tun Dr Ismail passed away. As mentioned, Razak was grooming him to be a future PM.
* the other bloke Razak was immensely impressed with was Tan Sri Haniff Omar who as a young police ASP (or DSP?) (and golly be, with a university degree too, which was very ‘wow’ in those days) served in the NOC after the May 13 riots, which was where he attracted Razak’s attention. Haniff was fast tracked by Razak into the IGP post.
Ghazalie was an avid anti-communist crusader. Even in the very sad f*up days of his declining UMNO/political star he continued to belabour this point, where following a disastrous air crash in which he survived, he claimed to spend a night in a wild boar’s pit, hiding from the communist insurgents.
Anyway, after Razak’s demise, Ghazalie made his move and arrested a number of Malay leaders close to Razak, including renowned journalist-editor Abdul Samad, for (alleged) communist leanings/affiliations. There was another bloke, a minister who my uncles couldn’t recall his name, one who was virtually whispering in Razak’s ears daily while the former PM was alive, who was also detained for (alleged) communist connections.
My uncs and their friends weren’t too sure whether the expulsion from Malaysia of several USSR (Russia’s predecessor state) embassy personnel around that time was related to the above arrests of prominent Malaysians (close to the late Tun Razak).
Like most events in Malaysia, the story would not be complete without some kind of outrageous rumours ensuing from these collection of events, namely, Razak’s death from leukaemia, arrests of (alleged) communist or pro communist Malay leaders, expulsion of USSR embassy stff, etc.
The story wakakaka went that the Yanks were worried about the closeness of the (alleged) Malay communist leaders to Tun Razak, and had him (Razak) ‘done’ – you know, gave him something to cause his death (something that ended up like leukaemia), not unlike those Israeli terrorist assassins poisoning Palestinian leaders.
They also allegedly alerted Ghazalie Shafie to the USSR infiltration at the highest level of the Malaysian government, namely the close confidantes of the late PM himself. It was also said that Ghazalie only dared act against those (alleged) communists close to Razak after the PM has passed away.
Of course, subsequently, after Dr M (the Malay street-wise fighter) became the PM, Ghazalie who was more of an intellect than a wily politician like Dr M, suffered a bad turn in his political fortune. His (alleged) Malay communist leaders were politically resurrected (or as Ghazalie preferred to describe it, ‘rehabilitated’).
What do you reckon? Is it another of those the Italians would describe as: 'Se non è vero, è ben trovato' meaning 'Even if it’s not true, it’s a good story', wakakaka.
But perhaps the far more interesting question to ask would be: what if Tun Razak didn't die, and his plan for Ghazalie Shafie to be his successor eventuated? What sort of Malaysia would we have?
Friday, March 18, 2011
USA: "Is he our bastard?"
Sydney Morning Herald - UN votes for action to stop Gaddafi
(Extracts):
The UN Security Council has unanimously passed a vote calling for "all necessary measures" against forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
The vote - 10-0, with five abstentions, including Russia and China - will allow foreign enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya and ground Colonel Gaddafi's air force, reportedly as early as today.
The BBC reports that attacks on forces loyal to Gaddafi by the British and French air forces could begin within hours of the UN passing resolution 1973, with anti-aircraft defences the likely first targets.
One could argue the UN is interfering with a domestic issue (of rebellion) of the sovereign state of Libya, but nonetheless I support stopping the dictator from his nefarious killing of his own people.
Now, contrast the hypocrisy of the USA and Western Europe in their condonation and ‘act dunno’ of the following:
Sydney Morning Herald - Bahrain armed forces fire on protesters after martial law declared
(Extracts):
Military and security forces have moved against thousands of anti-government protesters occupying a landmark square in Bahrain's capital after the king declared a three-month state of emergency and instructed the military to tackle unrest.
Ali Al Aswad, a member of Bahrain's opposition Wefaq party, said the government was using helicopters to shoot at protesters and called for international intervention. ''The security forces are killing the people, we call upon UN to help us,'' he told al-Jazeera.
