Tuesday, September 30, 2014

DAP - remember 1999

Malay Mail Online - As Pakatan forks, can PKR and DAP take Putrajaya without PAS?



KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 30 ― DAP and PKR leaders have admitted that without PAS, Pakatan Rakyat’s (PR) hope of capturing Putrajaya will recede further, as the Islamist party holds the key to unlocking crucial votes from Malaysia’s Malay heartland. [...]

PKR vice-president Rafizi Ramli ... The former PKR strategist noted that although the federal opposition pact had succeeded, to some extent, in steering voters to pledge support for its issue-based policies in the last federal polls, there are still large pockets of the society that identify better with a race-based cause.

“The Malay psyche is that PAS and Umno represent the Malay agenda and both are considered a Malay-based party.”


Hmmm, I am not so sure about the assertion that the Islamist party holds the key to unlocking crucial votes from Malaysia’s Malay heartland.

If so, why hasn't PAS (prior to Pakatan, to wit, 2008 and 2013) been long a major federal force like UMNO.

No doubt there are reportedly around 60 federal seats which are marginal seats for both PAS and UMNO, where the 'nons' could play kingmaker in their decisive votes. But this is quite different from the claim that the Islamist party holds the key to unlocking crucial votes from Malaysia’s Malay heartland.

The reality is PAS needs DAP and PKR more than DAP and PKR need PAS. The putative winnable 60 seats mentioned above has been the sole reason Pak Haji Hadi Awang has forced himself to be tolerant (to a certain extent) of DAP. He still wants Chinese and Indian support for PAS to win these seats. But I believe he is not sincere to the Pakatan multiracial and democratic concept.


Yes, DAP and PKR, especially PKR, can suffer some seat losses if PAS supporters do not back them in those marginal seats in the next general elections.

But why wait until GE-14 when we have already seen PAS hold-back in GE-13 in Sungai Aceh (Chegubard) and also in the Teluk Intan by-election (Dyana Sofya) though admittedly the latter was additionally complicated by suspected internal DAP merajuking over the parachute candidate and the weekday polling day.

PAS can also participate in a spoiler role (3-corner fight) to benefit UMNO, especially when PKR (or any other Pakatan friendly party like PSM) is competing - example, Kota Damansara in 2013.

But given PAS right-wing stand on both race and religion, do DAP and PKR, especially DAP, want to nurture a cobra in their bosom?

I have often blogged on this issue before. It was only an Anwar Ibrahim's conceived Faustian Pact that has allowed socialist-secularist DAP (and forget about those minority hallelujah-ing DAP members) and Islamist PAS to work in a coalition against BN. And it has to be said the short-term success of this coalition has been very much to Anwar's political credit. 

But the tenuous nature of the alliance was clearly observed in Pakatan's refusal to have a shadow cabinet. It gave all sorts of bullshit excuses but the fact remains it won't/refuses to have a shadow cabinet, hardly the hallmark of a modern democratic party.

The reason for Pakatan shying away from the imperative of a shadow cabinet is obvious but the consequences are nonetheless discouraging, depressing and augurs that the coalition can only be in a short-term relationship, which will be ended the moment the centrifugal effects of the component party's different ideologies and different interests bite in.

A long term coalition can only survive when the stakes, shared equally or pro rata or even a la Taikoh-decides-best, are laid out in a clearly defined chart.

Even the often believed Pakatan agreed PM-designate of Anwar Ibrahim was shaken when Pak Haji Hadi Awang insinuated his claim (by stealth) to that post.

Talking about Pak Haji, recall how he had been (and presumably still is) of one mind with his erstwhile party deputy president Nasarudin Mat Isa, in their Malay Unity proclivity.

The reality about 'racial unity', whether this be of Malay, Chinese, Indian, XYZ variety, is that it is racist in nature and harbours belief in ethno-supremacy over other races.

We have seen this in the biblical Israelite-then-Judean supremacy, Aryan supremacy of earlier northern India (against the south), Aryan supremacy of Nazi Germany and former South Afrikan White Supremacy (and a Lite version in Rhodesia or today's Zimbabwe), and at very low level (thuggish) grade of racist supremacy in the Ku Klux Klan and the so-called national fronts of Britain (Blood & Honour, British National Party, etc) , Canada, Australia (Australian Nationalist Movement, Patriotic Youth League), NZ, Brazil, Belgium, Netherlands, France, etc.

If unity is desired it should be Malaysian national unity, and not of race.

But I suspect Pak Haji suffers from 3 grievances which will not allow him to be sincere in his commitment to Pakatan, these grievances being: (a) his personal long rivalry with his erstwhile ABIM matey, Anwar, wakakaka, (b) his belief that PAS with its claimed superb party network and strength is and should be treated as the primus inter pares in Pakatan, and (c) his belief in his Islamic cause, though he somehow fails to see this cannot exist within an ethnocentric mindset that he and Nasarudin Mt Isa hold dear in the deeper recesses of their 'hearts' and minds.

