Friday, October 09, 2015

Tony Pua's 'prick', Singapore diplomat's 'sole concern'

In the MM Online we read of DAP's Tony Pua saying Singapore is Southeast Asia’s ‘mercenary prick’ and which has been why the Island Nation has no friend.

Bilahari Kausikan

Ambassador-at-Large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Singapore. Prior to this he was the Permanent Secretary of MFA from 2010 to 2013, and Second Permanent Secretary from 2001. He has also held various positions in the Ministry and abroad, including Singapore’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York and Ambassador to the Russian Federation.

Awarded the Public Administration Medal (Gold) and the Pingat Jasa Gemilang (Meritorious Service Medal) by the government of Singapore.

Awarded the “Order of Bernardo O’Higgins” with the rank of “Gran Cruz” by the President of the Republic of Chile and the Oman Civil Merit Order by the Sultan of Oman.

Writes widely for the international media such as The American Interest and The Straits Times.

If not anything, at least Pua's most undiplomatic and quite abusive remarks prove that the DAP in Malaysia is not affiliated to its alleged Singapore Tai-Koe, the PAP, wakakaka.

Before I come to the words of Singaporean diplomat-at-large Bilahari Kausikan, who described Bersih 4.0 participants as 'delusional', bearing in mind he was referring to young Chinese Malaysians, who were the majority at the 2-day street rally (and I hope there was no Chinese participant from the PRC, Taiwan, HK, Macau, and elsewhere especially Sing, wakakaka), I want to share something I heard from my seniors.

The current 'mercenary prick' (wakakaka) story has a resemblance to what happened in the apartheid days of white supremacist South Africa, at a time when that racist pariah nation was suffering from political and economic-trade sanctions, an earlier form of BDS or 'boycott, divestment & sanction', a campaign which is applied today to Israel though less successfully than the one against apartheid South Africa because like it or not, many Western-Christian nations like Australia, United States and many European countries shy away from anything that's against Israel, even unto closing one eye to most of the Jewish State's vile brutal atrocities of war-crime proportions against the Palestinians and Lebanese.

they liked red as well, wakakaka 

Amidst the sanction against the Afrikaner nation, there came along the Japs, then the super-salesman of the world. Ohayo gozaimasu, 'twas said those Japs did not hesitate to trade with South Africa which obviously was in dire need of trading and economic relationship with anyone, so those Afrikaan white supremacists got around their own racist state policy vis-a-vis their Asian trading partner by making Japs (but not Chinese or Koreans or Mongolians) 'honorary whites', wakakaka.

Apparently (I've to admit I am not so clear on this one), white-ruled Southern Rhodesia (now black-ruled Zimbabwe, wakakaka), which became the 2nd Commonwealth nation in two hundred (200) years after the USA to unilaterally declare independence (UDI) from Mother Britain, so as to avoid Britain's policy of NIBMAR or 'no independence before majority rule' (which in Africa effectively meant black-rule), did the same hypocritical putar belit on its state's racist discriminatory policy.

Back to apartheid South Africa, there were two ironies to the Afrikaans' innovative (wakakaka) 'honorary whites' categorization, namely, (a) the Japs were, especially during and before WWIII, themselves racial supremacists who considered themselves as descendants of the Sun Goddess Amaterasu and would have probably deemed those Afrikaans as Conan-like 'barbarians' (wakakaka) from the Great Unwashed of the Dark Continent, and (b) in terms of skin complexion, the Japs (and indeed most Koreans and northern Chinese, though not the chocolate brown Chinese Malaysians and Sings, wakakaka) were far far more fair and thus more 'white' than those ruddy red-brown-dark Afrikaans.


Anyway, more than a few Asians were pissed off with those 'honorary white' Japs for breaking ranks and sneeringly described them as 'economic animals' with an abusive accent on the critter word. If that had happened under today's circumstances, some Malaysians would have described them as 'economic Japigs', wakakaka.

Thus I suspect Pua's 'mercenary prick' would be the updated or modern version of 'economic animals', meaning people who would do, say, conduct anything or behave in any way just for money, gains and profits even unto rubbing shoulders with the uncivilised 'gaijin', and perhaps could be argued as a most apt description for a society reputed notoriously as very kiasu, wakakaka.

But let's now come to Bilahari's remarks which was reported by the MM Online as follows:

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 6 — Malaysia’s ethnic Chinese youth are “delusional” if they believe that Malay dominance in politics can be replaced by a change in the system, Singapore’s ambassador-at-large Bilahari Kausikan has said.