Financial Times - Troops fire on Bahraini protesters
(Extracts):
Bahrain’s armed forces opened fire on protesters in the capital Manama on Friday as demonstrators across the Arab world defied security forces to support the extraordinary wave of popular uprisings across the region.
The Bahraini military shot at a crowd, some of whom were holding flowers or chanting “peaceful, peaceful, peaceful”, as they tried to reoccupy a roundabout that has become a symbol of this week’s uprising in the small Arab kingdom.
In tense and chaotic scenes, ambulances arrived to pick up the wounded, several of whom were bleeding heavily.
“See what they are doing, is this democracy?” cried one demonstrator. “I have nothing, what do you expect, I only want to eat,” said another man.
Domestic issue no doubt but will the UN or USA or Western Europe intervene as they plan to now do in Libya? Will they be a no-fly zone imposed?
But read on …
Yahoo News - Saudi sends troops, Bahrain Shi'ites call it "war"
Whoa, now wouldn’t this be an invasion by foreign troops?
What will the USA do now, yes that USA, self-proclaimed leader of the free world, free speech and democracy, changer of evil regimes?
The same Yahoo news article reported that the White House said the United States did not consider the arrival of Saudi security forces as an invasion.
Of course not, as there’s no greater hypocrite in this world than the USA, with Western Europe a close second. That the USA has a huge base in Bahrain (Juffair) to protect its oil interests may also explain its refusal to intervene in a blatant case of human rights violation as Bahraini government troops poured fire on protestors (mainly Shiites).
Incidentally it has just asked non-essential US family members at its bases to leave Bahrain, an indication it is expecting worse, but hey, nothing to merit US intervention.
The hypocritical US is, as usual, protecting its local dictators, like it did for ex Nicaraguan dictator, Anastazio Somoza, and (initially) for Mubarak, the Saudi royalty, once the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein, Pakistani military dictators, Vietnam's Ngo brothers and a list of military strongmen, former Uzbekistan dictator Islam Karmov, Afghanistan current president Kazai and a host of other pocket dictators.
As US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said of Anastazio Somoza: “He might be a bastard, but he’s our bastard”.
And the USA is the BIGGEST bastard of them all!
(Extracts):
The UN Security Council has unanimously passed a vote calling for "all necessary measures" against forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
The vote - 10-0, with five abstentions, including Russia and China - will allow foreign enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya and ground Colonel Gaddafi's air force, reportedly as early as today.
The BBC reports that attacks on forces loyal to Gaddafi by the British and French air forces could begin within hours of the UN passing resolution 1973, with anti-aircraft defences the likely first targets.
One could argue the UN is interfering with a domestic issue (of rebellion) of the sovereign state of Libya, but nonetheless I support stopping the dictator from his nefarious killing of his own people.
Now, contrast the hypocrisy of the USA and Western Europe in their condonation and ‘act dunno’ of the following:
Sydney Morning Herald - Bahrain armed forces fire on protesters after martial law declared
(Extracts):
Military and security forces have moved against thousands of anti-government protesters occupying a landmark square in Bahrain's capital after the king declared a three-month state of emergency and instructed the military to tackle unrest.
Ali Al Aswad, a member of Bahrain's opposition Wefaq party, said the government was using helicopters to shoot at protesters and called for international intervention. ''The security forces are killing the people, we call upon UN to help us,'' he told al-Jazeera.
Financial Times - Troops fire on Bahraini protesters
(Extracts):
Bahrain’s armed forces opened fire on protesters in the capital Manama on Friday as demonstrators across the Arab world defied security forces to support the extraordinary wave of popular uprisings across the region.
The Bahraini military shot at a crowd, some of whom were holding flowers or chanting “peaceful, peaceful, peaceful”, as they tried to reoccupy a roundabout that has become a symbol of this week’s uprising in the small Arab kingdom.
In tense and chaotic scenes, ambulances arrived to pick up the wounded, several of whom were bleeding heavily.
“See what they are doing, is this democracy?” cried one demonstrator. “I have nothing, what do you expect, I only want to eat,” said another man.