Hence Pak Haji wants to be PM.

If this issue of PM-designate cannot be settled within the Pakatan working framework, how then would a shadow cabinet be possible?

No shadow cabinet, no workable alliance, then no possibility of being in a workable government. 

Don't believe me? Well, just think Selangor state government 2014, wakakaka!

Yes, Selangor 2014 is an ominous harbinger of what a Pakatan majority government will be after GE-14.

While politics is the art of the possible, there has to be a limit, i.e, short of a Faustian Pact in working together with PAS.

The DAP has done well enough - see my 2012 post The 2 dreams of Lim Kit Siang.

While it's natural for a political party like the DAP to aspire to majority rule eventually, either in a coalition or even by itself, I urge the party not to be stampeded by the personal agenda and timeline of Anwar Ibrahim who is known to be impatient and whose entire once-glorious career was let down by this, his Achilles heel.

It would be true to say that the concept of Pakatan, one in which a socialist-secularist DAP was brought to work with PAS, obviously a working relationship of dubious but undeniably short-term fashion, has been born out of Anwar's most un-manamanlai impatience to be PM.

Regardless of whether the Erdogens take over PAS, its stripes, fangs and predatory (big cat) scent are now more than ever very obvious to the Chinese and Indians.

And the Chinese in particular love to punish political parties which they believe have betrayed their cause or interests - recall Wong Pow Nee's Perikatan in 1969, Gerakan in 2008, MCA in 2013, wakakaka.

And DAP, please do not forget 1999.


Sunday, September 28, 2014

Only human and not a mere god-king

The Star Online - Aide: Sultan confident Azmin has support of lawmakers

TMI - Sultan blames Pakatan for MB tussle, defends role in choosing Azmin


First, HRH explained why he selected Azmin Ali as the new MB of Selangor, then he defended Khalid Ibrahim's record as the previous MB.

The former was in response to severe criticisms of his alleged breach of his constitutional role in ignoring the majority choice of Dr Wan as the new MB, while the latter was in response to him allowing Khalid Ibrahim to remain as MB for more than a month after Khalid Ibrahim was already expelled by PKR and rejected by the majority in the DUN, which in itself was also seen as a breach of his constitutional role.

HRH has also asserted he is not just a ceremonial head of state, implying he is not a figurehead which can simply be remote-controlled, nor one useful only for leaving his 'dhoby mark'*.

* 'dhoby' is an old British (naval) term of Indian origin which means 'laundry',  and 'dhoby mark' is an inked mark on the laundry to identify its owner. Colloquially 'dhoby mark' also means 'signature', especially one in an official document. 

What has muddied the waters (one of my fave phrases) has been the perception that Dr Wan will be a model Muslim wife who could possibly be beholden and obedient to her 'god's gift to the people' husband even in her duties as MB of Selangor.

HRH alluded to this in his wish not to have a 'remote-controlled' MB.

But the point of this post is not to revisit all those arguments, but to mull over the fact that HRH saw fit to make public statements explaining his decisions over the recent MB issue, which many constitutional experts have criticized. 

HRH needn't do so but his actions (in explaining his decisions), as I suspect, have shown him to be only human and not an aloof couldn't-be-bothered god-king figure.

Would we be correct in concluding he must have been troubled by the criticisms.

Yes, as humans we want to be liked.

What do you think? Will you be prepared to accept HRH's explanations as justified?

For a wider perspective of HRH's decisions, read also TMI's A right royal dilemma, written by Terence Fernandez.

Cheshire Cat ate the Red Herring

Last week I posted Satay always meant for Dökkálfar Dwarf and Red herring in Selangor.


Dökkálfar Dwarf, wakakaka

Today Lee Chin Cheh, the PKR bloke who deliberately resigned from his Kajang state seat to allow PKR's Rancid Satay to commence its offensive odour has come out with the 'goods' or if you like, the low down, wakakaka, on the underdone or overcooked Satay.



Read TMI's Azmin was Selangor PKR’s first choice for MB, says former Kajang rep.

I rest my case.

Now you'd also know why Anwar Ibrahim, Rafizi Ramli and Saifuddin Nasution didn't object to HRH's choice, despite their earlier pompous insistence on only Dr Wan as their choice for MB.

Now I hope the DAP would be a wee wiser.



Saturday, September 27, 2014

Selangor - conventions and padan muka

Haven't we been aware of the catastrophic series of satay-initiated f**kups in Selangor over the last several months leading to annoyance, agitation, anger, acrimony (among so-called Pakatan allies), and angst?


their (lack of) relationship was the casus belli

Forget about legal constitutional what-nots but consider just the issue of 'conventions'. Haven't we been lectured daily about conventions but many of which were recently thrown out of the window? Take for example, the conventions that:

(a) only an anak jati Selangor could be MB?

