Mahathir's 3 greatest mistakes

You know, I have a fascination with the Latin saying 'Omne trium perfectum' which means 'everything that comes in threes is perfect' or 'good things come in threes'.

Maybe it sets me thinking about my erstwhile sweetie, wakakaka, who I had once adored so much, especially when she argued with me so sweetly that the saying was not about 'threes' but 'trees', to wit, 'good things come in trees' like, she painstakingly explained, mangoes, durians, rambutans, etc.

Yesterday I posted The power of 3, about 3 things or happenings that will make Mahathir so mad (not as in gila but as in marah) he may possibly suffer from a massive cardiac arrest.

Of course we don't wish for that but he too must play his part in looking after his health by, say, cutting back on his favourite roti puff kelapa (coconut-stuffed bread roll), wakakaka.

So today I'm posting another 3 thingies, this time about Mahathir's 3 greatest mistakes, but then how would these three qualify under 'Omne trium perfectum' if I'm talking about his mistakes?

Well the Chinese in me tells moi that good things come with the bad a la Yang being usually and naturally accompanied by Yin, thus his mistakes would easily fall (and conveniently for blogger me, wakakaka) under the Yin category, wakakaka again.

Yang & Yin, wakakaka 

I would say his 3 biggest worst - wait wait nay, 'worst' sounds pretty sissy and won't give the impact I'm attempting to convey - so let's call it instead his 3 'baddest' (wakakaka and f**k good English) blunders would be:

(1) He brought his sonny boy, dear Mukhriz, into politics way way too late, and that's why he is so worried sick right now because right at the upper echelon of the UMNO leadership pyramidical structure, there is less and less space to accommodate Johnny-come-lately's like Mukhriz - and all due to his own fault, piss-poor planning and an overly pompous presumptuous about his power to continue being the dalang (master puppeteer) of the UMNO leadership wayang gedog.

dei, Sangrama Badawijaya, I want you to make way for my new successor, Kertarajasa Jayajibdhana

3 protagonists, wakakaka

It also hurts when KJ and Shahrizat ganged up to marshal the UMNO Youth and UMNO Women's votes for Hisham during the party VP elections to enable Hisham to scrap past Mukhriz into the last of the 3 VP positions.

Yes, he should blame himself for the current predicament re his son's political legacy, that is, assuming he can ever bring himself to be honest and self-critical.

Of course he might have (incorrectly) thought he would have plenty of time to groom sonny and to also kowtim-rize the leadership ladder in UMNO for Junior by the time he resigned in, say, 2004. But alas, his quarrel with Anwar, wakakaka, caused a major setback to his plans (for grooming Mukhriz) when he kuai kuai resigned far earlier than he had planned.

Handing over the reins to AAB he thought he could still play the eternal imperial dalang, but while he was successful with AAB, he had in that selfish process (and to the absolute delight of Pakatan Rakyat people) wrought untold havoc on his own party, causing UMNO to lose its once-invincible 2/3 majority with a humongous loss in seats and percentage votes.

how dare you allow your raKeyan Jayadarma to bully my poor boy 

3 protagonists again, wakakaka

In 2004 AAB as BN leader led his coalition to an impressive win of 198 federal seats (out of a total of 219) and 63.9% of the votes to the opposition's total of 20 seats (not including 1 Independent).

But in 2008, after Mahathir's campaign against AAB, BN secured only 140 seats (out of 222 total) and only 51.39%of the votes to Pakatan's 82 seats and 47.79% off the votes.

This effectively meant BN lost a humongous near-60 seats and a considerable chunk of the overall votes.

That Mahathir-ized anti-BN momentum in 2008 (which brought along voters awakening) continued and saw BN losing a further 7 federal seats in 2013.

Now he is at it again, attacking UMNO even more ruthlessly and ferociously this time, to the smiles of Pakatan again, and we await eagerly breathlessly to see what will be the outcome in GE-14 (expected in 2018), but Pakatan must play its own part which alas with PAS going on its hudud-galvanized way may possibly dilute or even negate Pakatan achievements in 2018.

What a wonderful man, for Pakatan that is, wakakaka.

(2) He failed to groom, guide and galvanize/goad his daughter Marina Mahathir into politics. I reckon Marina would have been a far stronger, competent and more determined take-no-shit politician than Mukhriz, who is more of a mummy's boy. And she has character charm and credibility.

This has been one of the mysteries of Mahathir's political dynastic ambitions when we consider that Malay women in Malaysia, unlike those in other Islamic countries or even Western ones, have played a very strong role in politics, public services, top professions and business enterprise.

It has been to the credit of our Malay community that Malay women have been performing so well, way beyond than what the women of other Islamic countries are, merely the chattels of men.

If Mahathir had encouraged his daughter to participate in politics, I wonder whether Marina could have become Malaysia's 1st female PM?

I believe of his 3 'mistakes' the failure to push Marina into top politics would be his worst, nay, let's use 'baddest' for emphasis and impact.

