Featured Sociopolitical Stories

Utusan let off in Parliament

Speaker rejects Teos question

Serdang MP Teo Nie Ching (Mkini photo)

Utusan Malaysia was let off in Parliament on Monday when the Speaker rejected Serdang MP Teo Nie Chings question on home ministry inaction against Utusan Malaysia for fanning racial sentiments.

I want the home ministry to explain why no action has been taken against Utusan for raising racial issues and publishing false news, said Teo. (Utusan had said she gave a religious talk at a Muslim prayer hall in her constituency, after which police called her for questioning.)

They have been saying zero tolerance on racial issues, but Utusan continues to raise these issues, and until today, there has been no action by the home minister. I want an explanation. (quoted by Malaysian Insider)

The Speaker also rejected questions from several other MPs, all of Pakatan Rakyat.

Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia later said he would issue guidelines for MPs in drafting questions.

I look at this matter seriously and I see the questions sent by the opposition as coming from the people, said Pandikar. Give me time to study the questions and I will offer tips and reasons for rejecting or accepting a question, he added. Malaysian Insider
See What Pakatan Rakyat Gotta Say?

Perkasa Ditching Malay Supremacy For Heavy Metal Music ?

Next change - Perkasa Woodstock, coming this Dec 10 to 13 ...



Perkasa Youth - songkoks may have to go, headbands ok

Malaysia Chronicle

In the eyes of ultra-Malay rights group Perkasa, fence-sitters that do not support either the BN or the Pakatan Rakyat are free-minded people. And this is why to win them over, it plans to organize its version of Woodstock no doubt sans the 60s world of hippies, where the Vietnam War was a key topic of conversation and psychedelic music and drugs reigned supreme.

Nonetheless, as far as Perkasa Youth chief Arman Haniffa is concerned, the die is cast. According to him, Perkasa must be able to connect with the Malaysian youth and 24-hour concerts, street sports, racing competitions might be a better way than what his movement has been doing so far - which is waving the keris and yelling hate-slogans.

This year end, we are going to organize something like Woodstock for youths that are still undecided. Fence-sitter who do not support the government or opposition are free-minded. We plan to organise 24-hour concerts, racing competitions, street sports, extreme sports and many more. This is how we are planning to mobilise the youths, Malaysian Insider reported Arman as saying.

7 million



However, Perkasas motivation was not entirely altruistic and Arman could not hide a political motivation and ambition. Although, the group founded by the flamboyant Ibrahim Ali is not ready to proclaim itself a political party yet, it is certainly looking at the future.

This is the new generation that is going to bring up the country. There are seven million of them but they (BN and Pakatan) dont want them, said Arman.

Imagine if during the next general election, there will be seven million voters behind Perkasa. Both of them only talk about st! udent le aders but student leaders are only 25 people but there are another 3,000 students in schools. When they feel neglected they begin to dissociate with politics and wont vote.



Cool? Smell the sweat!Probably with so many zeros swirling in his head, Arman even invited non-Malay youths to attend the Perkasa Woodstock, slated for December 10 to 13.

And while he insisted he was not a racist, he stopped short of telling whether he was Malay first or next!

I dont care if you Malay, Chinese, or Indian. I want you to come and change your mind set to love this country. It shows that I am not a racist. My name is Arman, I am not a racist, he said.

See What Barisan Nasional Gotta Say?

Judgment Parody – Student v UUCA

By Lingswaran Singh

A parody judgment of the recent Kuala Lumpur High Court ruling in the UKM 4 case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CARICATURE AT LOYARBUROK

(SPECIAL POWERS)

ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO.R1-23-45-2010

BETWEEN 1. USOP BIN SONTORIAN … PLAINTIFF

AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF BOLEHLAND … DEFENDANTS 2. MINISTER OF TERTIARY EDUCATION 3. NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF BOLEHLAND

JUDGMENT Lingswaran Singh LB:

The Plaintiff is a political science undergraduate of the 3rd Defendant. The Plaintiff filled this originating summons seeking a declaration that S. 15(5)(a) of the University and University College Act 1971 (Act 30) contravenes Articles 119(1)(1) of the Federal Constitution and is therefore invalid, and as a consequential declaration that the pending disciplinary proceedings that have been instituted against the Plaintiff by the 3rd Defendant for alleged breaches connected with S.15(5)(a) are not valid in law. The Plaintiff contend that S. 15(5)(a) violates his constitutional right to vote and participate in an election as outlined by Part VIII of The Federal Constitution. Background [2] The Plaintiff returned to his hometown in the constituency of Parit Sonto, New South Takzim which he was a registered electorate, during the campaign period for the parliamentary by-election of 24.4.2010.

[3] On or about 13.5.2010 the Plaintiff received notices from the 3rd Defendant’s Vice Chancellor requiring them to attend before disciplinary tribunal on 3.6.2010. Together with the notices were charge sheets informing them that disciplinary proceedings had been instituted against them for alleged breaches which constituted offenses under S.15(5)(a) of Act 30 and if they were found guilty, they could be sentenced as provided for under Procedures of National University of Bolehland (Students Discipline) 1999 (”the Regulations”). The Plaintiff replied vide written representations dated 26.5.2010 denying the allegation. The 3rd Defendant scheduled hearing for 2.6.2010 and 3.6.2010. On 1.6.2010 the Plaintiff filed this originating summons. [4] The issue for determination is whether S.15(5)(a) of Act 30 violates Article 119(1)(1) of the Federal Constitution and is thus invalid. Section 15 (5)(a) of Act 30 provides as follow - (5) No student of the University and no organization, body or group of students of the University which is established by, under or in accordance with the Constitution, shall express or do anything which may reasonably be construed as expressing support for or sympathy with or opposition to – (a) any political party, whether in or outside Bolehland; Article 119 of the Federal Constitution provides as follows ? Article 119: 1. (1) Every citizen who- * (a) has attained the age of twenty- one years on the qualifying date; and * (b) is resident in a constituency on such qualifying date or, if not so resident, is an absent voter, is entitled to vote in that constituency in any election to the House of Representatives or the Legislative Assembly unless he is disqualified under Clause (3) or under any law relating to offences committed in connection with elections; but no person shall in the same election vote in more than one constituency. 1. (2) If a person is in a constituency by reason only of being a patient in an establishment maintained wholly or mainly for the reception and treatment of persons suffering from mental illness or mental defectiveness or of being detained in custody he shall for the purpose of Clause (1) be deemed not to be resident in that constituency. 2. (3) A person is disqualified for being a elector in any election to the House of Representatives or the Legislative Assembly if- * (a) on the qualifying date he is detained as a person of unsound mind or is serving a sentence of imprisonment; or * (b) having before the qualifying date been convicted in any part of the Commonwealth of an offence and sentenced to death or imprisonment for a term exceeding twelve months, he remains liable on the qualifying date to suffer any punishment for that offence. 3. (4) In this Article “qualifying date” means the date by reference to which the electoral rolls are prepared or revised, and “absent voter” means in relation to any constituency any citizen who is registered as an absent voter in respect of that constituency under the provisions of any law relating to elections. Plaintiffs Submissions

[5] The learned counsel submitted that S.15(5)(a) contravenes Article 119(1) of the Federal Constitution by prohibiting the Plaintiffs right to return to his hometown as an parliamentary elector to participate in the by-election campaign. Inconsistency of S.15(5)(a) which seeks to prohibit students from doing anything which may reasonably be construed as expressing support for or sympathy with or opposition to any political party, whether in or outside Bolehland contravenes the constitutional right to vote. Counsel argues that suffrage as expounded by Part VIII of the Constitution, must include matters approved in the Election Offences Act 1954 (Act 5) . He referred to S.3, 4, and 6 of Act 5, which reads as follow- (3) A candidate or his election agent may, during the campaign period -
(a) hold, convene or organize any open public meeting, open public rally, open public display or open public entertainment; or (b) give any open public address or open public lecture, in the constituency in which the candidate seeks election but only if he holds a permit to do so issued to him by the police officer in charge of the district where the meeting, rally, display or entertainment is to be held or the address or lecture is to be given.
(4) A candidate or his election agent may, during the campaign period, display, furnish or distribute election campaign materials to members of the public in the constituency in which the candidate seeks election but only if he- (a) holds a permit to do so issued to him by the State Elections Officer, subject to such terms and conditions as the State Elections Officer may determine; and (b) has paid to the State Elections Officer a deposit of five thousand ringgit in the case of an election to the Dewan Rakyat and three thousand ringgit
(6) Subject to the by-laws of any local authority, election campaign materials include any advertisement, leaflet, brochure, flag, ensign, banner, standard, poster, placard, handbill, label or any form of temporary billboard. [6] He further argues that participation in an election campaign is part and parcel of suffrage. It is a constitutional right of every citizen that have achieved the age of majority, and thus S.15(5)(a) that seeks to restrict these rights is inconsistent with the Constitution and by virtue of that invalid.

[7] Counsel submits that the application of the “catch-all” provision of S.15(5)(a) which absolutely prohibits “anything which may reasonably be construed as expressing support for or sympathy with or opposition to any political party” would result in absurdity as the provision does not seek to differentiate between various types of conduct. Therefore the court is urged to strike down S.15(5)(a) as it is submitted that the said provision is not capable of an interpretation that is constitutional. Defendants Submissions

[8] The counsel argued that suffrage does not fall under the ambit of restriction covered by S.15(5)(a), because what the section intends is to prevent students from being active in Political Parties. The learned counsel quoted several Indian and African authorities as support; he also furnished the court with relevant speeches from the Hansard to draw the original intent of the legislators. Decision

[9] I accept the argument of the plaintiff, that the right to vote or suffrage encompasses the activities allowed under Election Offences Act 1954 (Act 5) and also the Elections Act 1958 (act 19). There is an inconsistency between S.15(5)(a) and Article 119(1) of the Constitution. I see no sound reason why a person of the age of majority, allowed by the Constitution to vote but stripped of rights necessary in executing it. Indeed the UUCA is an offspring of the notorious Article 149 of the Constitution, however Article 149 gives power to the Parliament only to pass laws to suspend a person’s fundamental rights vested to him in Part II of the Constitution if the Parliament believes that the person is a threat to national security or public order notwithstanding the fact that the laws are conflicting with Article 5, 9, 10 and 13 and 79. It does not however apply the same to Part VIII of the Constitution. There is a reason why Political Parties are allowed to campaign, it is so that may convince the electorates to support them, any law not allowing that process to take effect is indeed invalid as it is inconsistent not only with the spirit of Democracy but also our Constitution. This is a clear sign of inconsistency, thus I find S.15(5)(a) invalid and as a consequence the pending disciplinary proceedings that have been instituted against the Plaintiff by the 3rd Defendant for alleged breaches connected with S.15(5)(a) are not valid in law. Costs to the Plaintiff to be taxed unless otherwise agreed. Dated 07.10.2010

LINGSWARAN SINGH

LOYAR BUROKKER

HIGH COURT OF CARICATURE

For the Plaintiff : Teo Lee Ken (Messrs Randall Lim & Singh) For the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants: John Ross Ewing (Attorney General’s Chambers)

BN in reject mode: Questions on Taib, Utusan, racism thrown out

KUALA LUMPUR - Questions on Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmuds wealth and the Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia were among 28 questions from 17 opposition MPs rejected today.

Two DAP MPs from Sarawak, Wong Ho Leng and Chong Chieng Jen, had earlier asked the government to explain if the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has started investigating allegations on Taibs property ownership overseas, as published on an anonymous website.

My question is valid. I want to know if an investigation has started because of the report on the website, said Chong when protesting the Parliaments decision to reject the question.

Why was the question rejected? Are we afraid of the CM? he added.

Chong was citing reports by the anti-Taib website, Sarawak Report, which had revealed Taibs alleged ties with companies owning multi-billion dollar properties in Canada, the US and the UK.

The website also alleged that Taib accumulated his wealth by abusing his position as the chief minister, a post he has held since 1981.

Meanwhile, Wong said the question was rejected as it was deemed a trivial matter.

