Monday, March 30, 2015

He tries and tries and tries ...!








Wakakaka! But he (below) has stopped trying:

I surrender

Why 'God' loved Isaac more than Ishmael

I refer to some parts of RPK’s Much ado about nothing (part 2), wakakaka those which states:

Abraham with (at that time) a futuristic mode of transportation, wakakaka

According to Genesis, Abraham had a wife named Sarah who was barren and could not give him any children. Sarah had an Egyptian slave named Hagar, so Sarah told Abraham to use Hagar as a surrogate mother since she (Sarah) could not give Abraham any children.

Hagar soon became pregnant and not long after that Sarah, too, became pregnant. So now both of them were pregnant. Hagar’s son was named Ishmael while Sarah’s son was named Isaac. But Ishmael was elder to Isaac since he was born first.

Sarah soon became jealous and told Abraham to get rid of Hagar and Hagar’s son, Ishmael. So Abraham dumped both of them in the desert and left them there. God, who called Himself, El Shaddai, then appeared and told Sarah that she will become the mother of all nations.

Now, there are two things to note here. First of all, God acknowledged Isaac (the younger brother) and not Ishmael (the elder brother) as the true successor and heir to Abraham.

and

Oh, by the way, Jews practice circumcision, an Egyptian practice at that time -- and Hagar was Egyptian while Sarah was not. Does this mean the Jews follow Hagar and not Sarah? 

Let me comment on the last part first, that of circumcision.

Gulp, I don't like the look of what appears to be a pair of pliers (on right)
what's that tool on the left?

RPK is correct that circumcision was then an Egyptian practice. The Egyptians were probably the first people to conduct circumcision, but then only among the royals and nobility.

Please note that when we refer to the biblical Egyptians we’re NOT talking about today’s Egyptian who are and have been mainly Arabs, and of course mainly Muslims since Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) introduced Islam to the Middle-Eastern world.

The biblical Egyptians were a different race, no, not even the people of Ptolemy’s and Cleopatra’s who came later and were mainly Macedonians and Greeks, remnants of Alexander’s army. The original Egyptians were a race of a much earlier era, and have since long gone; no one other than perhaps historians of ancient Egypt or Egyptologists know where they are now - perhaps in Padang and Negeri Sembilan wakakaka.

In a post earlier this year titled B-D,the new G-D of ‘Truth’ I had written about the same thing.

Strangely, for the Hebrews, a people who despised the Egyptians for their pagan beliefs, yet they adopted many Egyptian practices, including that of circumcision – see my post B-D, the new G-D of‘Truth’. Of course the Hebrews would claim that Abraham circumcised himself to show his covenant with YVWH.

OK then, we might as well begin our discussion with Abraham who the Bible told us came from Ur of the Chaldees, as in Genesis 11:27-31, which say:

27 Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.

28 And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.

29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.

30 But Sarai was barren; she had no child.

31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.

Abraham was born around 2000 BC according to those who also believed that Adam and Eve and their Fall happened around 4000 BC). But archaeologists said that Chaldeans (of the Chaldees) didn’t even exist until around the sixth to fifth century BC, nearly 1500 years after Abraham’s time.

Thus the claim that Abram (before he became Abraham) came from Ur of the Chaldees was likely a latter day invention (or writeup) at a time (after 586 BC) coincidentally when the Judeans, as slaves in Babylon, first wrote down the oral tradition of Abraham’s story while compiling the written Hebrew Bible Tanakh).


Now, just note Genesis 17:17 which says Abraham became hilarious when God told him he would have a son:

Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? And shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?

This tells us that the age gap between Abraham and Sarah was 10 years.

OK, flashing back to an earlier period, specifically 25 years earlier, to Genesis 12:4, we have (before he changed his name to Abraham):

So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him: and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.

Abraham was already 75 years old when he was instructed by God to leave Haran after his father died. Therefore Sarah would be sixty-five years old, being 10 years younger than her husband. It also tells us that there was a gap of at least 25 years between entering Egypt and having their son Isaac.

In Genesis 12:14-15 we have:

And it came to pass, that, when Abrams was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair.

The princes also of Pharaoh also saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house.

When entering Egypt, Abraham wanted Sarah to pretend she was his sister. The biblical reason was that he was afraid of being killed if it was known she was his wife, for he anticipated Sarah would attract lustful attention. And he was right. Pharaoh was told of her beauty, took her into his Palace and rewarded her ‘brother’ generously.