(3) I leave this one for you to assess, where it could well be one of the following, or perhaps even something I haven't written down as follows:

• quarrel with Anwar
• quarrel with the Chinese
• panicked and miscalculated his own political prospects as PM post-1998 and pre-2014
• surrounding himself with, as Anwar said (and who himself was one too), tok ampu
• etc etc etc

Wakakaka.

Malaysian Mandate of Heaven

Currently Ku Li is in a bit of an embarrassing strife because of an unsigned Stat Dec, but it won't matter much because I suspect Najib really doesn't give two figs about Ku Li being mentioned or involved in a document as an alternative PM, as he only wanted Ku Li's public declaration of support for him (a gimmickry as it has been) to show the Heartland that other than an unhappy unpleasant and unreasonable old man, everyone in UMNO supports his PM-ship.

In UMNO there's always all kinds of Machiavellian manoeuvres, all of which we can indeed assume to be surely Machiavellian wakakaka, and where the only difference is only in each's degree of intensity (the Machiavellian nature, that is), wakakaka again.

Ku Li had once tried to move democratically against UMNO Baru on a Semangat 46 platform but alas, he found out that fighting from outside against UMNO was near impossible. UMNO had/has the resources (very very deep pockets), the political infrastructure and network, control of the so-called apolitical (but very political) government institutions, and control of the media - it's only in recent times some media outlets have broken free of UMNO's control but this phenomenon may be short-lived.

Thus, more so for an UMNO man, erstwhile, former or ex, he or she must get back into UMNO to be able to ascend to where he wants to be, particularly if he/she aspires to be PM.

Would Mahathir have become PM if Razak (Najib's dad) didn't invite and accept him back?

Would AAB (previously aligned with Ku Li) have become PM if he didn't kuai kuai kowtow to Mahathir and return to the Mothership?

Thus Ku Li returns to UMNO, to wait and wait and wait for his chance to become PM. But he was both too cautious to take opportunistic chances and also too much of a proud aristocrat to kowtow kuai kuai to the demands and conditions of a commoner like Mahathir.

Yes, poor Ku Li was not as sly and as quietly kuai-laan as AAB and Najib who both acted as if they would 'tremblingly hear and obey' but gave Mahathir the two fingers once they become PM, wakakaka.

Alas, but it has to be said that AAB didn't fare too well in this regard though Najib seems to be resisting Mahathir's multiple attempts to dislodge him, wakakaka.

Anyway, there is no denying Ku Li has always wanted to be PM, which explains the SD the DAP has shown in an attempt to chip away and undermine the perceived support Ku Li has declared for Ah Jib Gor - see MM Online's Zahid can corroborate Ku Li’s role in SD, says DAP man.

However, this time I suspect Ku Li might have finally abandoned his 35 years' dream - one which sadly for him couldn't be realized only because he had foolishly given way to Mahathir as Hussein Onn's deputy because he had wanted to first sort out UMNO's financial business (Ku Li had the highest support compared to the other 2 UMNO VPs), and eventually as Malaysia's 4th PM, and only because he also foolishly believed Mahathir would keep his word to have him as DPM.

Sigh, he doesn't have the Mandate of Heaven, wakakaka.

Mandate of Heaven 

In this regard, yes, we could say Mahathir had been treacherous to Ku Li in not keeping his words, an agreement to make the latter as his DPM as Ku Li had willingly given way to him to be deputy president UMNO and of course the PM, but then what do you expect when that's UMNO, a veritable nest of vipers.

Nonetheless, why has he (Mahathir) complained about AAB and Najib not keeping their word to him? Didn't he set the example vis-a-vis Ku Li for them to follow?

Ain't karma such a bitch? Wakakaka.

But wait, I apologise for boring you with this sense of outrage at the blatant double standards because I kept forgetting that's UMNO, wakakaka.

And that's why, to reiterate, UMNO is a nest of vipers with mucho Machiavellian activities and schemes, wakakaka, which BTW should also include Anwar's attempted move against Mahathir back in 1998.

And to show my argument is true that UMNO blokes like Ku Li and Anwar (and indeed even Mahathir himself) prefer to be within UMNO than outside, let's see what Anwar did after he was out-manoeuvred by Mahathir following the failed attempt to oust the Old Man in June 1998.

OK, let's hear what he said just a mere two months later, on 12 August 1998, during the opening of the then-new Penang UMNO building. That was when the UMNO jungle drums were already beating away that Anwar was going for broke for the presidency of UMNO because of the virtually irreparable rift between the two UMNO top leaders, wakakaka. Anwar said:

"I have said this many times, but it has all been for nought, but right here in front of my Penang friends, I want to announce my full support and loyalty to Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamed for him to remain as party president."