Instead, the top Singaporean diplomat said this dominance will be defended by any means, including a possible political alliance between Malay nationalist ruling party Umno and opposition Islamist party PAS.

“It is my impression that many young Malaysian Chinese have forgotten the lessons of May 13, 1969. They naively believe that the system built around the principle of Malay dominance can be changed.

“That may be why they abandoned MCA for the DAP. They are delusional. Malay dominance will be defended by any means,” Bilahari wrote in an opinion piece published in The Straits Times (ST) today.

Amid the current political upheaval in Malaysia, Bilahari cautioned that any new system that emerges will not only still have Malay dominance at its centre, but its enforcement will be even more rigorous with less space for the non-Muslims.

Personally I assess Bilahari's remarks as having fair substance, that the Malays in Malaysia, irrespective of what their political affiliations may be, aren't quite ready yet to accept a Malaysian government which is not dominated and controlled by Malays.

Thus UMNO, PAS, PKR (let's not pretend PKR is not a Malay party) and Amanah all share the same racial ideology in terms of political control and dominance of our country. And that has been why the clarion call for 'Malay Unity' has been so appealing and in more than one case, particularly vis-a-vis the ongoing UMNO-PAS wooing and cooing behind the public eye, quite successful.

Indeed PAS' so-called reverence for Islamic values, which in reality include supra-nationalistic values (that which is above race, colour and creed), comes only in second place to its invincible Malay nationalism.

Now, we may be tempted to call those PAS ulama hypocrites to their Islamic values, but then, you can't blame them when they have been indoctrinated in their Malay-ness for for more than a thousand years since 683 CE.

That was when Dapunta Hyang Sri Jayanasa took a sacred journey called siddhayatra to apparently acquire blessings (particularly for magic powers), wealth and to conquer foreign lands, a kind of crusade.

Bloke led 20,000 troops and 312 people (presumably his personal staff and advisors?) in boats from (according to one historical theory) the East coast of the Malay peninsula to the adjoining land which we know today as Sumatra. His military exploits absorbed into his newly founded Srivijaya Empire both the conquered Melayu Kingdom, then existing somewhere around Jambi in Sumatra, as well as the conquered Hindu kingdom of Tamuranagara in West Java.

 Candi Gumpung
a Buddhist temple at Muaro Jambi of Melayu Kingdom

Dirgahayu Maharaja! Well, 'maharaja' because he and his subjects were Indianized as well as being Buddhists, where centuries later his kingdom and subjects turned respectively to Hinduism and Islam, but throughout remained Malays, so what more for those poor PAS ulama, wakakaka.

And Bilahari would well be very correct that young Chinese Malaysians who didn't experience the horrors of extreme racial strife as happened on 13 May 1969 have come to naturally believe that their political ardour, dedication and sacrificial efforts can change Malaysian politics into a superior non-racial version without the need to factor for Malay primer inter pares in political power, yes, even in Pakatan.

Thus, in his opinion those young Chinese Malaysians participating in Bersih 4.0 have been 'delusional' on such an impossibility, well, impossible for at least several more decades to come.

Pua has presumably been quite pissed with Bilahari's critical interfering comment and riposted that those 'delusional' young Malaysians have hearts and souls.

But Bilahari came back to say (in his Facebook) that "one of the most common forms of delusion in politics was to mistake hopes and dreams for reality".

Continuing, he said, “I do not begrudge Mr Pua his hopes and dreams and I wish him and indeed all Malaysians of all races well."

“But I fear this particular hope and dream may well lead to disaster; it did in the past and if it happens again Singapore — my sole concern — cannot but be affected. So my hope is that that whatever their dreams, the DAP's policies will be made during their waking hours.”


Bilahari has his point, one which he admitted as his 'sole concern', namely, that if there is unrest in Peninsula Malaysia, and god forbid of the May 13 variety, his Singapore will invariably be adversely affected, indeed in terms of instability, not only in public safety and security but in trade, commerce and economy.

He is basically telling young Chinese Malaysians to chill out.

I could go on and on for both sides of the argument but will end here by just saying Pua, whatever his arguments might have been, has been quite disappointingly childish and undiplomatic in describing Singapore as a 'mercenary prick', no matter how true that might be, wakakaka.

