Thursday, August 30, 2012


I read RPK's post titled Touché and must admit I wasn't aware his use of the word touché went beyond what I had in mind all along about the meaning of this word - goes to show I get to learn something new everyday.

To me, touché was a one-word admittance of one's error or absurd logic when countered by one's opponent's right-on-target sarcasm against one's statement, or perhaps a polite reminder for one to first look into the mirror before making such a statement. It's almost, though not quite, like a 'stone thrower' confessing to the proverb 'Yes, you right, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'.

Thus it's a word to be said by the person who has the table turned against his/her statement.

Okay, maybe the above explanation of my impression of touché is too much of a mouthful so let me instead provide a few examples, starting from the general to the particular, to wit, episodes in our Malaysian lives.

If an American bloke says to you "Your English is damn good for a Malaysian", and you cheekily (or sarcastically) reply "And yours too for an American", he would, if he has a sense of humour or appreciation for witty conversation, say touché - meaning he admits he has been far too presumptuous in believing only he an American (and not an Englishman) could speak good English.

Incidentally on the description 'American', if I may digress here a wee bit (being t'ng k'ooi or chong hei), I have an Argentinean friend who one day lamented that most people automatically assume that word points to a person-citizen of the United States of America (USA) when the term 'America' refers to two continents which have within them several countries.

He cried out that he too would be an American, and so too the Bolivians, Mexicans, Canadians, Ecuadorians, Cubans, etc. Why must the USA seize the word as a label for only its people? After all, the word 'America' was derived from the name of an Italian, Amerigo Vespucci (Latinised as Americus Vespucius), after he proved that Brazil and West Indies belonged to a new massive land mass totally separated from Asia, hence the term New World.

It was a German cartographer, Martin Waldseemüller, who first used the term 'America' to describe the new continent when he published a world map, stating:

"I do not see what right any one would have to object to calling this part, after Americus who discovered it and who is a man of intelligence, Amerige, that is, the Land of Americus, or America: since both Europa and Asia got their names from women".

In other words, the word 'America' was first used to name the southern continent mass, today known to us as South America.

I suggested to my matey that it might be a bit of a mouthful for the USA to call its people ... er .... United-States-ians, and when he rejected that as a poor excuse, offered a new description for citizens of the USA, namely, gringos wakakaka. My mate was finally mollified with that appellation for those Yankee gringos.

Okay, back to touché.

Suppose a Chinese friend of Aneh who sells Indian mee-rebus in Ayer Itam, says, "Aisehman Maniam, for an Indian hoe liao lah, you sure know how to use Chinese mee noodles for your speciality", and he replies with a twinkle in his eyes, "You know Ah Chong, I just love your mum's curry", it would be appropriately gracious for Ah Chong to smile and  admit touché to the clever banter.

Hmmm, I wonder whether you've got this one? Never mind, one more.

But this one may not please anwaristas wakakaka. Recall that Perak debacle when the state government changed hands after 3 PKR and one DAP ADUNs defected to the BN. Let us say Anwar condemned Najib for dabbling in underhanded political defections, and Najib responded, "Don't Nasarudin Hashim, Jamaluddin Radzi and Osman Jailu ... reflect the sentiments of their voters, namely the Malays in their constituencies ... as the beginning of a new wave?"

That would have been a situation where Anwar Ibrahim could, if politically gracious, acknowledge touché wakakaka. But alas, the tussle was too bitter to be gracious because the political consequence of the mirrored actions of Anwar and Najib was far too traumatic.

Still don't get it? Wakakaka. Never mind, another one ler.

This story of the bigoted 'kong kali kong' insult may be sensitive but nonetheless needs to be narrated. We all know the gene-denier Dr Ridhuan Abdullah Tee, but do you know he has a twin (twin in denying his genes wakakaka) by the name of Ann Wan Seng. Ann was (is?) an ustaz and a member of Perkim national council.

Somehow, like his better known gene denying twin, instead of doing his work for Islam and Perkim without insulting other races or religions, he just had to insult the Chinese Buddhists, and in a pitifully ill-informed way at that, testifying to his abysmal ignorance on a topic he set out to insult, a typically dubious hallmark of his BTN-ized Boleh-ness.