(b) caretaker appointments cannot make 'major' policy decision on behalf of the organization?

and regardless of whether it was just a politician's promise, don't forget Azmin Ali's pledge of support to Dr Wan as the PKR sole nominee for MB.

Fortunately for him, he can 'blame' HRH for flinging his earlier pledge to Dr Wan out of the window, wakakaka, and accepting the royal appointment because naturally, wakakaka, he wouldn't didn't couldn't want to be seen as 'being insolent' to HRH.

Be that as it may, look at the current Pakatan makeup in the Selangor State Assembly, where the coalition's total number of ADUN comprise 13 from PKR (Khalid is no more PKR), 15 from PAS and 15 from DAP.

Previously PKR had 14 and were allocated the MB position plus 3 exco seats, while PAS had 4 and DAP only 3 (after a stab in the back as complained by Tony Pua - for more, see my last year's post Selangor saga shows PKR's ketuanan mentality?)

So now PAS has one exco seat taken away from it, presumably for its errant ways. Padan muka?

But was DAP rewarded for its 'through thick & thin' loyal partnership to PKR?

Oh, I forgot - DAP backed the wrong PKR horse so it was lucky the new MB didn't punish it like he did PAS.

Well, I don't know about PAS but most certainly padan muka for DAP, wakakaka.

Often we have heard of anwaristas in PAS, principally those Erdogens who subscribe to a coalition cause because they could see the strategic view for their party, instead of just women wearing tight jeans or with lipstick and perfume.

But in DAP there are also anwaristas, especially in Selangor. I can name two easily:

(a) Hannah Yeoh for her flabbergasting support for Anwar's deformasi 916 - I was being kind to her when I said she was mathematically challenged in believing 82 was greater than 140,

(b) Mr Henny-Penny Tony Pua for his 'sky is falling down' alarm about the imperative for Anwar (and later, Dr Wan) to win the Kajang state seat. I have been so so so disappointed in Tony for getting unnecessarily involved, too involved in a PKR internal grubby feud.

And what did he win for DAP in his loyalty to PKR? Padan muka again.

But consider once again, that PKR with only 13 ADUN has grabbed not only the MB position but also 4 exco seats, while a DAP with 15-ADUN has 3 exco members.

Truly that defies coalition sharing 'convention'.

Truly that calls for a reiteration that indeed the 2nd Selangor saga shows PKR's ketuanan mentality.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Did Abraham sacrifice Ishmael or Isaac?

On the right hand column of my blog I have listed my 10 top popular posts. Unfortunately the list somehow does not reflect the true stats, that of the posts most read. Currently The Morning After - Part 1 is listed (incorrectly) as the third most read post.


Hagar and Ishmael expelled because Sarah was jealous

It should be Why 'God' loved Isaac more than Ishmael which has 1300 hits more than the one above.

I tried refreshing the blog including republishing Why 'God' loved Isaac more than Ishmael to make it appear correctly as No 3, but alas all my efforts failed to work

I'm going to take a leaf out of someone's book (or tactics) wakakaka and blame the Illuminati for suppressing its appearance as my 3rd most read post, because the post is uncomplimentary to Israel's so-called greatest 'hero', but in reality an evil murderous treasonous and adulterous David. Wakakaka.



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


And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. 
And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David was also guilty of many other crimes including treasonably consorting with Israel’s enemies, the Philistines, against Israel.

In the way that the New Testament would not have been written if there was no Yesohua ben Yusuf, the Tanakh would not have thus been written if there was no David.

David's supporters wrote the Tanakh to exonerate his many crimes, but fortunately for posterity they weren't the only writers of the Tanakh, hence through the writings of those who weren't his supporters we catch glimpses of his evil as well as the treachery of his eponymous cheating ancestor, Israel, or as Jacob was known by, in the Old Testament.


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

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

And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. 
And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

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

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

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


If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.
He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

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

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

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

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

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

But you know, regardless of whether it was Ishmael or Isaac who was sacrificed by Abraham, the boy was killed. There was no angel interceding at the very last minute to save the human sacrifice. The scholars believe Abraham sembileh his son. And if the son was the 'only son' then it would have been Ishmael. Of course it could well be Isaac.

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

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

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

1. In the original sources that come to make up the Torah, Gen 22 is attributed to an author from the Northern Kingdom, nicknamed “E” because he refers to God as Elohim, in contrast to “J” who refers to God as Jehovah, or Yahweh in contemporary use. In Gen 22:1-10, God is called Elohim, but suddenly an “angel of Yahweh” appears to save Isaac.

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

3. In 22:16, “he” (is this the angel or Elohim?) praises Abraham because “you did this thing and didn't withhold your son.” What?!? This seems to describe a moment after which Isaac had been killed. It could refer, of course, to Abraham’s willingness, but it could also mean that he did it.

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


Tzemah Yoreh confirmed the above oddity of 2 going out but only one returning.