But you know what? I would love to hear Pua say those exact words of a few personalities in PKR who took him on a jolly bullshit ride in Kajang on which we suspect he was a naive but willing captive, wakakaka - that is, if he has the guts!

Thursday, October 08, 2015

Season for Daulat's & Dirgahayu's?

TMI - Dr Ling has Kit Siang’s respect for standing up to Najib

Tun Ling, macam mana you ta'kena saperti saya?

My boy, nasihat pakcik, janganlah hambat atau lawan you-tahu-siapa, OK?


DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang has doffed his hat at former MCA president Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik for standing his ground in calling for Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's resignation and daring to face the latter in court.

Lim also urged MCA to stand by their former leader.

"Ling has my grudging respect for standing his ground calling on Najib to resign and his readiness to face Najib in court."

My dear Uncle Lim, Ling did it ONLY because his Tai-Koe told him to, or he wouldn't have cared less, wakakaka.

By the by, Uncle Lim, didn't you write in your post Liong Sik’s allegation reinforces my call for RCI to get to the bottom of the RM12.5 billion “mother of all scandals” just last year the following (extracts):

Ling sounds very self-serving and even hypocritical as he must bear full responsibility for the state of the system of justice in Malaysia today, as he was part of the Mahathir government which precipitated the judicial crisis in 1988 when the then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas and two Supreme Court judges, Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh and Datuk George Seah were arbitrarily and unconstitutionally sacked. 
Malaysia has never yet recovered from that judicial crisis 26 years ago. 
Even Tun Abdullah who succeeded Mahathir as Prime Minister had expressed regret and remose [sic] for the 1988 judicial assault by the Barisan Nasional government. 
Had Liong Sik ever expressed regret and remorse for aiding and abetting Mahathir in 1988 and after in undermining the independence, impartiality and professionalism of the judiciary and the system of justice in Malaysia?

Now Ling has your respects. Wakakaka!

Meanwhile the MM Online published Malay rulers demand Putrajaya punish culprits in 1MDB.

Cries of Daulat Tuanku reverberated throughout more than 52% of the nation, wakakaka. And it's indeed 'more than 52% of the nation' because it would have to include those who BTW had excoriated, insulted and humiliated the Tuanku's kau kau in 1992, wakakaka. See my post Sedition! For what purpose?

Okay then, let's Dirgahayu Tun Ling as he now has a fan in his former worst critic, Lim Kit Siang, wakakaka.

Also, we mustn't ignore the need to Dirgahayu Tun Mahathir as well, yes, he of the 929 and 617 Declarations, as screamed by Lim Kit Siang, wakakaka.

And while we are at it, Dirgahayu MACC! Lim Kit Siang supported (and perhaps still supports) you guys but don't wank yourselves prematurely as I haven't yet forgotten Teoh Beng Hock though someone else might have - see my post Forgetting Teoh Beng Hock.

And just speculating or hypothesising, had Benjamin Netanyahu socked it to Najib at the UN, it would have been also Dirgahayu Netanyahu, "O Thee, Thou art one lovely Son of a bi... the Books", wakakaka - see my posts Human shields in Gaza and Today's Neo Nazis.

But damn it, he didn't!

Tuesday, October 06, 2015

The woman who would be king ... maker?

FMT - Khalid trashes Chin’s criticism of new Pakatan

PETALING JAYA: Pakatan Harapan’s communications director, Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad, has trashed Bersih leader Maria Chin Abdullah’s claim that the decision to form the coalition was hasty.

Speaking to FMT, Khalid said the coalition was a continuation of the Pakatan Rakyat pact, “just as much as Bersih 4 was a continuation of previous Bersih rallies.”

Asked to respond to questions regarding PAS’ exclusion, Khalid said that while it was entirely up to the Islamist party to join or shun Pakatan Harapan, the new coalition could neither wait for it to make up its mind nor plan for it.

“Pakatan Harapan can’t wait because it is not something new but a continuation of Pakatan Rakyat and the sooner we get together re-endorsing our commitment to form a new government the better,” he said.

A news report yesterday quoted Chin as saying Pakatan Harapan was launched before the three component parties – DAP, PKR and Amanah – had come up with anything concrete to offer Malaysians as an alternative to Barisan Nasional (BN).

As I once penned, Bersih under Maria Chin Abdullah has gone off track from the NGO's objective of clean and fair elections

Let's recollect what Bersih' objectives as laid out in 2011 have been. They are:
  1. Clean up of the electoral roll
  2. Reform of postal ballot
  3. Use of indelible ink
  4. Minimum 21 days of campaign period
  5. Free and fair access to mass media for all parties
  6. Strengthening of public institutions
  7. No corruption
  8. No dirty politics

WTF is Bersih doing today under Maria Chin Abdullah?