Sometime in 2010, he delivered a speech to deliberately insult the Chinese, perhaps to ingratiate himself with the Malay-Muslims by suggesting he wasn't a Chinese. His speech went as follows:

Bukan sekadar orang Cina menyembah agama Buddha. Mereka juga sembah berbagai dewa dan juga dewi. Mereka sembah Tua Pek Kong, mereka sembah Pau Kong, mereka sembah Datuk Kong dan barangkali mereka juga sembah King Kong.

Maka jadilah agama dia agama Kong Kali Kong.

Dan inilah keadaan yang sedia wujud itu di mana orang Cina sembah patung-patung ini kerana mereka yakin dan juga mereka percaya bahawa patung ini boleh mendatangkan kebaikan kepada mereka, boleh mendatangkan kesejahteraan kepada mereka, boleh memberikan keselamatan malahan boleh menjadikan mereka ini kaya-raya.

Needless to say, his ill-informed religious bigotry drew laughter, sniggers, giggles from his rapt audience who weren't aware of the religious fact that Buddhists have no god. The ustaz in his ignorance had mistakenly conflated Chinese folklore religion with Buddhism. Shallow superficial snake, but then why should we be surprised!

Just suppose for an instant that Ustaz Ann Wan Seng had been right about Chinese Buddhists worshipping patung (idols), and I then asked him about the black stone in the eastern corner stone of the Ka'aba?


Alas, unlike benevolent smiles and laughter for the bigoted mischief of the gene-denier, based on his shameful ignorance, I'd probably be hauled up by the police for inciting religious ill-feelings or/and insulting Islam [gulp]. Thus, I didn't dare bring that up to him.

Final example, though I am quite reluctant to raise the following one because the end result of its airing (in a Malaysiakini letter in October 2010) had effectively destroyed an erstwhile lovely friendship with Helen Ang. Perhaps I'll just mention it in its most basic outline.

Two years ago, when dearest Helen went on her unexpected and shocking anti DAP crusade (though I know the reason why, wakakaka), she blasted sweetie Teo Nie Ching, DAP MP for Serdang.

In a letter to Malaysiakini, she excoriated Teo for wearing a selendang (shawl) not long after Teo was vilified by UMNO for her surau visit to talk with members of her constituency, purportedly because she had not cover her head when she entered the prayer house, but in reality because of UMNO's political fears of her growing popularity.

Sweetie Helen accused Teo of being overeager (in wearing a selendang) in order to 'hop, skip and jump to her next surau visit'.

When I pointed out in a letter, also to MKINI, that sweetie Helen, then under threat of a police callup instigated by an UMNO Youth report for her alleged seditious writing against Malays-Muslims, had prior to reporting to the police posted an article in MKINI titled ‘Education and fragmented kin’ in which she described herself as having worn a baju kurung, to extol her affinity with the Malay community and culture so as to repudiate allegations of her anti Melayu writing.

So there we were, Helen chewing up Teo Nie Ching for adopting Malay headgear dress for political visits and yours truly cheekily pointing out to sweetie Helen that she too adopted a Malay dress as proof she wasn't anti-Melayu.

It was an exchange of barbs between anti-DAP Helen and pro-DAP kaytee that, had it been conducted in more friendly and congenial circumstances, should have sweetie Helen responding touché sweetly to me, wakakaka. But [sob] it wasn't.

Hah, the fun of the word touché, but alas, not used frequently enough.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Safer to rape lil' girls than to steal beer

Malaysiakini - Man spared jail for rape of 12-year old

What the FUCK!

Yet ANOTHER case of 'bright future'!

Yet ANOTHER case of 'consensual' sex!

Yet ANOTHER case of 'no force or coercion'"

Hellooooooooo, yang arif, both victims were sub-16. What kind of judgement have been these, where you two don't understand what is 'statutory rape' .

The law states clearly that a person below the age of 16 is deemed unable to make an informed decision and/or appreciate the possible consequences of the decision.

Thus, consensual sex is totally irrelevant in statutory rape!

Thus, non-coercion is totally irrelevant in statutory rape!

Thus, any adult who had sex with a girl below the age of 16 has committed statutory rape, regardless of consent by the victim or that there was no force or coercion!

