I wonder what Ludwig would have thought of the situation I have just found myself in? Just a hint, it's like the final movement of his Piano Sonata No 14 in C sharp minor.
Yes, certainly stormy! And didn’t Rosen say it’s most unbridled in its representation of emotion?
Well, two hundred years after Ludwig wrote that unusual sonata, here I am in Beirut. Ludwig can have it if he was here today. I should have stuck to piano instead of national security and foreign affairs. Or, perhaps ballet – heheheh, now that would be a sight - I would have been a startling wonder in Snow White!
Well, our dear Hebraic friends are now worried – serve them right for going overboard with their '10 eyes for an eye' response. They are now right up to their Negev eyebrows in gore, with the whole world sickened by their Nazi behaviour - almost 400 Leb dead - nearly all civilians, 500,000 displaced and homeless, and US$1 billion in infrastructure damage.
And just my rotten luck to have an imbecile for a boss – that dolt had to fall for the neocon hardline advice and gave encouragement to those Old Testament hounds of hell. Like poor Colin had to do, I have to cover their rotten asses. And I had to make that stupid remark - when I return I'll sack that speech writer - just trust a man to refer to something like 'birth pangs'. He's probably a former FEMA staff.
Now that those rabbinic Talibans suddenly remember 1982, their Nam, complete with their own My Lai, with an Arabic name that sounded like S & S, they realise they’re caught in their own shit, expected to advance but militarily idiotic to do so – if they move in to occupy, they’ll be bogged down like us in Nam, or as they experienced in 82, picked off slowly by the Hez. What a disaster. And there won't be a Red Sea parting this time.
Oh, they'd move across the border alright, just to save face and then pull out real fast like a soldier being told his hooker has the crap. Then they want me to pick their circumcised dicks out of the Shiite fire. Asking for Europeans to stand between them and the Hez.
I warned that Texan hick those Shiites are nasty fighters, like the Viets – they never give up, they are utterly fearless. Didn't they kill around 300 of our marines years ago? So, dumbo's apocalyptic friends are now in deep shit, he wants to me to save their curly locked bearded faces, and con some Europeans into being the buffer.
You won’t get French fries for sure because those arrogant bastards will sarcastically remind us of ‘freedom fries’ – what an idiotic empty gesture by the GOP. Maybe Poles? Naa, they would have wised up after Iraq. OK then, some Romanians and Ukranians – those former Stalinists are easier to motivate – a few bucks here, an old aircraft there and they sell their mums down the Danube.
And of course we can depend on that sycophantic slimy sleazy limey. Pity that farting fatuous fascist bastard had been elected out of office.
The Ruskies are whom I would love to deal with – I went into national security for a chance to either nyet or da those dour looking Slavs, and maybe toss a couple of peppered vodka down the hatch with them. Afterall, what’s the use of my expensively acquired super fluent Russian here in Beirut or that other troublesome capital which everyone wants and claims to be the holiest city in the world - Jeez, oops sorry!
Well, I may be black but I am the most powerful woman in the world, outside of course, as dear ‘O’ rules inside. Now, that’s a smart black woman, making zillions with her syndicated TV shows, while poor old me can’t even get to use my beautiful Russian.
But I am not sure what I can do when the harm done by those rabid raving rabbinic Talibans will probably take a thousand years to solve. Ja, Herr van Beethoven, it'll be quasi una fantasia (almost a fantasy).
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Monday, July 24, 2006
Malaysia's Mr 'I Don't Know'
Malaysiakini published a letter from Ganesh Sahathevan titled “Forex loss: Anwar’s ‘I didn’t know’ claim curious”.
Ganesh has pointed out to Anwar Ibrahim’s memory being … er … somewhat strange. Read his letter that I extracted in full from Malaysiakini:
Ganesh has pointed out to Anwar Ibrahim’s memory being … er … somewhat strange. Read his letter that I extracted in full from Malaysiakini:
********
Anwar Ibahim was reported to have told malaysiakini in an exclusive interview: "By the time I got the picture (about Bank Negara's forex trading losses), the problem was huge. We were talking about losses in the range close to US$10 billion." He further claimed that he had no inkling of the forex speculations until he went overseas where friends confronted him over the fact that Bank Negara was among the top three players and was widely considered a rogue bank.
Anwar said: "I knew from a Switzerland friend who told me: 'Look Anwar, Bank Negara's ringgit speculation was huge'. I told him that couldn't be as we needed to protect our reserves. But he told me that you (Bank Negara) were one of the top three. One of the top! I said (it was) impossible that we could be among (the countries) which have billion of dollars to speculate on forex."
He said when the then business editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review also confronted him over the issue later, he decided to seek clarification from Jaffar Hussein, the governor of Bank Negara, who was similarly in the dark."
The above is curious, for even as a university student in the mid-80s, I was aware from media reports that Bank Negara was one of the biggest players on the international forex market. Hence for Anwar to now claim that he was unaware of the fact and only learnt about it (presumably in the early 90s) from ‘a Switzerland friend’ beggars belief. Unless of course, Anwar is now confessing to not having kept abreast of economic issues. Attached below are a number of reports going back as far as 1987, concerning Bank Negara's forex trading activities.
Some excerpts:
Reuters, Aug 24,1989: A Southeast Asian central bank has emerged as an active market player in the currency market and its presence is becoming more noticeable in thin summer trading conditions, dealers said. Big market moves are often attributed to Bank Negara Malaysia.
Reuters, Dec 1, 1989: Monetary authorities in major countries are about to find out what currency dealers in Tokyo already know – Malaysia's Bank Negara can't be pushed around. Jaffar Hussein, the Malaysian central bank governor, said in Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday that Bank Negara will not bow to pressure to check its foreign exchange activity and will do what it sees fit to preserve the value of its reserves.
Reuters, Dec 14, 1989: “They sometimes do a billion in one shot, mostly through US banks in Singapore,” said one dealer at a Tokyo city bank, who estimates his bank does 400-500 million dollars worth of business with Bank Negara on any given day.
In one of the first official reactions to the report, Jaffar said, "We are just a normal player. We are obliged to preserve the value of our RM20 billion reserves. If that is considered a big player then it must be it.” The problem, at least from the point of view of some traders, is exactly that - Bank Negara acts more like a market player than a central bank.
Asian Wall Street Journal, Dec 5, 1989: Bank Negara, Malaysia's central bank, curtailed its speculative activity in the foreign-exchange market following a US Federal Reserve Board request that it do so, according to currency traders and individuals familiar with the US position. Traders said that on some days, the Malaysian central bank would trade as much as between US$1 billion and US$5 billion. Although that is a small amount compared with the currency market's global daily volume of about US$400 billion, it is an enormous amount for a single central bank and a significant portion of Malaysia's about US$6.5 billion in foreign reserves. A central bank normally trades in the foreign-exchange market to influence the exchange rate of its country's currency, to buy other currencies in order to pay overseas obligations, or to occasionally adjust and balance its foreign-exchange reserves. In the case of Bank Negara, however, traders in Tokyo, Singapore and Hong Kong asserted that the bank's activities were aimed at turning a profit.
Asian Wall Street Journal, June 1990: Malaysia's Deputy Finance Minister Loke Yuen Yow said on Monday a small portion of the country's gold reserves were leased to a failed commodity unit of the US Drexel Burnham Lambert Group Inc. But the country expects to recover the gold valued at RM115 million (US$42.6 million dollars) from Drexel Burnham Lambert Trading Corp by 1991 and make a profit of RM16.7 million ringgit in the process, he said.
Asian Wall Street Journal, June 1991: Large buy orders carried the dollar to a 19-month high against the mark on Tuesday, and hopeful remarks on the US economy by Federal Reserve officials kept the currency near its intraday peaks in busy trading. Before May data for US housing starts were announced Tuesday, and ahead of separate appearances before US congressional committees by US Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan and Federal Reserve Board Governor David Mullins, Bank Negara was widely believed to have bought dollars, and possibly yen, for marks.
As the above reports suggest, not only was Bank Negara's forex trading a well-known fact as far back as the late 80s, but Jaffar was an active player, not an innocent party who was caught unawares by Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Nor Mohamed Yakcop and Daim Zainuddin executing trades without his knowledge.
Perhaps Anwar might provide an explanation for the above that clearly contradicts his assertions, but I suppose that would be akin to expecting pigs to fly.
Anwar said: "I knew from a Switzerland friend who told me: 'Look Anwar, Bank Negara's ringgit speculation was huge'. I told him that couldn't be as we needed to protect our reserves. But he told me that you (Bank Negara) were one of the top three. One of the top! I said (it was) impossible that we could be among (the countries) which have billion of dollars to speculate on forex."
He said when the then business editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review also confronted him over the issue later, he decided to seek clarification from Jaffar Hussein, the governor of Bank Negara, who was similarly in the dark."
The above is curious, for even as a university student in the mid-80s, I was aware from media reports that Bank Negara was one of the biggest players on the international forex market. Hence for Anwar to now claim that he was unaware of the fact and only learnt about it (presumably in the early 90s) from ‘a Switzerland friend’ beggars belief. Unless of course, Anwar is now confessing to not having kept abreast of economic issues. Attached below are a number of reports going back as far as 1987, concerning Bank Negara's forex trading activities.
Some excerpts:
Reuters, Aug 24,1989: A Southeast Asian central bank has emerged as an active market player in the currency market and its presence is becoming more noticeable in thin summer trading conditions, dealers said. Big market moves are often attributed to Bank Negara Malaysia.
Reuters, Dec 1, 1989: Monetary authorities in major countries are about to find out what currency dealers in Tokyo already know – Malaysia's Bank Negara can't be pushed around. Jaffar Hussein, the Malaysian central bank governor, said in Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday that Bank Negara will not bow to pressure to check its foreign exchange activity and will do what it sees fit to preserve the value of its reserves.
Reuters, Dec 14, 1989: “They sometimes do a billion in one shot, mostly through US banks in Singapore,” said one dealer at a Tokyo city bank, who estimates his bank does 400-500 million dollars worth of business with Bank Negara on any given day.
In one of the first official reactions to the report, Jaffar said, "We are just a normal player. We are obliged to preserve the value of our RM20 billion reserves. If that is considered a big player then it must be it.” The problem, at least from the point of view of some traders, is exactly that - Bank Negara acts more like a market player than a central bank.
Asian Wall Street Journal, Dec 5, 1989: Bank Negara, Malaysia's central bank, curtailed its speculative activity in the foreign-exchange market following a US Federal Reserve Board request that it do so, according to currency traders and individuals familiar with the US position. Traders said that on some days, the Malaysian central bank would trade as much as between US$1 billion and US$5 billion. Although that is a small amount compared with the currency market's global daily volume of about US$400 billion, it is an enormous amount for a single central bank and a significant portion of Malaysia's about US$6.5 billion in foreign reserves. A central bank normally trades in the foreign-exchange market to influence the exchange rate of its country's currency, to buy other currencies in order to pay overseas obligations, or to occasionally adjust and balance its foreign-exchange reserves. In the case of Bank Negara, however, traders in Tokyo, Singapore and Hong Kong asserted that the bank's activities were aimed at turning a profit.