I wanted the PM to explain if the MACC will investigate the enormous amount of wealth owned by the CM in America, Britain, Australia and Canada. If the answer is no, I want to know why, said the Sarawak DAP chairman

I think the question is relevant and important. Are we serious in dealing with corruption? he added.

Another MP whose question was rejected, Serdangs Teo Nie Ching, had questioned the home ministrys inaction against Utusan Malaysia for allegedly fanning racial sentiments.

I want the home ministry to explain why no action has been taken against Utusan for raising racial issues and publishing false news, said Teo, who had been accused by the Malay daily of giving religious talk at a Muslim prayer hal! l in her constituency.

They have been saying zero tolerance on racial issues, but Utusan continues to raise these issues, and until today, there has been no action by the home minister. I want an explanation, she added.

Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo who asked if action would be taken against Malay rights group Perkasa also found his question rejected.

It is public knowledge that they make racist remarks, insulting other races. Why cant the Parliament accept the questions? asked Gobind.

In his response to the MPs, Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia said he would issue a guideline to assist the federal lawmakers in drafting questions.

I look at this matter seriously and I see the questions sent by the opposition as coming from the people, said Pandikar.

Give me time to study the questions and I will offer tips and reasons for rejecting or accepting a question, he added. - Malaysian Insider

Read more at http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/parliament-rejects-questions-on-utusan-sarawak-cm/
See What Pakatan Rakyat Gotta Say?

Tycoon warns against new MRT project, procurement methods

Koon Yew Yin

The purpose of my writing this piece is to forewarn the public and the government that the way this proposed MRT project is being considered by the government is basically wrong and may well end up with taxpayers having to pay a much higher toll rate than justifiable. This warning is not only for the MRT project but for all 131 projects that are being envisaged under the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP) which is supposed to transform Malaysia into a high-income nation.

I refer to the article Transparency in MRT Planning by Risen Jayaseelan which appeared in a major newspaper recently on Oct 5. The purpose of my writing this piece is to forewarn the public and the government that the way this proposed project is being considered by the government is basically wrong and may well end up with taxpayers having to pay a much higher toll rate than justifiable.

This warning is not only for the MRT project but for all 131 projects that are being envisaged under the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP) which is supposed to transform Malaysia into a high-income nation.

Basically I see no change at all in the current procurement procedure which has been used before in large concessions. The results of the evaluation and bidding procedure for mega projects such as the current MRT, the power provided by IPPs, toll roads, and the Selangor water supply have seen the consumers being forced to pay unreasonable rates because the bidding and tender process has been riddled with opportunities for rent-seeking, corruption and wastage.

Besides, cheaper and more efficient alternatives have not been fully considered by the Government.

I was shocked to read that the chairman of Land Public Transport Commission, Syed Hamid Albar, has said that the technical stud! y of the proposal submitted by Gamuda and MMC would be completed by the end of the month and that following it, LPTC would submit their report to the government for approval.

I would like to ask how in the first place can the LPTC know that this proposal is the best in terms of technology and costing? It is impossible for LPTC to do an honest job if they have only one proposal to study and they do not have at least several other proposals to compare with.

As we know, the cost of this MRT project will be several billion ringgit. Negotiating with only one consortium, Gamuda and MMC, is likely to encourage corruption and waste, and is against all elementary principles of good economic governance. The price can be 10, 11 or 12 billion ringgit. Who is there to decide whether a costing of 10 billion ringgit is in the best public interest and will provide full value for Malaysians and not the project developers?

The sum provided by the only bidder is like taking a figure out of a hat. We are talking about billions of ringgit involved. Are there saints in the evaluation committee or project developers who do not like big money? The amount of money involved is so enormous that even saints will surely be tempted.

The public must demand that the government stops this method of award. It is the height of economic foolishness to award a concession or monopoly on a first-come first-served basis. Mega project awards should not be given out on the basis of service that is dished out in restaurants. If we do that, we will end up with a lethal case of economic poisoning of the Malaysian consumer.

Best way to evaluate tenders
The best way in terms of award of tenders is for the government to follow the guidelines as established by the World Bank. Incidentally these procurement guidelines are easily available over the website and are even applied in some of the most corrupt countries of the world in an effort to reduce corruption. It does not cost us even one sen to adopt them.

Firstly, the government must engage a reputable engineering consulting firm which has experience with similar projects to put up a proposal and to open the project bidding to all contractors to tender.

All the contractors must be prequalified based on both their technical and financial ability. All contractors must submit tenders confirming to the original design so that the cheapest tender can be selected. If all the contractors are prequalified, the government tender board has only to look at the tendered price.

Always award the contract to the contractor who submits the cheapest tender assuming that all the other criteria are met. It is important not to allow anybody from the government to negotiate with any contractor to avoid corruption.

Finally, transparency and accountability requires that all documents on the proposal and the other 131 projects in the ETP be placed in the public sphere not just limited information but detailed and full breakdowns in accordance with international best practices.

If we want to reach the status of a highly developed nation, we must immediately implement the standards of economic good governance, accountability and transparency that come with it. - CPI
See What Barisan Nasional Gotta Say?

New mega project: Mega question mark over procurement


Written by Koon Yew Yin

I refer to the article 'Transparency in MRT Planning' by Risen Jayaseelan which appeared in a major newspaper recently on Oct 5. The purpose of my writing this piece is to forewarn the public and the government that the way this proposed project is being considered by the government is basically wrong and may well end up with taxpayers having to pay a much higher toll rate than justifiable.

This warning is not only for the MRT project but for all 131 projects that are being envisaged under the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP) which is supposed to transform Malaysia into a high-income nation.

Basically I see no change at all in the current procurement procedure which has been used before in large concessions. The results of the evaluation and bidding procedure for mega projects such as the current MRT, the power provided by IPPs, toll roads, and the Selangor water supply have seen the consumers being forced to pay unreasonable rates because the bidding and tender process has been riddled with opportunities for rent-seeking, corruption and wastage.

Besides, cheaper and more efficient alternatives have not been fully considered by the Government.

I was shocked to read that the chairman of Land Public Transport Commission, Syed Hamid Albar, has said that the technical study of the proposal submitted by Gamuda and MMC would be completed by the end of the month and that following it, LPTC would submit their report to the government for approval.

I would like to ask how in the first place can the LPTC know that this proposal is the best in terms of technology and costing? It is impossible for LPTC to do an honest job if they have only one proposal to study and they do not have at least several other proposals to compare with.

As we know, the cost of this MRT project will be several billion ringgit. Negotiating with only one consortium, Gamuda and MMC, is likely to encourage corruption and waste, and is against all elementary principles of good economic governance. The price can be 10, 11 or 12 billion ringgit. Who is there to decide whether a costing of 10 billion ringgit is in the best public interest and will provide full value for Malaysians and not the project developers?

The sum provided by the only bidder is like taking a figure out of a hat. We are talking about billions of ringgit involved. Are there saints in the evaluation committee or project developers who do not like big money? The amount of money involved is so enormous that even saints will surely be tempted.

The public must demand that the government stops this method of award. It is the height of economic foolishness to award a concession or monopoly on a first-come first-served basis. Mega project awards should not be given out on the basis of service that is dished out in restaurants. If we do that, we will end up with a lethal case of economic poisoning of the Malaysian consumer.

Best way to evaluate tenders

The best way in terms of award of tenders is for the government to follow the guidelines as established by the World Bank. Incidentally these procurement guidelines are easily available over the website and are even applied in some of the most corrupt countries of the world in an effort to reduce corruption. It does not cost us even one sen to adopt them.

Firstly, the government must engage a reputable engineering consulting firm which has experience with similar projects to put up a proposal and to open the project bidding to all contractors to tender.

All the contractors must be prequalified based on both their technical and financial ability. All contractors must submit tenders confirming to the original design so that the cheapest tender can be selected. If all the contractors are prequalified, the government tender board has only to look at the tendered price.

Always award the contract to the contractor who submits the cheapest tender assuming that all the other criteria are met. It is important not to allow anybody from the government to negotiate with any contractor to avoid corruption.

Finally, transparency and accountability requires that all documents on the proposal and the other 131 projects in the ETP be placed in the public sphere - not just limited information but detailed and full breakdowns in accordance with international best practices.

If we want to reach the status of a highly developed nation, we must immediately implement the standards of economic good governance, accountability and transparency that come with it.

Najib, Soi Lek slammed for belittling Islam for political gain

Soi Lek and Najib - using Islam to scare off non-MuslimsWong Choon Mei, Malaysia Chronicle

Muslim leaders hit out at Prime Minister Najib Razak for belittling his own Islamic faith and joining MCA president Chua Soi Lek in warning non-Muslim Malaysians that they would have to suffer lifestyle changes if Pakatan Rakyat came to power as PAS would insist on forming an Islamic state.

Shame on Najib for turning his back and ridiculing his own faith. It is utter nonsense. Did the Buddhists, Christians and Hindus have to change their lifestyles in Kelantan? Is Tuan Guru Nik Aziz an extremist compared to Umno-Perkasas Ibrahim Ali? When PAS led Perak, did I implement extremist policies, rules or practices, Bukit Gantang MP and former Perak mentri besar Nizar Jamaluddin told Malaysia Chronicle.

NizarIn comments that reverberated through the Muslim community, Najib had said at the MCAs 57th annual general assembly on Sunday that Soi Lek was right in warning non-Muslims not to vote for Pakatan because of the Islamic dangers posed by PAS.

Dr Chua is right to remind you that they (PAS) have not given up on their theocratic Islamic state. And I am sure that if it is implemented, it would change your way of life and affect the Chinese community, Malaysian Insider reported Najib as saying.

Unity government and hypocrisy

The 57-year Umno president appeared to have forgotten that he and his party had tried all ways and means to form a unity government with PAS after their political power was whittled down by the Pakatan in the 2008 election.

Dr SitiIn fact, at t! hat time , Umno drew sharp rebuke from the non-Malays in the country including many MCA members because of concerns that should Umno and PAS merge, their dominance could lead to further sidelining and marginalization of the minority races in the country.

It shows the hypocrite that Najib and Umno are. When Najib and Umno face a Malay Muslim community, they talk about defending Islam. But when they face a Chinese audience, suddenly they are against an Islamic agenda. Are they Muslims for real? MP for Kota Raja Dr Siti Mariah Mahmud told Malaysia Chronicle.

When Najib goes to U.S, he is thick-skinned enough to offer to teach Americans how to overcome Islamophobia. But back home in his own country, where Islam is the official religion, he implies to the non-Muslims that an Islamic state is to be repulsed because it is dangerous and will swamp all other religions? What sort of a man and a Muslim is this? Will the real Najib stand up, please?

Insulting Islam and Kelantan the best example

Other Pakatan Rakyat leaders also lashed out at Soi Lek, the MCA president, for his gross disrespect to the Muslim religion.

Kor MingNobody can be more extremist than Perkasa and Umno. Not long ago, Umno wanted to get into bed with PAS, why is it suddenly so Islamophobic? Can Najib explain? Why is Perkasa so quiet on this matter, should they not be protesting and insisting that Najib and Soi Lek retract their insults to Islam, Taiping MP Nga Kor Ming told Malaysia Chronicle.

Kelantan which is governed by PAS is the best example where all religions can co-exist harmoniously. Kelantan is also the state which houses the largest Buddha statue in Tumpat. Chua Soi Lek is not only arrogant, ignorant and disrespectful of Islam, he shows he is unfit to lead a modern country using modern policies and new politics.
Constit utional play and democracy at work

Under Malaysias federal constitution, it is only possible to change the existing provisions and create an Islamic state if the proposer has two-thirds parliamentary majority.

Koo HamPakatan which consists of the multi-racial PKR, the Islamist PAS and the secular DAP have agreed to allow their respective ideologies to co-exist and flourish regardless of disagreements among themselves.

For example, if Pakatan has two-thirds majority and PAS insists on hudud laws or an Islamic state, DAP will object and PAS wont be able to push through their ideal which we respect but do not agree with," Perak DAP chairman Ngeh Koo Ham told Malaysia Chronicle.