The Malaysian Insider (TMI) reported in its news article Rapists freed by courts match medical definition of paedophiles that the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD) categorizes paedophilia as ‘a sexual preference for children boys or girls or both usually of pre-pubertal or early pubertal age’, ...

... while the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) used by mental health professionals globally states 'paedophilia is the sexual attraction to pubescent or pre-pubescents aged 13 or younger and the subject must be 16 or older with the child at least five years younger'.

TMI states the two slimy maggots fit the medical profiles of paedophiles and that international research of paedophilia as a sexual disorder suggests that paedophiles start offending at a young age.

I was totally gob-smacked by the judge's explanation in the earlier case, where he had dared, in a case of statutory rape, to use the excuse that Nor Afizal did not use force and it was consensual sex.

Are these new laws no one other than the judge has been aware of? 

Apparently not, as his colleague in Penang has done the same thing?

Or, has it been a case of stare decisis (legal precedence), or perhaps what the Cantonese loosely term 'Hoe Heng Tai'?

In my earlier post Malaysian Laws like Spider Webs? I pointed out that an unemployed man was jailed for FIVE YEARS for stealing less than a dozen cans of beer. He was charged under Section 380 of the Penal Code for theft, which carries a maximum 10 years’ jail or fine upon conviction.

For stealing 11 cans of beer, he was sentenced to 50% of the max jail term.

Those two arseholes, Nor Afizal and Chuah Guan Jiu were charged under Section 376(1) of the Penal Code where they could face up to 20 years' jail and whipping.

For raping little girls, did they get any fraction of the max sentence or whipping?

The moral of the story we obtain must be that under Malaysian law, it's (criminally) safer to rape little girls than steal a few cans of beer.

With such a mentality in our country, was it any wonder our Parliament in 2009 had passed legislation to reduce, yes reduce the sentence for incestuous slugs - for more see Lawmakers too easy on incest!

If one court had committed the unbelievable legal error of not knowing what is the meaning of statutory rape, and made worse by the senior judge attempting to explain the court's decision by the very explanations that the laws said would not and should not be considered in a case of statutory rape, it was fucking bad enough.

But for a second similar case to occur with virtually identical judgement just within a couple of weeks beats the f* out of Malaysians' respect for an already lowly respected judiciary.

Who the f* has brought our once world renowned judiciary to such pathetic standards!

Tuesday, August 28, 2012


Malaysiakini - Datukship a catch-22 problem for DAP

The 'datuk' we'll discussing in this post is not granddad or the icon reposing under the Banyan tree in my Island State wakakaka.

It's the title that comes with an honorary knighthood awarded by the Malaysian King (Yang di-Pertuan Agong), or the sultan of a Malaysian state, or the Yang di-Pertuan Negeri (YDN) (ceremonial governor) of a Malaysian non-sultanate state, namely Penang, Malacca, Sabah and Sarawak.

Apparently the title of datuk (or dato, datu, etc) came into use some 1400 years ago in the Sri Vijaya Kingdom, when it was meant for subordinate (vassalized) kings and regional chiefs. Later, some sultanates used the title for community leaders.

Today in Malaysia, as mentioned above, the title comes with an honorary knighthood awarded by the King (at federal level), a state sultan, or the YPN of Penang, Malacca, Sabah or Sarawak, usually as annual and sometimes as special honours.

In every society there are humorous stories and also jokes about virtually every facet of life, but the jokes associated with Malaysian honours award system have been unfortunately cruel, laced with cynical sneers and/or disdainful contempt.

The one currently in notorious vogue is that a Chinese or Indian in possession of a datukship could well be a crook or gangster who had shelled out plenty of moola to obtain the title, wakakaka. Incidentally, are there Malay gangsters other than Mat Rempits, some 'uniformed people', or allegedly an UMNO minister? wakakaka again.

Another Malaysian joke about datukship is that if one were to spit in a crowded place, there is a high probability that one's expectoration would hit at least three datuks, wakakaka.

My uncle told me that this particular joke would be akin to the old English joke/sneer about the multitude of Italian counts - unlike Malaysian datuks, counts were/are hereditary titles - with some even working as waiters serving cappuccinos at cafes. Such was the snobbery of the English but then, such was the proliferation of Italian counts.