Is it Bersih 4.0's charter to depose of an elected PM?

Personally I suspected so when Bersih in the person of Maria Chin Abdullah saw it fit to praise a former RMAF officer as a hero, and for what you may asked, but for violating Armed Forces Council Instructions, yes, VIOLATING military instructions. That's Maria Chin's perception of a hero!

I had then remarked that unless someone wise up this new chairperson of Bersih the organization will soon lose its perspective, and sadly with that, all the investments made by Bersih's former leader, Ambiga Sreenevasan, which had earned Bersih 2.0 much respect and admiration, would be squandered completely by Maria Chin's new Bersih leadership.

The NGO is no longer about clean and fair elections. It has now become a mainstream political organization which seeks to depose of an elected PM. It now has only one honorable recourse - it must register itself as a political party.

Then, as if Bersih 4 had not been enough, Maria Chin Abdullah had subsequently also wanted to lobby MP to vote against Najib

That's fine but at least she should, as I had recommended, register Bersih appropriately as a political party since she has effectively changed the NGO (about clean and fair elections) into that.

Yes, Maria Chin Abdullah must make up her mind, whether to be politically active at the sharp end or to remain head of a neutral NGO which campaigns for fair and clean election.

If she intends to be head of Bersih, meaning the latter, then she should bloody well mind her own business as to whether Pakatan Harapan has been hastily formed or otherwise.

She seems to be either a confused activist which has been why I see Bersih 4.0 as a confused NGO, or as I suspect, she wants to be a political KINGMAKER, one who wants to change PM, one who pontificates pompously on the timing of Pakatan Harapan's political formation as if that's her business, one who ... god only knows what she wants next?

Sunday, October 04, 2015

Secret about Chinese Malaysians

In June this year I penned a post titled One myth about Chinese Malaysians which debunked the bull that Chinese don't fancy joining the Civil Services or Armed Forces because of the low pay. You can read it to gauge my reasonings.

Today Lim Kit Siang debunks another of Mahathir's bull, in an article in Malaysia titled Dr M wrong to say Chinese put communal interests first.

Allow me to whisper to you a Chinese secret or rather a secret about the Chinese - what they put first is their family, not ethnicity.

But then you may ask, what about the nation and patriotism and all that? Well, let me tell you that to me, the cries of patriotism are over-rated and usually hypocritical, especially self claims of patriotism, because as Samuel Johnson once told us "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel".

But if you want to know a Chinese Malaysian patriot, there's the late Tan Sri Yuen Yuet Leng and several others named in my post Chinese policemen, which narrated the sacrifices and services of Chinese Malaysian policemen and military personnel, several of whom were awarded the Seri Pahlawan Gagh Perkasa and Pingat Gagah Berani.

the late Tan Sri Yuen Yuet Leng

reputed as the man who destroyed the Communist Party of Malaysia

Sadly, as we were informed by the late Tan Sri Yuen, many of these heroes did not survive (executed by the CPM) to return back to public eyes, and their identities remained confidential until as such time the Malaysian government deems it okay to reveal their services-sacrifices to the nation. Given the current acrimonious ethnic situation, it's more likely those Chinese Malaysians will have to remain as unknown heroes.

Yes, their deaths-sacrifices were part of the shadowy world of the Police Special Branch which during the Emergency infiltrated and inserted these men into the very heart of the various communist terrorist groups. I believe two of them are known, SP* Paul Kiong and DSP* Sia Boon Chee, both of whom were awarded the SP by DYMM Agong.

* their ranks while in service

Seri Pahlawan Gagah Perkasa

Malaysian's highest award for gallantry 

In my 2010 post for the Centre for Policy Initiatives titled I wish to remain a M’sian – KTemoc replies Kadir Jasin I wrote:

Did and do my uncles love Malaysia any less because they are of Chinese descent? Have they been regretful of their personal sacrifices because they and their children are lesser citizens than those recent arrivals from neighbouring countries who were once our nation’s enemies?