"But If PAS on its own gets two-thirds majority, there is no way that DAP can refuse because we all have to respect the rules. But we will try to win back enough seats at the next election so that we can overturn such a constitutional change. Now this is democracy at work for you."

Related Stories:
Najib and Soi Lek warn Chinese: PAS will rule if Pakatan wins...
See What Barisan Nasional Gotta Say?

PI Bala: Police destroyed references to Najib

Private detective tells of questioning by four police units

Private detective P Balasubramaniam told anti-corruption officers of his fears of a official cover-up of Najib Tun Razaks involvement in the Altantuya Shaariibuu case and how federal police officers deleted references to Najib in a statement he made.

In an affidavit submitted to the MACC three months ago, published in full by Raja Petra Kamarudin at Malaysia Today, PI Bala recounted how he became involved in the case before Altantuya Shaariibuu was murdered, and how he learned of Najibs connection to Abdul Razak Baginda, the defence analyst who had hired him.

He also gave details of the several occasions he was called to make statements to the police. He said he was questioned by four different police units D9 (Serious Crimes), D7 (Vice), D6 (Intelligence) and by the Child Protection Unit.

The day after Razak Baginda was arrested for the murder of Altantuya, Bals said, he was interrogated continuously for seven days by the intelligence division of Bukit Aman.

This is the statement in which all references to Najib Tun Razak were removed before I signed it.

Bala said that when he testified at the trial of three men accused of the Altantuya murder, he was never asked about Najibs involvement in the case. (Razak Baginda and two policemen were charged. Razak was subsequently acquitted without his defence being called. The two policemen were found guilty and sentenced to death. They have filed an appeal.)

Bala said in his affidavit

I was therefore concerned that the police and the prosecution were trying to protect and cover up the involvement of persons very closely connected to Najib Tun Razak. I believe the police recorded a statement from Musa Safri but this gentleman was never called as a witness in court and neither was Najib Tun Razak.

I felt it was necessary for the public to know exactly who the personalities involv! ed in th is murder were and that further investigations should have been pursued to discover the motive behind the killing of an innocent foreign national.

AFFIDAVIT IN FULL:
The MACC sends PI Bala a list of questions and then goes very quiet

Nice tattoo



Nice tattoo

See What Barisan Nasional Gotta Say?

Is PM Najib Serious Enough to Launch a New Social Contract?

from Straight Talk

PM Najib Razak said the Chinese should not be seen as kaum pendatang (migrant folk) and have been loyal citizens of Malaysia for the past three to five generations.

I would like to applaud the PM for saying the obvious. However, it is a shame for a head of government to recognize the status of Chinese Malaysian after more than five decades of independence.

If the Chinese were seen as 'kaum pendatang' it is because the only ruling government in Malaysia has denied them of rightful place in the Malaysian constitution as citizens of this country with equal rights.

If PM Najib is serious about his statement, he should be ready to announce a new social contract acknowledging that all citizens are born equal and should be treated equally by the government and political groups.

It is ridiculous for him to suggest that he has no control over certain individuals in Umno, Perkasa and BTN who had incited racial hatred and displayed bigotry in their speeches.

Is the PM willing to walk his talk to correct the politically motivated 'social contract' his party was adamant that the Chinese should observe with respect? A social contract should be inclusive and not divisive.

At the same MCA event, Najib said there was a need to develop the economy equitably to have a fair distribution of wealth depending on the size of the community.

"It is a conventional wisdom and rational thinking that if the majority of a country has a very small percentage of the wealth, that is not equitable. I think MCA would also agree.

"So, we need to have a nice balance that the Malay feels they have a bigger share in economic wealth but the Chinese also feel they are growing economically in our system,” he said. His statement does not show that he understands the current malaise. He might as well declare Malaysia a socialist country.

Yes, the nation wealth should be distributed more equitably to all citizens. The fact that the bottom 40% of the nation owns less than 13% of the nation's wealth is unacceptable. The disparity in the country is growing.

Equitable wealth distribution cannot be seen from only the Malay versus the others perspective. There is a gross income and wealth disparity among the rich and poor Malays.

Hence, why is the government continue to enrich a few well connected Malay billionaires and neglected the rest? Umno has an uninterrupted 40 years to implement the NEP and yet it has created nothing but a few rich kingpins and cronies. Why is the party blaming others? Why should the country continue to suffer the mismanagement and poor implementation of the policy?

No one is against the government helping the poor. If the government wants to help the poor they should help all regardless of race.

We should be able to agree that the likes of Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary, Mirzan & Mokhzani Mahathir, Nazir Razak, Halim Saad, Francis Yeoh, Vincent Tan, Ananda Krishnan and other rich and power do not need any more help and assistance from the government.

Is Najib serious enough to launch a new social contract? And to correct the excesses and weaknesses of the NEP?

FAKESTATISTICS

demotivational posters - FAKESTATISTICS


They lie !

Mahathir is a Scumbag that deserves nothing better than Pokai

Ask you don't know what is 'Pokai' in Cantonese ... Let me say it again, Malaysia would have been a developed nation, much more developed than Singapore if only I were Mahathir Mohamad Iskandar Kutty, yes, I won't hide Iskandar Kutty or I will just call myself Mr. X, and I will tell the world, that's my tradename, use for professional reason.

Dr M tells of his Melbourne hospital experience

Mahathir Mohamad

After three days in the Epworth Hospital, it was suggested that I be discharged but should continue treatment under the Hospital in the Home service.

The Home Hospital has a full staff of doctors, specialists and nurses. They will carry out the full hospital treatment, periodical medical examination and treatment, intravenous drips, physiotherapy etc. They do not stay with patients but would visit at the designated time and stay as long as necessary.

It is far better than house-call by doctors as they can only give limited service. You feel you are being well looked after as in the hospital, but you have the ambience of home and family.

I don't know if we have this service or not but I believe it can contribute to being a developed country.

Another service I experienced is the ambulance service. The two ambulance personnel are very highly trained to give first aid including CPR, proper handling of fractures, take blood pressure and heart rate, ECG and other signs and symptoms.

They handle their patients very competently, are in continuous communication with the hospital to ensure preparation for receiving the patients.

I believe an effort was made by local doctors to provide this kind of service in Kuala Lumpur. Unfortunately after the ambulances had been acquired the financiers backed out. The Return on Investment was not good enough.

The Government does not operate a full ambulance service. Nor do all hospitals provide such service.

There are now many hospitals in KL - both public and private. A good ambulance service can save many lives.

Maybe the Government could afford to support the superior ambulance service in one way or another - at least until they become viable. What we need is just one. If several such service is licensed, all would be likely to fail.

BN rejects Pakatan motion to debate racist school principals

Malaysia Chronicle

The BN has rejected DAP adviser Lim Kit Siangs motion for a parliamentary debate on two school principals accused of casting racial slurs against their Chinese and Indian pupils.

I have been informed that the Education ministry and the Public Service Department have already taken action against these two individuals, so there is no necessity for a motion. I hereby reject this motion, Speaker Pandikar Amin told Parliament which reconvened on Monday.

It has been two months since news first broke that a headmistress in Kulai, Johor and a headmaster in Bukit Selambau, Kedah had told their Chinese pupils to go back to China. The Kulai principal even likened the Indian ones to dogs because of the prayer strings they wore.

All talk, no action

However, despite Prime Minister Najib Razaks recent and showy proclamations of a zero-tolerance towards racism, no action has been taken against either teachers. In fact, the Kedah principal has gone back to work in the same school after a brief sabbatical.

To protest the governmental attempts to sweep the cases under the rug, Kit Siang had tried to table a motion under the Parliament standing orders 18(2).

The 57-day government inaction on racial slurs by two headmasters against students in school makes a mockery of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razaks international calls for moderates against extremists and his zero tolerance for racism and 1Malaysia policy, the DAP adviser said in a statement.

So far, Education minister and Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin has set up a task force to investigate both teachers, but although a report has been completed and sent to Public Services Department last month, no action has been taken by the government contrary to what Pandikar claimed.

These are obvious double standards practiced by Umno and Najib. On one hand, the PM talks! about z ero-tolerance for racism but his lack of actions shows that the policy may be meant only against the non-Malays. Even in racism, different rules for different folk, Taiping MP Nga Kor Ming told Malaysia Chronicle.

Malaysia Chronicle appends below the full text of Kit Siang's motion:
Bahawa Dewan mengizinkan YB Lim Kit Siang, Ahli Parlimen Ipoh Timor untuk menangguhkan Dewan mengikut Peraturan Mesyuarat 18(1) untuk merundingkan perkara tertentu berkenaan kepentingan orang ramai yang berkehendaki disegerakan, iaitu dua orang guru besar dari Kulai, Johor dan Bukit Selambau, Kedah yang melafazkan kata-kata racis dan menghina terhadap pelajar-pelajar mereka di sekolah dalam bulan Ogos tahun ini, sehingga kini tidak dikutuk atau diambil tindakan displin sekeras-kerasnya oleh pihak yang berkenaan selaras dengan semangat 1Malaysia.

Dua bulan selepas guru-guru besar dari Kulai dan Bukit Selambau berkenaan yang antara lain, melabelkan pelajar-pelajar bukan Melayu di sekolah mereka sebagai pendatang, menggesa pejalar-pelajar kaum Cina supaya balik Cina, serta membandingkan benang sembahyang yang dipakai oleh pelajar beragama Hindu sebagai pengikat anjing menunjukkan sikap racis tidak sejajar dengan jawatan mereka sebagai pendidik yang berkredibel, Timbalan Perdana Menteri serta Menteri Pelajaran masih berkeras bahawa beliau tidak berdaya mengambil tindakan untuk memperbetulkan keadaan, sebaliknya mengizinkan kedua-dua guru besar yang berkenaan meneruskan tugas mereka seperti sediakala. Di samping itu, Ketua Pengarah Kementerian Pendidikan yang mengeluarkan pekeliling kepada semua guru-guru besar dan guru-guru dalam bulan Ogos untuk memberikan amaran bahawa tindakan akan dikenakan ke atas mereka yang mengeluarkan kata-kata racis di sekolah, tidak pula mengenakan tindakan displin ke atas kedua-dua guru besar yang berkenaan sehingga kini, menunjukkan tidak ujud iltizam politik atau falsafah pentadbiran yang betul dalam negara ini untuk membanteras ketaasuban perkauman.

Semua ini merupakan sin! diran la ngsung terhadap tema hari kebangsaan tahun ini iaitu 1 Malaysia Menjana Transformasi serta membelakangkan perisytiharan toleransi sifar terhadap rasisma Perdana Menteri sendiri.

Pada masa apabila Perdana Menteri cuba mengamalkan dasar 1Malaysia, Rakyat Didahulukan, Pencapaian Didahulukan, seluruh pasukan pentadbiran beliau nampaknya tidak serius langsung terhadap dasar berkenaan, malah lebih cenderung untuk mendahulukan budaya rasis Biro Tata Negara atau lebih tepat sekali, Biro Tentang Negara yang meracuni generasi muda dan para pendidik kita selama ini dengan mesej rasis yang songsang dan lebih merupakan Trojan Horse dalam usaha kita mencapai perpaduan negara.

Perdana Menteri yang baru pulang dari Mesyuarat Asia-Eropak Ke-lapan di Brussels telah membangkitkan sekali lagi gesaan beliau di Perhimpunan Agong Pertubuhan Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu baru-baru ini supaya diujudkan pergerakan sederhana global semua agama yang memainkan peranan penting di dunia yang kini menghadapi ancaman melampau. Gesaan ini sesuai sekali diulangi di negara kita sendiri yang kini semakin terancam oleh anasir-anasir ketaasuban rasis dan pelampau agama yang mengancam ketenteraman negara serta menggoncang semangat majmuk yang merupakan batu asas Malaysia.
See What Barisan Nasional Gotta Say?

Baby speed demons

Anita Anandarajah is a stay-at-home-mum who lives in Hong Kong. She longs for the grassy playgrounds of her childhood.