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

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

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


Tzemah Yoreh added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


Why is there a leitmotiv in the bible surrounding Abraham and Sarah, of the man and wife pretending to be brother and sister, of a Pharaoh or King taking (or attempting to take) the wife, of God then intervening to return the wife to the husband, and of the husband profiting greatly from the separation? The leitmotiv may be discerned in:
  • Abraham and the Pharaoh (Genesis 12:11-20)
  • Abraham and Abimelech of Gerar (Genesis 20:2-18) – Sarah was even older by then, around 90.
  • Isaac and Abimelech of Gerar (Genesis 26: 7-16) – we aren't too sure whether this was the same Abimelech for it was then more than 50 years later, but the King had a chief captain of the army named Phichol (Genesis 26:26) as was in the case of the earlier or Abraham’s Abimelech (Genesis 21:22).
If it was the same Abimelech, then it would suggest that Abraham and Isaac could well be the same person.

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

When Abraham sacrificed Isaac (or Ishmael) as a human offering to his Hebrew god, the above observed leitmotiv serves the story gnam gnam, in which Abraham (rather than a dead Isaac/Ishmael) was the father of Jacob. Thus the leitmotiv pointed to an Abraham experience rather than that of both Abraham and Isaac.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Red herring in Selangor?

No, I'm not going to discuss the constitutional legality of HRH appointing Azmin Ali as the new MB of Selangor. I leave that to the lawyers attending the current International Malaysia Law Conference in KL, not that their expertise opinions would matter, wakakaka.

Instead my post is about a red herring in Selangor, wakakaka.



Incidentally, there is a reasonably sympathetic-to-HRH article published in The Malaysian Insider today, rather well written by Terence Fernandez and titled A right royal dilemma. Read it to see what you think of Fernandez's views?

This post is about some views in RPK's post today titled Finally it's the Sultan who decides where my "sifu" (wakakaka) and matey has written (relevant extracts only):

Some readers are now coming out with conspiracy theories. They say that Anwar Ibrahim actually wanted Azmin as the MB all along and that Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail was just a red herring. Anwar did not really want his wife as MB. From the very beginning he wanted Azmin so Dr Wan Azizah was just the decoy to throw people of the scent. [...]



In that case, why the need for the most complicated ‘Kajang Move’? Azmin was already an ADUN (State Assemblyman) since 2013. In fact, he was an ADUN since 2008. Azmin could have been made the MB last year when the Kajang Move was first mooted. Why the need for Lee Chin Cheh to resign his Kajang state seat and make way for a by-election?

In the first place, Anwar was supposed to contest the Kajang by-election. Was that not the intention? Was this a red herring as well? Did Anwar intend for Dr Wan Azizah to contest that seat from the very beginning? So was this yet another wayang, just like Azmin was supposed to be the MB from the very beginning?

The truth is these people do not want to admit that the Kajang Move was an epic disaster. The plan in the beginning was that Anwar would contest the Kajang by-election and then would become the new Selangor MB. When this plan failed they changed it to Dr Wan Azizah would contest the Kajang by-election and become the MB instead.

Then that, too, failed. So now they say that the plan all along was for Azmin to become the MB and everything else were just red herrings to confuse everyone and to camouflage what they really intended — that is for Azmin to become the MB.


Well, I have been one of those who came out with the above conspiracy theory, wakakaka, though with a major difference - I have never refuse or fail to castigate, lambast, hammer the Kajang Move kau kau, even against DAP's Tony Pua for supporting it, wakakaka.

Yes, It's not only PAS but the DAP who has anwaristas, wakakaka.

But I stand firm in my belief the whole sorry episode had been designed for Azmin Ali to realize his long-held ambition to be MB of Selangor.

However, I must concede that my "sifu" knows far more about the intrigues and untold stories behind the scenes in Selangor so-called constitutional crisis, what more with his direct line to his Cousin (with capitalized 'C'). So he could be right.

Nonetheless as a blogger and with all respect to my matey RPK who knows much much more, I like to toss in my 2 sens worth of conspiracy theory, wakakaka. Please consider this post as just another of my writing exercises.

Okay, I have been the very commentator at RPK's blog to use the word 'red herring' to describe Dr Wan's MB candidature (in place of Anwar's). I will return to this word (red herring) shortly in my explanation on why I believe the principal beneficiary of the rancid Satay has all along, right from Day 1, been Azmin Ali.


Now, to answer Pete's relevant query on why the Kajang Move was then necessary for Anwar Ibrahim (later supersub-ed by Dr Wan) to become a Selangor ADUN if he/she was a mere red herring when Azmin Ali was already ADUN for Bukit Antarabangsa, qualified and ready to be MB in place of Khalid?