OK, in real life there could well have been Italian counts who were crooks or members of the Cosa Nostra (Sicilian Mafia) or 'Ndrangheta (Calabrese Mafia) or Camorra (Neapolitan Mafia), but there doesn't seem to be any English equivalent to our Malaysian (first) joke, namely, a titled gangster.

Now, the absence of such a joke about an Italian count-gangster contrasts rather pointedly and indeed embarrassingly to our variety, indirectly implying we Malaysians certainly live up or, rather, down to our favourite national cry of Malaysia Boleh, in honouring even criminal hoodlums with knighthoods, wakakaka.

And guess who should we blame for this?

It's may be worthwhile following Dr Mahathir's example by blaming, as a start, foreigners, wakakaka.

Yes, blame the British and their royal honours award system. The Pommie example gave our founding fathers the idea of moving the award of datukship beyond the traditional Sri Vijayan practice of limiting the titles (presumably of the hereditary version) to only regional (subordinate rulers) and chieftains, on to citizens who have made significant contributions or sacrifices to the nation.

Incidentally, talking about 'significant contributions or sacrifices' by citizens in this post, I will not discuss gallantry awards like the Seri Pahlawan Gagah Perkasa (SP) or the Panglima Gagah Berani (PGB) which are very light-years different from datukships.

The British honours award process, where the Pommie Queen (and previously, Kings) awards knighthoods to high achievers in various sectors of the (once) British Empire (now reduced to the parts of the British Isle and minor islands in the Caribbean and Malvinas, wakakaka, and some former colonies which still subscribe to the British award system) is not a bad system per se.

The system serves to publicly recognize and acknowledge the nation's leading contributors, such as exceptional captains of industry (eg. Richard Branson, Alan Sugar, Charles Dunstone), those in the arts or entertainment (eg. Cliff Richards, Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirrin), sports (eg. Sebastian Coe, Stirling Moss, Bobby Charlton), etc.

Richard Branson

Back to the British system again - I would like to briefly mention two blokes who received the Queen's knighthood awards, Lee Kuan Yew and Sean Connery.

'Harry' Lee Kuan Yew

While I respect and indeed admire Lee Kuan Yew for his intellect, leadership and astute management of Singapore into what the Island State is today, a 1st World nation of immense wealth, I don’t his conceit and what I suspect, sadly, to be a cultural cringe towards the British.

I was very much disappointed to read in his autobiography his crowing and coo-ing over a British honours award, namely The Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George. Oh, how he wrote so ever gushingly about how much that Pommie award meant to an ex colonial like him.


Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George

Here was a man who was the leader of one of the most, if not the most dynamic nation in the world, a man who was principally responsible for Singapore rising from being a 3rd World ex British island colony (with no natural resources other than its people) to becoming a 1st World nation of an exceptional order, and all within a mere 25 to 30 years, and he, a political-state superman, was thrilled with a mere meaningless trinket handed down to a former colonial by a foreign monarch?

dynamic and immensely wealthy 1st World Singapore

Look, there have been lots of tooth-picking, spitting-on-the-street Hongkie towkays, wakakaka, who have been made knights of the British realm for lesser reasons.

Can you ever imagine brilliant, tough, intellectual, assertive world-class Harry Lee lapping up a royal pat on his head by the Great White Mother in dear old England? What a split personality! My esteem of him immediately took a dive. So … he is not the complete great superman after all.

Okay, wait for the point I'm about to make. Manmanlai ler, wakakaka.

Next, we come to Sean Connery who needs no introduction to most of us as we have seen many movies in which he starred. His image is the one movie buffs associate with Ian Fleming's fictionalized character of James Bond.

Sean Connery

Lucky bloke (Connery, not Bond wakakaka) has earned a number of superlatives, where he was polled as ‘The Greatest Living Scot’ and ‘Scotland's Greatest Living National Treasure’. In 1989 the People Magazine announced he was voted as the ‘Sexiest Man Alive’. As if that were not enough, in 1999, when he was already 69, he was voted ‘Sexiest Man of the Century’.

It's relevant at this stage to mention that Connery is a member of the Scottish National Party (SNP), which campaigns for Scottish independence from Britain. He donates £4,800 a month to the party.