Well, let's talk about some of their police and military compatriots, people to whom the nation owes incredible debts to such as police superintendent Paul Kiong, police deputy superintendent Sia Boon Chee and Capt. V. Mohana Chandran – recipients of Malaysia’s highest gallantry honour, the Seri Pahlawan Gagah Perkasa (SP) conferred by the Agong

Then there were those awarded the Pingat Gagah Berani (PGB) like the late lieutenants Choo Yoke Boo and Chang Tatt Min of the RMAF who both died in action, and 2nd Lt David Fu Chee Ming of the 4th battalion, Royal Rangers.

When a soldier, sailor or airman is wounded in the service of his country, regardless of his race, religion, culture, education or social origin, the colour of his blood he sheds is red. When he is killed, the colour of his bones is white.

He is proud to be a Malaysian who has served Malaysia, in some cases with the ultimate sacrifice. He did all these without first considering what was his race or religion, or whether he was a pribumi, which was why he unhesitatingly put his blood and body where his heart was –Tanah tumpahnya darahku!

And precisely because of this, while my uncles and their Indian friends in the Armed Forces have been proud and grateful they have inherited their rich legacies of thousands of years of culture and history, they are even more proud to be Malaysians, because they were born here as citizens. Malaysia is their Motherland.

They utilise the best moral lessons of their socio-cultural inheritance to enhance themselves and their children to be even better Malaysians and not as Chinese or Indians suffering from a bad case of hubristic snobbery or territorial intolerance.

 no longer feel the need to brandish their proud ethnic heritage as if these should be like a special pass which entitles them and their heirs to privileges beyond those available to other fellow Malaysians.

If fate had decreed that my uncles were to perish in their battles against the terrorists, as did some of their compatriots, they would have been proud to go into the next world as Malaysians.

Having served their nation, my uncles would not have been unduly worried who or what would stumble across their corpses. For their Maker would know them by their deeds on earth and to their country, and not by the indicators in their identity cards or military dog tags.

Malaysia negaraku, tanah tumpahnya darahku!

In fact if I may be so bold as to say, the Chinese not only invented the Civil Service (as mentioned in my post One myth about Chinese Malaysians) but also understood real patriotism for aeons, and recognizing, honouring and celebrating it as they have done for more than two and a half thousand years in their Dragon Boat pageant on the 5th day of the 5th moon of each Chinese lunar-solar year to honour Qu Yuan.

And from this paean to a Chinese patriot we get the rice dumpling (zongzi in Mandarin, bah-chang in Penang Hokkien) which carries a very special cultural meaning.

But let's leave patriotism aside as this has to be seen in terms of action and real sacrifice, not just by screaming mere words. The Chinese priorities would be something along this line:
  • procreate (sons) to perpetuate the family line. Confucius said that a man's greatest sin was in not doing so. I admit and am glad that today's Chinese don't care so much about the gender of their children (girls today are just as great as sons) as much as their children's health, intelligent and well-being, the last of which includes education
  • the concept of 3 daily 'bowls of rice', even if this has to be achieved by selling pirate DVDs
  • as mentioned in dot-point (1) above, their children's education especially for those not so well off, to enable their children to bloom like lotus, which rises up from the muddy dirty water (poverty) and bloom in glorious splendour through education, qualification and a career.

Sadly, Mahathir has frequently showed his resentment of the Chinese, perhaps because:

(a) in 1969 they voted him out in favour of PAS' Yusof Rawa in Kota Setar Selatan,

(b) they saved his political skin in 1999 which must have embarrassed him kau kau, and

(c) read my 2012 post Wiping out the Malay race? to understand his resentment.

Anyway, I'm glad Lim Kit Siang has finally come back to his senses, wakakaka.


Saturday, October 03, 2015

Senseless killing, senseless murderer in Parramatta

Yesterday, Friday, the last day of the working week in Australia, Curtis Cheng a 58-year old Chinese accountant working for the police department in Parramatta left his office at 4.30 pm and was murdered by a 15-year old kid (of Iraqi-Kurdish descent).

High school student Farhad Khalil Mohammad Jabar shot him in the back of his head at close range, reportedly after shouting Islamic religious slogans.

the late Curtis Cheng, his wife and 2 children 

Earlier prior to the cold blooded murder, Farhad Khalil had visited nearby Parramatta mosque where he changed into the flowing black shirt and black trousers.

After murdering Curtis Cheng, he continued shooting but was in turn shot dead by 3 police constables.

What a waste of two lives, that of an innocent 58-year old man who was obviously looking forward to his weekend with his family, and a 15-year old kid, who still had so much life ahead but was somehow "motivated" to become a murderer for his religious beliefs.