"Dr. Mahathir is not a new leader. He has vast experience in all matters. If you compare me to him, I am just a student. I can never go against my mentor, much less my father. We may have some differences but it is impossible to believe that these petty differences will split us up. When it comes to important matters, including economic issues, we stand united."

Well, … mentor-student, vast experience in all matters and father-son ... what do we make of those sweet endearing words?

Hmmm, Anwar had said this of Mahathir during AAB's time when the latter was encountering mucho problemo with His Imperial Maharaja, wakakaka, that Mahathir was suffering from delusion about his stewardship of the country:

“He is surrounded by tok ampu (apple polishers) who never tell him the real picture. That is why he never gets the real truth. In that sense, I pity the man.”

Now, when Anwar lavished those sweet syrupy words of  … mentor-student, vast experience in all matters and father-son ... for Mahathir on 12 August 1998, wasn't he also one of those tok ampu he complained surrounded Mahathir? Wakakaka.

And we all knew his tok ampu-ness' sweet honey-laced words cut no ice with an already furious fuming Mahathir.

Yes, Anwar knew the near insurmountable difficulties of becoming PM when outside UMNO, which was why he fought tooth and nail to get back into the Mothership, even unto suing Mahathir and the government in 1998 for unconstitutional dismissal of him from his DPM and Finance Minister's positions - my late Bhai was his lawyer. Utusan reported:

He also sought a declaration that his dismissal as from 5.30pm on Sept 2 1998 is null and void, inconsequential and of no effect.

Anwar, who is also seeking a declaration that he is still a minister in the cabinet, is also asking for cost and any further or other relief deemed fit and proper by the court.

But as I mentioned it's not easy to fight 'city hall' from outside for reasons listed above - naturally he lost and Mahathir triumphed over him once more in that court case.

But he still didn't give up because when he was released by AAB in 2006, we were told by a Malaysiakini news report on 10 August 2006 that he sought out Ku Li for advice on his political future.

This was what I had blogged a day after the Malaysiakini report:

Tengku Razaleigh (Ku Li) has confirmed what I have been averring all along – that Anwar Ibrahim yearns and plans to return to UMNO.

I had stated that once a person has experienced power at the very top, as Anwar Ibrahim had before he was ousted on the eve of his prime ministership, that person would find it extremely difficult to accept being at a lower political position, like say, a mere opposition leader.

And in Malaysia, there is only one avenue to the top of the political hierarchy, via UMNO, full stop!

After Anwar was released from prison, he went to see Ku Li. Ku Li advised him that there were only two parties for Anwar to reach the top, rejoin UMNO or join PAS to become its head and transform the Islamist party into a modern attractive and powerful alternative party. If he was able to achieve the latter he could even be the first PAS PM. Ku Li also advised him to stop mucking around with loser PKR.

But obviously UMNO is the easier path of the two. Ku Li said: “I advised him if you want to get back to mainstream politics, or want to be prime minister, you should go back to UMNO. How? He has to work it out. I am not to advise him [on that]."

Ku Li told Anwar: "Your wife (Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail) only won because it was your (previous) seat in Permatang Pauh".

[recall in the 2004 GE how Wan Azizah scrapped through after a couple of recounts (losing in the first two counts), winning with 21,737 votes to UMNO Pirdaus Ismail's 21,147, a scary majority of only 590 votes which in practical terms translated into a win by only 296 votes - and that was what must have influenced Ku Li's words]

However, Ku Li told Malaysiakini he doubt whether Anwar will win if he (Anwar) were to stand again in Permatang Pauh - unless he stands on either PAS or UMNO ticket.

According to Ku Li, Anwar agreed to his advice.

But alas for him, he couldn't batter down the shut-very-tight UMNO gates, wakakaka, despite his attempts to charm AAB, on which I have a couple of posts, wakakaka.

Hmmm again, I wonder whether it was a coincidence that GAN (Gerakan Anti Najib) or as it's known today by its English acronym ANC, started around that time in which a poor and already dead Shaariibuu Altantuyaa was repetitively 'murdered' by Malaysian politics (extracts):

By sheer speed of their computation of advantage

What to extract, exploit, extricate from my name

Squeezing the very last speck of desiccated blood

From my hyper cold shattered fragments of bones

Eager hands raided the ossuary for me to be laid

As stepping stones for the progress of a demigod

On Ardha-Matanga, 4 tasks & seven white trunks

Saluting Brahma, walking to Amarawati by a lake

As the pseudo-pious pirouetting pachyderm crushes
What little good left of my name, what trust exists
In my family’s hope for requital of my cruel murder
I realize those raucous battle cries were not for me

Oh, what filial piety PKR had shown to Altantuyaa

Even in 2008 when Pakatan Rakyat was riding a political tsunami and performed its best, it was still short of 30 seats for a majority, testifying to the difficulties in (not impossibility of) dislodging a 50-year old established 'city hall'.

The BN's majority of 58 seats in 2008 (140 vs PR's 82) meant that Pakatan was short of 30 seats, a charming round figure, to depose BN from majority rule, but alas Anwar didn't couldn't wait until GE-13.