Asian Wall Street Journal, June 1990: Malaysia's Deputy Finance Minister Loke Yuen Yow said on Monday a small portion of the country's gold reserves were leased to a failed commodity unit of the US Drexel Burnham Lambert Group Inc. But the country expects to recover the gold valued at RM115 million (US$42.6 million dollars) from Drexel Burnham Lambert Trading Corp by 1991 and make a profit of RM16.7 million ringgit in the process, he said.
Asian Wall Street Journal, June 1991: Large buy orders carried the dollar to a 19-month high against the mark on Tuesday, and hopeful remarks on the US economy by Federal Reserve officials kept the currency near its intraday peaks in busy trading. Before May data for US housing starts were announced Tuesday, and ahead of separate appearances before US congressional committees by US Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan and Federal Reserve Board Governor David Mullins, Bank Negara was widely believed to have bought dollars, and possibly yen, for marks.
As the above reports suggest, not only was Bank Negara's forex trading a well-known fact as far back as the late 80s, but Jaffar was an active player, not an innocent party who was caught unawares by Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Nor Mohamed Yakcop and Daim Zainuddin executing trades without his knowledge.
Perhaps Anwar might provide an explanation for the above that clearly contradicts his assertions, but I suppose that would be akin to expecting pigs to fly.
********
Maybe Mr 'I Don't Know' may wish to let us know whether he recollects any of what Ganesh has pointed out?
Related:
Defiant Sports Minister Snubbed PM?
Azalina Othman Said, Minister of Youth and Sports, dismissed those who objected to the proposed sports centre at the Tun Abdul Razak Research Centre (TARRC) in Brickendonbury in England. She is insistent that the centre would be needed to mould Malaysian sportsmen to become high achievers.
She said the Finance Ministry, not the public, has the last say on the matter as it is a government project.
PM Abdullah Badawi had said last Wednesday that the British authorities would not allow additional buildings to be built at the TARRC because it was gazetted as a heritage site.
But despite the PM’s diplomatic hint to her, a defiant Azalina declared that the National Sports Council would meet the Malaysian Rubber Board next week to discuss the possibility of sharing the TARRC facility. She will then present the outcome of that meeting to the cabinet committee on sports in September.
There are a number of issues with her obdurate stand:
(1) By asserting that “the Finance Ministry had the last say on the matter as it is a government project”, she has virtually told the public to bugger off, as (the elected ministers forming) the government needn’t be answerable to the feelings of the public.
(2) At the same time, she has shifted the responsibility to the Finance Ministry as if she as Sports Minister now doesn’t need to be accountable for her proposal.
(3) Despite the PM hinting in his usual Fu Mountain style politeness, that the project wouldn’t be able to go through because of the British, she has stubbornly ignored his advice by saying she would meet the Malaysian Rubber Board next week to discuss the possibility of sharing the TARRC facility with the rubber people.
(4) When she talks about ‘sharing the TARRC’facility', I would make an intelligent guess-timate that she was merely talking about the administrative aspects of the proposed sports centre. Where then would be the actual facilities for training, if the British won't permit developments on a heritage site?
We see here three typical models of ministerial behaviour:
(1) Ministers proposing illogical inane irrelevant and bloody expensive proposals that won’t benefit the general public, and at a time when the government has been telling people to tighten their belts. Because those ministers haven’t been fully transparent and accountable in the past, au contraire very arrogantly dismissive of public expressions of concerns, we tend to harbour suspicions about their motives, and thus are unsympathetic to their grandiose and generally non-beneficial schemes.
(2) Obdurate and senseless defiance out of foolish pride, etc by a minister because the public (and opposition parties) had made mince meat out of her idiotic proposal.
(3) And sadly but most importantly the PM has been too wimpish, indulging in traditional Malay old court type oblique language which his Sports Minister obviously couldn't read. That’s the problem with AAB’s public image, and it’s little wonder that people believe in the allegations his son-in-law and cronies have been running his office for him.
She said the Finance Ministry, not the public, has the last say on the matter as it is a government project.
PM Abdullah Badawi had said last Wednesday that the British authorities would not allow additional buildings to be built at the TARRC because it was gazetted as a heritage site.
But despite the PM’s diplomatic hint to her, a defiant Azalina declared that the National Sports Council would meet the Malaysian Rubber Board next week to discuss the possibility of sharing the TARRC facility. She will then present the outcome of that meeting to the cabinet committee on sports in September.
There are a number of issues with her obdurate stand:
(1) By asserting that “the Finance Ministry had the last say on the matter as it is a government project”, she has virtually told the public to bugger off, as (the elected ministers forming) the government needn’t be answerable to the feelings of the public.
(2) At the same time, she has shifted the responsibility to the Finance Ministry as if she as Sports Minister now doesn’t need to be accountable for her proposal.
(3) Despite the PM hinting in his usual Fu Mountain style politeness, that the project wouldn’t be able to go through because of the British, she has stubbornly ignored his advice by saying she would meet the Malaysian Rubber Board next week to discuss the possibility of sharing the TARRC facility with the rubber people.
(4) When she talks about ‘sharing the TARRC’facility', I would make an intelligent guess-timate that she was merely talking about the administrative aspects of the proposed sports centre. Where then would be the actual facilities for training, if the British won't permit developments on a heritage site?
We see here three typical models of ministerial behaviour:
(1) Ministers proposing illogical inane irrelevant and bloody expensive proposals that won’t benefit the general public, and at a time when the government has been telling people to tighten their belts. Because those ministers haven’t been fully transparent and accountable in the past, au contraire very arrogantly dismissive of public expressions of concerns, we tend to harbour suspicions about their motives, and thus are unsympathetic to their grandiose and generally non-beneficial schemes.
(2) Obdurate and senseless defiance out of foolish pride, etc by a minister because the public (and opposition parties) had made mince meat out of her idiotic proposal.
(3) And sadly but most importantly the PM has been too wimpish, indulging in traditional Malay old court type oblique language which his Sports Minister obviously couldn't read. That’s the problem with AAB’s public image, and it’s little wonder that people believe in the allegations his son-in-law and cronies have been running his office for him.
Anwar Ibrahim's Crocodile Tears
In an interview with Malaysiakini, Anwar Ibrahim who was formerly, in turn, an Education Minister, Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, related his metamorphosis from UMNO nationalist to multi-ethnic political reformist. He explained how he initially supported the NEP but gradually transformed into a caring leader with multi-racial perspective.
I wonder when his transformation began. Was it after he was chucked out of UMNO? Anyway, this was what he said:
“Of course, I supported the NEP in 1970 when I was 19. At that time, I saw that the Malays were so insecure. I saw that in my peers at the university. With the very few exceptions among the children of the bureaucrats, nobody had any success. So, the NEP was fair.”
“But then things have changed ... not that Malaysia has done exceptionally better but we have tried. We had been successful in some things like social mobility, education standard and scholarships, but here we have to make some amends.”
And he gave an example of his attitudinal transformation.
“I always recite this good example based on my experience in Penang where I met a 19-year-old Chinese girl who scored 9A1s but failed to get a place in the local university. We told her: ‘Sorry, this was the policy and that the quota had been met’.”
Though it's heartbreaking, to be frank, it's not entirely an unusual response from government officials for such cases, except perhaps in Anwar's version, there was a 'sorry' in it.
He continued: “But what about this poor girl whose father is a petty trader and can't afford to send her overseas? This is the basic principle of justice that should transcend race. We as Muslims must actually appreciate this more because we talk about justice irrespective of race. By doing this, I don't mean that I am willingly sacrificing the poor Malays.”
So, 'This is the basic principle of justice that should transcend race'.
What does that say about him when he was in power? Does confessing that automatically absolve him from his lack of good leadership and care? Would he would have say all these to Malaysiakini if he had became PM in late 1998 (or early 1999)?
To him I would say “Datuk, you were then Education Minister, Finance Minister and DPM. You could have done a world of difference for that girl, but you did nothing, zilch, kosong. Your words today, only after being expelled from UNMO, are too little too late.”
Please lah, we don't want his crocodile tears.
I wonder when his transformation began. Was it after he was chucked out of UMNO? Anyway, this was what he said:
“Of course, I supported the NEP in 1970 when I was 19. At that time, I saw that the Malays were so insecure. I saw that in my peers at the university. With the very few exceptions among the children of the bureaucrats, nobody had any success. So, the NEP was fair.”
“But then things have changed ... not that Malaysia has done exceptionally better but we have tried. We had been successful in some things like social mobility, education standard and scholarships, but here we have to make some amends.”
And he gave an example of his attitudinal transformation.
“I always recite this good example based on my experience in Penang where I met a 19-year-old Chinese girl who scored 9A1s but failed to get a place in the local university. We told her: ‘Sorry, this was the policy and that the quota had been met’.”
Though it's heartbreaking, to be frank, it's not entirely an unusual response from government officials for such cases, except perhaps in Anwar's version, there was a 'sorry' in it.
He continued: “But what about this poor girl whose father is a petty trader and can't afford to send her overseas? This is the basic principle of justice that should transcend race. We as Muslims must actually appreciate this more because we talk about justice irrespective of race. By doing this, I don't mean that I am willingly sacrificing the poor Malays.”
So, 'This is the basic principle of justice that should transcend race'.
What does that say about him when he was in power? Does confessing that automatically absolve him from his lack of good leadership and care? Would he would have say all these to Malaysiakini if he had became PM in late 1998 (or early 1999)?
To him I would say “Datuk, you were then Education Minister, Finance Minister and DPM. You could have done a world of difference for that girl, but you did nothing, zilch, kosong. Your words today, only after being expelled from UNMO, are too little too late.”
Please lah, we don't want his crocodile tears.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Dumbo Boss Man & his Toady
From Open Democracy Online. I want to share with you one of its articles, an unedited copy of Yo Blair by Godfrey Hodgson, who was until recently director of the Reuter’s Foundation Programme at Oxford University. He was the Observer’s correspondent in the United States, and foreign editor of the Independent. He wrote many books on politics and current afffairs.
He described the personal exchange between George W Bush and Tony Blair at the margins of the G8 summit, saying that it showed those two leaders' political and moral inadequacy.
The president of the United States is a "bonesman" – a member of Skull & Bones at Yale University, the least secret secret society in the United States. But his general conversational style, as revealed with embarrassing clarity by a microphone left open at the G8 summit in St Petersburg, is less smart Yale than frat boy, Texas A & M, circa 1955.
More serious is the total lack of intellectual clarity, curiosity, and seriousness George W Bush revealed. The incident confirms beyond argument the accuracy of earlier accounts of his mental incapacity that at the time appeared scarcely credible. It is not, after all, as if this man was forced to take responsibility for the peace of the world. He wanted the job, and having won it, admittedly in questionable circumstances, he asked for it and won it again. Yet he seems utterly bored by what the job requires.
After the initial greeting, the first thing Bush said to Tony Blair was: "You're leaving?" Two explanations are possible. Either he wanted cover for an early departure of his own, or he thought it was cool to pretend to be bored by an event to which the whole world looks for leadership. Neither explanation is acceptable.
Tony Blair comes out of this exchange even worse than Bush, as the toady looks worse than the bully. Standing while his lord and master sits, stammering in his eagerness to take advantage of this brief moment in the Presence, he comes across as abject, stripped of all personal dignity in his desire to please, like a courtier at some brutal baroque court.