Okay, before I answer RPK's queries, let me ask a question myself: If the Kajang Move was indeed to provide Anwar Ibrahim (or a member of his family) with access to the Selangor MB's position, why then didn't Azmin Ali vacate his Bukit Antarabangsa's state seat for Anwar when he (Azmin) is already a federal MP for Gombak and can afford to spare his state seat for his mentor and father-figure?

After all, wasn't that move designed for Anwar to combat the most nefarious of UMNO's intention? An Azmin Ali sacrifice would have been seen by the voters as a truly noble gesture, rather than poor Lee Chin Cheh being instructed to move aside.

It's a rhetorical question meaning I already have the answer, which is that Azmin Ali has to, MUST retain his Bukit Antarabangsa state seat and remain as a Selangor ADUN to become MB. Or the entire Satay Bullshit would have been a total loss.

Thus the unimportant-to-PKR Lee Chin Cheh had to be the sacrificial goat.

Okay, now to answer RPK more directly - on 03 February this year I wrote a letter to Malaysiakini, published as The ‘Kajang betrayal’ and Princess Diana (wakakaka) in which I wrote (extracts as follows):

But in this Kajang betrayal, we have been informed that it was, variously, a decision to “strengthen” or “save” PKR (we heard both versions), a “tactical” move which soon became a “strategic” one to combat the evils of Mahathirism following the pending disposal of Prime Minister (PM) Najib Abdul Razak, then to showcase Selangor as a shining example of Pakatan rule, also to resist racial and religious incitements, and so on so forth; until we also heard it is to make Selangor as Anwar’s launch pad to take Putrajaya.

As a Malay would say of PKR’s transforming justification(s), semakin tambah semakin lemak, an increasingly richer embellishment with such succeeding attempt to explain Lee Chin Cheh’s abandonment of the people of Kajang who had just voted for him as their state representative a mere nine months ago, in order to facilitate Anwar’s entry into the Selangor state assembly and hopefully, his eventual appointment as the state’s menteri besar (MB).

Give them a few more weeks and I’m confident those embellishments will attain Ben Hur-ish proportions.

When the Satay Shit Stick with the already decaying rotten meat was thrown onto the charcoal grill, no one other than 4 PKR people knew about it. Even then, I suspected that Anwar himself was initially clueless, thus perhaps only 3 PKR people knew of the plan right at its onset (find out who had been one of them, wakakaka).

In my letter to Malaysiakini I continued with the following (extracts):

Wasn't it supposed to a Pakatan strategic move, but obviously one in which Lim Guan Eng, the secretary-general of DAP and PAS leaders and even some PKR leaders knew nothing about, and which Anwar couldn't provide an explanation straightaway?


For such a glib diarrheic orator like Anwar Ibrahim, the only reason I could think of for him being unable to provide an instant response was that either he was caught unaware of what was happening or had just came to know of the Satay Scheme pretty late, meaning he wasn't even informed at the very beginning. My letter continued:

Perhaps it was so strategic and secretive that only four people know about it, namely, Lee Chin Cheh who had to resign his state assemblyperson post, Rafizi Ramli, the self-acknowledged brains behind Lee’s resignation, Azmin Ali and (I truly hope) Anwar Ibrahim.

NGO Bersih has criticised the Kajang Betrayal, and so has its former chairperson, Ambiga Sreenevasan. Human Rights lawyer Edward Bon has been incensed by it. PAS Youth was livid with rage and earlier on vowed not to support Anwar’s candidacy in Kajang, while Selangor PAS has started to stake out their claims on the MB post.


Earlier in my letter I had written:

For such an important Pakatan ‘strategy’ it’s puzzling that the secretary-general of DAP did not even know of the sudden PKR-initiated action, let alone being consulted or at the very least, informed. 
Lim Guan Eng confessed he was completely in the dark about Lee Chin Cheh’s resignation. Should a Pakatan ‘strategy’ be initiated by PKR alone without prior consultation with the leaders of its political allies? I believe PAS was also not informed. 
That Lim Guan Eng’s father and DAP chairperson Karpal Singh have now come out in support of Anwar Ibrahim’s ‘strategy’, long after Lee’s resignation was announced, does not mean it was none other than a PKR initiated ‘tactic’. Perhaps the DAP and PAS saw the need to maintain a cohesive Pakatan Rakyat and to quietly swallow PKR’s action as an unavoidable fait accompli.

The list of unhappiness over the Kajang Betrayal goes on, while constitutional lawyers have their days discussing, dissecting and displaying their knowledge on the federal and Selangor state constitutions.

Now consider an alternative scene which would have avoided all the brouhaha: PKR consulted PAS and DAP. The resignation was announced at a Pakatan (and not PKR) press conference immediately following a PKR assemblyperson’s resignation.

The PKR assemblyperson who had volunteered to resign was Azmin Ali of the Bukit Antarabangsa state seat. Azmin Ali explained his noble self-sacrificing decision as only giving up a state seat while still remaining a federal member of Parliament (MP) for Gombak and where he would continue serving the people of Bukit Antarabangsa in his capacity of MP. Lee Chin Cheh would not have been required to abandon the people of Kajang!