And what a senseless religious motivation to drive him in his own belief in a corrupt form of Islam to kill a 58-year old civilian accountant.

He has further aggravated the fear and hatred of Australians for Muslims.

For more, read SMH's Parramatta shooting: Gunman identified as Farhad Khalil Mohammad Jabar.

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Drastic Desperado Doublespeak

10 days ago I posted There are criminals and then there are criminals in which I mentioned Mahathir stating (reported by Malaysiakini) that PM Naib could even be arrested by police overseas?

I had then commented: What was not mentioned (because alas, it's a bloody f* fact which you shouldn't be bothered with) is that the PM or for that matter, any PM or diplomat, enjoys diplomatic immunity abroad and cannot be touched, with one exception, that on matters involving war crimes.

Then, a desperate Mahathir had resorted to using the example of Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity in Darfur (but an alleged crime ignored by many Islamic countries, Russia and China, etc).

Is Najib also accused of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity? C'mon lah, Tun, don't tembak with such an offensively outrageous odious comparison. 

Aiyoyo, pathetic lah. I was deeply disappointed by this once-strongman of Malaysia who was obviously desperately flinging poo around. We know he wants Najib out for his own political purpose.

Now, he disappoints me again by singing a different belakang-pusing & merajuk-ish tune, saying Najib [is] safe abroad, [as] international laws won't touch him.

With his volte-face kok-talk, can we or should we follow his guttersnipe attacks every which way at his foe? Before, when he was PM, we didn't. Why then should we now, when he is even worse than before?

We must, have to draw a principled line in the sand, and stop listening to his rants.

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

With 'friends' like PKR ... (2)

TMI - PAS should give up religious council’s top post, say Penang PKR wings

The Penang PKR Youth and Women wings have urged PAS to relinquish its presidency in the Penang Islamic Religious Council (MAIPP) now that PAS is no longer a member of the opposition pact that make up the state government.

The president of the council is PAS’s sole assemblyman in Penang, Datuk Mohd Salleh Man. He holds the Permatang Pasir state seat in the parliamentary constituency of Permatang Pauh.

In a joint press conference chaired by the state Youth and Women chiefs, Asrol Sani Abdul Razak and Nur Zarina Zakaria said Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng had declared that the new Pakatan Harapan coalition excluded PAS.

Zarina said logically, PAS should not hold on to the position when the Islamist party was no longer part of the coalition.

“We don’t think it is appropriate for PAS to keep the position any more, so we propose that the position be given to a PKR representative,” she said during the press conference at the Penang PKR headquarters in Seberang Jaya today. There had been rivalry between PAS and PKR for the presidency of MAIPP, even before Salleh was first appointed in 2012. [...[

Asrol said they had not approached Salleh to ask him to quit but they had written to Lim, PKR president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and the Penang Islamic affairs exco Datuk Abdul Malik Abul Kassim on the matter.

Wakakaka. It's not Lim Guan Eng or DAP who is pushing this, but PKR.

In fact, on 18 June 2015 TMI reported:

The sole PAS assemblyman in Penang is still part of the state government, said Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, now that the state is under a coalition government led by DAP following the end of the opposition pact under Pakatan Rakyat (PR).

He said Permatang Pasir assemblyman Datuk Mohd Salleh Man was still part of the DAP and PKR Penang government even though PR ceased to exist.

"We had a meeting yesterday evening. This was the decision accepted unanimously by all 30 Pakatan Rakyat reps," he told reporters today.

Salleh is president of the Penang Islamic Council, a position appointed by the Agong, and chairman of Penang Zakat.

And PKR wants PAS to be part of Pakatan, especially in Selangor.

With friends like PKR, you sure don't need enemies. Wakakaka.

PKR: PAS bro, we still need you to be in Pakatan


Monday, September 28, 2015

With 'friends' like PKR ...

FMT - MCA welcome to join Pakatan Harapan

PKR Secretary General Rafizi Ramli says Barisan Nasional component parties such as MCA and Gerakan are more than welcome to join the newly-formed Opposition coalition, Pakatan Harapan if they are willing to conform to their common policy framework.

And why not invite MIC as well? I suspect there could be a sinister reason for this, wakakaka.

I bet Rafizi Ramli (PKR) hasn't even consulted the component parties in Pakatan Harapan (PH) on his invitation to MCA and Gerakan. Is he, a PKR man, EMPOWERED to speak such on behalf of Pakatan Harapan (PH)?