More seriously, he is caught on tape literally asking the permission of the president of the United States to undertake a vital diplomatic mission as prime minister of the United Kingdom. It has long been clear that Blair has decided to make the maintenance of the best possible relations with the US president as his top foreign-policy priority. It is hard to argue with that. The United States has been Britain's essential ally and protector since the middle of 1916. It would be foolish not to do everything possible to maintain that alliance. Even the catastrophic decision to go to war in Iraq without broad international support can be justified (though I would not defend it) as demanded by the supreme importance of the relationship with Washington.
But it is one thing to give the highest priority to the alliance, quite another to accept a role as one courtier among many at the court of George W Bush, and inevitably a less significant one than such luminaries as the man (Alberto Gonzales, then the White House's chief counsel) who was promoted to attorney-general after calling the Geneva conventions "quaint". The prime minister was clearly seeking the president's permission to go to Israel and clearly accepting that Condoleezza Rice's visit would be more important than his own. "Obviously if she goes out, she's got to succeed, if it were [or perhaps that was "as it were"], whereas I can go out and just talk".
The only way of interpreting the comment is that the prime minister, the British people's elected leader, is hoping to be sent to Israel because it doesn't matter what he says. There may be truth in that. But by saying this to a foreign leader, even one as friendly to him as George W Bush has shown himself to be, Blair humiliates himself, and so humiliates the citizens of his country.
What he and Blair need to do, thinks the president – with all the subtlety of a 21st-century Talleyrand or Bismarck, is "to get Syria, to get Hizbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over". It is hard to know whether to laugh or to cry. The most important country in the world – the "indispensable nation", as Condoleezza Rice's predecessor but one, Madeleine Albright, rightly called the United States, the country once led by Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D Roosevelt and Harry Truman, and indeed by this president's father, who was at least a gentleman – is now spoken for by this man.
George W Bush is revealed as thinking in the slack-jawed, one-sided, casually brutal tones of a stereotyped hillbilly. Or perhaps he is merely pretending to be stupid because he thinks his countrymen and countrywomen are happier with the language and manner of a fraternity-house bully.
He described the personal exchange between George W Bush and Tony Blair at the margins of the G8 summit, saying that it showed those two leaders' political and moral inadequacy.
********
The president of the United States is a "bonesman" – a member of Skull & Bones at Yale University, the least secret secret society in the United States. But his general conversational style, as revealed with embarrassing clarity by a microphone left open at the G8 summit in St Petersburg, is less smart Yale than frat boy, Texas A & M, circa 1955.
More serious is the total lack of intellectual clarity, curiosity, and seriousness George W Bush revealed. The incident confirms beyond argument the accuracy of earlier accounts of his mental incapacity that at the time appeared scarcely credible. It is not, after all, as if this man was forced to take responsibility for the peace of the world. He wanted the job, and having won it, admittedly in questionable circumstances, he asked for it and won it again. Yet he seems utterly bored by what the job requires.
After the initial greeting, the first thing Bush said to Tony Blair was: "You're leaving?" Two explanations are possible. Either he wanted cover for an early departure of his own, or he thought it was cool to pretend to be bored by an event to which the whole world looks for leadership. Neither explanation is acceptable.
Tony Blair comes out of this exchange even worse than Bush, as the toady looks worse than the bully. Standing while his lord and master sits, stammering in his eagerness to take advantage of this brief moment in the Presence, he comes across as abject, stripped of all personal dignity in his desire to please, like a courtier at some brutal baroque court.
More seriously, he is caught on tape literally asking the permission of the president of the United States to undertake a vital diplomatic mission as prime minister of the United Kingdom. It has long been clear that Blair has decided to make the maintenance of the best possible relations with the US president as his top foreign-policy priority. It is hard to argue with that. The United States has been Britain's essential ally and protector since the middle of 1916. It would be foolish not to do everything possible to maintain that alliance. Even the catastrophic decision to go to war in Iraq without broad international support can be justified (though I would not defend it) as demanded by the supreme importance of the relationship with Washington.
But it is one thing to give the highest priority to the alliance, quite another to accept a role as one courtier among many at the court of George W Bush, and inevitably a less significant one than such luminaries as the man (Alberto Gonzales, then the White House's chief counsel) who was promoted to attorney-general after calling the Geneva conventions "quaint". The prime minister was clearly seeking the president's permission to go to Israel and clearly accepting that Condoleezza Rice's visit would be more important than his own. "Obviously if she goes out, she's got to succeed, if it were [or perhaps that was "as it were"], whereas I can go out and just talk".
The only way of interpreting the comment is that the prime minister, the British people's elected leader, is hoping to be sent to Israel because it doesn't matter what he says. There may be truth in that. But by saying this to a foreign leader, even one as friendly to him as George W Bush has shown himself to be, Blair humiliates himself, and so humiliates the citizens of his country.
What he and Blair need to do, thinks the president – with all the subtlety of a 21st-century Talleyrand or Bismarck, is "to get Syria, to get Hizbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over". It is hard to know whether to laugh or to cry. The most important country in the world – the "indispensable nation", as Condoleezza Rice's predecessor but one, Madeleine Albright, rightly called the United States, the country once led by Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D Roosevelt and Harry Truman, and indeed by this president's father, who was at least a gentleman – is now spoken for by this man.
George W Bush is revealed as thinking in the slack-jawed, one-sided, casually brutal tones of a stereotyped hillbilly. Or perhaps he is merely pretending to be stupid because he thinks his countrymen and countrywomen are happier with the language and manner of a fraternity-house bully.
Lebanon - Anwar Ibrahim advised against bias
Last week while in Australia for the convention on Shakespearean literature, Anwar Ibrahim told reporters that Israel's bombardment of Lebanon could enrage moderate Muslims across the world and encourage extremism.
Only 'could'?
I am not a Muslim and I can tell you I am already damn f**king furious, but then that's me, KTemoc, left wing looney socialist bastard. But a Chinese Malaysian woman I know very well as being not in the least interested in politics has voiced her anger at the Israeli atrocities to me in secret, confiding she felt a bit hesitant to reveal amongst her friends her new discovered rage, and whether her stand against the Israelis was appropriate since she was neither an Arab nor a Muslim?
I 'could' only advise her to continue with what her conscience and intelligence were telling her.
Anwar said anger was spreading among Muslims, including moderates and supporters of Israel's right to exist.
Moderate Muslims, yes, tolerant Muslims, yes, apathetic (not interested) Muslims, yes also, but Muslim supporters of Israel's right to exist? Well, I must admit I have been surprised but I suppose that's possible, and besides, who the hell am I to doubt Anwar on such matters.
He added the obvious that the mounting anger was not only in the Middle East, but throughout the world.
KTemoc would certainly agree with that, though I would have been less constrained with my language - I would have told those Australian reporters that the anger against Israel and the USA, and not just confined among Muslims, was more like an Aussie summer bushfire, travelling frighteningly like a roaring fiery runaway juggernaut at light speed.
Anwar said therefore it was important for Muslim leaders and Western nations to take a strong stand on the current crisis and to be unbiased with their criticism.
I wonder what sort of strong stand Anwar had in mind? Anyway, I hope Malaysian Muslim leaders will heed his advice and be unbiased when you blokes or lassies criticise.
Oh, by the way, now thinking about it, I may have somehow missed it, but I wonder what Anwar’s advice, stated in Canberra, 'to be unbiased' had implied? Was he advising Muslim leaders not to be biased against the Lebanese or the Israelis?
Since I am not a Muslim leader I take it I wasn't included in his addressing, and therefore intend to be as biased as my stomach tells me to, especially when I see an uneven match with innocents being slaughtered mercilessly.
Only 'could'?
I am not a Muslim and I can tell you I am already damn f**king furious, but then that's me, KTemoc, left wing looney socialist bastard. But a Chinese Malaysian woman I know very well as being not in the least interested in politics has voiced her anger at the Israeli atrocities to me in secret, confiding she felt a bit hesitant to reveal amongst her friends her new discovered rage, and whether her stand against the Israelis was appropriate since she was neither an Arab nor a Muslim?
I 'could' only advise her to continue with what her conscience and intelligence were telling her.
Anwar said anger was spreading among Muslims, including moderates and supporters of Israel's right to exist.
Moderate Muslims, yes, tolerant Muslims, yes, apathetic (not interested) Muslims, yes also, but Muslim supporters of Israel's right to exist? Well, I must admit I have been surprised but I suppose that's possible, and besides, who the hell am I to doubt Anwar on such matters.
He added the obvious that the mounting anger was not only in the Middle East, but throughout the world.
KTemoc would certainly agree with that, though I would have been less constrained with my language - I would have told those Australian reporters that the anger against Israel and the USA, and not just confined among Muslims, was more like an Aussie summer bushfire, travelling frighteningly like a roaring fiery runaway juggernaut at light speed.
Anwar said therefore it was important for Muslim leaders and Western nations to take a strong stand on the current crisis and to be unbiased with their criticism.
I wonder what sort of strong stand Anwar had in mind? Anyway, I hope Malaysian Muslim leaders will heed his advice and be unbiased when you blokes or lassies criticise.
Oh, by the way, now thinking about it, I may have somehow missed it, but I wonder what Anwar’s advice, stated in Canberra, 'to be unbiased' had implied? Was he advising Muslim leaders not to be biased against the Lebanese or the Israelis?
Since I am not a Muslim leader I take it I wasn't included in his addressing, and therefore intend to be as biased as my stomach tells me to, especially when I see an uneven match with innocents being slaughtered mercilessly.
Elegant Silence Elicits Suspicions
PM AAB must be feeling the damn heat, because he has not only broken his ‘elegant’ silence but now publicly disavowed he was advised by his son-in-law on his prime ministerial duties.
He said: “My son-in-law is not an adviser. He used to work with me. As my subordinate, obviously he was involved in preparing analyses and giving his opinion on many things.”
“He quit because he was aware that many people were complaining. He is no longer involved. Why are people making accusations?”
Well, AAB has only himself to blame for maintaining his ‘elegant’ silence, when the story about Khairy Jamaluddin’s influence over him has been churning around in Malaysia since he became Prime Minister. If he chose not to come out to refute those stories, he cannot now lay claim to being shocked, hurt or angered by the rumour mill.
He is the PM, politically the most important public figure in Malaysia; therefore people are interested in his what's, where's, why's, when's and how's, even down to mundane issues such as his eating, drinking, sleeping, etc. Naturally the Malaysian public would be deeply perturbed if they believe, rightly or wrongly, the country was run on proxy by his 31-year old son-in-law.
I say again, those allegations about his son-in-law are not new, but AAB had chosen to remain silent when as the PM, he ought to be more accountable to the public. He should have clarified those issues to assure the public much much earlier on.
He had also elected to remain silent on other questions on his accountability, such as those legitimate queries posed by a former PM, to the extent those queries now assume the status of public but popular interrogation of his government. The public's suspicions have been further fuelled by both his super premium silence and his ministers' cheap unleaded gas.
AAB must realise by now that, despite his 80,000 strong arm guardians in the police force, including 20,000 to 30,000 Special Branch blokes to keep an eye on critics, and 5,000 FRU personnel to physically discourage legitimate dissent, the modern Malaysian would still demand to know what his/her government is doing.