Alas, that was not to be. I wonder why? [admittedly writing this with a smile].

But it does tell us, nay, remind us of the way PKR acts unilaterally and then would label those actions as being of Pakatan Rakyat provenance, presenting both DAP and PAS with fait accompli they dare not reject for fear of a disunited coalition.


Most of us know that the DAP and PAS hadn't previously supported Azmin Ali as MB, and preferred Khalid Ibrahim. That Khalid Ibrahim subsequently turned maverick in his constitutional and democratic-traditional mannerism (probably because he was repetitively humiliated by PKR) which revolted DAP and two PAS ADUNs, with Saari Sungib being wont to state "Khalid Ibrahim's behaviour was intolerable by the hour", is an entirely separate story.

But the important point to bear in mind is that the DAP and PAS did NOT and likely would NOT have supported Azmin Ali as the replacement MB if this intention was stated right at the beginning of the Satay Bullshit.

That's why Anwar and subsequently Dr Wan had to serve as the red herring, or there would have been no DAP or PAS support. And where would the Satay have ended, or how would Azmin Ali realize his long-burning ambition?


Yesterday in my post Satay always meant for Dökkálfar Dwarf I wrote two significant points:

Firstly, I said: Even Lim GE and Hadi Awang were left out in the cold, indicating it has been/is solely a PKR game, an intra-party power struggle, where for someone to achieve his wet dreams, a lot of people including Pakatan allies and especially the Kajang voters have been, are and will be f**ked around kau kau.

The reason for leaving DAP, PAS and indeed most of PKR out in the cold has been that PKR's "inner coterie" knew the DAP and PAS did not (still do not) and would not have supported the Dwarf as the person to replace Khalid Ibrahim as the MB of Selangor.


That was why the "inner coterie" went though the entire babbling tommyrot of sheer utter bullshit to explain the Satay Bull as a decision to “strengthen” or “save” PKR (we heard both versions), a “tactical” move which soon became a “strategic” one to combat the evils of Mahathirism following the pending disposal of Prime Minister (PM) Najib Abdul Razak, then to showcase Selangor as a shining example of Pakatan rule, also to resist racial and religious incitements, and so on so forth; until we also heard it is to make Selangor as Anwar’s launch pad to take Putrajaya.

To wit, the red herring, with Anwar in the top starring role (subsequently substituted with Dr Wan).


Secondly, I also said of Anwar Ibrahim(worth reproducing here):

To be frank I don't believe Anwar Ibrahim really wants to be MB of Selangor. As I mentioned in my previous post The Chaos that is PKR that:

Anwar Ibrahim is a big-time politician who yearns for, seeks out and can only thrive in big-picture politics at either the national (federal) or international level.

To use an analogy, this man is a big shark of the high seas and not an ikan keli swimming in a longkang. You can't put him in a padi irrigation canal or a home-type fish tank and then expect him to flourish.

If I believe Anwar doesn't want to be MB of Selangor, then WTF is it all about?

Now, notwithstanding his declaration that he won't go for the MB post (or PAS will be mighty pissed off before the by-election, and we can't have that, can we?) there are 3 possibilities following his Kajang move and hope-for victory in the by-election:

(i) Ousts Khalid Ibrahim by Taichi* or Shaolin, becomes MB and promotes Azmin Ali to deputy MB, with the latter effectively the de facto MB running Selangor, all but in name (of MB), while Mr Manmanlai swims away to the high seas of national-level and international politics.

* see my post The Tai Chi Master -
 with the advantage of hindsight, it turned out to be Shaolin and not Taichi, wakakaka

(ii) As an ADUN or even exco member but PKR de facto leader, breathes down heavily on MB Khalid Ibrahim's neck, somehow promotes Azmin to be deputy MB with same subsequent happenings as above, and possibly with Khalid Ibrahim as the Malaysian version of the Japanese enthroned Emperor of Manchukuo.

(iii) Oust Khalid and install Azmin as MP, and to f**ks with PAS and you-know-who!!!


To summarize, all these brouhaha and gross insult to Kajang-ites by PKR have been to serve one PKR leader, and he is NOT Anwar Ibrahim! Even the Great One must serve him!

And that is why someone has been smiling like The Cheshire Cat! ... 
because he got the red herring? wakakaka.

Even Dr Mahathir had said of Anwar: "Do not think that he only wants to be the Menteri Besar. For Anwar, the Menteri Besar (post) is small. He wants to be the Prime Minister."

"Elections [in Selangor] can be held, but I don't think it will solve any problem until Anwar becomes PM. I think if we let him become Prime Minister for a month, he will be satisfied, but even then he would not let go."
 Wakakaka.

all kowtim already, wakakaka

Thus, on this score, I disagree respectfully with RPK - sorry Pete. I strongly believe the Satay Bull has always been for Azmin Ali and that the Anwar Ibrahim-Dr Wan candidature as MB had all along been a red herring.