His impatience led to the shameful 916, a sickening best-forgotten attempt to subvert the supremacy of the ballot box, and an event which saw ONLY my Bhai speaking out angrily against the sleazy slimy sickening frog-ology-to-majority-rule, a trademark of tadpoles hatched in the cesspool.

But I wonder whether the new charming 'de facto' (wakakaka) PKR leader, will play the game that AAB and Ahmad Zahid Hamidi had played quite successfully?

The power of 3

At the beginning of this month I posted Good things come in threes, all about Mahathir and his reign.

'Omne trium perfectum'
'everything that comes in threes is perfect'

wakakaka

Today I just want to touch on another three things, those that might kill him through a heart attack, which of course I don't wish on him much as I lament his refusal to retire gracefully like former PMs Tunku, Hussein and AAB.

The three things likely to cause him heart burns would be:

(1) removing him from Petronas and replacing his vacated position with AAB whom he detest.

Yes, kicking him out as Petronas advisor per se won't rile him as much as also appointing AAB to take up his previous post as advisor to Petronas, wakakaka - injure then insult, adoi.

And haven't we heard his bitter, most bitter sarcasm that AAB should also be appointed as advisor to the Poms? Oh, to make such a caustic and childish comment, how his heart must have ached, his heart burned, all causing him mucho geram and bitterness. Tsk tsk! Najib has been far too cruel.

(2) denying Proton any further government bailout and allowing the company to fold in. For more, see my post The Minus Touch.

Mind, this may cause considerable domino effect on the Malaysian economy and employment situation, but OTOH sometimes economic rationalization has to be painful.

And Mahathir will be f**king mad if such were to happened, even though Proton has been another of his Minus Touch.

OTOH, if Najib decides to bail Proton out with a billion or two, BUT with the CONDITION that AAB be appointed as Proton's advisor ..... Oh Oh Oh, I dare not even imagine the impact on Mahathir, wakakaka - THAT, my dear readers, will be the ultimate cruelty to him by Najib.

(3) and finally, if somehow Najib falls, and Ku Li is unanimously selected by a majority of BN and Pakatan people as the seventh PM, whoa whoa whoa, wakakaka - that will definitely be the last straw for Mahathir.

3 times heart aches & heart burns will cause heart failure.

The Altantuyaa Stat Dec (1)

Even though statutory declaration (SD) as a legislative apparatus exists for eons, most Malaysians only became aware of it when RPK posted his famous or infamous SD on Shariibuu Altantuyaa and Rosmah Mansor in mid 2008, to the utter delight of PKR. Unfounded allegations have it that bathrooms of some PKR members were occupied for hours that night, wakakaka.

Right from that very start, I've never found the contents of RPK's declarations a la 'I have been reliably informed .....' plausible.

But then I suppose I have been one of the few who found the assertions quite implausible perhaps in a small way due to my lack of feral animosity or antipathy towards Najib Razak but more because of my inability to absorb the ridiculous picture of Rosmah Mansor in her high heels, birkin bag, expensive dress and beehive hairdo trekking in the mosquito-infested blukar to just witness a gruesome act, that of blasting Altantuyaa to smithereens with C4.

Why would she? And what was Altantuyaa's connection with Najib other than what we were informed by Perumal Balasubramaniam's SD which was released in a press conference, now get this, spearheaded by none other than Anwar Ibrahim.

Apart from Balasubramaniam's SD, was there any indication of Altantuyaa in a closed relationship or contact with Najib? OK, if you're desperate for evidence in this respect, yes, you can use Tian Chua's photoshop nonsense, wakakaka.

But the FACT has been that there was NOT one single evidence of direct connection between Altantuyaa and Najib, other than via Razak Baginda.

In 2008 I had then written in a post about RPK's SD, in which I provided a case of SD by politicians in Australia, in which I said:

But if you read the [Australian] declarations they were couched in terms like “I recall …” and "I would not have said those words because it has always been my belief …”.

Tap dancing through the tulips.

Other useful dancing phrases would be “To the best of my recollection …”, “I was informed by my staff …”, “According to departmental briefings …”, “At that time, this was the information I was provided with …”, etc.

So, in reality a Stat Dec is not necessarily 100% fire-proof evidence but it certainly carries a powerful sheen of authority, and serves certain purpose, like (as mentioned) substituting for the original but lost documentary evidence such as a lost birth/death certificate.

Let’s examine RPK’s Stat Dec – see copy here as provided by Malaysiakini.

Therein, RPK declared “I have been reliably informed …” four times whilst saying “… I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true …”

In other words he was told by someone, hearsay evidence so to speak.

But of course RPK more importantly also declared: “I have knowledge of who has informed me of this matter plus I have knowledge of the Ruler who has been briefed and is aware of the matter but I have agreed that I shall not reveal this information other than mention that the Prime Minister and his son-in-law have been handed a written report confirming what I have revealed.”