There is a new trend amongst the babes here in my corner of the island. Mini scooters. So small they look like they’re for dolls. Okay, big dolls.

A typical headcount most evenings turns up five tots under the age of four tearing down the podium on identical three-wheeled scooters. That’s not counting the other five scooters of various designs.

The youngest tot is a month shy of her second birthday. She has yet to master the art of running. She has, however, wrapped her chubby little fingers around the scooter’s workings in two days and is quickly catching up with the older children.

It all started after a three-year-old boy’s birthday in May. He (let’s call him 3) may have received the scooter as a gift from his parents. My son wanted to have a go but as it was a precious possession, 3 would not give it up.

My mum and dad, doting grandparents that they are, despatched me (by way of web chat) to Horizon Plaza to get Ishan his own scooter. They were heartbroken to hear that their only grandchild had been pushed to the ground in tears when he tried to touch the scooter’s handle.

It was in this similar fashion that Ishan’s playmates soon got one of their own from parents or grandparents who were a) keen to avoid tears and fights, and b) dead proud to see their little ones demonstrating their balancing prowess.

Why do they all have the same one? So no one would fight. Ah, but wait. We are practical parents. We did our research, in a quiet corner of the shop. I learnt that the cute cartoon character ones were loud and did not run as smoothly. I also reasoned that once Ishan lost interest in Buzz (Lightyear) or found Thomas uncool, he would no longer want to ride his scooter. So it was the clean cut, image-free Mini Micro scooter.

Which brings me to another question. How are we to compete with other parents who are well able to afford such pricey toys? This specific scooter is HK$699 (RM293). That would buy me an annual adult pass into Ocean Park.

Two and three-year olds whizzing past on their scooters. — Picture by Anita Anandarajah
My husband and I would have likely settled for a less expensive version — and regretted it. I grudgingly admit that in this instance money does matter because this scooter gives me peace of mind. It is very sturdy, rides smoothly and close to the ground and has excellent brakes.

It didn’t surprise me then when I read on the Micro Scooter website (www.micro-scooters.co.uk) that two mothers were the ones who brought this product to the masses. There is no better sales pitch than to have one mother proclaim a product is the best for her child.

Having said that, it can move very fast. My heart stops every time I see one of the children veering dangerously close to a baby sitting on the floor or a grandmother inching her way along with a walking stick.

Just yesterday, Boy 3 swept in front of Girl 2 who was kneeling on the ground. Boy 3 knocked the toy 2 had been playing with. I ran up to 2 to check if she was alright and saw her hand shaking, which made me think her finger had been run over. Then her face turned tomato red and she placed her little hands on her knees, quivering. Her helper ran over in near panic and then backed off. “Ah. Ka-ka,” said helper, meaning 2 was doing a number two.

See what I mean? The little ones are super adept at handling this machine. Boy 3 missed 2’s fingers. These children are so well co-ordinated (and fearless) that they look like graceful stunt angels gliding past (with one leg up – not very angelic).

Now the adults are catching on. So far, two dads have been spotted with a larger version of the scooter. Boy 3’s dad went out to get his own wheels so he could keep up with his son when they take the scooters out on their weekend walks.

On a recent trip to Discovery Bay — where cars are banned — we spotted dozens of children on scooters, some accompanied by parents also on scooters. Hong Kong would be a perfect place to live if this were to become the main mode of private transportation.

On Friday evening it was poetry in motion. Boy 3’s dad came home early from work and brought out his scooter. In a blink of an eye the baby speed demons were following him like he was the Pied Piper. He taught them to use their brakes properly and to make neat turns. I think they loved it, having an adult in on their game.

Getting the dads on the scooter is a brilliant idea. Now all I have to do is convince my husband to get one so the other mums and I can head out for a movie.

Self-discovery and weird encounters


By Stanley Koh

COMMENT Popularly known as the Heavenly City, Nakhon Sawan, about 240km north of Bangkok, is a favourite midway stop for tourists heading further north to Chiengmai.

It was in Nakhon Sawan in 1978 that I had my first encounter with a ghost. I had just begun my spiritual apprenticeship as a Buddhist monk at a temple called Wat Kiriwong.

After that encounter, I had many more weird experiences through these 32 years, including the time when I was under the guidance of Taoist masters belonging to the ancient and legendary sects of the Golden Eagle School and White Lotus.

My ghostly experiences were in fact part of my spiritual training.

As a Buddhist monk, I was taught many esoteric lessons about the human spirit and the evolutionary stage at which the spirit becomes what we call a ghost. This learning has had a tremendous impact on my outlook on life.

I spent two years at Wat Kiriwong in strict discipline, following the daily monastic routine of meditation and occult studies.

Wat Kiriwong is famous for its 600-year-old pagoda, built in the 19th century. It is located at the foot of the low-lying Bawa Dung Hills, a cluster that stretches further than the eye can see.

But let us return to 1978.

I arrived in Nakhon Sawan late in the night on April 9 after a six-hour bus ride from Bangkok, where I had touched down from an afternoon flight from Colombo, Sri Lanka.

A week later, I realised I had fallen in love with the temple and its surroundings. The monastery’s premises stretched over more than a hundred acres of undulating land, hosting numerous buildings for worship and temple administration.

Next to a cemetery was a secluded area for meditation training, reserved for forest monks donning dark saffron robes that looked almost brown. This was where I had my residence.

Quiet and secluded, the area had eight small individual wooden huts. Each of these kuti, as the locals called them, could accommodate only one monk. It had a simple bathroom and a floor that was just wide and long enough for one to sleep on.

The huts were arranged in a circle around a large bodhi tree. Bodhi, in the Pali language, means tree of wisdom. It got the name after the historical Gautama Buddha, having attained his spiritual enlightenment, paid it his respect and gratitude for sheltering him throughout his struggle for the Truth.

The Encounter

The night of Aug 17, 1978, began like any ordinary night. I had sat in meditation with my spiritual master in his kuti, which was adjacent to mine.

The night was still and humid, and moonlight illuminated the area. It was the dry season in Nakhon Sawan, and there had been hardly any rain for days. In the distance, crickets and other insects sang in chorus.

We emerged from meditation at about 8pm. We had some tea and decided to check for small scorpions wandering around inside the master’s hut, particularly around the mattresses. We had to use a torchlight because a small light bulb was the only electrical supply available for all the huts. It was not bright enough for anyone to trace the small light brown insects known for their painful stings.

We had to put the scorpions we caught in small plastic bags and release them at a distance away from the huts since the first Buddhist precept is the prohibition of killing.

We then decided to look for scorpions inside my own hut.

I opened my kuti’s flimsy wooden door, and as I walked in with my master following, we both saw in the dimly lighted room a young woman sleeping on my mattress. She wore a long flowing dress of yellowish white.

My jaw opened wide and my whole body felt like it was rooted to the ground. My heart probably stopped a second but instantly started to race through several beats. I also lost my voice, but I darted a look of shock in the direction of my master, who stood beside me with an incredibly calm expression.

There was this instant disbelief inside me, but the woman was real and there, lying on her back with both arms resting on my pillow, which supported her head. She was probably in her early 20s and had an oval face and a look of calmness about her.

She vanished out of sight moments later, but stayed long enough for us to know that our eyes were not playing tricks on us.

Her body floated with ease and flew out through the window of the hut.

As I stood there frozen with my feet unwilling to move despite signals from my brain, my master smiled at me, gesturing with his hand that I should follow him back to his kuti.

I could not comprehend how my master could be so calm. As we sat together, my mind was blank, but I wanted an answer from my master.

From my diary recording of this episode, the conversation between us went like this:

“What happened? Was it a ghost?” I asked, expecting an affirmative answer.

“I am not sure. It could be a deity testing your courage and guts or probably urging you to study occultism,” my master replied.

I knew that it was not the real answer, as spiritual masters are sometimes known for their strange ways of teaching. Sometimes they deliberately say the stupidest things or just play dumb to provoke critical thinking.

Impatience was getting the better of me. But before I could utter another question, my master asked, “Could it be a mountain spirit?”

I stared at my master, probably with bloodshot eyes, and thought to myself, “Come on, you must be joking, a lady mountain spirit dressed in yellowish white?”

“Do you have any relative who recently passed away?” my master asked.

“No,” I replied.

I also searched my conscience and cleared it, for I had not caused anyone’s death to justify a ghostly revenge.

Lessons to learn

Years later, I learnt that this was how some spiritual masters would teach their disciples. Hardship and experience are your teachers, but you often realise your lessons only much later.

In my younger days, I was sceptical of the existence of spirits and ghosts despite my wide reading on paranormal existence.

Years later, I learnt of two security guards of a high-rise building who had resigned abruptly due to a frightening encounter with a female ghost in the wee hours.

The guards insisted that they heard noises of children playing football along a corridor of an office building and water running from closed faucets after midnight, when nobody was around.

The lesson learnt from my Taoist masters was simple. Man is a multidimensional being, composed of earth, air, water, fire and metal. Man and animals are constantly generating electromagnetic vibrations in which the character, personality, mentality, psyche, thoughts, feelings, impulses and different types of consciousness come into being.

All cultures and civilisations speak of the existence of ghosts in folklore as well as formal records. We celebrate Halloween, All Souls’ Day and other occasions to affirm our belief in the world beyond the physical. We enjoy comedies like Happy Ghost, Casper the Friendly Ghost and the Ghost Whisperer, but know -- or suspect -- that the belief in the existence of ghosts is no laughing matter.

“Ghost stories have probably been around as long as humans have had a language,” says an article posted on science.hoestuffworks.com. “A person’s spirit continues to exist in some form after the physical body has died.”

According to enthusiasts, ghosts exist because these beings refuse to leave the physical world for the spirit world in the process of evolution because they have unfinished business. They say some places are haunted if they are the location of violent or traumatic deaths or if some dead persons have strong attachments to those places or people living there.

Advanced technology and scientific progress have made it possible for unmanned spacecrafts to explore faraway frontiers of the galaxy. In decades to come, perhaps, paranormal scientists will be able to explain in scientific terms how hauntings take place and why ghosts exist. More than likely, these explanations will be in the language of complexities relating to man’s spiritual existence and layers of consciousness.

Stanley Koh is a political observer who use to head the MCA's research unit.

A genderless Malaysia


A genderless Malaysia

I AM not going to swear, bitch or rant here. There are plenty of self-righteous blogs clouding cyberspace with a miasma of cynicism and despair. This will not be another placard-toting essay about the world diseased with corruption and inequality. It is a familiar path I have taken several times through numerous letters to the editor and blog entries I have written. However, today, I will try to take the road less travelled, and start with my own story.

When I was young, I wore skirts while jumping on trampolines with my neighbour, and played with Barbie dolls decked in dirty white satin. I didn’t really conceptualise myself as a “girl”, as in distinct from “boy”.

Then, when I turned 14, the fact that I was a “girl” was branded on my flesh, leaving a scar that I cannot erase until now.

I was molested by a shopkeeper.

I’d felt my dressing had somehow induced him to do it, so I’d shoved the clothes I’d worn to the back of my closet and had refused to take them out again.

Years later, I realised it was an act of violence against me because I was female. The numerous catcalls I received while walking on streets; endless admonitions from parents and society to be wary of going out at night; sexist remarks from friends and strangers alike — it all made me feel that this is not a woman’s world.

I cannot walk out in public without being stared, hooted or whistled at, no matter what I’m dressed in. A man, on the other hand, can walk out jauntily without fearing such harassment.


(Illustration by Nick Choo)
Most men have the freedom and security in being the status quo. The status-quo male is free to be himself, knowing that his gender will not be brought up whenever he does certain things, like being a fierce boss, or driving a car. He receives political, social and economic power, as long as he remains within the confines of his gender role.

However, if a man espouses a different masculinity, say, by staying home to take care of the kids or do the housework, some men may taunt him for being a sissy, while some women may accuse him of being a henpecked husband.

A man’s world

Certain places are designed with men in mind. Many workplaces are not equipped with childcare facilities, which hampers mothers from working, since patriarchy determines that women are caretakers first.