Monday, September 22, 2014

Satay always meant for Dökkálfar Dwarf

In the end the Satay Scheme has succeeded in its objective, in making Azmin Ali the new MB of Selangor, as the scheme had always been intended to achieve.


No, it has NOT failed but like Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Kajang has left a trail of destruction in its wake, including (a) the destruction of Pakatan Rakyat and indirectly (b) affecting the good name of HRH

Early this year, on 03 February, in a letter to Malaysiakini titled Kajang Sate I had written:

Look mateys, everyone knows that Lee's resignation has been related to PKR's intra-party political-fratricidal internecine feud between Khalid Ibrahim and Azmin Ali.

The bull about Lee's resignation from and Anwar Ibrahim's contesting of the Kajang state seat that comes out from PKR mouths have been of brain-baffling balderdash poppycock, indeed of Gargantuan proportions, .....

..... telling and expecting us, like country bumpkins who naively believe in our leaders, to swallow the bull dust that PKR, by resigning from the Kajang state seat and then re-contesting that same seat, will (perhaps by the combined power of Odin, Zeus and Osiris) strengthen or save Pakatan in Selangor (both versions exist), prepare Pakatan for Putrajaya, promote international investment (WTF then has Anwar been doing as Selangor's economic advisor?), prepare Pakatan from Armageddon when Mahathir ousts Najib, resurrect the Dodo bird, Formosan clouded leopard and Tasmanian tiger, and allow us to contact the ghosts of Nelson Mandela, Princess Diana and Mat Kilau for 4-Ekor (the last will definitely be a fave with Chinese voters in Kajang, wakakaka).

And I've to say I'm disappointed with and ashamed of Rafizi Ramli, a man with the talent and potential to be PM one day, for being part of this PKR selfish self-interest self-gratifying circus.

The thing is and let's not pretend we don't know it, we were spared all these PKR bullsh*t until, yes, UNTIL someone was knocked out of PKNS, and this is a time-mark fact!

But even then, that was only a much latter event to earlier attempts to fill Khalid shoes which were far too big for the Døkkálfar Dwarf.

There has been even a tale (visit Malaysia-Today and read this) about someone 'martyring' himself (of a contrived kind of course, wakakaka) so as to bring the feud to a ferocious boil and exert pressure on Khalid Ibrahim.

The Kajang manouevre is just but another step in this pressure on Khalid Ibrahim.

Even Lim GE and Hadi Awang were left out in the cold, indicating it has been/is solely a PKR game, an intra-party power struggle, where for someone to achieve his wet dreams, a lot of people including Pakatan allies and especially the Kajang voters have been, are and will be f**ked around kau kau.


The reason for leaving DAP, PAS and indeed most of PKR out in the cold has been that PKR's "inner coterie" knew the DAP and PAS did not (still do not) and would not have supported the Dwarf as the person to replace Khalid Ibrahim as the MB of Selangor.

Alas, Khalid muddied the waters by his shameful unconstitutional behaviour when he was instructed to step down (and subsequently expelled), which turned many including DAP against him, deservedly so.

We had the sad misfortune to witness the various lamentable constitutional blasphemy blasphemies, including when he as a caretaker MB was allowed to sign away major state deals.

It doesn't matter whether his acts had been (allegedly claimed) to "save" the state - it was a disgraceful process totally contrary to the conventional practice for a "caretaker" MB (or PM).

To mask the reality that the under-cooked rancid or overdone burnt Satay had been for the benefits of Azmin, PKR's "inner coterie" pushed Anwar and subsequently PKR's super-sub, Dr Wan out as the front person, a move purportedly as:
  • (first) a step towards Purrajaya,
  • (then) to save us from UMNO-Dr Mahathir's nefarious subversion of Pakatan,
  • (subsequently) Khalid Ibrahim's maverick MB-ing (some truth in this when a humiliated Khalid started to merajuk his angry way via his MB powers), and
  • (thereafter) constitutional propriety, presumably to see whether HRH or PKR blinks first.

In another post in March 2014 I had written:

We know PAS hasn't been enchanted with both the Dökkálfar Dwarf and Anwar, while DAP, leery of the Dwarf, would have supported Anwar.

But now that Anwar is (theoretically) out of the DUN, it may well be that DAP, though somewhat disenchanted with Khalid and his lonesome (or wayward) way as a MB, may well stick with the current MB because the Dwarf-ish alternative is not palatable, wakakaka, ...

... unless of course Dr Wan Azizah throws her tudung (or hat) into the MB ring.

Yet we know she's a reluctant politician who wants to retire as she has openly declared, only coming back reluctantly into active politics, as usual to pick up hubby's mess.