Flag of Scotland

For his contribution to the arts, not unlike our sweetie Dato Michelle Yeoh, the late Dato Sudirman Arshad and the late Dato Loganathan Arumuguam of Alleycats, ... 

Michelle Yeoh


Loganathan Arumugam

... Connery was recommended for knighthood in 1997 and again in 1998 but alas, because of his political views, namely, independence for Scotland, the then Scottish Secretary Donald Dewar was said to have vetoed the recommendations on both occasions.

But Connery was finally knighted in July 2000. I'm not sure whether it's because Donald Dewar was terribly ill that same year, and was replaced by Jim Wallace; Dewar died in 2000.

As Connery supported (still does) Scotland being independent from Britain, many did wonder whether he would reject the knighthood as did author HG Wells, playwright George Bernard Shaw, fellow actor Paul Scofield, and many more. But he accepted it, saying he was very happy to receive the Queen’s honours.

So, even for a Republican like Connery, and as we know it, for a near superman like Lee Kuan Yew of the Republic of Singapore, the allure of a British knighthood, perhaps the glamour and recognition associated with it, was irresistible for both.

The above two examples tell us we shouldn't be surprised that the associated glitz, glitter and glamour of being a datuk have even motivated some people to foolishly pay for one from a so-called Sultan Kudarat of Mindanao, wakakaka.

The point I want to make is that many (though obviously not all) Malaysians would like to be a datuk, no matter how much they may profess republican proclivities or pretend they aren't interested.

The other and far more important aspect of the datukship story is the politically-judicious necessity for some Chinese and Indian politicians (specifically those in the DAP) to accept one when so honoured by a ruler, and not to emulate, in the case of the British system, author HG Wells, playwright George Bernard Shaw, actor Paul Scofield, and many more who declined the knighthood awards.

While it's okay to decline a knighthood in Britain or other Western Commonwealth countries, it's unwise to do so in our 'skin-coloured' conscious society.

By deferentially accepting the sultan's honours, the recipient would be sending a message that he or she (like republican Sean Connery) is not disrespectful of royalty, a point the DAP ADUN for Sekinchan Selangor, Ng Suee Lim has made, as he was deeply concerned that DAP politician, in not accepting datukships as per party policy, could be maliciously mis-portrayed by the other side of politics (specifically UMNO) as being anti royalty and thus, anti Malay.

Ng Suee Lim

Then there are some Chinese and Indian businessmen who want to be datuks for no other reason than to be in the 'correct' crowd for business deals, contracts, the sort of money-making stuff which in Malaysia would be easier to secure when in the right company - not necessarily at the very top level but just where a datukship title could make some decent social impact and acceptability, and thus be useful to their business enterprise, wakakaka.

I had earlier mentioned that our honours award is prone to corruption where I provided three such situations. There is a fourth. For this one, it's not so much corruption per se but look, when a datukship is awarded willy nilly to some people, the effect could, would be and has been seen as grossly unfair or abused.

Let's talk about two Malaysians who swam across the English channel. Both were in their twenty's. One did it in a time of 17 hours 42 minutes. The other swam the channel in 9 hours 45 minutes. We have been very proud of both, but only one was awarded a datukship. Guess which one of them?

Regardless of the time he took, we must acknowledge the datuk achieved a great feat, but at the same time we need to note he was only 1 out of over 630 individuals (including women) who successfully swam across the channel in the last 128 years, with many in much much faster time than he did (including some women and his fellow Malaysian). Some even did the swim both ways across the channel, and in a continuous fashion. The datuk was hardly an outstanding world beater like Sebastian Coe or Stirling Moss.

But if Malaysia felt compelled to recognize the feat as meriting the award of a datukship, why was only one of them so honoured?

Much as the saying 'comparisons are odious' is true, alas, such an obvious differentiated consideration encourages that unfortunate comparison and, sadly and quite unfairly, diminishes his actual achievement.

Of course there's also the issue of his tender age! A datuk only in his early twenty's? Have we demean the dignity of the datukship and insulted HRH by giving a knighthood to a mere 20-year old?

Thus, I wasn't all that comfortable when Penang awarded datukships to both Lee Chong Wei and Nicol Ann David. Yes, we could argue that each of the two super sports persons has been No 1 in the World, but please look at their age. Won't it be far more appropriate when they have retired or at least have reached 40 years old or more?