Here, some questions begged to be asked.


(1) What did the Egyptians see in a 65 year old Hebrew woman that made them acclaim she was fair (beautiful), and recommend the beauty to the Pharaoh, and why would a Pharaoh, who could have any woman in the land, want an old crone as his lover?

(2) Did the Pharaoh have his naughty ways with Sarah after taking her into the Palace?

(3) What was a pastoralist (shepherd) like Abraham doing in a cosmopolitan city like Ur (apart from the archaeological-historical fact that Ur existed only 1500 years later)? One would expect him to live in a tent in a rural area, but we are told by the bible he came from Ur of the Chaldees.

(4) Then, what would be the likelihood of a foreign commoner, a mere pastoralist, even allowing for him having a beautiful 65-year old wife, coming into contact with the royal house of Egypt, namely the princes and the Pharaoh? (Genesis 12:15) Can a great empire like Egypt be so small that a mere foreigner would, on entering its border, come into contact with or to the knowledge of its princes?

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

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

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

(6) Why was Sarah told to change her name from the original Sarai to Sarah, the latter in Hebrew meaning Princess? (Genesis 17:15)


What were the authors (or author) of Genesis trying to say, or do?

I leave the above for you to find out, wakakaka, including Genesis 12:16 which states: And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.

If according to Judeo-Christian belief, Abraham was supposed to live around 2000 BC, then camels weren't domesticated yet for another 800 years, until around 1200 BC, coincidentally around the time when the Chaldeans existed and indeed, coincidentally around the time the Judeans compiled their written bible, the Tanakh.

You can draw your own conclusion as to the reliability of the Judeans' story as written by them in the Tanakh.


Carrying on with other biblical mysteries, wakakaka:

The Israelis journeyed from Rameses to Succoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children ….. (Exodus 12:37)

The Book of Exodus narrates the preparation of the Hebraic exodus after the Pharaoh, cowered by the 10 plagues including the death of his firstborn, gave Moses leave to lead 600,000 male Jewish slaves plus their families, totalling some two million people, out of Egypt.

2,000,000 Hebrew slaves migrating out of Egypt!

Even allowing for some ancient exaggerations, yet there is not one single mention of this monumental migration in an ancient Egypt famed for its recording of anything and all things! No, not one!

Continuing:

Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years. At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all the Lords’ division left Egypt ….. (Exodus 12:40-41)

Nearly half a millennium of residence in Egypt by the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Hebrews – again there was not one ancient Egyptian record of them! Not one hieroglyphic, hieratic or demotic line anywhere!

As mentioned, this was a nation which recorded everything, about Pharaohs, their gods, floods, harvest, births, deaths, ownership of this and that, weather, social events, wars, etc, but not a skerrick of written line about 2,000,000 Hebrews living in their land for 430 years, let alone making a mass exodus.

This was an unexplained omission of amazing proportion by the Egyptian scribes. Or, was it?

Surely there must be something to explain the mysterious and very monumental omission in ancient Egyptian records on the significant Hebraic presence there, unless of course there was no Hebrew ever in Egypt, and thus no Hebraic exodus took place.

The most puzzling mystery has been that in a land of such fastidious recording of events, not one single line of hieroglyph or hieratic or demotic in Egypt’s famed and vast repository of recording made any mention of this race, their or their mass exodus from Egypt.

The only account of the Hebrews living in Egypt and their exodus out of Egypt is in the Tanakh, which coincidentally was written by their descendants, the Judeans while they were slaves in Babylon from 586 to 539 BC.


OK, as mentioned, the word Pharaoh is mentioned 274 times in the Bible in various descriptions and forms. In the first two books of the Old Testament (OT), namely Genesis and Exodus, it is referred to 155 times.

Yet, in that 155 times, the OT fails to identify which Pharaoh was involved in the respective events involving Hebrews. The time span as chronicled by the Books of Genesis and Exodus would logically suggest that the Pharaoh of Abraham and Sarah should be a different person to the Pharaoh of Joseph son of Jacob, and indeed to the Pharaoh of Moses and the Exodus.

In the story of Joseph, he was sold to an Egyptian Potiphar, one of Pharaoh’s officials (Genesis 39:1). After interpreting his famous ‘seven fat and seven lean years’ for the Pharaoh (Genesis 41: 25-32), the latter made him the Grand Vizier, the No 2 man in the land, and conferred on him an Egyptian name, Zapethnath-Paneah and married him off to an Egyptian wife, Asenath (meaning Gift of the Sun-God). She was the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On (Genesis 41:45).

