Guan lai

On this quiet Sunday I've decided to teach you a Penang Hokkien phrase wakakaka, an impulse motivated by one of my more angry (at me) visitors who in an unguarded moment actually praised* me and yearned for what must be nostalgic memories for him/her when kaytee went around whacking BN non-stop (except when I was whacking Anwar and PAS, wakakaka).

* he/she has since deleted his/her own comment, perhaps out of embarrassment or regrets in praising me, wakakaka

no, not this one, read on, wakakaka

The Penang Hokkien phrase I want to demonstrate here is 'guan³ lai²' (the numerals indicate the respective tones of those Hokkien words). The word 'guan' is pronounced as in Lim Guan Eng and 'lai' as in Liow Tiong Lai though the phrase has nothing to do with both, wakakaka, but I may be persuaded to demonstrate sentences involving those two, wakakaka again.

I do not know the Mandarin or Canto version of 'guan lai' so after my following explanations those of you who are real-pakar Chinese language scholars may wish to help, thank you.

'Guan Lai' may be translated into English as "aha, that explains why ..." with perhaps even an unspoken "oh, now I see" implicit or embedded within it. I suppose in Bahasa it can be said to equal "aha, itulah sebabnya!"

It's usually expressed as a moment of enlightenment, though NOT of the religious kind, yea not quite an epiphany, wakakaka.

For example, if during this apparently rich bountiful durian season in Peninsula Malaya I were to send baskets and baskets of Musang King durians to Puan Yammy Samat, she would no doubt be alarmed, puzzled and wondering why this bloke by the name of kaytee moc has been so generous to her, wakakaka.

Then a dobber (whistle blower) by the name of looes whispered to her, "Puan, kaytee rindu anak puan lah".

Well, Puan Yammy might then sigh "Ahh, guan lai", wakakaka.

OK? But what about another example of when 'guan lai' would/could be used?

Recently I left a comment at RPK's blog asking why Sarawak Report, known hitherto as an alternative news source on Sarawak affairs, particularly on its management of forest reserve, has now waded into the 1MDB affairs?

According to Wikipedia, Sarawak Report is an investigative journalism online news resource that offers "an alternative vision of justice, transparency and a fairer future in Sarawak. It is based in London.

Sarawak Report describes itself as "a group of citizens and onlookers deeply concerned by the situation in Sarawak, East Malaysia." It was founded by Clare Rewcastle Brown, sister-in-law of former UK prime minister Gordon Brown. In 2013, Bridget Welsh, a political science professor at Singapore Management University and an expert on Malaysian affairs, credited Sarawak Report for its “impact on the political debate” over deforestation in Sarawak and the New York Times called Ms Rewcastle Brown "one of the most effective voices calling attention to deforestation in Malaysia.

So the key issues associated with Sarawak Report as mentioned by the Wikipedia extract above are (i) of course Sarawak and (ii) its forest.

But why 1MDB now? And that has been why I was a wee puzzled.

RPK didn't answer my comment directly but he eventually provided the answer to my query on why the so-called "... group of citizens and onlookers led by Clare Rewcastle Brown, deeply concerned by the situation in Sarawak, East Malaysia ..." has virtually day after day been releasing confidential bank information including details of private accounts of bank holders in contravention of the secrecy provision under section 97(1) of the Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989 (BAFIA).

I found his answer in his post CLARE REWCASTLE BROWN: THE PROBER NOW BEING PROBED.

After reading it, I too like Puan Yammy Samat sighed and said "Guan lai!" wakakaka.

OK we are now moving a wee closer to what my angry visitor probably wants to know.

Recall my letter to Malaysiakini on 22 March 2010 in which I defended (gasp, gawd, omigosh) Anwar Ibrahim against the sneering jeering taunts of Khairy Jamaluddin who gibed at our staunch Muslim (former) DPM (once head of ABIM and once also touted as a potential heir-anointed to PAS President Allahyarham Ustaz Fadzil Noor) for dancing with the daughter of the late Lim Goh Tong, founder/owner of Genting Highlands.

As I wrote in my letter: Never an admirer of Anwar Ibrahim, I wouldn't have dreamed of defending him but I’ll take the advice of my uncle who told me that one could always try something new or unusual.

Here's that letter to Malaysiakini Dalai Lama shakes hands, Anwar Ibrahim dances and just in case you can't access it, here's also the associated kaytee post Defending Anwar Ibrahim - wakakaka.

And may I just say that not one PKR supporter wrote in to defend Anwar regarding that news report about KJ's jeering at Anwar, leaving the task all to poor kaytee, sigh! No no, don't thank me - my reason for taking on that job follows, wakakaka.