Chong Wei

While I have no quarrel with Penang awarding datukship to N Mohandas and M Magendran for their Everest achievements we should also note that many people have preceded them to the top of the world's highest mountain, not unlike the case of our first English Channel swimmer who did it after more than 630 swimmers had already achieved the feat (the first being 128 years earlier), though I have to say that at least their ages are more appropriate for a datukship than a 20-year old chico.

Magendran & Mohandas

But I wonder, just wonder, whether the Penang (Pakatan) government had considered they were worthy of datukship when viewed within the Malaysian context, and wanted to make a just equalizing act to some willy nilly excesses by the BN government.

And far far worse than its willy nilly excesses, the BN government had even allowed Tan-Sri-ships, which are supposedly of a higher order than datukships, to be awarded to highly questionable recipients, those of alleged ill repute or associated with lamentable incidents. I can easily count three such cases which would have undeniably caused HM the Agong to squirm in embarrassment and, probably in private, curse the PM for forcing him into the lamentable situation of handing the awards to such people.

Thus, within such a lamentable context (of undeserved awards to people of questionable and disgraceful repute), maybe Mohandas and Magendran deserve their datukship after all.


I'm not going to make any recommendation on how to improve the system other than to hope the Pakatan Penang government will review the process to ensure the Penang State honours award system is not cheapened, abused or misused.

Sunday, August 26, 2012

Hopping, hullabaloo, humbug

Malaysiakini - CM defends proposed 'anti-hopping law'

Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng said his administration's plans to enact a law to prevent state assemblypersons from switching political allegiance mid-term is to protect citizens from a breach of public trust and protecting democracy. […]

"For any elected representative elected on a party ticket to hop or cross over is an immoral, unethical and unprincipled act that shows utter contempt for the democratic choice of their voters.”

"If they were elected on the party they represent, they should resign their seat and seek a fresh mandate from the people if they chose to leave the party platform on which they were elected on," said Lim in a press release today.

He argued that democracy meant that voters should be given another opportunity to judge whether the decision by the elected representative to switch allegiance is acceptable, or not.

Precisely my stand all these years, and why I despise you-know-who, with the plural in ‘you-know-who’.

But alas, Koh Tsu Koon somehow found his voice (and balls) to tell Guan Eng off on this, as reported by MKINI in its news article Anti-hopping law: Koh slams Lim for double-standards.

Our dear Headmaster deputy Headmaster on NKRA asked Guan Eng why the latter didn't say a word about the two Sabah frogs, Lajim Ukim and Wilfred Bumburing, leaving BN to form new parties which have allied themselves to Pakatan?

Koh squeaked: "Where is the consistency? I did not see (DAP stalwart) Lim Kit Siang and Lim Guan Eng protest when two MPs (members of parliament) from the Sabah BN jumped into the Pakatan fold.”

"So, why practise double-standards now. Is he doing this for (merely for) show?"

I can answer that for Guan Eng. Lajim and Bumburing have NOT leaped into any Pakatan component parties, as they have formed their own parties. If they wish for their new parties to support Pakatan, I won't say that's of a frog-ological nature.

Okay lah, I admit I sound technically (and defiantly) correct but in reality morally f* weak in my attempted defence of Guan Eng.

That's the f* trouble when DAP patronises a Master-Chef who insists on serving les cuisses de grenouilles.

les cuissee de grenouilles

Also, I learnt that frogs are haram for the Shafi'i, Hanafi and Hanbali (though okay for Maliki) schools of Islam - hmmm, there must be an Islamic moral in this for our Muslim politicians on both sides, not that they care two figs.

Previously, DAP sweetie Hannah Yeoh, not unlike Guan Eng, had suffered from the same diarrhoeic affliction in 'consuming' the dish of les grenouilles de 916.

But it's a curse that DAP needn't have to suffer as its spiritual leader, my hero Karpal Bhai, has repetitively warned against eating non-halal stuff.

The problems surrounding defection have been made deliberately worse by an earlier BN-dominated parliament legislating to prohibit those, who resigned from their positions as MP or ADUN before their elected terms have run out, form standing as (respectively federal or state) election candidates for 5 years. It's this rule that has effectively prevented Dr Wan Azizah from re-contesting in a federal constituency.