Notice how detailed were the personalities identified, yet the name of the Pharaoh was not revealed. Instead the Pharaoh was merely referred to as ‘a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph’ (Exodus 1:8).

As for Moses, we read of Pharaoh learning of the killing of an Egyptian by this Prince of Egypt (Exodus 2:12), and naturally wanting to have Moses executed (Exodus 2:15). Of course by then Moses had fled.

Much later, after marrying Zipporah and witnessing the burning bush, he heard that the Pharaoh died. Around then, God ordered him back to Egypt to demand from the new Pharaoh the release of the Israelite slaves (Exodus 3:10).

Again, we observe the lack of details about one of the most significant Pharaoh in the biblical saga. Who was this Pharaoh? Or better, who were the Pharaohs, the one who died as well as his newly crowned successor?


Compare the seemingly evasive or, if one wants to be less conspiratorial, broad brushing of the Pharaohs’ identities, specifically those associated with the stories or events of Abraham to Moses, with the detailed genealogies of others in the Old Testament, as presented in Genesis Chapter 4:17-22 (Cain’s), Genesis Chapter 5 (Noah’s, he of the Flood and Ark fame), Genesis Chapter 10 (The sons of Noah and their families’), Genesis Chapter 11:10-32 (from Shem to Abraham), and the list of details goes on.

WHY?

So, were there Hebrews in Egypt after all? Was there ever an Exodus?

Incidentally, the word ‘Egypt’ appears in the Bible more than 750 times while ‘pharaoh’ is mentioned over 274 times. More than any of the Israelite nation’s neighbouring countries, Egypt was the most described country in the Scriptures.

·   Egypt – the nation that, according to the Bible, held 2,000,000 Hebrews in slavery until God instructed Moses to lead his people out of Egyptian bondage. The Egyptian pharaoh only released them after a bitter and acrimonious struggle resulting in the deaths of all Egyptian first-borns including the pharaoh’s own.

·   Egypt – where the Israelite people including its kings would always run to for refuge and sanctuary when threatened by other warring nations such as the Babylonians. The Israelite so-called prophet Jeremiah threatened the Israelites about running to Egypt for refuge when the Babylonians were advancing, by relaying God’s message: “As my anger and wrath have been poured out on those who lived in Jerusalem, so will my wrath be poured out on you when you go to Egypt” (Jer 42:18). But the Hebrews nevertheless went to seek sanctuary in Egypt, and Jeremiah, notwithstanding his own warnings, followed, purportedly to rail against the Israelites for picking up Egyptian worship (Jer 44), but more likely to save his own bloody skin, wakakaka.


On Egypt as a perennial sanctuary for the Israelites-Judeans, it may worthwhile venturing across into the New Testament to recall Matthew 2:13 which advised Yusuf (Yehoshua’s dad, you know, Joshua or with the Greek name of Jesus)  in a dream, of Herod’s murderous hunt for the newborn Messiah:

Arise, He said, take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt and stay there until I bring the word ………

And most surprising of all, in Deuteronomy, under 23: Exclusion From the Assembly, God warned the Hebrews not to allow the neighbouring nationalities to enter the assembly of the Lord, even unto the tenth generation, except for the Edomites and the Egyptians.

The Edomites were of course also Hebrews, ‘cousins’ to the ketuanan Israelite people, as they were descendants of Esau, the firstborn of Isaac, who lost his birthrights to Jacob through trickery and deceit.

In fact, Deuteronomy 23:7-8 read:

You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land; the children of the third generation born to them may enter the congregation of the Lord.

The Edomites I can understand, but why this special treatment for their so-called mortal enemies, the Egyptians, those oppressors who supposedly kept the Hebrews in bondage for 430 years, and required a series of terrifying divine-sent plagues to intimidate the Pharaoh before he released them from slavery.

Indeed why?

I am afraid that again, I’m going to leave all the above for you to find out, wakakaka. Call me a bloody tease if you like, wakakaka.

So now we come to RPK’s first statement I posted at the beginning of this post, namely:

According to Genesis, Abraham had a wife named Sarah who was barren and could not give him any children. Sarah had an Egyptian slave named Hagar, so Sarah told Abraham to use Hagar as a surrogate mother since she (Sarah) could not give Abraham any children.