If the ministers including the PM refused to respond, acting as if they are medieval warlords instead of elected representatives, then they have to be prepared for the rumour mills to work overtime.
But quite frankly, I attribute his current, long overdue and very grudging statements on these matters, as motivated not so much by his new-found commitment to account to the Malaysian public, but more to offset adverse political bearings on him within UMNO.
His tactic of ‘elegant’ or 'arrogant' silence is now in sheer tatters in the face of increasingly insistent questions, undoubtedly from within UMNO too, about musuh dalam selimut (Trojan horses) threatening national sovereignty.
As I have stated many times before, given the all powerful UMNO in every sense of that 'power' word, the only source that can really shake an UMNO minister up would have to come from within UMNO.
He said: “My son-in-law is not an adviser. He used to work with me. As my subordinate, obviously he was involved in preparing analyses and giving his opinion on many things.”
“He quit because he was aware that many people were complaining. He is no longer involved. Why are people making accusations?”
Well, AAB has only himself to blame for maintaining his ‘elegant’ silence, when the story about Khairy Jamaluddin’s influence over him has been churning around in Malaysia since he became Prime Minister. If he chose not to come out to refute those stories, he cannot now lay claim to being shocked, hurt or angered by the rumour mill.
He is the PM, politically the most important public figure in Malaysia; therefore people are interested in his what's, where's, why's, when's and how's, even down to mundane issues such as his eating, drinking, sleeping, etc. Naturally the Malaysian public would be deeply perturbed if they believe, rightly or wrongly, the country was run on proxy by his 31-year old son-in-law.
I say again, those allegations about his son-in-law are not new, but AAB had chosen to remain silent when as the PM, he ought to be more accountable to the public. He should have clarified those issues to assure the public much much earlier on.
He had also elected to remain silent on other questions on his accountability, such as those legitimate queries posed by a former PM, to the extent those queries now assume the status of public but popular interrogation of his government. The public's suspicions have been further fuelled by both his super premium silence and his ministers' cheap unleaded gas.
AAB must realise by now that, despite his 80,000 strong arm guardians in the police force, including 20,000 to 30,000 Special Branch blokes to keep an eye on critics, and 5,000 FRU personnel to physically discourage legitimate dissent, the modern Malaysian would still demand to know what his/her government is doing.
If the ministers including the PM refused to respond, acting as if they are medieval warlords instead of elected representatives, then they have to be prepared for the rumour mills to work overtime.
But quite frankly, I attribute his current, long overdue and very grudging statements on these matters, as motivated not so much by his new-found commitment to account to the Malaysian public, but more to offset adverse political bearings on him within UMNO.
His tactic of ‘elegant’ or 'arrogant' silence is now in sheer tatters in the face of increasingly insistent questions, undoubtedly from within UMNO too, about musuh dalam selimut (Trojan horses) threatening national sovereignty.
As I have stated many times before, given the all powerful UMNO in every sense of that 'power' word, the only source that can really shake an UMNO minister up would have to come from within UMNO.
Condoleezza Rice: Lebanese deaths are birth pangs
The Bush administration claims Iran and Syria are arming Hezbollah. Guess who is arming the terrorist state Israel?
The New York Times informed us that under Bush’s directive, the US is rushing a bunch of precision-guided bombs to Israel, for it to continue its slaughter of Lebanese civilians and maliciously destroy the Levantine country’s infrastructure.
The decision to ship the weapons was so rushed that there was relatively little debate within the White House. US military officers said the request for expedited delivery was unusual and indicated that Israel has many targets it plans to hit in Lebanon. On the other hand, though unlikely, it could also indicate a 1973 situation for the Jewish State when they ran dangerously short of ammo.
Will such an American abetment to the continuing Israeli rape of Lebanon provoke the mainly Sunni Arab governments, who have thus far been silent on the Jewish State’s attack of the Shiite Hezbollah? In fact, they had condemned Hezbollah instead.
We must also bear in mind that, apart from the Wahhabi Saudis regarding the Shiites as infidels and worse than Israelis, the principal Arab States in that region, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar, apart from being beholden to the USA, are worried about the spread of Iranian influence in the region via Hezbollah and Hamas
Ironically, Hamas fell under Iranian influence because of the latter's financial assistance at a time when the Arab states failed to support the Palestinan Authority after its finances were embargoed by Israel and the USA .
Apart from rushing more weapons of death to Israel, the US Secretary of State has refused to order its ally to cease the bombardment. Instead, in one of the most obscene insensitive statements coming out from the US, she described the sufferings of Lebanon as a part of the ‘birth pangs’ of a new Middle East and that Israel should ignore calls for a ceasefire.
Condoleezza Rice obviously is a creature (I couldn't bring myself to describe her as a human being) who couldn’t distinguish between births and deaths, between new lives and unmitigated murders. She has blasphemied by terming the deaths of many innocent Lebanese civilians, including many children, as 'birth pangs'.
Perhaps, she could be excused for her obscene confusion, because apart from being personally unqualified to know about birth pangs, she is afterall a Bush Administration official talking about the sufferings of Arabs.
She had also conveniently failed to mentioned that the recent targets of the Israeli (and US abetted) massacring, namely Palestine and Lebanon, are, ironically, the only two true Arab democracies in that region. I recall the Yanks demanding for democracy there, and indeed I remember President Bush and Condoleezza Rice herself praising the elected Lebanese government of Fouad Siniora.
But obviously, like the Hamas case, mere democracy is not good enough unless Israel has approved the Arab governments. Therefore the Yanks now believe that Lebanese and Palestinians must re-vote until a ‘new’ Middle East is re-born with the blessing of Imperator Israel, but of course only after the Israeli midwife helps rid the old democracy with a rusty coat hanger wire, supplied by the Americans.
The New York Times informed us that under Bush’s directive, the US is rushing a bunch of precision-guided bombs to Israel, for it to continue its slaughter of Lebanese civilians and maliciously destroy the Levantine country’s infrastructure.
The decision to ship the weapons was so rushed that there was relatively little debate within the White House. US military officers said the request for expedited delivery was unusual and indicated that Israel has many targets it plans to hit in Lebanon. On the other hand, though unlikely, it could also indicate a 1973 situation for the Jewish State when they ran dangerously short of ammo.
Will such an American abetment to the continuing Israeli rape of Lebanon provoke the mainly Sunni Arab governments, who have thus far been silent on the Jewish State’s attack of the Shiite Hezbollah? In fact, they had condemned Hezbollah instead.
We must also bear in mind that, apart from the Wahhabi Saudis regarding the Shiites as infidels and worse than Israelis, the principal Arab States in that region, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar, apart from being beholden to the USA, are worried about the spread of Iranian influence in the region via Hezbollah and Hamas
Ironically, Hamas fell under Iranian influence because of the latter's financial assistance at a time when the Arab states failed to support the Palestinan Authority after its finances were embargoed by Israel and the USA .
Apart from rushing more weapons of death to Israel, the US Secretary of State has refused to order its ally to cease the bombardment. Instead, in one of the most obscene insensitive statements coming out from the US, she described the sufferings of Lebanon as a part of the ‘birth pangs’ of a new Middle East and that Israel should ignore calls for a ceasefire.
Condoleezza Rice obviously is a creature (I couldn't bring myself to describe her as a human being) who couldn’t distinguish between births and deaths, between new lives and unmitigated murders. She has blasphemied by terming the deaths of many innocent Lebanese civilians, including many children, as 'birth pangs'.
Perhaps, she could be excused for her obscene confusion, because apart from being personally unqualified to know about birth pangs, she is afterall a Bush Administration official talking about the sufferings of Arabs.
She had also conveniently failed to mentioned that the recent targets of the Israeli (and US abetted) massacring, namely Palestine and Lebanon, are, ironically, the only two true Arab democracies in that region. I recall the Yanks demanding for democracy there, and indeed I remember President Bush and Condoleezza Rice herself praising the elected Lebanese government of Fouad Siniora.
But obviously, like the Hamas case, mere democracy is not good enough unless Israel has approved the Arab governments. Therefore the Yanks now believe that Lebanese and Palestinians must re-vote until a ‘new’ Middle East is re-born with the blessing of Imperator Israel, but of course only after the Israeli midwife helps rid the old democracy with a rusty coat hanger wire, supplied by the Americans.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Anwar Ibrahim on which boat?
Anwar Ibrahim said recently that he was being considered for the United Nations secretary-general post, so Malaysiakini asked him whether he is really committed to the Malaysian opposition or preparing to leave Malaysia again.
The following was his response to that question:
I have said some comments to that effect ... The problem is that the discussions (on the UN sec-gen post) involves presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers. The discussion has been going on for the past six months, more serious now with non-governmental organisations and the UN apparatuses. So, I don't think it's polite to be so dismissive (in rejecting the option). Most of them asked me to give it serious thought, or at least to consider the option.
To my colleagues here in the Keadilan (PKR), DAP and PAS leadership, I have stated that my commitment is here. They asked why don't I state a categoric rejection or denial. I told them I don't think that would be polite. I am not saying that it would be easy for me (to get the UN post) in the event I choose to run, but I think it is a serious proposition. But in the discussion with party leaders, I have made it clear that I am ready to work here. But they can’t expect me to be so dismissive ... but I have not come to the stage that I would give it (the UN sec-gen post) serious consideration.
OK, now you tell me which way Anwar Ibrahim is commited?
Don't know? Don't worry, neither do a few million Malaysians.
It’s vintage Anwar Ibrahim at his ambiguous best, as per the Chinese saying of a man having each foot on a different boat. That's why no one trusts him not to scamper back to UMNO, the moment he sees an opening.
Related:
Anwar Ibrahim as UN Sec-Gen?
The following was his response to that question:
I have said some comments to that effect ... The problem is that the discussions (on the UN sec-gen post) involves presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers. The discussion has been going on for the past six months, more serious now with non-governmental organisations and the UN apparatuses. So, I don't think it's polite to be so dismissive (in rejecting the option). Most of them asked me to give it serious thought, or at least to consider the option.
To my colleagues here in the Keadilan (PKR), DAP and PAS leadership, I have stated that my commitment is here. They asked why don't I state a categoric rejection or denial. I told them I don't think that would be polite. I am not saying that it would be easy for me (to get the UN post) in the event I choose to run, but I think it is a serious proposition. But in the discussion with party leaders, I have made it clear that I am ready to work here. But they can’t expect me to be so dismissive ... but I have not come to the stage that I would give it (the UN sec-gen post) serious consideration.
OK, now you tell me which way Anwar Ibrahim is commited?
Don't know? Don't worry, neither do a few million Malaysians.
It’s vintage Anwar Ibrahim at his ambiguous best, as per the Chinese saying of a man having each foot on a different boat. That's why no one trusts him not to scamper back to UMNO, the moment he sees an opening.
Related:
Anwar Ibrahim as UN Sec-Gen?
Elegant Silence here, Enforced Silence there
Malaysia’s Grand Ole Man and lately its political enfant terrible, is back from his 22 day overseas trip to once again shake the establishment and fertilise the blogosphere.
Dr Mahathir repeated his lamentation that certain UMNO personalities had attempted to silence him or prevent grassroots from approaching him.