I don't believe DAP will be too pleased with MCA or Gerakan in the new coalition. This is the perennial problem with PKR leaders, speaking on behalf of Pakatan as if they are the lord almighty or tuan of PH, like insisting PAS is still a part of Pakatan.

In the first place, why should or would Pakatan bother with MCA or Gerakan when these two BN component parties have been nearly wiped out to the point of extinction. It's plain clear the voters have rejected both kau kau. So why does PKR want them?

The reason and being a conspiracy theorist I believe it to be a sinister one, wakakaka, for PKR still f*ing around with MCA and Gerakan is that PKR could well be aiming to set them, if/when they're within PH, against DAP, in the same divide-&-conquer way as Razak had set the MCA against Dr Lim Chong Eu's once-glorious Gerakan Party (of 1969) from 1972 onwards, and reduced the former once-powerful Gerakan party (and indeed also MCA) to its current useless self.

With MCA and Gerakan in PH, then DAP will be called upon to allocate quite a few of the seats it is currently holding to these two useless parties in 2018, leaving PKR with the party holding the majority of seats among the 'original' Pakatan-ites.

If PKR is so keen on new recruits for PH, why has it rejected PSM? Why has it not invited MIC?

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Moon cakes in Petaling Street

Yesterday I posted Chinese puzzle in Petaling Street which discussed the very unusual utterance by the Chinese Ambassador on a particularly sensitive issue regarding Petaling Street.

mooncake enthusiasts? 

His remarks could be seen as interfering in the internal affairs of Malaysia, and I haven't been surprised that Wisma Putra has summoned him for an explanation.

Being a conspiracy theorist (wakakaka) I did of course suggest that his unusual-for-a-diplomat statement in Petaling Street might have been a bisa-diatur arrangement between Beijing and Putrajaya (for unknown reasons) and the summoning by our Foreign Office is all a sandiwara.

Today TMI reported:

The Chinese ambassador's visit to Petaling Street was an act of goodwill and the envoy has no intention of interfering in Malaysia's domestic affairs, said the China embassy, following Wisma Putra's intention to call up the envoy for an explanation tomorrow.

..... the embassy said ambassador Dr Huang Huikang's visit on Friday was in conjunction with the Mid-Autumn festival which was being celebrated today, and he gave out mooncakes to the traders and visitors of the tourist and shopping hotspot popularly known as Chinatown.

The embassy said he also made similar visits during major festivities in Malaysia, including Chinese New Year, Hari Raya and Deepavali.

Chinese celebration of the Mid-Autumn Festival has its origin way back in the 16th century BC, during the Shang Dynasty, a couple of hundred years before the mythical Hebrews made their exodus to Canaan. It was a celebration of several causes, to the mountain gods in gratitude after a crop harvest, celebrating a family reunion after a crop harvest, and worshipping the Moon Goddess Chang'e.

Chang'e the Moon Goddess

quite a different presentation to the one below 

above seal is an artifact from the Jewish exilic period of post 588 BC in Babylon. There is a crescent moon at the top of the Babylonian seal, above an altar to the moon deity Sin

In Malaysia and Singapore only, the Mid Autumn Festival has also been celebrated as a Lantern Festival, maybe because we don't have autumns wakakaka. As a wee lil' kid I quite enjoyed carrying a lantern in the shape of a carp (goldfish) and sometimes a bunny (animal associated with Moon Goddess) around my kampung. However in China, its lantern festival is on a different date, one that's on our Chap Goh Meh.

Now, if kaytee wants to stir sh*t regarding the Chinese Ambassador's visit to Petaling Street where he presented mooncakes to the local traders, I could point out the ominous and indeed very seditious implications of a Chinese official giving mooncakes to local Chinese, wakakaka.

Hmmm, I wonder whether a modern Chinese like His Excellency, born and brought up in atheistic communist China, is even aware of the history and significance of mooncakes, wakakaka

Did Abraham sacrifice Ishmael or Isaac?

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

Hagar and Ishmael expelled because Sarah was jealous

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. Biblical scholars believe Abraham sembileh his son. And if the son was the 'only son' then it would have been Ishmael. But on the other hand it could well be Isaac.

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

Putting aside for a moment the argument whether it was Ishmael or Isaac who was the human sacrifice 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. The aim of the redaction was to reflect subsequent (1300 years later) Judean rejection of child sacrifice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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