Hagar soon became pregnant and not long after that Sarah, too, became pregnant. So now both of them were pregnant. Hagar’s son was named Ishmael while Sarah’s son was named Isaac. But Ishmael was elder to Isaac since he was born first.

Sarah soon became jealous and told Abraham to get rid of Hagar and Hagar’s son, Ishmael. So Abraham dumped both of them in the desert and left them there. God, who called Himself, El Shaddai, then appeared and told Sarah that she will become the mother of all nations.

Abraham casting Hagar and Ishmael out

Now, there are two things to note here. First of all, God acknowledged Isaac (the younger brother) and not Ishmael (the elder brother) as the true successor and heir to Abraham.

On RPK's last paragraph, whether it was the Hebraic God who acknowledged ‘Isaac (the younger brother) and not Ishmael (the elder brother) as the true successor and heir to Abraham’ would, in my opinion, depend on who was the Hebraic God, wakakaka.

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

David was even more treacherous than his eponymous ancestor, cheating Jacob. He plotted the murder of King Saul who doted on him, and f**ked Saul’s wife and Saul's son Jonathan (yes, he and Jonathan were lovers) to get to the throne.

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. ... Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdleSamuel 18:1-4 (KJV).

David and Jonathan

Though both his lover Jonathan and his wife Michal (Saul’s daughter and Jonathan’s sister) helped the bloke all the time, nonetheless he eventually had both of them murdered as he did to their father King Saul.

Naturally the Bible was written by his supporters to show that Saul became mad with jealousy etc etc and was forsaken by God, to justify David's trail of f**king and murders right up to the Israelite throne.

He also shagged the wives of many others to get what he wanted (presumably he must be a handsome Adonis) including the most infamous of all, Bathsheba, the wife of his most loyal general Uriah whom he deliberately sent into the thickest of battle to be killed.

Uriah, cuckolded and murdered by King David, so-called God's beloved

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

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

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

But an important point his supporters wanted to make was to show that contrary to Deuteronomy 21:15-17, God wanted him to be King.

So what does Deuteronomy 21:15-17 say? Essentially and significantly the following:

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

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

So, where did that leave Ishmael as compared with Isaac in the eyes of God?

That’s the reason I opined earlier: Whether it was the Hebraic God who acknowledged ‘Isaac (the younger brother) and not Ishmael (the elder brother) as the true successor and heir to Abraham’ would depend on who was the Hebraic God – wakakaka again.

But why did David’s supporter want to diminish the age-old concept of primogeniture, which is (until even today in many races and cultures) the right, by law, or usually by custom and even religion as per Deuteronomy 21:15-17, of the firstborn son to inherit the family title, properties, even greater blessings compared with other sons, and which was what buggered Ishmael out from being Abraham's rightful heir.

That’s because David was not the first born of Jesse of Bethlehem. He was the youngest of Jesse’s eight children (sometimes mentioned as seven).

How could an eighth child become King of Israel?

Of course he could ........ BUT only if the Bible showed that God didn't favour primogeniture despite Deuteronomy 21:15-17.

And we'll see how a bible commentator would cunningly get around these two conflicting points, wakakaka.

Thus, in the story of Cain and Abel we have God favouring Abel over Cain, the first born. Conveniently the Tanakh had Cain murdering Abel.

Yes, no reason of whatever sort was provided by the Bible for God’s favouritism. It would only be in other subsequent explanatory documents or books that embarrassed clerics creatively explained away God’s inexplicable bias.

was the Hebrew God a meat lover who thus preferred
Abel's barbeque offerings over Cain's veggies?

Then we have our Ishmael and Isaac, with Ishmael conveniently being an Egyptian. Guess which nationality was Isaac, wakakaka. Don't know? Well, go back above and re-read my post, wakakaka.

Following that, we have Esau and Jacob. Again, conveniently we are told Esau sold his birthrights away to his younger brother for a bowl of lentils. Even allowing for that pro Davidic creation, we have their mother conspiring with Jacob to cheat, yes, CHEAT, his father into blessing him when the old blind man wanted to do that for his first born Esau.

How could God love such a cheat? How could God love his descendant David, the most treacherous murderous adulterer?

Can lah, because the Davidic supporters, not unlike our Utusan Malaysia and Biro Tatanegara, wakakaka, could write any bullshit!