I know from reading in the newspapers that the Kelantan UMNO invitation for him to visit them was withdrawn, put back, withdrawn, tossed around, argued over, debated, agonised upon, farmed out, taken over, etc until I have lost track of its current status.
Behind the scenes the pro and anti Mahathir forces tussled in traditional silat play, all to the delight of PAS so much so that Anwar Ibrahim had to voice his advice of cautionary restraint to the Pak Hajis in Kelantan. Anwar has been worried that PAS may see Mahathir as a new anti UMNO icon.
Oh dear, UMNO, why are you people so scared of a former PM?
Thus it wasn’t surprising that Dr Mahathir drew a comparison between his premiership and that of his successor. He hinted, just a hint but nevertheless in a very strong manner, that Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is not as liberal and receptive of criticism as he had been. And how did he hint so? By drawing attention to the time when Tengku hammered him soon after he took office.
“During the time of Tunku Abdul Rahman, he wrote to the Star, he wrote books, he wrote all sort of things, he supported those who wanted to dethrone me, but I didn’t do anything to him.”
I think Tengku might have even referred to Mahathir’s Indian origin once.
Mahathir said that he was barred from speaking events while in London several days ago. The events, organised by his son Mukhriz, involved England-based UMNO clubs where Mahathir was expected to explain his spate of criticisms against the government. This is astonishing news, that a former UMNO president was deliberately barred from addressing UMNO clubs.
He said: “They tell me not to speak to the rival parties or any NGOs. But they don’t give me a chance to speak to UMNO people. But if what is done is right, then what is there to fear?”
Oh dear again, UMNO, why are you people so scared of a former PM?
Dr Mahathir repeated his lamentation that certain UMNO personalities had attempted to silence him or prevent grassroots from approaching him.
I know from reading in the newspapers that the Kelantan UMNO invitation for him to visit them was withdrawn, put back, withdrawn, tossed around, argued over, debated, agonised upon, farmed out, taken over, etc until I have lost track of its current status.
Behind the scenes the pro and anti Mahathir forces tussled in traditional silat play, all to the delight of PAS so much so that Anwar Ibrahim had to voice his advice of cautionary restraint to the Pak Hajis in Kelantan. Anwar has been worried that PAS may see Mahathir as a new anti UMNO icon.
Oh dear, UMNO, why are you people so scared of a former PM?
Thus it wasn’t surprising that Dr Mahathir drew a comparison between his premiership and that of his successor. He hinted, just a hint but nevertheless in a very strong manner, that Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is not as liberal and receptive of criticism as he had been. And how did he hint so? By drawing attention to the time when Tengku hammered him soon after he took office.
“During the time of Tunku Abdul Rahman, he wrote to the Star, he wrote books, he wrote all sort of things, he supported those who wanted to dethrone me, but I didn’t do anything to him.”
I think Tengku might have even referred to Mahathir’s Indian origin once.
Mahathir said that he was barred from speaking events while in London several days ago. The events, organised by his son Mukhriz, involved England-based UMNO clubs where Mahathir was expected to explain his spate of criticisms against the government. This is astonishing news, that a former UMNO president was deliberately barred from addressing UMNO clubs.
He said: “They tell me not to speak to the rival parties or any NGOs. But they don’t give me a chance to speak to UMNO people. But if what is done is right, then what is there to fear?”
Oh dear again, UMNO, why are you people so scared of a former PM?
A page from a woman's diary (3)
Dearest Diary,
It’s time again to share with you my personal thoughts that aren't about women’s rights or the great scourge AIDS, both of which I am expected by the public to dwell exclusively upon.
But neither am I not going to indulge on culinary fantasies such as how to improve my style of Penang laksa by varying the ulam that goes with it – the slightly astringent pucuk janggus would be a novel introduction – or kueh lapis miraculously and lavishly having alternative layers of rich kaya, an idea that I am currently entertaining – well, how about that for wicked indulgence but then, didn't we just say we aren’t writing all that tonight.
Tonight I want to discuss with you, dearest confidante, the immortal words of William Shakespeare, in particular Act 3, Scene 2 of his play Julius Caesar, and I want to examine the speech of Caesar’s ally and friend, Marc Anthony.
Why, you may ask? Because it’s rather relevant when Dad’s Brutus, his once-son and heir, had made much ado about Shakespeare while continuing to perpetrate verbal Ides of March, that Marc Anthony should come to Dad’s rescue. Shakespeare had portrayed Marc Anthony saying:
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interréd with their bones,
With his clever snake oil salesman’s talk, Brutus has lambasted Dad’s evil as if those were not collectively made or at least supported too by Brutus himself. But I ask myself, should people allow Dad’s good deeds to be interred with his bones? Si monumentum requiris, circumspice - if you seek his monument, look around (in our nation)
So let it be with Caesar … The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answered it ...
So what did my ‘ambitious’ Dad do? He retired, yes, voluntarily retired with clear handing over of the reins of power. He didn’t make himself perpetual dictator or for that matter, senior state minister like someone in a neighbouring nation. And in retiring, he witnessed how those who once fawned on him now ignore him as someone no longer useful, a political dead, yet continuing to accuse him of being an ‘ambitious Caesar’.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest,
(For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all; all honourable men)
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral …
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
Yes, dearest diary, I speak for Dad, my friend, always faithful and just to me. As for Brutus the honourable man, once The Honourable So-and-So, a former Malaysian Yang Berhormat, well ... what can I say, but then don’t we have Yg Berhormats like Cyclops, Tebuans and Gatal.
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man …
He hath brought many captives home to Rome,
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
So when they were both serving the people, recall what positive things had Dad achieved for the people, and compare those with what positive things the honourable Brutus had.
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
People laughed at Dad when he wept in public because he felt he failed to transform some people. They called him a hypocrite, but did that make him ‘ambitious’? I related his motive for feting one who swam across the English Channel while another wasn’t. It should explain why Dad had cried for his sense of failure.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
If he was ambitious, would he have resigned? And hand the reins to a man who once was against him, like Cassius and Brutus were against Caesar, yet forgiven?
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then to mourn for him?
Oh, the fickle-mindedness of the Romans, but most certainly a characteristic not unique to them.
O judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason … Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.
O men! Aren't they such paradoxical creatures, emotional yet cold-bloodedly practical, swayed principally by their personal interests, thus allowing their balanced judgements to flee from their conscience.
Good night, dearest diary.
M
Related:
(1) A page from a woman's diary
(2) A page from a woman's diary (2)
It’s time again to share with you my personal thoughts that aren't about women’s rights or the great scourge AIDS, both of which I am expected by the public to dwell exclusively upon.
But neither am I not going to indulge on culinary fantasies such as how to improve my style of Penang laksa by varying the ulam that goes with it – the slightly astringent pucuk janggus would be a novel introduction – or kueh lapis miraculously and lavishly having alternative layers of rich kaya, an idea that I am currently entertaining – well, how about that for wicked indulgence but then, didn't we just say we aren’t writing all that tonight.
Tonight I want to discuss with you, dearest confidante, the immortal words of William Shakespeare, in particular Act 3, Scene 2 of his play Julius Caesar, and I want to examine the speech of Caesar’s ally and friend, Marc Anthony.
Why, you may ask? Because it’s rather relevant when Dad’s Brutus, his once-son and heir, had made much ado about Shakespeare while continuing to perpetrate verbal Ides of March, that Marc Anthony should come to Dad’s rescue. Shakespeare had portrayed Marc Anthony saying:
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interréd with their bones,
With his clever snake oil salesman’s talk, Brutus has lambasted Dad’s evil as if those were not collectively made or at least supported too by Brutus himself. But I ask myself, should people allow Dad’s good deeds to be interred with his bones? Si monumentum requiris, circumspice - if you seek his monument, look around (in our nation)
So let it be with Caesar … The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answered it ...
So what did my ‘ambitious’ Dad do? He retired, yes, voluntarily retired with clear handing over of the reins of power. He didn’t make himself perpetual dictator or for that matter, senior state minister like someone in a neighbouring nation. And in retiring, he witnessed how those who once fawned on him now ignore him as someone no longer useful, a political dead, yet continuing to accuse him of being an ‘ambitious Caesar’.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest,
(For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all; all honourable men)
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral …
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
Yes, dearest diary, I speak for Dad, my friend, always faithful and just to me. As for Brutus the honourable man, once The Honourable So-and-So, a former Malaysian Yang Berhormat, well ... what can I say, but then don’t we have Yg Berhormats like Cyclops, Tebuans and Gatal.
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man …
He hath brought many captives home to Rome,
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
So when they were both serving the people, recall what positive things had Dad achieved for the people, and compare those with what positive things the honourable Brutus had.
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
People laughed at Dad when he wept in public because he felt he failed to transform some people. They called him a hypocrite, but did that make him ‘ambitious’? I related his motive for feting one who swam across the English Channel while another wasn’t. It should explain why Dad had cried for his sense of failure.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
If he was ambitious, would he have resigned? And hand the reins to a man who once was against him, like Cassius and Brutus were against Caesar, yet forgiven?
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then to mourn for him?
Oh, the fickle-mindedness of the Romans, but most certainly a characteristic not unique to them.
O judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason … Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.
O men! Aren't they such paradoxical creatures, emotional yet cold-bloodedly practical, swayed principally by their personal interests, thus allowing their balanced judgements to flee from their conscience.
Good night, dearest diary.
M
Related:
(1) A page from a woman's diary
(2) A page from a woman's diary (2)
Mega-Projects & Mega-Elegant-Silence
A few days ago a Malaysiakini reader Thai Eng wrote in to the online newpaper to disabuse us of any idea that PM AAB is serious about ending mega-projects, as AAB had proclaimed when he cancelled the ‘scenic' bridge. As an example, Thai Eng pointed out to the ludicrously conceived sports academy in Mother England - ‘Mother’ to some still crippled by cultural/historical cringe.
That it wasn't proposed by the PM himself doesn't hide the fact that it came from the government. Even if it is eventually cancelled, as it invariably have to be, the idiotic plan serves to accentuate its origin as an official intention, just as another matter, the 'half-past-six' textbook for the university course on ethnic relationship, was. Cancelling or withdrawing an ill-conceived plan doesn't erase the fact of the original intent.
Then there was the cancellation of the ‘scenic’ bridge. Now, AAB might have boasted he cancelled a mega-project but he has remained 'elegantly' silent over the mega-compensation bill, which shockingly costs more than the actual expense of building the bridge. Certainly one under AAB's administration for the Book of Amazing Malaysian Feats.
I won’t delve into the idiocy of the sports academy in faraway England since so many outraged Malaysians have already written in to give the PM and Sports Minister an earful. But it seems members of the Malaysian cabinet have this propensity to indulge in meaningless but extremely expensive adventures like Himalayan trekking, wrapping pyramids with flags, sending Boleh-nauts into space and god-knows what further useless schemes.
As for AAB’s promise to end mega-projects, don’t be disappointed by the inconsistency of his cakap (talk) not matching his bikin (actions), because he had already indicated his cakap ta-serupa bikin character (doesn’t walk his talk) in the launching of the multi-billion ringgit PORR project for Penang, rendered even worse by its award under questionable process.
Cancel mega-projects? Why not cancel mega-elegant-silence, and not just those selected variety that doesn't account for nor make transparent the details of mega-projects?