Domestic issue no doubt but will the UN or USA or Western Europe intervene as they plan to now do in Libya? Will they be a no-fly zone imposed?
But read on …
Yahoo News - Saudi sends troops, Bahrain Shi'ites call it "war"
Whoa, now wouldn’t this be an invasion by foreign troops?
What will the USA do now, yes that USA, self-proclaimed leader of the free world, free speech and democracy, changer of evil regimes?
The same Yahoo news article reported that the White House said the United States did not consider the arrival of Saudi security forces as an invasion.
Of course not, as there’s no greater hypocrite in this world than the USA, with Western Europe a close second. That the USA has a huge base in Bahrain (Juffair) to protect its oil interests may also explain its refusal to intervene in a blatant case of human rights violation as Bahraini government troops poured fire on protestors (mainly Shiites).
Incidentally it has just asked non-essential US family members at its bases to leave Bahrain, an indication it is expecting worse, but hey, nothing to merit US intervention.
The hypocritical US is, as usual, protecting its local dictators, like it did for ex Nicaraguan dictator, Anastazio Somoza, and (initially) for Mubarak, the Saudi royalty, once the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein, Pakistani military dictators, Vietnam's Ngo brothers and a list of military strongmen, former Uzbekistan dictator Islam Karmov, Afghanistan current president Kazai and a host of other pocket dictators.
As US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said of Anastazio Somoza: “He might be a bastard, but he’s our bastard”.
And the USA is the BIGGEST bastard of them all!
Thursday, March 17, 2011
PKR destroying Pakatan in Sarawak
The Sarawak State Assembly has 71 representatives, and thus 71 state seats to be contested during a state election. In its 2006 state election, DAP, PKR, PAS and SNAP contested and respectively won the following number of seats:
DAP contested 12, won 6
PKR contested 25, won 1
SNAP contested 28, won 1
PAS contested 1, did not win any.
In the pending state election, PKR, without so much as a nod from its Pakatan allies, made a preemptive strike by unilaterally declaring it will contest 52 seats out of the 71 available. I'm surprised by its most generous nature that it didn't say it'll contest all 71 wakakaka.
But then that’s the same old PKR in 2007 when it tried the same old dirty trick of attempting to cheat DAP by presenting the latter with (hopeful) fait accompli through its unilateral media releases even before the Pakatan 2008 seat allocation exercise was completed. It made the same (as the Sarawak) preemptive ambit claim for several seats traditionally contested (and even some already won) by DAP.
Anwar Ibrahim had originally agreed to some seats as DAP's traditional domain, but (I suspect, under the influence of a certain someone) reneged on his agreement when PKR through its sickening unilateral media releases staked claims on DAP's seats the latter had planned to contest (with Anwar's full knowledge), albeit temporarily before he came to his senses and got his party to back off from claiming, for example, Kula’s seat in Ipoh Timor (or was it Barat?).
In this recent outrageous, preemptive, selfish, arrogant and unrealistic claim (through its usual unilateral media release) for 52 seats in Sarawak, leaving only 19 to be shared between DAP, PAS and SNAP, it either believes it is the ‘boss’ of Pakatan and the world revolves around it, or hopes to win 2 seats by doubling its 2006 efforts (25 got 1, maybe 52 will get 2?)
It even has the unmitigated arrogance to talk down on SNAP, stating it can only have 3 seats to contest (implying DAP and PAS have to share 16 seats). Who the F* did it think it was?
Sometimes PKR leaders have forgotten who has done well in the last State election, and what will be its likely chances in the land of Ibans-Dayaks?
What is far more annoying than its unrealistic greed and selfishness has been its overbearing arrogant presumption it can dictate terms to the others, DAP, PAS and especially SNAP. And the anwaristas naturally see no wrong in their leader's pseudo-imperious high-handedness, even chiding SNAP for not being (that UMNO word) 'grateful' and accepting the crumbs cast down by Azmin Ali the Great.
I do not see much future for Pakatan’s likelihood of winning in the next general election with such an insolent overbearing group of PKR leaders like Azmin Ali. It's little wonder that Gobala and Zaid left, and I wouldn't be at all surprised when dissatisfied Chegubard, Mustaffa Kamal, Jonson Chong and various others, who are all fedup with the blue-eyed lil' Napoleon and his coterie, follow soon.