What I didn't want to air in my letter to Malaysiakini (being in reality a shy bloke, wakakaka) was that I didn't like what I saw/see as unfair jabs below the belt, even at Anwar Ibrahim who as everyone knows is not exactly my favourite person, wakakaka.

Yes, sometimes I like to defend the 'underdog' no matter who he or she might/could be, BUT that doesn't mean I have 'changed sides' over to the person I defended, like Anwar in 2010 - no, god forbid, wakakaka.

I found it immensely childish (and sometimes amusing) when my angrier visitors blasted and excoriated me for apparently defending so and so and then (here's the childish silly bit) accused me of 'changing sides'.

Actually, I didn't mind them being angry or critical of me, wakakaka, because they would be entitled to their criticisms if they didn't agree with my take on an issue or a person. But to follow that through, most illogically a la George Bush's bullying "you're either with us or against us", by assuming I have 'changed sides' has been far too stupid to tolerate, ignore or accept - though thus far I have just ignored their silly accusations.

It would be like saying, and perish that thought, I had 'changed sides' over to being an anwarista since 22 March 2010 - urghhh, what a horrible thought, wakakaka!

Then what is this 'changing sides' bullshit? Who says I have taken sides? If I haven't taken sides in the first place, how then could I have 'change sides'?

Yes, I may now be supporting DAP but for a precise reason, in that I currently see DAP (as well as PSM) as still the 'cleanest' and most accountable political party in Malaysia. But I'm not a DAP member or a committed (set in concrete) supporter.

Mind, I have to admit though that now I am having some serious second thoughts over the behaviour of a couple of DAP politicians. And if I don't support DAP in the future, that will be because I've come to find the party no longer what I had seen it to be.

And that's my f* right which has nothing to do with 'taking sides' or 'changing sides'. It's called independent choice after careful assessments.

BTW, has any of you said 'guan lai' yet? wakakaka.

Anyway on to the concluding part of my post - as we are aware, Judeo-Christian believers are taught and presumably learn a lot from biblical parables. What about Muslims? Anyway, Wikipedia tells us that:

A parable is a succinct, didactic story, in prose or verse, which illustrates one or more instructive lessons or principles. It differs from a fable in that fables employ animals, plants, inanimate objects, or forces of nature as characters, whereas parables have human characters. A parable is a type of analogy.

OK I'm about to give you a parable (sorry lah, no wombat fable, wakakaka) to know more about the why's & wherefore's of kaytee's political tingkah laku, wakakaka.

Being a sort of lazy bloke I'm not going to invent one but instead pluck something from the Good Book (bible, in case you don't know what the 'Good Book' means, wakakaka) and just jazz it up for your reading pleasure.

Some nearly 3400 years ago, after Yehoshua (yes, same name as the Christian Messiah), who led the Israelites into invading, conquering and occupying Canaan, passed away at the age of 110, a series of leaders arose in the new Israelite nation who were called judges.

Bearing in mind that Israel was a theocratic state, those judges were usually priests-warriors, blokes who could impose their god's words on the naughty Israelites as well as immolate their enemies on their god's words.

The bible tells us of the need for judges to oversight Israelites because (according to those Judean clerics who wrote the bible, wakakaka) those people were naughtily apostatical, with consequential hardship brought upon them as punishment from their god, and thus their subsequent cry out to god for rescue ... and of course like the movie styled US 7th Cavalry, along came judges sent by god to save them, blokes like Samson despite him being an unmitigated womaniser.

All in all there were 15 judges, namely, Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Deborah, Gideon, Abimelech, Tola, Jair, Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, Abdon, Samson, Eli, and Samuel.

Samson was the local superman (but a bane to barbers, wakakaka) and perhaps because of his several flings with the sweeties of his time was the darling of Hollywood movie-makers; like the Messiah he had a 'divine' father, an angel who 'came unto' his mum when she was out alone in the fields. Shades of the Greek gods, wakakaka.

Then Deborah was the only female among the 15, and Jephthah the most notorious who sembileh (sacrificed) his own daughter to his god in appreciation for a god-granted military victory, not unlike Abraham sacrificing Isaac to his (same) god. In both cases, sad to say there was no last minute intervention by their god to save an innocent child's life - see my post Did Abraham sacrifice Ishmael or Isaac?

Perhaps Abimelech could earn the dubious title of being the first king of the Israelites (instead of Saul), though his kingship was self coronated (a victim of his own craze for pompous glory, wakakaka), unlike Saul who was elected by the people.

But the one I dislike most (and those who have been following my blog knows which one, wakakaka) was the last of the judges, Samuel.

OK, get your 'guan lai' organized and ready, wakakaka.

Let me start off by quoting 1 Samuel 8: 1-18 (KJV), which tell us:

And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.

2 Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beersheba.