… though he asserted in his Stat Dec he will not reveal who his informer has been nor the Ruler who was privy to the shocking allegation of Rosmah Mansor being at the crime scene to witness the C4 explosives being placed on the corpse of Shariibuu Altantuyaa.

Who told him is now irrelevant as we know that RPK is brave if not anything, thus we may expect him to observe the promised (but seemingly selective) sealed lips. He is a man prepared to go to jail again, though I suspect he must have sensed that the PM or DPM will ignore his taunting Stat Dec to prevent him from expanding on the scandal.

And has he been telling the truth?

I believe so, to the extent as he had enunciated in the Stat Dec, to wit, that he has been reliably ‘informed’ by someone (whom we will never know), and that he wanted to reveal what he personally believed to be 'evidence' to assist the police in the case.

Of course we Malaysians love to and can speculate on the ID of the informer, by a process of intelligent elimination - eg. could it be a Ruler or a police insider? - or by giving our prejudice or conspiracy-theory inclinations full free and unfettered reins - or, could it be Tian Chua … wakakakakaka, KJ ;-) or even the ghost of Altantuyaa?

However, I have to admit I find the idea of the wife of a DPM who would turun padang to supervise or witness the placement of C4 on Altantuyaa's corpse, rather bizarre and, frankly, quite implausible.

But then, I am sure there will be those who believe (or want to believe) that's exactly right up her alley. And indeed, who am I to assert they're wrong to do that?

In fact I had then also commented that I couldn't help but wonder whether this is part of the GAN campaign (ANC in English) to keep the Altantuyaa-rised ‘rage’ against Najib blazing ... at that time when a university don had forecasted that PKR planned 4 or 5 more by-elections in constituencies where PKR had at least a 70% surety level of victory.

As I'm known to be biased against the deformasi party, wakakaka, I said that if the uni don's forecast was true, then PKR had been into deplorable disruptive destabilizing destructive politics - also see my poem Murdering Altantuyaa Shaariibuu Again.

Later I was to learn from RPK's posts that it was part of a black ops plan to stop Najib from beocming the DPM (to AAB) because a couple of other guys had ambitions to that position,wakakaka, and that those two were the instigators and promoters, directly or indirectly through their aides/supporters, of RPK's SD. One of them and his cohorts continued with subsequent campaigns along the same vein.

Very touching but what about Malaysians Preeshena Varshiny and Nurin Jazlin Jazimin? By the by, I hope, dear readers, as Malaysians you would still remember who Preeshena Varshiny and Nurin Jazlin Jazimin were!

Yes, as we can witnessed from the above two photos, poor Mongolian Altantuyaa was not even allowed to rest in peace

Since then, in recent times, RPK has decided to reveal more. He asserted that he had never claimed Rosmah did what was narrated in his SD, and that he made that SD because he wanted to reveal what he personally believed to be 'evidence' to assist the police in the case.

As I recall it, he had previously said certain people urged him to make that SD. One of them was an aide to Ku Li, a bloke with a Chinese name (can't remember his name), and that story was apparently okayed by Anwar Ibrahim as reliable, through Din Merican, our DJ blogger.

Back then TMI had reported:

RPK, who went on the lam last month after failing to turn up in court for his sedition trial, further claims that he had checked with an aide of Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah on the information provided by Lt Kol Azmi.

An aide to Tengku Razaleigh confirmed to The Malaysian Insider today that the Kelantan prince had been told the same story by Lt Kol Azmi which allegedly links Datin Seri Rosmah and the murder of Altantuya, the Mongolian mistress of Abdul Razak Baginda, a close associate of the Prime Minister.

But he pointed out that “many people come and tell us stories.” In his blog, RPK goes on to allege that a man working for Tengku Razaleigh persuaded him to put down the allegations in a statutory declaration.

Then the real gem of RPK's story. Malaysiakini reported:

According to Raja Petra, he had also sought help from a few other people to vouch for Lt Kol Azmi’s credibility, among them PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim through his aide, Din Merican.

Yesterday, in his new post KU LI IS MAHATHIR’S NEW SCAPEGOAT OR ‘KAMBING HITAM’ RPK wrote:

Then, after the 2008 general election, Mahathir did a u-turn and chose Najib instead. And that was when Ku Li’s man, Nik Azmi Nik Daud a.k.a. Bul, came out that the brilliant idea of a Statutory Declaration to link Rosmah to Altantuya’s murder in the hope that this would screw Najib’s chances of becoming Prime Minister.