If a man wants a promotion, he is most likely able to work until late at night; he does not need to worry, the way a woman has to, about security guards to escort him back to his car in a dark parking lot. If I live to see Malaysia in 50 years’ time, I hope to see women being carefree as they walk the streets at night, instead of being held hostage because of their gender.

When I was exposed to feminism, I began to see the world through the lens of gender and began advocating for the rights of young women. It was only recently that I realised, as “feminist” as some women claim to be, their unconscious behaviours expose the stereotypes they thought they had expelled.

A male friend told me that when he was working with some feminists, they expected him to chase a cockroach out of the room. He felt he was expected to do so simply because he was a man.

My friend might have been mistaken. Perhaps those women really were afraid. However, he had received comments from some feminists who had attributed some of his actions to his gender. It appears that patriarchy is so deeply embedded in our psyche that even feminists unconsciously reinforce it.

A genderless Malaysia
(© Valentina Jori / sxc.hu)

While there have been some efforts to involve men in the fight for gender equality, I feel that in Malaysia, the battle still remains largely a woman’s battle, while men are left (or choose to remain) on the sidelines. For example, there is more focus on maternity leave issues, rather than pressing for paternity leave.

Should men be the ones to fight for paternity leave? How can they do so if they are not even aware of the way patriarchy shoehorns them into a restrictive type of masculinity? And how can they gain awareness when most women’s groups in Malaysia do not continuously make conscious efforts to engage with men in their mission to destroy patriarchal structures?

In feminist literature, femininity has been deconstructed; can there not also be a simultaneous deconstruction of masculinity, eventually leading to the destruction of gender entirely?

The elimination of gender

As long as men are separated physically, mentally, and socially from women in this struggle, gender inequality will never be eliminated because such separation keeps the concept of gender alive in people’s consciousness. As it is, when all kinds of forms still contain “male” or “female” boxes to tick, and suffixes like “Mr” and “Miss” perpetuate gender divisions in the mind, eliminating the thought of “men” or “women” certainly seems impossible.

However, a significant event happened in Malaysia not long after our 50th anniversary: the coalition that had ruled for the past 50 years lost its crucial two-thirds majority in parliament. It is an event that is spreading currents of change through every part of the nation. I believe that a change of equal significance and impact can happen in the next 50 years.

That is when I hope to see the word “gender” eliminated from dictionaries and from people’s mindsets. There will be neither women nor men — only people. Only then will gender equality be truly internalised, because humankind would have recognised how they were privileged and disadvantaged by patriarchy in unique ways, and would have striven to resolve these differences together on a single platform. End of Article


Boo Su-Lyn is passionate about Jesus, feminism and writing. She has published a short story, a poem and many letters to the editor under the name RK Boo. She aspires to be a novelist, and is an alumnus of the All Women’s Action Society (Awam) Writers for Women’s Rights Programme.

Ku Li won't accept Galas candidacy, Najib unable to sway him

Malaysia Chronicle

UPDATED Amid swirling speculation, PAS leaders are convinced that Kelantan prince Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah will not accept Prime Minister Najib Razaks offer to be the Umno candidate in the Galas by-election.

No, it is not true. Ku Li wont accept but he will meet the PM in Parliament today, Kota Bharu MP Wan Abdul Rahim told Malaysia Chronicle.

He was referring to the latest batch of rumors that after high-level discussions, Razaleigh who is also known as Ku Li, had decided to agree in order to revive his prestige in Umno.

And it looks that PAS has got it right.

On Monday, Najib did not name Ku Li as the Galas candidate, which he had been expected to do. Pundits said if Ku Li had agreed, Najib would have rushed to make the announcement and claim a much-needed psychological victory for his camp, whose own lustre in Umno was starting to fade.

Tengku Razaleigh agreed to head the BN machinery and will mobilise our machinery to ensure BN victory. I also gave an assurance that the national machinery will provide full assistance. On the candidate, we will announce at an appropriate time but not now," Najib, the Umno president, told reporters.

Galas won't open up Umno for Ku Li

The 73-year old Ku Li was once among the highest-flying of leaders in Umno, the dominant partner in the ruling BN coalition. Not only was he appointed Malaysias youngest Finance minister but he was also the founder of national oil firm Petronas.

Wan Abdul RahimHowever, a power tussle in the 1980s against former premier Mahathir Mohamad saw him quitting Umno to set up his own political party Semangat 46.

Although, he later re-joined Umno, his star in the party has faded not least because of the independent views he holds especially! regardi ng the federal governments refusal to pay the PAS-led Kelantan oil royalties for petroleum extracted within state boundaries.

I think Ku Li is very realistic about his chances in Umno. Even Najib, as the incumbent PM, cannot do as he pleases without Mahathirs green light. Do you think that because of Galas, Mahathir will feel it is necessary to roll out the Umno red carpet for Ku Li? an Umno watcher told Malaysia Chronicle.

"The only possibility is if Najib agrees to concede on the oil royalties to Kelantan and Terengganu. Then may be, Ku Li may consider."

PAS unfazed even if Najib himself contests

Ku Li is seen as a shoo-in for the Galas state seat as it is part of his Gua Musang parliamentary constituency, which itself is one of the rare Umno strongholds in PAS-dominated Kelantan.

Ku Li left Umno after a bitter feud with Dr MThe Galas seat fell vacant after PAS assemblyman Chek Hashim Sulaima died from colon cancer last month. The late PAS leader had won the seat with a slim margin of 646 votes, garnering 4,399 against Umno's 3,753 votes.

PAS has admitted having a 48 percent chance compared to Umno's 52 percent in winning Galas. But PAS leaders have pledged an all-out fight regardless of who the candidate is - even if Najib himself decided to contest.

According to the last electoral roll, there are 10,330 voters in the constituency, with 65.4% Malays, 22.3% Chinese, 10.5% Orang Asli and 1.8% India. Pundits say the Chinese and Orang Asli voters may ultimately decide the winner. In the past election, the Chinese had mostly voted for PAS, while the Orang Asli voted Umno.

Nomination day is on October 26 and balloting November 4.

Related Stories:
Ku Li takes on Galas election director post, meets PM on Monday...
Save trip to airport unless agree w! ith Ku L i on oil, federalism...
Galas: EC fixes for Oct 26 nomination, Nov 4 for balloting...
Galas by-election a windfall for local residents
PAS not taking Galas by-election lightly, predicts 48% chance...
Semua petugas PAS, Pakatan dikerah ke Galas - Hadi...
Chinese community in Galas supports BN, says MCA
PAS: Is DPM trying to insult Ku Li by proposing him for Galas?
Galas: Razaleigh belum beri jawapan
Hadi says "not yet" on Galas candidate, slams Umno over Ku Li...
PRK Galas: Peluang Bagi Perkasa
PAS to finalize shortlist of Galas candidates on Sunday...
Tuan Ibrahim: PAS ready to face anyone in Galas, even Ku Li...
Muhyiddin proposes Ku Li as Galas candidate, but PAS unfazed ...
Najib "delighted" Ku Li will be the Galas by-election director...
Galas: Oil royalty the central issue, not personalities...
PAS: Why is Muhyiddin running away from Galas
Galas by-election: EC to decide on a date on Oct 6...
Will Umno field Razaleigh for Galas by-election
If Umno wants Malay unity, it should not contest Galas...
To retain Galas, PAS will need to find another giant-beater...
Kelantan Umno awaits green light on Galas by-election...
PAS assemblyman for Galas dies, by-election within two months...
See What Pakatan Rakyat Gotta Say?

Battle of The Three Kingdoms

Just found out there are three interesting Chinaman characters in Malaysia, actually two Chinamen and one China Doll.

I decided to consolidate their arguments for sentimental reason: -

'... I am proud of my ethnicity ...'

by K Temoc

I refer to the article titled Behind Perkasa's pig obsession by your columnist Helen Ang. While I find it interesting I must take issue with her on two points, both related to DAP. Firstly (excuse the pun) it's about her criticism of Lim Kit Siang's 'Malaysian First'.

She made a motherhood statement that the Malaysian First-ers hate to be called 'pendatang' and don't like to be told 'balik Cina', but one that lacks relevance because really, which Chinese does?

Then she argued that though Dr Mohd Ridhuan Tee Abdullah has Chinese skin tone and Chinese facial features, no one has told him to 'balik Cina'. And the reason is of course that Ridhuan is a Malay-speaking Muslim, ipso facto the 'balik Cina' jeer does not apply to him as he belongs here.

Then her logic plummeted when she averred that for Malaysian First-ers to avoid the 'balik Cina' gibe, they should emulate Ridhuan who is the model Malaysian First-er. She also quoted a blogger (I believe to be Shuzheng) who also argued that Malaysian First requires doing a Ridhuan Tee. Shuzheng argued that if a Chinese, like Ridhuan, no longer possesses Chinese characteristics, then nobody can ask him/her to 'balik Cina'.

Ang and blogger Shuzheng both failed to understand two things: (a) Dr Ridhuan tee is not a Chinese by choice and a Malay through his constitutional rights, so how and who he looks like is totally irrelevant, and (b) Lim Kit Siang's 'Malaysian First' is not about acceptance per se. On July 5, Lim Kit Siang made a media statement (available on his blog) in response to a second challenge by DPM Muhyiddin to state whether he is a Chinese or Malaysian first.

Lim said: 'I had already stated in Parliament that I am a Malaysian first and Chinese second. I am proud of my ethnicity but I have always believed that all Malaysians must rise above their ethnic, cultural, religious and geographic differences to seek a common bond with the Malaysian identity transcending all ethnic, cultural, religious and geographic identities.'

That's a political vision statement of the highest merit, akin to one made on Aug 28, 1963 in a distant land by another visionary who said the following immortal words during an era of seemingly impossible struggle for racial equality, and for an end to ethnic discrimination.

Those words were: 'I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'

'I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.' [...]

'This is our hope. This is the faith ..... With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.' […}

'Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.'

That visionary, Martin Luther King Jr, didn't have to abandon his identity, heritage or convert himself into a white man as Michael Jackson did. And he wasn't alone nor the first in the struggle – there was Rosa Parks nearly a decade before him – to chip gradually but perseveringly away at what was then seen as the insurmountable odds of invincible racism.

Thanks to their efforts, endurance and faith in themselves, today an African American sits in the White House as the 44th President of the United States of America. At home Lim Kit Siang espouses the Malaysian First doctrine to seek the same outcome. His objectives are clear and straightforward, and he knows he would still need many like-minded successors to chip away at the vested interests of Malaysian racism before his dream can come true that all Malaysians 'will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character'.

Lim Kit Siang and many like me do not want to see a Chinese as a future prime minister of Malaysia but rather a Malaysian.

Secondly, I regret very much Ang made a double incorrect statements that the wearing of selendang (presumably by Teo Nie Ching) to a surau and Lim Guan Eng 'Photoshop-ed' slaughtering cow in Islamic ritual were examples of DAP preaching Malaysian First in the hope of gaining privileges as first-class citizens.

I believe by now we should be able to easily disregard her bizarre accusation of Malaysian First as a concept to gaining privileges as first class citizens, but I lament her refusal to acknowledge that Teo Nie Ching had to wear a selendang after a faux pas already chided by the Selangor Sultan; and if Teo visited her Malay constituency, what better place than a surau, the traditional gathering place forkampung Muslim Malays.

I would like to ask Ang what's wrong with the DAP current program of seeking Malay acceptance through more direct socio-political intercourse. After all, the Malays represent more than 60% of Malaysians. Why disparage a political party for striving to demonstrate their Malaysian character as well as enlarge its voters base?

The only area I agree with Ang would be in her concerns with the DAP's unnecessary flirtation with Islam. I believe the DAP can seek rapprochement with the Malay community without over- the-top fawning over a historical Muslim leader and his exemplary governance, and

perhaps in that process, misleading some Pakatan Rakyat Muslims into believing Lim Guan Eng is so enamoured of Caliph Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz that he will soon be embracing Islam.