3 And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.

4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,

5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

So what we have is an old man who had enjoyed virtual ruling power for decades because of his exalted semi-divine status (as a man who had a direct line to god) and who then wanted to place his own sons as judges to rule over the people of Israel. I wonder whether the word 'nepotism' existed in the ancient Hebrew language?

So much for this man of god who wanted to appoint his OWN sons even though they were known to be corrupt and unjust. How come his god didn't pick him up on this? Do you really want me to tell you why? wakakaka.

But the Israelites won't have any bar of that as Samuel's sons were notoriously corrupt and had perverted justice. Instead they elected a man from the tribe of Benjamin by the name of Saul to be their king.

How do you think Samuel must have felt? Of course he was pissed off, in fact mad as hell (excuse the pun) and then this was what he did, coincidentally (wakakaka) as a bloke who had a direct line to his god:

6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.

7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.

Thus we read about tons of merajuk-ing by the Israelite Lord, though that god was actually and totally innocent because the above words were those of Samuel himself, in a situation where he was suffering from a case of acute 'conflict of interests', wakakaka.

He then claimed that his god warned the people of the disadvantages of having a king (of course implied in comparison to his corrupt and unjust judge-sons). OK, let's return to 1 Samuel 8: 11- 22 (KJV).

11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.

19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;

20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.

And because the people ignored his bull, he then went about sabotaging Saul every which way until his protege David massacred the entire Saulide family and nearly most of the Benjaminites.

I'll provide just one example of how he sabotaged Saul.

Just prior to the Israelite battle with the Philistines at Gilgal, he condemned Saul resoundingly. What happened was Samuel had earlier instructed Saul and his army to wait at least 7 days for his (Samuel's) arrival to perform the pre-battle sacrifice (olah or burnt offerings) to YHWH.

On the 7th day of waiting Samuel did not turn up. But across the battlefield the Israelite army saw 30,000 Philistine chariots and 6000 of the enemy's horsemen about to attack them. It was inconceivable that the superstitious Israelites would dare enter into battle without the olah ceremony to their god.

They were frantic, in fact highly demoralized as they waited and waited and waited for Samuel to turn up as promised to conduct the burnt offerings, but they saw him not.

1 Samuel 13: 6-8 (KJV) tells us:

6 When the men of Israel saw that they were in a strait, (for the people were distressed,) then the people did hide themselves in caves, and in thickets, and in rocks, and in high places, and in pits.

7 And some of the Hebrews went over Jordan to the land of Gad and Gilead. As for Saul, he was yet in Gilgal, and all the people followed him trembling.

8 And he tarried seven days, according to the set time that Samuel had appointed: but Samuel came not to Gilgal; and the people were scattered from him.

On seeing his army highly demoralized and about to cabut away on their own, King Saul made a damn good 11th-hour field decision and conducted the burnt offerings himself so as to motivate and ready his army for battle, and of course to appease his god.

It was undeniably a damn good command decision expected of a highly commendable military king who had initiative, could think on his feet and more importantly, was courageous enough to extemporize to save his army from a dire demoralized (and thus potentially defeated) situation.

But the very moment he made the burnt offerings, guess what? Wakakaka.

Samuel leapt out from behind a bush (and probably startled the birds, you know, the ones with huge neb, wakakaka) and yelled at King Saul: "Aha, caught you, you blasphemous bastard, you did not wait for me as I had instructed."

More formally in the bible, as per 1 Samuel 13: 13-14 (KJV), this was what that sneaky priest said to a startled king:

13 And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever.

14 But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the Lord commanded thee.

Sadly, many Christians fail to see that Samuel was an acutely 'interested' party suffering from a very severe case of 'conflict of interests', in that he had a personal-political grudge against Saul because his sons lost rule over the Israelites to the first democratically chosen king of the 12 tribes, namely Saul from the Tribe of Benjamin.

Right from the word go, Samuel was out to get King Saul one way or another. The above showed how Samuel was prepared to trap Saul during a most critical military situation even at the expense of demoralizing the Israelite army immediately prior to battle, yea, even unto destroying the nation (nudge nudge wink wink).

Whether Saul was a good king or not is still being debated by experts, with many contemporary biblical scholars now giving the thumbs up for Saul and the thumbs very much down for an evil, murderous, adulterous and wicked David.

But that's not the point as we need to look at an even worse person, namely, Samuel the wannabe-usurper and saboteur.

To summarize, we had an old man who had ruled his nation for decades and had wanted to pass the baton to his own sons but when the people rejected them and chose someone else, he went about destroying the new ruler, even going to extent which would destroy his own nation.

So how would it be not for me to dislike Samuel because of his overt hostility and unjustness to Saul, all for his own nepotistic interests!

"Guan lai"?

Wakakaka.