The saddest part of the Altantuyaa tragedy has been the politically selfish and cruel exploitations of her macabre murder, which inspired me to pen my poem Murdering Altantuyaa Shaariibuu Again. Extracts as follows:

But the loudest noises are they calling for ‘justice’
Though, I smile cynically, ‘twas not meant for me
Their shrill proclamations & belated outrage (sigh)
Startled even great Gujir Tngri and the 77 siqar

Grandstanding acrobatics, their excuse to dispense
With all norms, purportedly all for me (wry smile)
I must confess I view with scepticism and distaste
As I would professional chest-pounding mourners

Gnashing Colgate mint-flavoured peroxide-d teeth
Wretchedly wringing manicured Ulan oiled hands
Shedding date-expired plastic bags of lo-salt tears
Proclaiming to be 11th hour paragons of ‘justice’

[...]
The ancient pair could see abacus shaped hearts
Clicking furiously and shaming Casio calculators

By sheer speed of their computation of advantage
What to extract, exploit, extricate from my name
Squeezing the very last speck of desiccated blood
From my hyper cold shattered fragments of bones

Eager hands raided the ossuary for me to be laid
As stepping stones for the progress of a demigod
[...]

As the pseudo-pious pirouetting pachyderm crushes
What little good left of my name, what trust exists
In my family’s hope for requital of my cruel murder
I realize those raucous battle cries were not for me

This is the first in my series of re-visiting and re-evaluating the stories on SD, including and especially those of Perumal Balasubramaniam.

Gerakan Anti LGE (GALGE)

Malaysiakini - Johor DAP decries 'trial by media' of Guan Eng as malicious (extracts):

"We welcome fair and unbiased investigation into Guan Eng’s purchase of his house.

"However, the 'trial by media' in the past week, with unsubstantiated and twisted facts, is malicious," Johor opposition leader Gan Peck Cheng said in a statement today.

Gan claimed that the criticism Lim is facing over the bungalow purchase, said to be below market price, is the "most serious crisis since 2008 with the aim of finishing him off politically".

"Such massive attacks serve to divert attention from the multiple political crises faced by Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, especially arising from the Citizens' Declaration on March 4,” he said.

Gan claimed the attacks are aimed at discrediting Guan Eng and the DAP in the upcoming Sarawak state election.

The last line is spot on, BUT it's more than just Sarawak, namely:

(1) UMNO in general has been very uncomfy with young Malays joining DAP, and UMNO in Penang is shitting bricks.

(2) MCA and Gerakan are both on a do-or-die last effort. In Penang and Selangor they've already been wiped off. By the finish of GE-14 they'll be gone from the Malaysian political scene forevermore.

But alas for UMNO-BN, the more they persecute Lim Guan Eng, the more Penangites will rally behind him.

Did Abraham sacrifice Ishmael or Isaac?

On the right hand column of my blog I have listed my 10 top popular posts. Unfortunately the list somehow does not reflect the true stats, that of the posts most read. Currently Deceitful Durian of Discord is listed as the most read post.

Hagar and Ishmael expelled because Sarah was jealous

It should be Why 'God' loved Isaac more than Ishmael which has many thousands of hits more than the one above.

I tried refreshing the blog including republishing Why 'God' loved Isaac more than Ishmael to make it appear correctly as No 1, but alas all my efforts failed to work.

[Even this post should be No 4 but as can be seen, does not even appear among the top 10]

I'm going to take a leaf out of someone's book (or tactics) wakakaka and blame the Illuminati for suppressing its appearance as my 2nd most read post, because the post is uncomplimentary to Israel's so-called greatest 'hero', David, who in reality was an evil murderous treasonous and adulterous villain. Wakakaka.

Incidentally, on the topic of Ishmael and Isaac, Muslims believe that Abraham sacrificed Ishmael rather than Isaac to the Hebrew god. Though the Bible (Genesis 22:2) mentioned Isaac's name as follows:

And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. 

And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

... we need to remember the Bible was written by Judeans (Israelites), and not Muslims, so naturally the Judeans wanted the singular honour to be that of Isaac rather than the son of a slave in Abraham's household.

But note the words thine only son which in itself betrayed the truth, because Ishmael could be such an 'only son', whereas Isaac was yet to be born.

Once Isaac was born, Abraham had two sons where there was no more 'only son'.

Abraham with his two sons, Ishmael & Isaac 

The three Abraham religions do not dispute that Ishmael was born before Isaac, so Isaac could NOT be Abraham's 'only son'. But Ishmael was!

However the Judeo-Christian argument has been that Ishmael was the son of Hagar, a slave and a concubine who was not a free woman nor loved, and therefore could not be considered as Abraham's son, let alone 'only son'.

Thus, based on their flimsy partisan beliefs, they ruled out Ishmael as Abraham's 'only son'.

more importantly, note how the Judeans (from the line of Jacob and then Judah) marginalised Esau and his descendants in a Ketuanan Israelite move, turning Edomites (descendants of Esau) from Jews into Arabs even though Esau and Jacob were twins of same parents, Isaac and Rebecca

In my post Why 'God' loved Isaac more than Ishmael I wrote that:

The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) was written by various people but mainly by (though not all) Davidic supporters (obviously of the House of Judah). ‘Davidic’ supporters mean supporters of King David, the most evil and treacherous man in the entire bible, and who was of the House of Judah [...]