That it wasn't proposed by the PM himself doesn't hide the fact that it came from the government. Even if it is eventually cancelled, as it invariably have to be, the idiotic plan serves to accentuate its origin as an official intention, just as another matter, the 'half-past-six' textbook for the university course on ethnic relationship, was. Cancelling or withdrawing an ill-conceived plan doesn't erase the fact of the original intent.
Then there was the cancellation of the ‘scenic’ bridge. Now, AAB might have boasted he cancelled a mega-project but he has remained 'elegantly' silent over the mega-compensation bill, which shockingly costs more than the actual expense of building the bridge. Certainly one under AAB's administration for the Book of Amazing Malaysian Feats.
I won’t delve into the idiocy of the sports academy in faraway England since so many outraged Malaysians have already written in to give the PM and Sports Minister an earful. But it seems members of the Malaysian cabinet have this propensity to indulge in meaningless but extremely expensive adventures like Himalayan trekking, wrapping pyramids with flags, sending Boleh-nauts into space and god-knows what further useless schemes.
As for AAB’s promise to end mega-projects, don’t be disappointed by the inconsistency of his cakap (talk) not matching his bikin (actions), because he had already indicated his cakap ta-serupa bikin character (doesn’t walk his talk) in the launching of the multi-billion ringgit PORR project for Penang, rendered even worse by its award under questionable process.
Cancel mega-projects? Why not cancel mega-elegant-silence, and not just those selected variety that doesn't account for nor make transparent the details of mega-projects?
Friday, July 21, 2006
Israeli Poisoned Lebanese Waterways
I rang my Lebanese friend, who is a devout Christian (Maronite Church), to check on how she has been faring, and whether her family in Lebanon has had any difficulties.
She informed me that she had rang her family, who lives in the rural areas, but now has been been forced to hunker down deep in a bunker to avoid the Israeli bombardment. They discovered that the Israelis have poisoned the waterways around their place.
She used to be fairly neutral towards the Israelis but now hates them.
She informed me that she had rang her family, who lives in the rural areas, but now has been been forced to hunker down deep in a bunker to avoid the Israeli bombardment. They discovered that the Israelis have poisoned the waterways around their place.
She used to be fairly neutral towards the Israelis but now hates them.
English Village Encounter
A quaint English village in the Cotswolds - a couple, probably tourists, was strolling leisurely along one of the cobbled streets ……..
R: Darling, isn’t this place beautiful?
ZZ: Well, it’s the typical Midlands village. I studied here.
R: Lucky yo … (then startled look) … don’t look now, there’s someone you know just strolling up.
ZZ: Er … morning Uncle.
M: How are you, my boy? Ros, you look a bit pale. I thought the English air would be good for you.
R (now red-face, but brushing some imaginary loose hair back with her right hand in that universal feminine gesture of self consciousness): It’s nothing, Uncle.
ZZ: Darling, why don’t you check the price of that porcelain figurine in that shop. It’ll look good on our coffee table. I’ll wait here for you, and have a breeze with Uncle.
M (smile/sneer): So … change of lifestyle eh?
ZZ (embarrassed weak grin): He’s on the run, Uncle, finally breaking that Fu Manchu silence, saying nice polite things about his relationship with you, even withdrawing the ‘ultra’ book, though UM didn’t publish that fact.
M: Saying nice polite things? That’s for the benefit of party members only – wants to show he’s the nice guy. He's trying to prevent me from going to Kelantan And it’s Fu Mountain silence, not Fu Manchu.
ZZ: Do you think he’ll be coming up with something to surprise us?
M: Not so much him but those remoras of his.
ZZ: Remoras?
M: You were never good at natural science, were you? It’s those fish that hang on to a shark - small parasites that feed off the efforts of a powerful denizen, enjoying automatic protection from the shark’s presence.
ZZ: What do you think they would do next?
M: The yin-yang approach – the remoras discredit me, while the Zen master from Fu Mt tries to appease me. And maybe bring in extra guns.
ZZ (alarmed): Extra … er ... you mean that person who cannot be named?
M (getting angry): Huh, you people don’t want to name him, that's OK but I couldn’t care …. (pensive look)
ZZ: Uncle, you like him, don’t you?
M: Liked, get your grammar correct. Yes, I had loved him as a son, but don’t talk about him now. One must learn how to cut off one's loss. You should be more alert.
ZZ: What should I do if they bring him in?
M: Well, I won’t be here forever, you know. If they do 'recruit' him, it’s their funeral, and you don’t have to worry much. He would need you even if he ousts you, to eventually heal the party. He would prefer to work with you rather than those remoras. That's why he wasn't all that harsh in his criticisms of you. If they act, he will come in on their terms initially, to become No 2 and then a quick No 1, so they think, but he will plot their ouster - they are too dangerous. Then he'll get you in perhaps as No 2 to heal the divide.
ZZ: What about the UN job?
M: I think our neighbour Goh will get it. The two main groups, US-led West and a China-led Eastern bloc, will strongly support him. The French will be quite happy with Goh as well.
ZZ: Goh ... who would have thought. Ha ha ... LKY will be green with envy. So looks like I am stuck for a while as No 2, until I’m 65 or more.
M: Cut out the gimmickry nonsense, like dressing up Cheops, and ...
ZZ (protesting): But I was just following your footsteps.
M: You don’t have the cutting for that sort of morale rousing stuff. Spend more time getting a feel for the people’s feelings. Be less of an aristocrat and more of a street fighter. I’ll go now … best we be not seen together.
R (seeing the coast clear, emerges from the shop, angry): You didn’t tell me you planned to meet up with him. Don’t you realise how dangerous that would be if you two were seen.
ZZ: Just a coincidence, dear.
R: Hrrmmm, you told me there’s no coincidence in politics.
ZZ (pointing to a petrol station): Look, just look at the price, and they complained about ours.
R: Darling, isn’t this place beautiful?
ZZ: Well, it’s the typical Midlands village. I studied here.
R: Lucky yo … (then startled look) … don’t look now, there’s someone you know just strolling up.
ZZ: Er … morning Uncle.
M: How are you, my boy? Ros, you look a bit pale. I thought the English air would be good for you.
R (now red-face, but brushing some imaginary loose hair back with her right hand in that universal feminine gesture of self consciousness): It’s nothing, Uncle.
ZZ: Darling, why don’t you check the price of that porcelain figurine in that shop. It’ll look good on our coffee table. I’ll wait here for you, and have a breeze with Uncle.
M (smile/sneer): So … change of lifestyle eh?
ZZ (embarrassed weak grin): He’s on the run, Uncle, finally breaking that Fu Manchu silence, saying nice polite things about his relationship with you, even withdrawing the ‘ultra’ book, though UM didn’t publish that fact.
M: Saying nice polite things? That’s for the benefit of party members only – wants to show he’s the nice guy. He's trying to prevent me from going to Kelantan And it’s Fu Mountain silence, not Fu Manchu.
ZZ: Do you think he’ll be coming up with something to surprise us?
M: Not so much him but those remoras of his.
ZZ: Remoras?
M: You were never good at natural science, were you? It’s those fish that hang on to a shark - small parasites that feed off the efforts of a powerful denizen, enjoying automatic protection from the shark’s presence.
ZZ: What do you think they would do next?
M: The yin-yang approach – the remoras discredit me, while the Zen master from Fu Mt tries to appease me. And maybe bring in extra guns.
ZZ (alarmed): Extra … er ... you mean that person who cannot be named?
M (getting angry): Huh, you people don’t want to name him, that's OK but I couldn’t care …. (pensive look)
ZZ: Uncle, you like him, don’t you?
M: Liked, get your grammar correct. Yes, I had loved him as a son, but don’t talk about him now. One must learn how to cut off one's loss. You should be more alert.
ZZ: What should I do if they bring him in?
M: Well, I won’t be here forever, you know. If they do 'recruit' him, it’s their funeral, and you don’t have to worry much. He would need you even if he ousts you, to eventually heal the party. He would prefer to work with you rather than those remoras. That's why he wasn't all that harsh in his criticisms of you. If they act, he will come in on their terms initially, to become No 2 and then a quick No 1, so they think, but he will plot their ouster - they are too dangerous. Then he'll get you in perhaps as No 2 to heal the divide.
ZZ: What about the UN job?
M: I think our neighbour Goh will get it. The two main groups, US-led West and a China-led Eastern bloc, will strongly support him. The French will be quite happy with Goh as well.
ZZ: Goh ... who would have thought. Ha ha ... LKY will be green with envy. So looks like I am stuck for a while as No 2, until I’m 65 or more.
M: Cut out the gimmickry nonsense, like dressing up Cheops, and ...
ZZ (protesting): But I was just following your footsteps.
M: You don’t have the cutting for that sort of morale rousing stuff. Spend more time getting a feel for the people’s feelings. Be less of an aristocrat and more of a street fighter. I’ll go now … best we be not seen together.
R (seeing the coast clear, emerges from the shop, angry): You didn’t tell me you planned to meet up with him. Don’t you realise how dangerous that would be if you two were seen.
ZZ: Just a coincidence, dear.
R: Hrrmmm, you told me there’s no coincidence in politics.
ZZ (pointing to a petrol station): Look, just look at the price, and they complained about ours.
********
this one is for Howsy
Anwar Ibrahim sustained in prison by Quran & Shakespeare
Yesterday The Australian carried the following report:
Former Malaysian deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim is grateful that the guards who watched over him in jail knew little of Shakespeare.
Six months into his six-year internment on trumped-up charges, Mr Anwar was allowed a copy of Shakespeare's collected works on the grounds they were not political.
"Of course, Shakespeare is not political," he said with a knowing smile in Brisbane yesterday.
"Stalin knew what was going on - that's why he banned Hamlet."
Mr Anwar was speaking at the 2006 World Shakespeare Congress, where 600 delegates pondered various trade shows - featuring such offerings as the great works of the Bard on CD - between sessions such as "Shakespeare as a motivational tool for business and sport".
But Mr Anwar, who was jailed between 1998 and 2004 on charges of abuse of power and sodomy, was the star turn, outlining how reading Shakespeare's works, as well as the Koran, had sustained him in prison.
He said both contained similar themes, and for him the human conditions of which Shakespeare wrote were universal.
They revealed timeless truths about such characteristics as anger, revenge, compassion and forgiveness.
"But there's a clear and strong moral message there about goodness as compared to evil," he said.
"So I find it difficult to agree with contentions that Shakespeare is considered Western."
As well as recounting his experiences in jail, he also had an opinion on how Shakespeare should be taught.
For Mr Anwar, appreciating the text is enough, and postmodern interpretations should not be made until after the great works are understood.
"If you talk about a Marxist or a feminist perspective, you are free to do that, but I think to be true to the understanding of Shakespeare you have to get students to first understand the text," he said.
"Then they can interpret it any way they like.
"To read Shakespeare from your own ideological viewpoint, I think, is not a truthful or honest understanding of Shakespeare."
When in jail, Mr Anwar said, he escaped to the world created by Shakespeare. He told yesterday's congress he had heard himself telling Brutus why he had made a fatal error in allowing Marc Anthony to address those fickle-minded Romans.
KTemoc noted:
(1) So “Anwar Ibrahim is grateful that the guards who watched over him in jail knew little of Shakespeare.”