But unfortunately the worst of her attacks against DAP was when she made no mention of the fact that the photo showing Lim Guan Eng slaughtering a cow in Islamic ritual was a forgery. I hope it's a genuine slipup and not a Shuzheng type of insecure creativity, where that blogger (in a letter) had accused Lim Kit Siang, in promoting the Malaysian First concept, of denying his (Lim's) ancestral roots.

Let me conclude by reproducing for both Helen Ang and blogger Shuzheng a crucial sentence of what Lim Kit Siang had stated in his media statement of July 5, 2010.


DAP photoshopping the First-er identity

by Helen Ang

KTemoc's accusation against me was baseless, mischievous and malicious (see endnote). As is the rest of his twisted reading of my article. Secondly, KTemoc has a history feuding with Shuzheng. One is the cheerleader, the other the ideologue of the anti-Malaysian First camp.

Rather than for me to be caught in the middle between two guys flexing their blog muscles, you can read their views for yourself: I wish to remain a M'sian – KTemoc replies Kadir Jasin, and Shuzheng's Kadir has a Chinese problem, K Temoc pontificates,both articles appearing last March.

Shuzheng makes more sense with his analysis that: 'Muhyiddin when asked by Kit Siang if he would be Malaysian first and Malay second rejected it outright. The fault is Kit Siang's and the inanity of his Malaysian First idea.

'For as long as there had been a Malaysia, as a split, apposite, dichotomous idea, the Chinese was never first. So who's to say they are now second? Malaysian First is a new branding of Chinese politics, particularly DAP's.'

By the year 2035 (just one generation away), Chinese are projected to dip to 18.6 percent of the population. Yet, it seems that out of every 10 persons who declare 'I'm proud to be Malaysian', eight of them are Chinese. Clearly these people are overcompensating. On the other hand, you don't hear Malays desperately reassuring the Chinese and Indians that they (Malays) are eagerly 'Malaysian first'.

Think about this (quoting Shuzheng): '... the apposition of the Malay is the Chinese. The latter was, after all, part of the reason for the federal constitution's article on the special position of the Malays. There are no Malay 'rights' to fight for if there were no Chinese to fight against'.

Now let me address KTemoc's letter. He wrote: 'Ang and blogger Shuzheng both failed to understand two things: (a) Dr Ridhuan Tee is not a Chinese by choice and a Malay through his constitutional rights, so how and who he looks like is totally irrelevant, and (b) Lim Kit Siang's 'Malaysian First' is not about acceptance per se.'

I don't get KTemoc here. Do Ridhuan's many Malay fans see theustaz as a Muslim first, and Chinese last (identical to Kit Siang in this respect), if at all? Should the Malays truly embrace him as one of their own, doesn't it then indicate that Ridhuan – more than anyone else – has achieved the First-er benchmark where his fellow citizens are blind to his skin colour?

Hence how he looks is indeed a relevant point to raise, if only to show that the Malays don't discriminate against his Chinese features or Zambry Abdul Kadir's Indian features.

But before I delve into the DAP new-fangled credo of First-ing, we'll examine Barack Obama as the exemplar of American First successfully rising on the shoulders of giants such as Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks which KTemoc is at pains to lecture. If KTemoc insists on a comparison, then ask also if Obama speaks the Kenyan language of his father?

In a comparative local context, our Malaysian Obama would be speaking solely in Malay. If KTemoc wants to go by the Obama formula, we would have no Chinese schools. Obama wasn't educated in Swahili, was he?

Next, would Obama have managed to win the popular vote if he had not been a Christian but a Muslim instead?

Our Malaysian Obama, then, would have to be a Muslim as Islam is the preeminent religion in Malaysia, just as Christianity is the preeminent religion in States. If Lim Guan Eng converts to Islam, as PAS has been praying for, how?

When KTemoc says 'Lim Kit Siang and many like me do not want to see a Chinese as a future prime minister of Malaysia but rather a Malaysian', his memory needs a jog. Does KTemoc not recall that Ngeh Koo Ham's party had won the most seats among the Pakatan partners in Perak? Ngeh's a Malaysian, right? Not only that, but a First-er too since that's the ideology his party DAP is preaching.

So how come the Perak state constitution put obstacles in the way of Ngeh-the-Malaysian becoming chief minister? Pray tell, KTemoc.

Since there have been squads of Malaysian First-ers praising Teo for wearing the selendang and baju kurung, I take it they concur that the Malay-Muslim mode of dress is accepted as the gold standard of Malaysian Firstness attire. Or do we ask Shahrizat Abdul Jalil to wear cheong sam and Nurul Izzah Anwar to wear sari to prove that our national culture is one of equality and parity?

KTemoc also laments my purported 'refusal to acknowledge that Teo had to wear a selendang after a faux pas already chided by the Selangor sultan'. Really, she 'had to'? Did she have to hop, skip and jump to her next surau visit so soon immediately?

I hope KTemoc realises too that our constitutional monarchy, to whom Teo apologized, is called the Raja-Raja Melayu. Their royal highnesses are not Raja-Raja 'Malaysia', by the way.

Next look at the Selangor emblem. Its star and crescent represent Islam. Its spear flanked by two keris are the Malay regalia. Around these is entwined the Jawi inscription 'Selangor' in yellow (colour of royalty) while underneath is the motto in Jawi script -- 'Dipelihara Allah'.

The motto does not say 'United Colours of Benetton'. The audacity of Lim Kit Siang's hope hinges on his nebulous Malaysian First concept beating all the above emblematic symbolism into second place. Does DAP think it can win in this game of Malaysian one-firstmanship?

KTemoc quotes Lim as saying 'all Malaysians must rise above their ethnic, cultural, religious and geographic differences to seek a common bond with the Malaysian identity transcending all ethnic, cultural, religious and geographic identities'. What is he saying?

I would ask Kit Siang to clearly spell out the ABCs of this 'Malaysian identity' that he's talking about. It seems to me that if he throws out ethnic, cultural, religious and geographic identities (that must be 'transcended'), what's there left to identify with as the Malaysian-ness replacement?

Until and unless Malaysian First-ers can enlighten us on the components of this elusive 'Malaysian identity', I shall feel more inclined to Shuzheng's critique that 'to suggest that the Chinese banish their identity for the sake of an 'inclusive' Malaysian-ness is to invent, for the second time, another 'social contract'.'

And as you know, we haven't even been able to see eye-to-eye yet on the first 'social contract'.

____________________________________________________________________________

Definition of 'photoshop'

KTemoc wrote: 'But unfortunately the worst of her attacks against DAP was when she made no mention of the fact that the photo showing Lim Guan Eng slaughtering a cow in Islamic ritual was a forgery. I hope it's a genuine slipup and not a Shuzheng type of insecure creativity ...'

The sentence mentioned by KTemoc – 'Lim Guan Eng photoshopped slaughtering cow in Islamic ritual' – was cited together with other incidents: 'surau visits, Caliph Umar Abdul Aziz, Chinese/Indian MPs quoting Quranic verses, 'amar makruf nahi mungkar', etc'.

There is no 'slip-up' as alleged. Even if I had for a moment wanted to imply the photo was genuine, I'd have written 'Lim Guan Eng 'photographed' slaughtering cow...' – not Lim 'photoshopped' slaughtering cow.

Dictionary.com defines the word 'photoshop' as 'to alter (a digital photograph or other image), using an image editing application, especially Adobe Photoshop'.

Urban dictionary defines 'photoshop' as 'Also a term for an image manipulated with the software, which is usually a combination of two or more unrelated images.'


Paraphrasing Snow White's stepmother

K Temoc

While I expected Helen Ang to respond to my rebuttal of her criticism of Lim Kit Siang's 'Malaysian First' concept, I have to admit I was somewhat taken aback by the ferocity of her letter, where she used two very serious words 'mischievous' and 'malicious', implying my letter had baleful and sinister intent.

Those are words I was reluctant to use in my previous letter to describe her so-called word map where she alleged reflected DAP's Malaysian First attempts in hope of gaining privileges as first-class citizens - a materialistic objective she presumptuous created for and attributed to Lim's Malaysian First, and which in reality exists only in her prejudiced mind.

I believe I do not even need to draw on her questionable inclusion of 'Lim Guan Eng photoshopped slaughtering cow in Islamic ritual', where Ang then had to utilize one-fifth of her letter to explain and define what 'photoshop' means. That by itself is an indication of her

indirect acknowledgment that not many people know what is implied by 'photoshop'.

But even assuming they do know, why include a known forgery as part of her word map of the alleged DAP's Malaysian First campaigns? Methinks the relatively unknown term 'photoshop' plus the fact she deliberately included it to criticize the Malaysian First concept would now merit the use of the words mischievous' and 'malicious'.

Be that as it may, I shall only touch on three aspects of her letter.

The first surely has to be about her condemnation of Malaysian First, where we see Ang's obsessive determination to fit Kit Siang's unifying doctrine, no matter what its shape (say, round), into the square box she has decided for it.

Thus, according to the gospel by Ang, there is one and only one avenue for a Chinese to become a Malaysian First, and that is via the Ridhuan Tee model, meaning complete conversion from Chinese to Muslim Malay with the process concretized when the converted starts spewing anti-Chinese demagoguery or perhaps like Uztaz Ann Wan Seng, ridiculing his previous religious belief for the entertainment of his new embraced ummah. It would appear she hasn't allowed for nor would countenance any other avenues, especially the visionary, unifying objective Lim Kit Siang is promoting.

Her 'square box' is of course her bête noire, Dr Ridhuan Tee Abdullah. Yes, it's well-known that Ang and Ridhuan have sparred on a number of occasions, alas, with Ridhuan Tee getting the better of her in the majority of cases. Perhaps her subconscious has compelled her to conjoin hated Ridhuan with the Malaysian First concept she dislikes.

She continued on her square box-ed mentality when she argued in the silliest fashion that if Barack Obama had spoken in Swahili, the language of his Kenyan father, or was a Muslim, he was hardly likely to win the US presidential election. It's like arguing that Nicolas Sarkozy wouldn't have been the French president if he speaks in Hungarian, his father's native language or worships Elizabeth Bathory instead of the Virgin Mary.

Then, of course, Julia Guillard too wouldn't have been prime minister of Australia if she speaks in her mother tongue Welsh and declares she is a Druidess, a pagan to most Christian Australians. Quite frankly, I was tempted to drop this issue out of my letter because her arguments had descended to the very nadir of absurdity.

Then ungraciously Ang described Obama (now also in her square box?) as ascending successfully on the shoulders of giants like Martin Luther King Jr and Rosa Parks. However in doing so, she has unwittingly supported my point that like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr 'Lim Kit Siang … knows he would still need many like-minded successors to chip away at the vested interests of Malaysian racism before his dream can come true that all Malaysians 'will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character'.'

Who knows, maybe one day a descendant of Ang will ascend successfully on the shoulders of giants like Lim Kit Siang, Karpal Singh and Lim Guan Eng.

Secondly, I am pleased that Ang brought out the two articles by blogger Shuzheng and me, because they clearly illustrated our totally different ideological beliefs, where I advocated being Malaysian First while Shuzheng was against. But Ang was rather disingenuous in stating she didn't want to be caught in the middle between 'two guys flexing their blog muscles', when the next sentence she wrote was 'Shuzheng makes more sense with his analysis' (sigh and smile).

Furthermore, on Sept 17 when Shuzheng wrote a letter offering his views in ''Malaysian First' requires doing a Ridhuan Tee', virtually the same square box as Ang's, and attracted severe adverse comments, Ang swiftly dashed out a letter 'Does Shuzheng look like a windmill to you?', obviously to valiantly shore up and defend the lucky blogger,

She condemned the unfriendly commentators as mindless readers making outrageous comments when Shuzheng's piece should have been a catalyst for a modicum of intelligent thinking (wow). Ang eulogized Shuzheng as a 'writer, more than anyone I've read on the topic, (who) managed to

debunk the Malaysian First naivete with an unparalleled and incisive finesse.' (double wow!)