David was also guilty of many other crimes including consorting treasonably with Israel’s enemies, the Philistines, against Israel.
In the way that the New Testament would not have been written if there was no Yehoshua ben Yusof (guess who he was?), the Tanakh would not have thus been written if there was no David.

David's supporters wrote the Tanakh principally to exonerate his many crimes, themselves knowing of his many crimes and sins. Fortunately for posterity they weren't the only writers of the Tanakh, hence through the writings of those who weren't his supporters, we catch glimpses of his evil as well as the treachery of his cheating ancestor, Jacob who was subsequently known as Israel in the Old Testament.

Tanakh 

With such biased authorship, needless to say, we would have Judean (Israelite) disparagement against Ishmael's mom (slave, concubine) and thus his pedigree within the Abraham household, that he wasn't Abraham's 'son' whereas Isaac was.

And if anyone wants to argue that Hagar was not a wife but only a concubine, please read Genesis 16:2-3 which states:

And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. 

And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

Indeed Hagar was the wife of Abraham (or at that time Abram while Sarah was then Sarai), and therefore Ishmael was the son of Abraham.

sorry Hagar baby, you have to go 'coz Sarah is green-eyed but worse is yet to come when her descendants would with invincible bias write of your son as not being my son contrary to Hebrew laws - it'd be their ketuanan bull

The Judeo-Christian tradition has been very biased, even ironically unto ignoring Hebraic laws. which tells us in Deuteronomy 21:15-17, that::

If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.

He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

So, hasn't Deuteronomy 21:15-17, a Hebrew law (not an Islamic one), been very very clear about the very legitimate status of Ishmael in the eyes of God as compared to Isaac's?

Now, it could well be that was how Abraham treated Ishmael, in accordance with Hebraic laws, but leave it to those prejudiced Israelite authors who wrote bout Isaac being Abraham's 'only son' some 1300 years after Abraham passed away, effectively to change Ishmael status and to confer upon Isaac the honour of being Abraham's sacrifice to their Hebrew god.

As I explained in Why 'God' loved Isaac more than Ishmael we have biblical commentators who would even say the idea of firstborn in the Bible (as per Deuteronomy 21:15-17) is often a position of pre-eminence, not necessarily meaning 'first out of the womb'. Wakakaka, what utter ass-shit.

see if you believe the above Christian crap where the descendants of Ishmael even in trusting in good deeds would be in bondage to sin and rejected by (presumably the Christian) god

Thus, by Judean (Israelite) 'creative' biblical composition, David enjoyed the position of firstborn, even though he was the youngest of Jesse's eight sons. By David's deliberately 'created' eminent birth, he was 'conferred' a status which then deemed him fit to be King of Israel - all conveniently written by David's men (not God, wakakaka).

But you know, regardless of whether it was Ishmael or Isaac who was sacrificed by Abraham, the boy was killed.

There was no angel interceding at the very last minute a la the US 7th Calvary to save the human sacrifice. Biblical scholars believe Abraham sembileh his son. And if the son was the 'only son' then it would have been Ishmael. But on the other hand it could well be Isaac.

Richard Elliott Friedman, a biblical scholar and the Ann & Jay Davis Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Georgia was one of at least two (Jewish) biblical authors who told us what had likely happened to Isaac or Ishmael. The other biblical scholar has been Tzemah Yoreh.

Putting aside for a moment the argument whether it was Ishmael or Isaac who was the human sacrifice, Friedman wrote his seven reasons why he believes Abraham killed his son at the sacrificial altar, as follows:

sorry son, all Hebrew first born automatically belongs to YHWH and He wants you now

1. In the original sources that come to make up the Torah, Gen 22 is attributed to an author from the Northern Kingdom, nicknamed “E” because he refers to God as Elohim, in contrast to “J” who refers to God as Jehovah, or Yahweh in contemporary use. 

In Gen 22:1-10, God is called Elohim, but suddenly an “angel of Yahweh” appears to save Isaac.

2. Gen 22:11-15, when Isaac is rescued by the Angel of Yahweh, also discusses how Abraham names the site after Yahweh in his honor.

3. In 22:16, “he” (is this the angel or Elohim?) praises Abraham because “you did this thing and didn't withhold your son.” 

What?!? This seems to describe a moment after which Isaac had been killed. It could refer, of course, to Abraham’s willingness, but it could also mean that he did it.

4. The story concludes with Abraham returning home, without any mention of Isaac.

Tzemah Yoreh confirmed the above oddity of 2 (Abraham and son) going out but only one returning.

5. In all of the other writings attributed to “E,” Isaac never again shows up. In fact, the traditions about Isaac even in the other texts are pretty meagre compared to Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph.

6. Exodus 24, also from E, presents the story of a revelation at Mount Horeb which has multiple parallels with Gen 22, except that none are found in v. 11-15.