But then, according to TMI, she says she’s in the dark over talks of a new Selangor menteri besar, wakakaka.

Everyone in Malaysia knows what PKR's Kajang Betrayal has been for, and by telling us she is in the dark about a new MB for Selangor, she seems to be the ONLY person who doesn't, wakakaka - and that's what's probably sweet about her, the reluctant politician.

But in the "unlikelihood" she tries for MB, I am confident DAP will support her while I am afraid PAS won't. That's something we'll have to see.

Now, why have I even supposed the "unlikelihood" of her throwing her hat-tudung into the ring for the MB position when she obviously has no such ambitions or thoughts about the MB position, other than to be the compromise candidate to replace hubby in Kajang?

Because the most powerful faction in the weakest Pakatan link, having in the first place engineered the Kajang Betrayal, is hardly likely to give up.

Besides, they will whisper in Anwar's ears, and of course Anwar will then have to whispers in Dr Wan's ears, wakakaka, and therein we will see how Dr Wan deals with her coming dilemma - loyalty to her own instinct 
[in continuing to support Khalid Ibrahim and co-shouldering the "inner coterie"] or loyalty to hubby even if against her instinct?

But I have never abandoned my suspicion that the move to replace Khalid Ibrahim as MB has always been specifically for the personal advantage of Azmin Ali. I had then written:

To be frank I don't believe Anwar Ibrahim really wants to be MB of Selangor. As I mentioned in my previous post The Chaos that is PKR that:

Anwar Ibrahim is a big-time politician who yearns for, seeks out and can only thrive in big-picture politics at either the national (federal) or international level.

To use an analogy, this man is a big shark of the high seas and not an ikan keli swimming in a longkang. You can't put him in a padi irrigation canal or a home-type fish tank and then expect him to flourish.

If I believe Anwar doesn't want to be MB of Selangor, then WTF is it all about?

Now, notwithstanding his declaration that he won't go for the MB post (or PAS will be mighty pissed off before the by-election, and we can't have that, can we?) there are 3 possibilities following his Kajang move and hope-for victory in the by-election:

(i) Ousts Khalid Ibrahim by Taichi* or Shaolin, becomes MB and promotes Azmin Ali to deputy MB, with the latter effectively the de facto MB running Selangor, all but in name (of MB), while Mr Manmanlai swims away to the high seas of national-level and international politics.

* see my post The Tai Chi Master

(ii) As an ADUN or even exco member but PKR de facto leader, breathes down heavily on MB Khalid Ibrahim's neck, somehow promotes Azmin to be deputy MB with same subsequent happenings as above, and possibly with Khalid Ibrahim as the Malaysian version of the Japanese enthroned Emperor of Manchukuo.

(iii) Oust Khalid and install Azmin as MP, and to f**ks with PAS and you-know-who!!!

To summarize, all these brouhaha and gross insult to Kajang-ites by PKR have been to serve one PKR leader, and he is NOT Anwar Ibrahim! Even the Great One must serve him!

And that is why someone has been smiling like The Cheshire Cat!


hmmm, I wonder whether the Great One might be silently saying:

Yeaaa, my boy made it. Thanks Tuanku

I had also warned/predicted the following (mind you, I wrote the following in January this year):

I predict that PAS will break away from Pakatan if Khalid Ibrahim is forced out from his state appointment and the PAS' candidate Iskandar Abdul Samad doesn't get to replace him as MB. This is the line I mentioned that PAS has drawn in the sand for Anwar to see .....

..... and we have arrive at such a stage because of the personal interests of one bloke (not Anwar).

There's an English proverbial rhyme about 'For Want of a Nail' that may in a certain way suit this stupid sorry saga with the potential to disintegrate Pakatan, if amended to read 'For want of commonsense'.

But given that it may possibly affect PKR internally and Pakatan generally, perhaps it may be timely to instead quote extracts from the Poetic Edda referring to Ragnarok, the Armageddon of Norse mythology, which informs us of the parlous state of humanity, especially among family members, in the aftermath of the gods' (or PKR warlords') final battle:

Brothers will fight
and kill each other,
sisters' children
will defile kinship.
It is harsh in the world,
whoredom rife
—an axe age, a sword age
—shields are riven
—a wind age, a wolf age—
before the world goes headlong.
No man will have
mercy on another.


..... and won't that just make UMNO happy because the lamentable thing about the current poisonous state of affairs in Parti Kaos Raka (PKR) is that it may infect Pakatan Rakyat.

Putrajaya my bloody foot, lu taan koo koo ler [tunggu selama2nya]!


Yes, the Satay might have achieved its original intention but alas, like a fearsome typhoon it has left in its wake a trail of destruction, to wit, the disintegration of Pakatan Rakyat, and by unnecessarily involving HRH in the political maelstrom, indirectly the good name of HRH.

But yes, the Satay may be considered as the typical selfish PKR personal-to-holder Machiavellian manoeuvre.