Anwar had put it so to an admiring western audience how smart he had been in outfoxing the unwitting guards, when the truth was no one at his prison cared whether he was reading William Shakespeare, John Milton, Thomas Hobbes or Niccolò Machiavelli.
But then that’s Anwar’s skill in convincing the English-speaking western world of his cosmopolitan nature, his intellectual relishing of, and covert but clever discovery of political paradigm in the writings of the English-speaking world’s most political writer – just as he had confessed how he, as a young man, wanted to marry America’s sweetheart, Natalie Wood – I blogged on this in Anwar Ibrahim - actress & songs he like. I am sure Americans would be endeared to such a man.
(2) “But Mr Anwar, who was jailed between 1998 and 2004 on charges of abuse of power and sodomy, was the star turn, outlining how reading Shakespeare's works, as well as the Koran, had sustained him in prison.”
I wonder whether he would have stated in the Malaysian press what he told the Australian media, that he was sustained in prison not only by the Quran but by Shakespeare as well?
(3) ”… Anwar said, he escaped to the world created by Shakespeare. He told yesterday's congress he had heard himself telling Brutus why he had made a fatal error in allowing Marc Anthony to address those fickle-minded Romans.”
How touching! Did he see himself as Caesar, Brutus or Marc Anthony? Maybe he was all, an almost-Caesar but foiled and frustrated, a foolish and failed Brutus to his once mentor and benefactor, and now a wannabe Marc Anthony to inspire those fickle-minded Malaysians who once disliked him, then loved him and now ...
Friends, Malaysians, countrymen,
I come to bury Caesars previous and present,
The evil that men do are never mine
The good should oft be ascribed to me
Former Malaysian deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim is grateful that the guards who watched over him in jail knew little of Shakespeare.
Six months into his six-year internment on trumped-up charges, Mr Anwar was allowed a copy of Shakespeare's collected works on the grounds they were not political.
"Of course, Shakespeare is not political," he said with a knowing smile in Brisbane yesterday.
"Stalin knew what was going on - that's why he banned Hamlet."
Mr Anwar was speaking at the 2006 World Shakespeare Congress, where 600 delegates pondered various trade shows - featuring such offerings as the great works of the Bard on CD - between sessions such as "Shakespeare as a motivational tool for business and sport".
But Mr Anwar, who was jailed between 1998 and 2004 on charges of abuse of power and sodomy, was the star turn, outlining how reading Shakespeare's works, as well as the Koran, had sustained him in prison.
He said both contained similar themes, and for him the human conditions of which Shakespeare wrote were universal.
They revealed timeless truths about such characteristics as anger, revenge, compassion and forgiveness.
"But there's a clear and strong moral message there about goodness as compared to evil," he said.
"So I find it difficult to agree with contentions that Shakespeare is considered Western."
As well as recounting his experiences in jail, he also had an opinion on how Shakespeare should be taught.
For Mr Anwar, appreciating the text is enough, and postmodern interpretations should not be made until after the great works are understood.
"If you talk about a Marxist or a feminist perspective, you are free to do that, but I think to be true to the understanding of Shakespeare you have to get students to first understand the text," he said.
"Then they can interpret it any way they like.
"To read Shakespeare from your own ideological viewpoint, I think, is not a truthful or honest understanding of Shakespeare."
When in jail, Mr Anwar said, he escaped to the world created by Shakespeare. He told yesterday's congress he had heard himself telling Brutus why he had made a fatal error in allowing Marc Anthony to address those fickle-minded Romans.
KTemoc noted:
(1) So “Anwar Ibrahim is grateful that the guards who watched over him in jail knew little of Shakespeare.”
Anwar had put it so to an admiring western audience how smart he had been in outfoxing the unwitting guards, when the truth was no one at his prison cared whether he was reading William Shakespeare, John Milton, Thomas Hobbes or Niccolò Machiavelli.
But then that’s Anwar’s skill in convincing the English-speaking western world of his cosmopolitan nature, his intellectual relishing of, and covert but clever discovery of political paradigm in the writings of the English-speaking world’s most political writer – just as he had confessed how he, as a young man, wanted to marry America’s sweetheart, Natalie Wood – I blogged on this in Anwar Ibrahim - actress & songs he like. I am sure Americans would be endeared to such a man.
 |
Natalie Wood, once America's sweetheart |
(2) “But Mr Anwar, who was jailed between 1998 and 2004 on charges of abuse of power and sodomy, was the star turn, outlining how reading Shakespeare's works, as well as the Koran, had sustained him in prison.”
I wonder whether he would have stated in the Malaysian press what he told the Australian media, that he was sustained in prison not only by the Quran but by Shakespeare as well?
(3) ”… Anwar said, he escaped to the world created by Shakespeare. He told yesterday's congress he had heard himself telling Brutus why he had made a fatal error in allowing Marc Anthony to address those fickle-minded Romans.”
How touching! Did he see himself as Caesar, Brutus or Marc Anthony? Maybe he was all, an almost-Caesar but foiled and frustrated, a foolish and failed Brutus to his once mentor and benefactor, and now a wannabe Marc Anthony to inspire those fickle-minded Malaysians who once disliked him, then loved him and now ...
Friends, Malaysians, countrymen,
I come to bury Caesars previous and present,
The evil that men do are never mine
The good should oft be ascribed to me
World's Biggest Criminal
President Bush has told us Israel is defending itself and should be allowed to do by bombing Beirut which is full of Hezbollah militants; Tony B-LIAR said he didn’t want to see violence for the Lebanese people but neither did he want a ceasefire in Lebanon until Israel has sorted out the Hezbollah. Australian PM John Howard said the Israeli bombardment was only in response to Hezbollah rocket attacks (don’t worry that it was the other way around because Howard would say anything to support the USA and please the powerful Jewish lobby in Australia).
OK, don’t worry about the Coalition of Killing. The following two Israeli strikes have been amazing prime examples of precise targeting against the Hezbollah.
Israel bombarded Beirut's port and a lighthouse on its seafront. Everyone knows that the Hezbollah are in the maritime business which means their militants lurked around ports and lived in lighthouses.
OK, don’t worry about the Coalition of Killing. The following two Israeli strikes have been amazing prime examples of precise targeting against the Hezbollah.
Israel bombarded Beirut's port and a lighthouse on its seafront. Everyone knows that the Hezbollah are in the maritime business which means their militants lurked around ports and lived in lighthouses.
cartoon by Nicholson of The Australian
Then the Israelis targeted two trucks with well-drilling gear in the Christian district of Ashrafiya. Do I have to remind you that Hezbollahs also live in Christian districts and conduct well drillings there? Of course I don't have to, everyone knows that.
A US news online said that one of the Israeli Air Force targets was a tissue paper factory - which we all know has grave military implications.
Yes, the Israeli vicious, malicious and indiscriminate large scale bombing of innocents and non-military infrastructure have been designed to drive Lebanon back into the stone age, prompting many non-Shiite (Christians, Sunnis) Lebanese, while still blaming Hezbollah for triggering the conflict, to shift their anger to the Jewish state's disproportionate use of force.
.
Ali Essa, a Sunni Muslim who had to close his supermarket to flee the bombing said: "They are not just hitting Hezbollah, aren't they?"
"They are targeting civilians and factories and the world is watching. The American Government is the biggest criminal in the world for allowing them to strike us with US-made weapons."
Indeed, the Americans must bear as much criminal guilt as, if not more than the Israeli Nazis.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Viral E-mail of Hung Osama bin Laden
I received this virus warning - have corrected its original awful grammar and posting it as a public service. It may well be just a hoax, but it's up to you.
Emails with pictures of a Osama Bin Laden hung are being sent around the globe. If you open the attachment (of photos) to the email, the action releases a virus into your system. The fault is not easily fixed.
Emails with pictures of a Osama Bin Laden hung are being sent around the globe. If you open the attachment (of photos) to the email, the action releases a virus into your system. The fault is not easily fixed.
Parliament's Hantu - Ghost Buster Rejected!
Ring ring ring … ring iiiiing iiiiing
Aide: Hello, Pejabat PM
Voice: May I speak to the Law Minister please?
Aide: Who’s speaking?
Voice: Jaan-Tan*
* Jaan-Tan sounds like the Malay word jantan (male or one having balls)
Silence ……….. for 20 seconds
Aide (annoyed): You funny?
Voice: No, not Farnee … Jaan-Tan.
Aide (angry but still trying to be polite and cool): Look, Incik, this is the PM’s department, so don’t fool around. I advise you to put the phone down.
Voice (very insistent): I want to speak to the Law Minister.
Aide (slightly intimidated by the strong low growling authoritative voice on the other end): Who are you?
Voice (exasperated and in with stressful emphasis): Told you I’m Jaan-Tan!
Aide: Er … why do you want to speak with the Minister?
Voice: It’s about that ghost who distributed the flyers in the Dewan Rakyat. I can help.
Aide (annoyed and now alarmed): Look, the investigation is over. The Minister has already told the media that. So stop bothering him.
Voice (quickly slipping in the nature of his help before the aide slams the phone down): I can help identify or trace the ghost.
Aide (very angry): No, thank you, investigation closed. Good bye and Maju Sukan untuk Negara.
Voice: Di UK?
Aide (confused but curious): Er … apa you cakap?*
* what did you say?
Voice: Maju Sukan untuk Negara di UK?
Aide (losing all cool): Well sir, good morning and f**k you.
Slams phone down ........
Voice (putting rural public phone down and turning to his partner): Well dear, he has slammed the phone down before I could tell him that my acute sense of smell may be of some assistance in tracking down the ghostly culprit.
Betty-Na: Jaan-Tan, Jaan-Tan, my darling, how many times have I told you not to interfere with other people's affairs? You just never learn. Those humans have strange unexplainable manners. They don’t want your help. They don’t want the ghost traced. And you just have to slip in that bit about the sports academy in UK
Jaan-Tan (snarl/grin): Just couldn't resist the last bit. That fool kept such an open goal.
And Bigfoot lumbered back into the Johore jungle with his mate, disappointed he couldn’t lend his expertise to solving the mystery of the hantu in the Dewan Rakyat (Parliament's Lower House), but secretly pleased he was given a clear penalty shot.
Related:
Mohd Nazri: "There's a Ghost in Parliament"
Aide: Hello, Pejabat PM
Voice: May I speak to the Law Minister please?
Aide: Who’s speaking?
Voice: Jaan-Tan*
* Jaan-Tan sounds like the Malay word jantan (male or one having balls)
Silence ……….. for 20 seconds
Aide (annoyed): You funny?
Voice: No, not Farnee … Jaan-Tan.
Aide (angry but still trying to be polite and cool): Look, Incik, this is the PM’s department, so don’t fool around. I advise you to put the phone down.
Voice (very insistent): I want to speak to the Law Minister.
Aide (slightly intimidated by the strong low growling authoritative voice on the other end): Who are you?
Voice (exasperated and in with stressful emphasis): Told you I’m Jaan-Tan!
Aide: Er … why do you want to speak with the Minister?
Voice: It’s about that ghost who distributed the flyers in the Dewan Rakyat. I can help.
Aide (annoyed and now alarmed): Look, the investigation is over. The Minister has already told the media that. So stop bothering him.