7. There are some midrashic stories that say that Isaac was sacrificed. I personally consider this to be pretty weak evidence since the editing of the Torah took place long before midrashim start showing up on this story, but it nevertheless represents the idea that at least for some, the idea of God actually asking that Abraham sacrificed Isaac was not out of the question.

Tzemah Yoreh added:

In verse 12, after staying Abraham’s knife-wielding hand in mid-air, the angel of God tells the father of monotheism, “I now know you fear God because you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”

That phrase, “have not withheld your son,” “could indicate Abraham was merely willing to sacrifice his son, or that he actually did so.”

One hint that it may have been the latter is contained in the names for God used in the story. The Biblical text calls the God who instructs Abraham to sacrifice his son “Elohim”. Only when the “angel of God” leaps to Isaac’s rescue does God’s name suddenly change to the four-letter YHWH, a name Jews traditionally do not speak out loud.

Elohim commands the sacrifice; YHWH stops it. But it is once again Elohim who approves of Abraham for having “not withheld your son from me.”

These sorts of variations, rampant throughout the Bible, have led scholars to conclude that different names for God are used by different storylines and editors.

Indeed, Isaac is never again mentioned in an Elohim storyline. In fact, if you only read the parts of Isaac’s life that use the name Elohim, you don’t have to be a Bible scholar to see the story as one in which Isaac is killed in the sacrifice and disappears completely from the Biblical story.

Not that the YHWH portions make much of an effort to bring him back to life either. Yes, Isaac seems to fade after the sacrifice, with his life story told in just one chapter, compared to more than a dozen chapters for both Abraham and Jacob.

So based on Friedman's and Yoreh's analyses, the author of J changed the biblical narration by inserting a J tale to show that an angel saved Isaac (or Ishmael) at the very last minute. The aim of the redaction was to reflect subsequent (1300 years later) Judean rejection of child sacrifice.

whoa there buddy, I'm the US "J" 7th Cavalry

In my post  Why 'God' loved Isaac more than Ishmael I asked:

Why is there a leitmotiv in the bible surrounding Abraham and Sarah, of the man and wife pretending to be brother and sister, of a Pharaoh or King taking (or attempting to take) the wife, of God then intervening to return the wife to the husband, and of the husband profiting greatly from the separation? The leitmotiv may be discerned in:

• Abraham and the Pharaoh (Genesis 12:11-20)
• Abraham and Abimelech of Gerar (Genesis 20:2-18) – Sarah was even older by then, around 90.
• Isaac and Abimelech of Gerar (Genesis 26: 7-16) – we aren't too sure whether this was the same Abimelech for it was then more than 50 years later, but the King had a chief captain of the army named Phichol (Genesis 26:26) as was in the case of the earlier or Abraham’s Abimelech (Genesis 21:22).

If it was the same Abimelech, then it would suggest that Abraham and Isaac could well be the same person.

Read the last sentence above, which says it would suggest that Abraham and Isaac could well be the same person.

When Abraham sacrificed Isaac (or Ishmael) as a human offering to his Hebrew god, the above observed leitmotiv serves the story gnam gnam, in which Abraham (rather than a dead Isaac/Ishmael) was the father (and not grandfather) of Jacob. Thus the leitmotiv pointed to an Abraham experience rather than that of both Abraham and Isaac.

If we read the Old Testament we would discover that the Hebrew god liked human sacrifice, preferably burnt in a ceremony called olah, with the most notorious being Jephthat sacrificing his daughter to YHWH (Judges 11:29-40) and the most numerous being either all the first born of Egypt (Exodus 12:29) or those burnt by King Josiah - And he slew all the priests of the high places that were there upon the altars, and burned men's bones upon them, and returned to Jerusalem - (2 Kings 23:20).

We return to the question: was it Ishmael or Isaac that Abraham sembileh? Think about it. 

A wee after-note digression here - Some scholars believe Saul's seven sons were similarly given as sacrificial offerings by their arch-foe King David (usurper of Saul's throne) to the Gibeonites (2 Samuel 21:1-14), though they admitted the biblical phraseology is less explicit but other indications, however, point in the same direction (of human sacrificial offerings).

But whichever, it was still essentially a David's evil act of ‘charm ch’ow tnooi keen’* which means chop/rid the grass, break/eliminate the roots. 

* (斩草不除根，春风吹又生 or in pinyin: zhǎn cǎo bù chú gēn, chūn fēng chuī yòu shēng)

The Chinese maxim literally translates into ‘cut the grass by severing its roots’, advising that to rid the grass forever, so that they’ll sprout no more; one must destroy the roots.

Thus, the saying as applicable to the biblical David's case means destroying the House of Saul totally and thoroughly by eliminating the Saulide family's potential for comeback, in other words, a genocidal intent in the elimination of all members of Saul's family to prevent future vendetta.