I treasure such ardent support even if they were not for me. God knows in today's world how little loyalty and faithfulness (to an idea of course) remain.

Finally, Ang was again determined to score points against DAP Teo Nie Ching and vicariously Lim Kit Siang's Malaysian First by lambasting her for wearing a selendang so soon after the mentionedfaux pas. She sneered at Teo's use of the shawl as an overeager 'hop, skip and jump

to her next surau visit'. Obviously Teo was not conforming to the standards of Ang's square box.

To answer Ang, let's go back to October 2008 when a young Chinese female blogger, in a moment of anger at the theft of her mobile telephone by an Indian boy, made an intemperate and most hurtful racist remark against the ethnicity of the thief, and then made things worse for herself by posting the entire racist rant onher blog.

When Hindraf lodged a police report on Samy's bigotry, she realized too late she had overstepped the boundaries of civil decency, and sought to quell the growing anger against her by stating (words to the effect): 'If I hate Indians, I would not have worn a saree on my Indian friend's birthday party because that would be ridiculous.'

Needless to say, it drew howls of derision; some unkind comments labeled her saree-wearing credentials as pathetically hypocritical.

Fast forward to August 2010, and we have a Helen Ang under siege from an Umno Youth report against her for allegedly seditious writing against Malays-Muslims. Prior to reporting to the police for the required interview, she posted an article where she did a 'Samy'. No, she didn't claim to wear a saree but a baju kurung.

In it she went to great pains (complete with a photo) to extol her affinity with the Malay community and culture by proof of her baju kurung wearing habits, to repudiate the report of her seditious writing.

So … selendang, saree, baju kurung, what's the difference, my dear Ang? Ang has set her standard for Teo Nie Ching which she herself could not even meet! Maybe I should recommend to her the words of Snow White's stepmother (paraphrased):

Mirror, mirror on the wall
Who in the land is most hypocritical of all?


This is an Ad Hominem: KTemoc K-Farts
by Su Zheng

Malaysian First Revisited &

the Sordid Pro Hominem Media Culture

When you’re … born in a place where you don’t know the history, and no one tells you the history, and the history, in fact, doesn’t exist, or in fact exists only in documents—when you are born like that, you have to learn about where you came from. It takes a lot of time. … If you are French or English…, you are born to a great knowledge of your origins and your culture. When you are born like me, in an agricultural colony far away, you have to learn everything.V.S. Naipaul from an interview, Paris Review, 1994.

*********************

Did I just beheaded someone ?

After reading KTemoc’s two letters (#1, #2) to Malaysiakini, you go away with a sense of emptiness. About 4,000 words in total and you remember nothing. There is only hollowness; what was the man’s point, if any? Then it strikes you – they lack argument. Nothing; none at all. So much gas – farting – and if you were looking to reply him there is nothing to grip at. Those are letters full of words with nothing to say because KTemoc wanted just to fix Helen Ang, to beat her to the ground and do things to her. Small wonder he is proud to be Malaysian; beating up people is a defining quality in the Malaysian thuggish Penang ‘Hokkein’ culture and KTemoc exemplifies it best, safe among the kangaroos from people tougher than he. He acts in ways like the police beating up a poor sod in a cell, taking on defenceless people. Like Zhao Mingfu hounded, then dead.

In Helen Ang’s opening lines (here), there is an extraordinarily, quasi literate teenage quality about her political position, similar to the way KTemoc tells about his excepting for one difference; Temoc is utterly incompetent even to make the most basic point. Helen:

“I was only watching, you know, a bystander? What-ah? Shuzheng and KTemoc fight after school, what’s it got to do with me? Cannot watch, ah? Everybody also watch wh’at; why you pick on me?” (Sob, sob; here’s a hanky.)

In her actual words:

Rather than for me to be caught in the middle between two guys flexing their blog muscles, you can read their views for yourself: I wish to remain a M’sian – KTemoc replies Kadir Jasin, and Shuzheng’s Kadir has a Chinese problem, K Temoc pontificates, both articles appearing last March.

She talks of ‘blog muscles’ (you know, metaphor for boys fighting?) but directs her readers to one blog only and not KTemoc’s where it is full of profanity and invective against shuzheng (here it is; enjoy.) She omits to say that the content in the same shuzheng pagelink had been reproduced in its entirety at the Centre for Policy Initiatives (CPI) website at her instigation and behest. This is to say she has been, and remains, an active participant in the ‘feuding history’ (Helen’s words). And then there is this giveaway word ‘us’ towards the end of her letter: “Until and unless Malaysian First-ers can enlighten us….

To preface her bystander innocence she took extra effort to create two antagonistic classes (so gweilo), she belonging to none, and addresses KTemoc as cheerleader in one, the other the anti-Firster camp with shuzheng as ‘ideologue’ head. By definition, an ideologue advocates a certain ideology. What ideology would that be? The anti-ideology ideology? Contradiction there. As to the “camp’s” location, try visiting CPI online; it has the full address with direction map to headoffice.

Helen pussyfooting with evidences, omissions and with definitions, hence the truth, has to happen not just to push herself out of harm’s way from under the two ‘blog muscles’. It also illustrates the sad state of affairs in Malaysian media culture: it’s always about me.

Hence, KTemoc (like Joshie of Malaysiakini) is full of pro hominem standards (the inverse of ad hominem and, like it, logically fallacious). When Helen reads KTemoc’s letter as ‘twisted’, she was right of course because, in the KTemoc’s standards, the primary purpose is not to critically defend one’s position against a countervailing idea. KTemoc: Kit Siang is very experienced, he paid his dues, how dare you say Kit Siang is wrong. KTemoc had intended his letter to be precisely that, to be ‘mischievous and malicious’, to hurt where it hurts most.

To critically examine, requires a good head on a good heart. To be mischievous and malicious does not even require a clever head. And because KTemoc has none in either case, Helen’s finds it a breeze (no help from shuzheng there) to take him apart in pieces (now wait for Kit Siang to put KTemoc back together). So, why bother? But then Helen has made ‘influencing public opinion’ the darling of her lifestyle.

Imagine then, CPI, supposedly an intellectual centre, is stuffed full with characters like KTemoc? Or, to extrapolate this sordid pro hominem media culture to politics, it is plainly evident why PKR (poor Zaid), Umno/BN, DAP are heavy on people, endlessly contriving, jockeying and plotting: what’s in it for me? No, no, wait a minute… count in my uncles. Public service? Bullshit. Influencing public opinion? On what? More bullshit? It is not difficult, therefore, to see why Malaysian society and politics, intellectual life in general, are the way they are; recall Badawi’s “first world infrastructure, third world mentality”. He would have meant third rate not third world, so that the principle becomes applicable even to those residing in the first world, to wit, KTemoc in Australia.

There are more side effects than can be counted as a result. Herself busy dodging barbs, a hail of it in recent weeks (or is it months?), Helen Ang misses entirely the genesis, the germinating seed, into how Malaysian First came to be discovered as fundamentally flawed. And it had begun at a rather innocuous little essay from a man named Abdul Kadir Jasin. Paradoxically, Helen had referenced the matter to Kadir, but missed the entire significance in the shuzheng and CPI pagelinks.

On that, Kadir and Malaysian First, it shall be for another time….

After Sharifuddin Abdul Latiff’s Nobody Can Stop Perkasa Now was published inMalaysiakini, it elicited this comment from a certain person with a kiddy name, urkidding: “This article carries poor analysis. Very superficial and shallow argument.

Amazingly, though not surprisingly, urkidding stops there, like a kid bawling then halting abruptly without explanation. How is it an analysis? What is so poor about it? Or, shallow or very superficial, both of which mean the same thing, only different words. But is that an ad hominem?

Malaysiakini editors routinely let in this sort of abuse-responses, disguised as opinions or viewpoints, into its articles and its pages in the delusion they do a great service to humankind: freedom of expression. Can’t argue with that, can you? The freedom principle beats the welfare of a man. If freedom of expression is so sacrosanct, what then of Shar’s freedom from oral invective? Invoking freedomMalaysiakini need not act responsibly. It doesn’t need to act at all; just open up a page and even kidders would be entitled to some abuse-space inside it.

This same irresponsibility – freedom being greater than the person – permeates the rest of media culture, western and Malaysian. At the CPI where comments are un-moderated, it has led to this remarkably defeatist position: “Btw, could this Dan Dan now please response (sic) to points raised by Helen, Shuzheng and U-En Ng, I think we had enough of his ad hominem attack.

Had enough? It’s as though Dan Dan is the name to a new dog specie that happened to stumble onto their website and now was time to neuter the damn animal.

CPI deliberately opened up to let in creatures like Dan Dan into their world, and then complains about ad hominem. If comments like Dan Dan were to be scissored out, would CPI be left with next to nothing to show for all the work put in? It would seem like nobody ever visits – poor thing, CPI – although moderating a page would still be necessary, not just to engender civility but also to establish a certain quality in content, style and tone.

That last sentence is, of course, presumptuous. It assumes editors at CPI orMalaysiakini have the calibre or the intellectual integrity to distinguish between profound work and banality. KTemoc is yet one more evidence into the incompetence that’s rife in media culture, starting in Malaysiakini, ending in CPI. In his case, abuse is disguised in a letter form.

At his own website, KTemoc Konsiders (or is it KTemoc Konvolute?), the man has extolled it as, “a meeting place to exchange views, no matter how different or diverse these may be. Keeping these civil and courteous would be appreciated…

All that sounds remarkably noble, but click on another page.

There, KTemoc goes berserk in the Ibrahim Ali fashion (‘shit, shit, shit’): Fuck Shuzheng, he writes.

KTemoc’s version of ad hominem is his (k)onvoluted idea of civility and courtesy, applicable to everybody else except himself. This is the same man who claims all Jews are fascists (inversely, all Muslims are righteous) so that in such an insanely stupid statement (and this isn’t an ad hominem), KTemoc cannot be expected to have any intelligence or civility or courtesy – at all. CPI knows that, or ought to know it.

As in Malaysiakini and Malaysia Today, CPI harbours cerebral gangsters who will twist your arm or break your nose if you cross them. In their intellectual thuggery an “excellent” write-up happens only when it agrees with theirs. But, expose their racial and political prejudices, KTemoc throws up a fit. There is no reasoned counter argument, so that the only thing left to punch with is the ad hominem – the ultimate expression of a cerebral hoodlum such as KTemoc. The ad hominem is the equivalent of the sticks, knives and knuckledusters thugs wield.

In this KTemoc was attempting to rebut the Malaysian First Requires Doing a Ridhuan Tee by saying “I am proud of my ethnicity”. What ethnicity would that be? The Malaysian First super race? He doesn’t say it – at all. To avoid the word ‘Chinese’, he substitute it with the nefarious term ‘my ethnicity’. A Chinese ashamed of calling himself straight out as Chinese is proud to be Chinese? The contradiction stares straight out from under KTemoc’s name.

Not long ago, in replying to Kadir Jasin, he declared himself a proud Malaysian. Now, his pride is in his ethnicity (whatever that is). So many prides, so many allegiances, so many make beliefs: indeed, how could an Anglophile be ever proud of being Chinese?

Other, similar (k)ontradictions pour out all over KTemoc’s reply; poor man as (k)onvoluted as when he started off down the road as Malaysian First, as if it is an accomplishment and not a given fact of citizenship.