Thus I don’t blame SNAP for just giving PKR the two fingers flick by declaring it will contest in at least 40 seats. SNAP made a point in stating its grievance is only with PKR and not DAP or PAS.
Much as I like peh-mor Taib and cronies to be chucked out by the forthcoming ballot box, I doubt very much that will happen, thanks to PKR unbelievable greed, selfishness, inability to cooperate, arrogance to its Pakatan mates and its unrealistic fantasy of winning more than its current 1-seat worth.
You can take some PKR members out of UMNO but you sure can’t take UMNO out of them.
DAP contested 12, won 6
PKR contested 25, won 1
SNAP contested 28, won 1
PAS contested 1, did not win any.
In the pending state election, PKR, without so much as a nod from its Pakatan allies, made a preemptive strike by unilaterally declaring it will contest 52 seats out of the 71 available. I'm surprised by its most generous nature that it didn't say it'll contest all 71 wakakaka.
But then that’s the same old PKR in 2007 when it tried the same old dirty trick of attempting to cheat DAP by presenting the latter with (hopeful) fait accompli through its unilateral media releases even before the Pakatan 2008 seat allocation exercise was completed. It made the same (as the Sarawak) preemptive ambit claim for several seats traditionally contested (and even some already won) by DAP.
Anwar Ibrahim had originally agreed to some seats as DAP's traditional domain, but (I suspect, under the influence of a certain someone) reneged on his agreement when PKR through its sickening unilateral media releases staked claims on DAP's seats the latter had planned to contest (with Anwar's full knowledge), albeit temporarily before he came to his senses and got his party to back off from claiming, for example, Kula’s seat in Ipoh Timor (or was it Barat?).
In this recent outrageous, preemptive, selfish, arrogant and unrealistic claim (through its usual unilateral media release) for 52 seats in Sarawak, leaving only 19 to be shared between DAP, PAS and SNAP, it either believes it is the ‘boss’ of Pakatan and the world revolves around it, or hopes to win 2 seats by doubling its 2006 efforts (25 got 1, maybe 52 will get 2?)
It even has the unmitigated arrogance to talk down on SNAP, stating it can only have 3 seats to contest (implying DAP and PAS have to share 16 seats). Who the F* did it think it was?
Sometimes PKR leaders have forgotten who has done well in the last State election, and what will be its likely chances in the land of Ibans-Dayaks?
What is far more annoying than its unrealistic greed and selfishness has been its overbearing arrogant presumption it can dictate terms to the others, DAP, PAS and especially SNAP. And the anwaristas naturally see no wrong in their leader's pseudo-imperious high-handedness, even chiding SNAP for not being (that UMNO word) 'grateful' and accepting the crumbs cast down by Azmin Ali the Great.
I do not see much future for Pakatan’s likelihood of winning in the next general election with such an insolent overbearing group of PKR leaders like Azmin Ali. It's little wonder that Gobala and Zaid left, and I wouldn't be at all surprised when dissatisfied Chegubard, Mustaffa Kamal, Jonson Chong and various others, who are all fedup with the blue-eyed lil' Napoleon and his coterie, follow soon.
Thus I don’t blame SNAP for just giving PKR the two fingers flick by declaring it will contest in at least 40 seats. SNAP made a point in stating its grievance is only with PKR and not DAP or PAS.
Much as I like peh-mor Taib and cronies to be chucked out by the forthcoming ballot box, I doubt very much that will happen, thanks to PKR unbelievable greed, selfishness, inability to cooperate, arrogance to its Pakatan mates and its unrealistic fantasy of winning more than its current 1-seat worth.
You can take some PKR members out of UMNO but you sure can’t take UMNO out of them.
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
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
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
Saturday, March 12, 2011
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).
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).
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
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!
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!
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, March 07, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Friday, March 04, 2011
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!
(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!
Thursday, March 03, 2011
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!]
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!]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)