As if that was not enough, when Joseph (of the Technicolor coat in the Old Testament) went to see his father Jacob the Cheat for blessings for his sons, Manasseh (first born) and Ephraim (the younger), make a guess who Jacob blessed more, wakakaka.

The Bible tells us that despite Joseph positioning his sons before Jacob so that the elder son Manasseh would be blessed by Jacob’s right hand (this being the hand which gave the greater proportion of blessings) and Ephraim by his father’s left hand, Jacob crossed his hands so that his right hand was on Ephraim’s head instead while his left hand blessed Manasseh but less according to Hebraic custom.

When Joseph tried to catch hold of his father’s right hand to have it on top of Manasseh head, Jacob resisted and said “I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.” (Genesis 48:19) - Wakakaka.


And we have the biblical commentator who wanted it both ways, saying as we have suspected all along, that

This shows how the idea of firstborn in the Bible (as per Deuteronomy 21:15-17) is often a position of pre-eminence, not necessarily meaning 'first out of the womb'. Wakakaka, what utter bullshit.

Thus by creative biblical composition, David enjoyed the position of firstborn, even though he was the youngest son. Thus he was fit to be King of Israel, as was conveniently written by men and not God.

So naturally we have those Judean BTN writers (wakakaka) with Psalm 89:20-29 (KJV) informing us how God viewed David:

20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:

21 With whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him.

22 The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him.

23 And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him.

24 But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted.

25 I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers.

26 He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.

27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.

29 His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.


That’s how and not why the Hebrew God inexplicably loved Abel over Cain, Isaac over Ishmael, cheating-Jacob over Esau, Ephraim over Manasseh, and of course the most evil man ever in the Bible, David the adulterous traitorous murderer and 8th son of Jesse of Bethlehem - all courtesy of the pro David bible writers.


Sunday, March 29, 2015

Wanna be like Singapore?

The Malay Mail Online - Dr M: Malaysia will be like Singapore if Pakatan takes power



KUALA LUMPUR, March 13 — Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed warned today that Malaysia could become like Singapore if the Chinese community here continues to support DAP’s alleged dream of complete political and economic dominance in Malaysia.

The former prime minister claimed that nothing good will come of Chinese dominance in politics or the economy — as has happened in neighbouring Singapore — as Malaysia is a multi-cultural society mostly made up of the Malays.


Aha, those dreaded 23+%*, to wit, the Chinese Malaysians! Karn-neen-nare ler!


* 2010 statistics indicated only 22.9% but it seems Chinese must have been "working hard" (wakakaka) in the last few years to now assume some 23+% of the population. The 2010 stats also indicated Malays at 60.3% and Indians at 7.1%

However, Dr M is correct in asserting that there's Chinese dominance in Singapore politics and economy, though alas he didn't provide the reason, but which I will, wakakaka.

The status quo in Singapore, namely, Chinese dominance in politics and economy, is because Singapore's ethnic breakdown shows Chinese at 74.3% (down from 77% in 1970), Malays at 13.3% (down from 14.8% in 1970), Indians at 9.1% (up from 7% in 1970 - aiseh Aneh koot lart mu-oit** ler - rajin kerja kuat wakakaka) with Others at 3.3%.

** the Chinese colloquialism 'mu-oit' (pronounced as one syllable) means 'make' but also has a more cheeky-naughty insinuation, wakakaka

74.3% is likely to dominate in almost everything, but 23+%? C'mon lah, Tun, aren't you overreaching?

And pray tell us what's the ethnic composition of the Malaysian Police, Malaysian Armed Forces, Malaysian Civil Service, Malaysian Judiciary, Malaysian educational community including university VC, school principals and students especially at university level, etc? Which ethnicity owns most of the banks and financial houses? Then what about the GLCs?

Even a Pakatan-led government in Selangor would not support a Chinese to be permanently the professional head in charge of PKNS, what more elsewhere!

However, I have to grudgingly admit that Chinese Malaysians indeed 'dominate' in the pirate DVD trade and also illegal 4-Ekor bookie business, wakakaka! 

Secondly, Dr M by his "warning" of the local Yellow Peril wakakaka, namely, that DAP’s alleged dream of complete political and economic dominance in Malaysia, hasn't he inadvertently admitted by the word 'dream ' that in reality Chinese Malaysians are NOT dominating Malaysian politics and economy, something we have been relentlessly, repeatedly and regularly informed by him and some of his UMNO cohorts?