At the risk of being repetitive, below are the fundamental points raised in theMalaysian First article published in Malaysiakini:

  1. Lim Kit Siang is vague about what the Malaysian First encapsulates but is clear into what it rejects.
  2. Malaysian First is a negation on a negation (here, read U-En Ng’s exposition on that notion; clever fellow).
  3. Malaysian First creates two classes of citizenship and identity (here, withinterpretation by Naragan of Hindraf).
  4. Ridhuan Tee is a prototype, even ideal, Malaysian First that Kit Siang’s ideology cannot match nor does he dare to take it up (expounded in detail here).
  5. Malaysian First is Kit Siang politics played out only among the Chinese (and Indians).
  6. Malaysian First is DAP politics intended to bring Malays into its constituency, to wit PAS members.
  7. Malaysian First renders the Chinese (and Indians) as lesser beings. It exchanges the Chinese (and Indian) identity for DAP’s Putrajaya crown – a new social contract deal offer which the Malays are not accepting. Neither PKR nor PAS leaders have much to say in support, if anything.
  8. Malaysian First is an appeasement to Umno tyranny and PAS supremacist religiosity and bigotry.
  9. Malaysian First is an Anglophile moral farce, and deceitful because DAP evangelical legislators have no need to renounce their Christianity as second.
  10. Malaysian First does nothing to resolve outstanding Malaysian social, economic and political problems, and only exacerbates them. It recognizes no collective or group interest. For example, there are no vernacular schools to protect or preserve because, under Malaysian First, the Chinese are second. Or, they don’t exist; there are only Malaysians. Estate Indians are subjugated not because they are Indians but because they are poor, individually. Malaysian First tells why Lim Guan Eng is bigoted towards Hindraf people and it tills the ground for doing away with Chinese schools eventually because, pushed to its logical conclusion, Malaysian First is one bangsa, one school, one system. This is the same call from Perkasa.

KTemoc has no answer to those core issues. With neither the capability nor the grade to deal with them, he has just chanting to show (here), churning out platitudes, ‘beyond race politics’, ‘I am proud of my ethnicity’, invoking Obama (after which Helen in rebuttal easily puts away the American aside), and then all the other yada, yada into how a good Malaysian boy he is or has been. KTemoc’s faith in or allegiance to Malaysian First is never in question (he is even entitled to believe apes descended from his father). Yet all he can offer in rebuttal are the same, insipid banality – I am proud of this, proud of that – which he has before used (here). It is full of his egotism.

KTemoc is the half-literate Anglophile version of a Macalister Road Hokkein gangster whose weapon of choice happens to be English, but writes in Manglish (what’s “insecure creativity”? A KTemoc university course in philosophy?) and relies on fuzzy triteness (what’s “transcending”? A new Kit Siang religion?) to pad up an abusive letter.

Kadir Jasin, above: you, am sorry to announce, started it all. Next time, Datuk, you’ve an existential question, can you please, please add this: Anglophile KTemoc Konvolute of Australia need not reply.

There is a preface to KTemoc’s narcissism, this preoccupation with his ego. At KTemoc Konvolute he exists there primarily as a pro hominem, the prism with which KTemoc, the man, views the rest of the world. When Kadir posed the existential dilemma, what’s a Malaysian – a fair question, KTemoc goes off into a song and dance about the wonders of his past and, perversely, about his uncles. When it is about Malaysian First, he reads it as if Ah Pek Lim’s own squalid life is under seige, a mirror of himself.

But is it at all any surprise? A man without a good head has only his wriggly tongue left for a substitute. The PAS ustaz (see clip below), the ulamas, the Ridhuan Tees, and the DAP Christian preachers churned out from the ‘Assembly of God’ churches, full of orang putih theology and little else (think Thomas Lee), bear the exact same characteristic. They are either Anglophiles or make pretend Malays, the bogus Arab towelheads, none of who could be true to themselves as Malay or Chinese or Hindu Indians.

Kit Siang gave them all a new ethnic name – Malaysian First, and KTemoc, the man with many glorious uncles, is a member.

Ad hominem is always easy against a person such as CPI’s Helen Ang (now fallen into his disfavour), but KTemoc would hesitate to go after, say, Hisham or the IGP. This is inevitable. KTemoc is never, after all, a first-rate mind, not even third, but he is a DAP thug. And thugs tend to visit the defenceless.

He accuses the Malaysian First article of “poor scholarship”. How does the article pretend to be scholarly in the first place? KTemoc doesn’t say, which then affirms the supposition that he has probably never seen a scholarly paper much less authored any – an Anglophile, cerebral goon, safely parked in Australia away from Hisham’s policemen, and with only a list of dead uncles to show for his patriotism.

This pretext-argument on poor scholarship is nearly the same to that employed by urkidding. Both their replies, on the surface about intellectual vigor, carry with them an underlying message instead. You touch Ah Pek Lim, I’ll beat you up; KTemoc will fix you, and he has many influential uncles to do the job.In the latest letter to Malaysiakini, he fawns over Kit Siang: a ‘giant’, he says (wow!), then ‘visionary’ (double wow!) and puts him next to Martin Luther King Jr (triple wow!).

So, is urkidding’s ‘this article carries poor analysis. Very superficial and shallow argument’ an ad hominem? Probably not in the category of KTemoc’s Fuck (with so many uncles, he should consider trying that out on all his nieces). Their difference is only in the wording but not their shared motives.

Ad hominem, as opposed to say, ad rem, requires no evidential prop or argument since all verbiage is directed purely at a person. Even there, many, including Helen Ang (of CPI) in her defence of shuzheng, get presumptuous: there exists an individual person to attack or to defend. They presumed shuzheng is a person singular (like Helen, KTemoc spells it with a capital S) and is male.

When urkidding says ‘this article carries poor analysis, you can tell right off urkidding wasn’t interested in offering a rebuttal. This is because any rejoinder is itself at risk, to scrutiny in particular. Like KTemoc’s obsessive thought-use of his old, shrinking penis, urkidding had intended the comment to demoralize and to denigrate another person on the basis of ejaculated aggression by insult, that is, emotion not reason. This says KTemoc and urkidding share the same motive to undermine another person without the need to dwell properly on the subject at stake.

Urkidding was, therefore, being ad hominem in the way KTemoc was, inversely, pro hominem when he repeatedly called Helen Ang “sweetie”. Helen flagged as sweetie (when she was half-way to his disfavour) absolves KTemoc’s need to state his point; in his Malaysiakini letters, he invokes ‘giants’ (his word), those dead and on the way. In KTemoc’s (k)onvoluted pro hominem reasoning, if Helen is a sweetie, then all things that flow from her (KTemoc thinks bocor?) is therefore ‘sweet’. If Martin Luther King Jr is a giant, then all things that flow from the giant Kit Siang nose, mucus and all, must be clean of virus poison. Hence, no need to make much ado about all those criticisms or answer them.

This not only explains the astonishing hollowness in KTemoc’s letters. Rather, it goes to show how the pro hominem fallacy is so central to KTemoc that it spills out and froths in buckets each time he opens up. And Malaysiakini (and CPI) editors, squatting right under him, lick it from the corners of his mouth. Freedom of speech, you see.

There is yet another point. It also says urkidding and KTemoc and the semen-leaking Bung Mokhtar Radin of Kinabatangan have things in common: vulgar and narcissistic, the dominant properties of Malaysia’s political class. All three are interested primarily to score with insults, never to intellectually engage an opposite standpoint. The difference in the three being, KTemoc and Bung are identical in their sexually-oriented abusiveness whereas urkidding is … well, a bawling kid.

An invariable effect into this you-jab-me, I-jab-you cycle of discourse is, while Helen drones on endlessly about petty minds (think Ridhuan Tee) and, over this, runs hither-dither for a rebuttal (swallow it, girl), KTemoc is masturbating in his thoughts about sweet 13-year-old Dimpled Cheeks. He said so himself: Fuck Shuzheng. Forget ‘him’, he suggests, Dimpled Cheeks is more worthy of his thoughts.(KTemoc seems preoccupied with sex, fuck, erectile bananas, sweetie Helen, 13-year-olds, Dimpled Cheeks….)

But this mental switching around is useless, even with the actual masturbation that came after. With his Malaysian First ego still bruised, he then writes a series of letters to Malaysiakini editors, crying like a cry baby. At his age, and with so many uncles (whom he lists here) who might have his nieces, and with his proclivity for bananas, in the market for fucks and for children he sounds, positively, a potential pedophile. Dirty old man: small wonder he is ensconced in white man country. After Dimpled Cheeks, he’ll be oogling at 13-year-old white girls.

KTemoc has an armoury of ad hominem. And since he has threatened with thuggery, in his words, to fuck shuzheng, here’s to meet KTemoc on his profanity (think namewee, poor child of Malaysian First): after KTemoc is done masturbating over Dimpled Cheeks, he might want to fuck all his nieces, and then move on next to his mother right where she is buried dead. That is, fuck your mother.

One ad hominem deserves another ad hominem.

***************

Farther evidence into the anti-Chinese (or anti-Indian, anti-Malay) nature of Malaysian First.

There is no fundamental difference between the two men (below), the Anglophile Rony Tan and the Arab Muslim Ann Wan Seng. Not contend with their conversions, they then denounced their native culture, Chinese in both cases. Rony calls Buddhism a “conjurer of tricks”. Ann Wan calls it “agama Kong Kali Kong”. They have the exact same principle embodied in Malaysian First: convert to a new race and spit on the old.

Rony Tan, Singaporean First, above; Ann Wan Seng, Malaysian First, below.

Across the causeway, Singaporean First Rony would be like Kit Siang’s Malaysian First KTemoc. Here, on the other hand, Ann Wan, Chinese, ustaz to boot, is likely to own a PAS membership card (the person who posted this video shoutsallahuakhbar, and Umno is unlikely to admit him), the same kind of Malaysian First Lim Guan Eng wants to cultivate in Penang so as to secure his father’s place in Putrajaya.

Ann Wan, to be sure, is also a proud Chinese. “We must have a Chinese mosque to convert those voodoo Kong Kali Kong Buddhists,” is the message he shouts from the same kind of pulpit that Rony uses to spit at Chinese who can’t speak his little English or accept his water-walking conjurer named Jesus Christ. Hallelujah, allahuakhbar.


by Su Zheng

The Malaysian First Social Contract:

A Kit Siang Affirmation

Lim Kit Siang and many like me do not want to see a Chinese as a future prime minister of Malaysia but rather a Malaysian.– KTemoc in Letter to Malaysiakini

Interpretation:

Give the Chinese (or Indians) the pinnacle of political power and, in return, no Chinese need be Chinese or second place at best.

***********************

渔舟唱晚

Song Heard From a Fisherman’s Boat at Sunset

渔舟唱晚

Song Heard From a Fisherman’s Boat at Sunset

(original lyrics with translation)

红日照海上, 清风晚转凉 Crimson glows in the Rizhao sea; pure is its evening breeze.
随着美景匆匆散 But, hurry before the splendor breaks in its wake;
钟声山上响 mountain bell rings out the hour,
海鸥拍翼远洋 seagulls wing across the open sea.
要探钟声响处 Bells ring from the homes. Depart now
无奈我不知方向 I must but which way?
人象晚钟一般愤 Indignation comes late to the heart,
美景不可永日享 eternal beauty outlives not the day.

船划破海浪, 终于也归航 Boat may break the waves, but submit it will in the end.
无论我多依恋你 What regrets I have in our parting,
苦于了解情况 and the pain; but the circumstances you know.
归家怨路长, 痴心却在远方 Complain not the long journey home. Distant is the yearning heart.

谁遇到风浪, 多少也惊惶 Who comes to meet the stormy sea? For sure there’s fear,
无力再收痴心网 but the heart lacks no valor.
心中急又慌 Only never lose heart to press on,
涌出眼泪两行 like streaming paired lines of tears.
向晚景色碎 Late is the evening, the scene is breaking;
红日向山边降 and the mountain falls to the crimson day.
前路也许昏昏暗 Perhaps, too, the road ahead is lost,
天边总有月光 but somewhere, always, there’s moon, light.

含泪看彼岸, 不知你怎样 Tears held back on the other shore. How goes with you my dear?
来日也许可相见 Surely we shall meet, days permitting;
相见止于梦乡never halting, in the land of dreams.
相思路更长, 心曲向谁唱 Though the road may be long, the heart chants to its song.

Visit their respective sites for more. I will continue to sync their writings here, I am sorry, I can never write like you guys but I love your stuffs, that's why. And since Mahathir says "Tolong Melayu" even if it takes the most despicable actions can never be wrong (I of course disagree, in fact, very pissed off), I guess plagiarizing with acknowledgement (whenever possible) must be pretty noble?