Voice (quickly slipping in the nature of his help before the aide slams the phone down): I can help identify or trace the ghost.
Aide (very angry): No, thank you, investigation closed. Good bye and Maju Sukan untuk Negara.
Voice: Di UK?
Aide (confused but curious): Er … apa you cakap?*
* what did you say?
Voice: Maju Sukan untuk Negara di UK?
Aide (losing all cool): Well sir, good morning and f**k you.
Slams phone down ........
Voice (putting rural public phone down and turning to his partner): Well dear, he has slammed the phone down before I could tell him that my acute sense of smell may be of some assistance in tracking down the ghostly culprit.
Betty-Na: Jaan-Tan, Jaan-Tan, my darling, how many times have I told you not to interfere with other people's affairs? You just never learn. Those humans have strange unexplainable manners. They don’t want your help. They don’t want the ghost traced. And you just have to slip in that bit about the sports academy in UK
Jaan-Tan (snarl/grin): Just couldn't resist the last bit. That fool kept such an open goal.
And Bigfoot lumbered back into the Johore jungle with his mate, disappointed he couldn’t lend his expertise to solving the mystery of the hantu in the Dewan Rakyat (Parliament's Lower House), but secretly pleased he was given a clear penalty shot.
Related:
Mohd Nazri: "There's a Ghost in Parliament"
The Half-Past-Six Book
A bunch of half-past-six academicians in UPM with half-past-six worldview wrote a half-past-six book on their version of half-past-six history to achieve whatever half-past-six objective they have in their half-past-six minds.
The content of the book was so seditious that even an UMNO Minister, Mohd Nazri, currently acting Law Minister, condemned it as seditious and a piece of rubbish that should be withdrawn.
But a half-past-six and very obdurate Higher Education Minister with lower education ethics refused to admit to his half-past-six blunder, or the half-past-six balls up of his half-past-six team of half-past-six historical creationism. So he half-past-six-ly averred that the half-past-six book was based on 'facts', but not admitting that those so-called ‘facts’ were nothing more than half-past-six nonsense.
But under enormous pressure, including from his own Barisan Nasional colleagues, he said students who disagreed with the contents could debate it during class.
Parliamentary Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang responded to his half-past-six last defiant stand by asking: “Is Mustapa serious in suggesting that in the ethnic relations class, students will have full freedom to argue about who started the May 13 riots ...?”
Lim has the following examples in mind, namely:
(1) Can students in the ethnic relations class argue that it was UMNO or Gerakan which caused the May 13, 1969 racial riots?
(2) Can they quote the nation’s first PM Tunku Abdul Rahman who implied that certain elements in UMNO were responsible for the incident?
(3) Can they cite the then Australian deputy high commissioner, WB Prichett, who noted: “...there can be no doubt that UMNO was solely responsible for the riots. Its members ran the communal campaign or allowed it to happen.”
We may have to wait until half-past-six before we get a half-past-six answer from a half-past-six Minister.
***
Well, I wrote the above last night, and by half-past six today, plus or minus whatever ;-) , I read that PM AAB has ordered the half-past-six book withdrawn, although he diplomatically said:
"The (higher education) ministry wants to replace the book with another book and the cabinet agreed. I think that's an apt move because the first book appears to be so controversial."
But Vijay wrote in to Malaysiakini to say that withdrawing the textbook is not good enough, because the root cause has not yet been dealt with. He wants action taken against those racists who compiled the offensive text. He wants the AAB government to demonstrate to the world that it respects non-Malay sensitivities.
Well, KTemoc opines that it's not so much non-Malay sensitivities per se, though according these some consideration would be good and most welcome.
Since sedition is a crime in Malaysia, and Mohd Nazri, the Law Minister himself has termed the textbook as seditious, the AAB government must charge those so-called professors who wrote that book, the publisher and the Higher Education Minister for acts of sedition. Now, if AAB does that, he may get my respect. But I am not going to hold my breath, well, certainly not until half-past-six.
Related:
(1) UMNO's Book of Burning Bridges
(2) The Height of .....!
(3) The Real Cause of the May 13 Riots
(4) New Fact on May 13 Revealed!
(5) AB Sulaiman Pissing into the Wind?
The content of the book was so seditious that even an UMNO Minister, Mohd Nazri, currently acting Law Minister, condemned it as seditious and a piece of rubbish that should be withdrawn.
But a half-past-six and very obdurate Higher Education Minister with lower education ethics refused to admit to his half-past-six blunder, or the half-past-six balls up of his half-past-six team of half-past-six historical creationism. So he half-past-six-ly averred that the half-past-six book was based on 'facts', but not admitting that those so-called ‘facts’ were nothing more than half-past-six nonsense.
But under enormous pressure, including from his own Barisan Nasional colleagues, he said students who disagreed with the contents could debate it during class.
Parliamentary Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang responded to his half-past-six last defiant stand by asking: “Is Mustapa serious in suggesting that in the ethnic relations class, students will have full freedom to argue about who started the May 13 riots ...?”
Lim has the following examples in mind, namely:
(1) Can students in the ethnic relations class argue that it was UMNO or Gerakan which caused the May 13, 1969 racial riots?
(2) Can they quote the nation’s first PM Tunku Abdul Rahman who implied that certain elements in UMNO were responsible for the incident?
(3) Can they cite the then Australian deputy high commissioner, WB Prichett, who noted: “...there can be no doubt that UMNO was solely responsible for the riots. Its members ran the communal campaign or allowed it to happen.”
We may have to wait until half-past-six before we get a half-past-six answer from a half-past-six Minister.
***
Well, I wrote the above last night, and by half-past six today, plus or minus whatever ;-) , I read that PM AAB has ordered the half-past-six book withdrawn, although he diplomatically said:
"The (higher education) ministry wants to replace the book with another book and the cabinet agreed. I think that's an apt move because the first book appears to be so controversial."
But Vijay wrote in to Malaysiakini to say that withdrawing the textbook is not good enough, because the root cause has not yet been dealt with. He wants action taken against those racists who compiled the offensive text. He wants the AAB government to demonstrate to the world that it respects non-Malay sensitivities.
Well, KTemoc opines that it's not so much non-Malay sensitivities per se, though according these some consideration would be good and most welcome.
Since sedition is a crime in Malaysia, and Mohd Nazri, the Law Minister himself has termed the textbook as seditious, the AAB government must charge those so-called professors who wrote that book, the publisher and the Higher Education Minister for acts of sedition. Now, if AAB does that, he may get my respect. But I am not going to hold my breath, well, certainly not until half-past-six.
Related:
(1) UMNO's Book of Burning Bridges
(2) The Height of .....!
(3) The Real Cause of the May 13 Riots
(4) New Fact on May 13 Revealed!
(5) AB Sulaiman Pissing into the Wind?
Anwar Ibrahim - Pot Calling Kettle Black
Anwar Ibrahim told Malaysiakini that the MCA, Gerakan and MIC ministers have no balls to dare speak up for Chinese or Indian interests in the cabinet.
He boasted (after he was no longer in UMNO): “I asked [the Malays], is there something wrong against Malay interests, or Islam, when you have 20 public institutions [universities] in the country and you have five Chinese vice-chancellors, or three or two Indians, or one or two non-Muslim bumiputera?”
“These are qualified people, and I challenged them (the crowd) to make sure that the universities excel in academic standards. Make sure that the Chinese, Indians and Malays are treated equally ... These are the things that we should do because only then we are presenting the case that we trust each other - the Chinese, the Malays and the Indians.”
“But we don't seem to be able to do that. Of course, you can't expect, MCA, Gerakan or MIC to say or articulate anything about this.”
“It is not because they [MCA, Gerakan, MIC] do not want to raise sensitive issues with Umno."
"My experience in the cabinet, the non-Malay leaders unfortunately don't take the issues up ... even if the issues are not very sensitive to the prime minister. They won't say: ‘We consider whether this brilliant Chinese academic could head this public university’. They wouldn't dare! But what will they ask for? (They ask) can we participate in the Klang Port privatisation?”
But when Malaysiakini asked him what about decisions he had made when he was at the Treasury, he replied:
“Even at the Treasury, sometimes with the best of intentions, the Treasury gave strong advice but I was not able to do it, like the airport you said I was appointed chairman of the (Kuala Lumpur International) airport, but only because the prime minister appointed me”
See, he was against it but he couldn’t go against 'evil' Mahathir who was insistent that KL International be moved to Sepang.
Reminded he was then in charge of the Bakun project, he explained: “And the Bakun dam project in Sarawak - I said that it would proceed after the evaluation by the EIA (environmental impact assessment) but Mahathir announced it before the evaluation was made.”
Again Mr Faultless didn’t have anything to do with that project. T’was that 'evil' Mahathir again.
Finally he said “Some said that I should have been more firm but I wasn’t. But if I had done that, I would have been sacked in 1993.”
"I would have been sacked in 1993?" Poor frightened little Anwar.
But well, here’s an admission of being afraid for his own position from someone who had just criticised MCA, Gerakan and MIC ministers for not having the balls to speak up.
But then, he’s Anwar Ibrahim, isn’t he?
He boasted (after he was no longer in UMNO): “I asked [the Malays], is there something wrong against Malay interests, or Islam, when you have 20 public institutions [universities] in the country and you have five Chinese vice-chancellors, or three or two Indians, or one or two non-Muslim bumiputera?”
“These are qualified people, and I challenged them (the crowd) to make sure that the universities excel in academic standards. Make sure that the Chinese, Indians and Malays are treated equally ... These are the things that we should do because only then we are presenting the case that we trust each other - the Chinese, the Malays and the Indians.”
“But we don't seem to be able to do that. Of course, you can't expect, MCA, Gerakan or MIC to say or articulate anything about this.”
“It is not because they [MCA, Gerakan, MIC] do not want to raise sensitive issues with Umno."
"My experience in the cabinet, the non-Malay leaders unfortunately don't take the issues up ... even if the issues are not very sensitive to the prime minister. They won't say: ‘We consider whether this brilliant Chinese academic could head this public university’. They wouldn't dare! But what will they ask for? (They ask) can we participate in the Klang Port privatisation?”
But when Malaysiakini asked him what about decisions he had made when he was at the Treasury, he replied:
“Even at the Treasury, sometimes with the best of intentions, the Treasury gave strong advice but I was not able to do it, like the airport you said I was appointed chairman of the (Kuala Lumpur International) airport, but only because the prime minister appointed me”
See, he was against it but he couldn’t go against 'evil' Mahathir who was insistent that KL International be moved to Sepang.
Reminded he was then in charge of the Bakun project, he explained: “And the Bakun dam project in Sarawak - I said that it would proceed after the evaluation by the EIA (environmental impact assessment) but Mahathir announced it before the evaluation was made.”
Again Mr Faultless didn’t have anything to do with that project. T’was that 'evil' Mahathir again.
Finally he said “Some said that I should have been more firm but I wasn’t. But if I had done that, I would have been sacked in 1993.”
"I would have been sacked in 1993?" Poor frightened little Anwar.
But well, here’s an admission of being afraid for his own position from someone who had just criticised MCA, Gerakan and MIC ministers for not having the balls to speak up.
But then, he’s Anwar Ibrahim, isn’t he?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)