After warning us of the dreaded DAP and its sinister Illuminati-ish intent to control Malaysian politics and economy, he said:

“Forget the idea of dominating all fields, of dominating both politics and economics. Go back to the idea of sharing. It will not be forever. It will be only for the duration when the Malays through their numbers dominate politics and the Chinese through their business acumen and money dominate the economy."

“Once the Malays and other indigenous people gain a fair share of the economic wealth of this country, they will lose their fear of Chinese domination. At that stage the Chinese share of political power would be enhanced.

“It may take years but that is as much as we can expect for as long as we insist on being identified by our racial origins.”


So really, UMNO and even Malays in general shouldn't worry about Chinese dominance in politics, because as Dr M has just admitted, the Malays are still jolly dominating politics, which we all know.

Even DAP knows none of its current Chinese or Indian leaders should be so arrogant as to brazenly propose or promote him/herself as PM-designate in Pakatan.

Addendum: for example, in Lim Kit Siang's campaign to build support for a new political coalition from both sides of the current political divide, so as to oust and replace the BN as the federal government, he has suggested 6 bumiputera names (and not anyone from DAP) as the proposed coalition's designated PM, as follows:

From Sabah: Anifah Musa (MP for Kimanis); Rosnah Rashid Shirlin (Papar) and Abdul Ghapur Salleh (Kalabakan), and

From Sarawak: Fadihlah Yusuf (MP for Petra Jaya), Nancy Shukri (Batang Sadong) and Rohani Abdul Karim (Batang Lupar) - see FMT for more.


ooops, sorry, wrong sweetie Nancy


sweetie Nancy Shukri

But if Dr M and his UMNO cohorts were to have their ways, then it'll be in the year 2,000,015 before we can ever be all Malaysians and thus be equal.

Additionally, he conveniently forgot to mention that the one who dominates politics will be the one who decides on the economic cake, or at least how to enjoy it even at the extent of squandering all of it.

Mind, to be fair to the government, the Chinese Malaysian up to now, haven't done badly, though the worry is for the future, because the one who dominates politics will be the one who decides on the economic cake will thus be the one who will manage the baking (excuse the pun, wakakaka) - and the Chinese fear that by then, with the squandering going on for the past 30 years, there won't be enough flour for those private bakers.


There is a Chinese social-cultural belief (borne out of thousands of years of observed or bitterly-felt experience) that a family's fortune would in general be totally squandered by the 3rd generation of the family.

The 1st generation built up the fortune through hard work, perseverance, sacrifices and frugality; the 2nd generation consolidated on what was achieved by the preceding generation by exercising the same Confucian virtues, but alas, began pampering their offspring and tolerated the wee squandering by their brats. The 3rd generation, thoroughly spoilt brats with no clue as to what would be hard work, perseverance or sacrifices, and most certainly not frugality, would continue the squandering and mark the downfall of the family economic-financial standing.

By convention, a 'generation's is around 30 years (some say 25 years while others 35), so Malaysia today could be said to be in the beginning of its 3rd generation. Hmmm ........!!!

When we re-examine Singapore and its unbelievable 40-year rise as a lil' island with no natural resources other than its people, to its current immense wealth, economic power, financial reach and global prestige, with its universities among the world's top ranking, would the idea of Malaysia becoming like Singapore be all that bad?


You tell me!

Friday, March 27, 2015

Fairies and Sons-of-Bitches

The Malay Mail Online - Steer Malaysia from sedition law to win ally against China, Obama told



The US Navy has eleven (11) carrier battle group as above 2nd photo
unseen are the N-powered attack submarines surrounding the surface ships

how many carrier battle groups does China have?

KUALA LUMPUR, March 27 — US President Barack Obama must press Malaysia to abandon the Sedition Act and foster democracy to gain a crucial ally in the region in its race with China, a writer with The Diplomat magazine said.

The Asia-Pacific magazine said China is “particularly keen” on filling the US void in the region through economic clout and “hawkish demonstrations” in the South China Sea.

“If the US doesn’t capitalise on the openness of Malaysia and other nations in the region to its advances — it will surely lose momentum to China.

“One possible step to re-engage? Obama or Secretary of State John Kerry must condemn Malaysia’s draconian Sedition Act, which gives the state sweeping powers against those deemed too critical of the government,” the Japan-based magazine wrote.

The writer, Karam Singh Sethi, noted that there is a “deep desire” for increased engagement between Kuala Lumpur and Washington among students and teachers, to diplomats.