Malaysiakini reported in its article Ex-PM decries DAP's anti-hopping law that Dr Mahathir asserted: "We are free ... we say we want to liberalise, to be able to speak one’s mind and criticise people and what not; that is our freedom. So what is it now in wanting to prevent people from party hopping?"

MCA president CSL made more or less the same statement about the federal constitution guaranteeing the freedom of association, as if the BN has ever respected the constitution, having changed it more than 200 times in a the last 30 years of rule to suit its political purposes.

Besides, since we all know the general Malaysian voting preference of electing a representative on the strength of his/her political party rather than the candidate as an individual, what about the rights of voters who voted Party A only to find their votes have gone to Party B?

So CSL, what about the voters' rights? Or would this be the only way that MCA can dream of ever having a MP or ADUN after the next election?

But then, shouldn't Dr Mahathir's claim of liberalness be also applicable to the wish of a MP/ADUN who may want to resign on political principles to re-contest again? So why had the (earlier) UMNO-led government legislated to prevent this by imposing a mandatory hiatus of 5 years?

Don't tell me the bullshit that it's to prevent wasting public money in holding by-elections, because allowing the rakyat to elect or re-elect their desired representative should be their fundamental rights and an overriding priority, where by preventing the MP/ADUN who has resigned on a matter of political principle to re-stand, would be effectively denying the rakyat their choice of re-electing said candidate.

Rights, choice, principles - these are issues far more important than saving a few dollars, tax-payers' dollars, not the government's.

So, Dr Mahathir, you can't claim it's 6 on one while denying half a dozen on the other, because that's hypocrisy and double standards. And don't tell us about the Master-Chef as he was your protégé and his heart, soul and proclivities are still like yours, in and of UMNO wakakaka.

Incidentally, at this point, I must define who's a political frog because it would appear many still don't understand the distinction. The frog has to be a MP or ADUN who was elected under the banner of, say, Party A but takes his MP/ADUN position across to, say, Party B (even if he/she puts on a show of not joining Party B but votes regularly with Party B). In other words, a frog is one who treacherously betrays the choice and trust of the voters.

OTOH, a member from, say, Party A who is NOT a MP or ADUN and who leaves to join another political party, say, Party B or Party C, is NOT a frog. He or she most certainly has the right to freedom of association that Dr Mahathir and CSL have talked about, as this person won't be reneging on or betraying any voter.

But the biggest culprits aren't frogs but us, the voters. We Malaysian voters are the most stupid and hypocritical people. We are stupid because we kept re-electing contemptible frogs like Ibrahim Ali and his ilk. We are hypocritical because we claim we despise frogs yet accommodate them as heroes when they leap to our side.

We lack the political maturity of the voters in countries like Australia or New Zealand for it seems we do not really know how to deal with frogs, both those hopping away from or hopping into our favoured party. In more than one way, we actually encourage frogs by our inconsistent attitude towards them.

So pordah pariahs (that's us, not those opportunistic frogs)!

Police statistics on crime rates

The Malaysian Insider - Kit Siang roasts mum Putrajaya over crime stats claim

Lim Kit Siang today questioned Putrajaya's inaction over claims that its efficiency unit and the police had manipulated crime statistics by reclassifying offences to depict a reduced crime rate.

Pinpointing Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein as well as ministers in charge of the government's National Key Result Area (NKRA). Datuk Seri Idris Jala and Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon over the matter. Lim today said the trio should have "instantly" rebutted the "serious allegations of dishonest statistics tampering by the anonymous police officer".

On Wednesday, an anonymous letter purportedly written by policeman alleged of how crimes were being methodically shifted into "non-index" offences that were not registered as part of official statistics presented by efficiency unit PEMANDU.

"If Hishammuddin Idris Jala and Koh continue to keep their silence then Malaysians must thank the anonymous police officer for performing his patriotic duty to answer why Malaysians suffer increasing fear of crime despite claims of continuous drastic fall in crime rate", Lim said today in a press statement.

He added the government should instead appoint a new home minister"who is serious about fighting crime" and who is "honest with Malaysians about the actual crime situation in the country".

BN ministers honest? Uncle Lim was either naive or sarcastic wakakaka.