He warned that administrations after Obama will be playing catch up with China for “decades to come” if he does not continue to lay a foundation for strong engagement in the region after his presidency ends in 2017. [...]


The writer must be from la-la land where the tooth fairy, fairy godmother and Tinkerbell live, wakakaka.


The USA does not care two figs about democracy, freedom of expression, human rights, equality or justice, whatever, in other countries so long as those countries remain friendly to and do not interfere with nor obstruct the interests of the American state.

Consider the draconian feudalistic but bloody oil-rich state of Saudi Arabia, whose rulers are propped up by the USA (for oil of course), as was Iran under the Shah (again for oil), and a host of other former dictatorships like those in Chile (copper), South Vietnam, Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand, Pakistan, several "-stan" countries of the former republics of the USSR, etc.

Have you ever heard of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's riposte to Sumner Welles, his Secretary of State, who condemned the brutal Nicaraguan dictator as a son of a bitch? The president of the USA, bastion of so-called freedom (or better, 'freedom fries', wakakaka) replied to Welles, “Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.”


Roosevelt in his notorious saying had encapsulated the USA's standard attitude towards dictatorships or tyranny throughout the world. In short, the USA doesn't give a shit whether Malaysia's Sedition Act and the UMNO-government's application of this law has been f**king up Malaysians kau kau, so long as the Malaysian government remains friendly to the USA and its interests.

The reason why the USA had previously been supportive of Anwar Ibrahim was due to the Americans seeing Dr M as a very unfriendly leader of a reasonably sized country with strategic assets and geographical features and locations - Malacca Straits (choke point for Chinese ships), rubber, oil and gas, etc.

The USA has had a notorious history of destabilizing governments unfriendly to its political, strategic and economic interests, so that its favoured (local) candidate could take over.


Some if its past victims were South Vietnam's President Ngo Dinh Diem (he and family were assassinated in a CIA-backed coup in '63), Brazil's democratically elected President João Goulart (deposed by military coup d'etat in '64), Chile's democratically elected president Salvador Allende (assassinated in an American back military coup in '73).

Other US-backed, sponsored or instigated coups were in Syria in '49, Iran in '53, Guatemala in '54, Congo in '60, Dominican Republic in '61, Indonesia in '65, Haiti in '91, Honduras in '99 and allegedly Ukraine in 2004 and in recent times in Libya and Egypt. The US attempted a coup in Venezuela but failed. This list is NOT exhaustive.

If Dr M had crossed the line which adversely affected US political, financial and economic interests, I wonder whether the USA would have sponsored its nominated client (wakakaka) to take over, one way or another.

And I suppose that's the cleverness or slyness of Ah Jib Gor who on coming into power had straightaway neutralized Mr Manmanlai on the international front by cozying up to the Yanks.


Have you noticed how relatively quiet the American government have been on Anwar since Ah Jib Gor came into power, and how they have 'acted dunno' about Mr Manmanlai? The ugly truth is the USA has discarded him like a used condom.

Yes, they might have uttered a few words or so for their own domestic (liberal) consumption but insofar as relationship between the USA and Malaysia under Ah Jib Gor currently goes, it's all very kamcheng lah (pally-buddy hunky-dory).

Yes, the USA may want to curb China's adventures in the South China Sea (which is more about the latter's concerns for oil, oil, oil rather than the alleged hawkish regional dominance) but it can still do this with a dictatorship in Vietnam or Malaysia.

Indeed, what need has it for any form of democratic states to achieve its strategic containment of China, when it has gone about (or tried) co-opting communist Vietnam and dictatorships in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan?


Yes, the writer must be from la-la land where the tooth fairy, fairy godmother and Tinkerbell live, wakakaka.





Wednesday, March 25, 2015

DAP 'amputating' PAS gone wrong!

I'm rather disappointed with what we see as the DAP recent tactic vis-a-vis PAS and its hudud. I feel DAP has mangled (f**kup) its handling of the sorry situation. But before I come to that, let's quickly recap what I remember of DAP, the political party that I have shown my support for, though not as a card carrying member. Please advise where I am incorrect in my history of DAP's political aspirations.


Years ago the DAP standing by its lonesome self and performing bloody well to public expectations and satisfaction had modest and reasonable aim, eg. of winning majority rule in Penang. Timing was the problem. Thus bad timing then for the DAP saw their Project Tanjung went kaput.

That's because in those earlier days, Penangites by their conservative nature (disparagingly described as the kedukut mentality) were and presumably still are very cautious about changes, as (the late) Lee Kuan Yew and his PAP were to discover in those early days of Malaysia.

LKY on seeing the massive Penang crowd attending his election rallies on the island would have been encouraged into fantasizing that the then Chinese-dominated state would run straight into the open arms of papa, but alas for him, Chinese Penangites saw LKY as what they had previously viewed Anwar Ibrahim, a political curiosity to listen to for the night's entertainment at the City Hall padang, to be followed by a late night repast at the Esplanade's hawkers corner, probably of jiu-hoo-eng-chai (blanched cuttlefish and kangkung laden with chillie & hoisin sauce and grilled sesame seeds), satay (wakakaka), lor-bah (haram stuff, wakakaka), koay-teow-t'ng (koay teow noodle soup with fishballs and meat) and rojak, .....

..... but not someone to vote for ..... after all he was a Sing in Penang, wakakaka.

Yes sir, timing was everything because the "original" Gerakan Party hit the right spot at the right time in May 1969, winning by a landslide. Penangites by then had had enough of Wong Pow Nee and his Perikatan. Yes, beautiful timing for Lim Chong Eu and gang.

Gerakan ruled for 40 years. Despite their incrementally changing character from the great Gerakan of 1969 into an UMNO underling, made worse by the UMNO 'divide & rule' (inherited from the Brit master) of Chinese-based parties by pressuring Gerakan to give up several of their seats to their mortal enemy MCA, so that the two Chinese* mortal foes in their divided political existence could never combine to confront Penang UMNO.

* Gerakan has been mainly Chinese, and for simplicity sake, will be described here as a Chinese-based political party. It's also useful to remind ourselves that when Lim Keng Yaik joined Gerakan in the early 70's he and his so-called young turk reformers were all hardcore MCA people who didn't get along with Tan Siew Sin, thus Gerakan became even more Chinese.

Despite all above, BN-UMNO, wakakaka, continued to rule Penang for four decades. That was because, as mentioned, Chinese Penangites had been very very conservative especially in politics and didn't want to change their political preference ...

... until 2008!

DAP then had a reasonable aim, namely, to deny BN-UMNO their 2/3 majority. The GE-12 results exceeded the DAP's expectation for they in collaboration with their Pakatan allies, not only denied BN-UMNO its 2/3 majority but majority rule in Penang as well ..... indeed to their own enormous surprise as they admitted they weren't quite prepared to rule. Jeff Ooi with just a MBA became top honcho (Chief of Staff) to Lim GE.

Personally I was rapt because Lim KS had finally realized both his political objectives. I had feared he might not have seen what he wanted achieved prior to his political retirement. He deserved realizing his dreams.

I was informed that in more than one way, Pakatan achieved their dazzling results because of Dr M, yes, none other, wakakaka.

One was his serial undermining of AAB, while another was as said, that in his hey days as PM he wanted federal constituencies to have the Malay:Chinese/Indian ratio of around (rough round figures) 60:40, as he assessed the nons in general would be his strongest supporters. He was proven right in 1999 and his successor AAB also benefited from his legacy in 2004.

But those constituencies were to subsequently become probably his major regret since 2008, resulting in that infamous racist insults Apa lagi Cina mahu and Najib's Chinese tsunami. Incidentally I riposted to the former with my letter to Malaysiakini titled Apa lagi UMNO mahu? wakakaka.

Dr M hadn't considered the possibility of PAS and DAP ever joining up in what he must have considered as The Unholy Trio, wakakaka, thanks to his erstwhile protege, Anwar Ibrahim. Those 60 Malay to 40 Non constituencies, so effective previously in stalling DAP and PAS individually in their political aspirations, have become precariously dodgy for BN against the new Unholy Trio, what with a moribund MCA and MIC.

May 2013 - wonderful news regardless of our remarkable EC which saw, just as an example, its ridiculous gerrymandering Grand Canyon-ish chasmic blasphemy in the Putrajaya vs Kapar constituencies, allowing the BN to continue to rule despite winning only 46% of the overall federal votes. And it was wonderful news because Pakatan won a shocking 52% of the votes.

What f* denial of the 2/3 majority to BN? Hey man, Pakatan has won the majority of votes! Okay, so gerrymandering might have prevented Pakatan from forming the new government, but nonetheless, that means they are sweetly poised to win in the next general election.

So with Pakatan garnering about 52% of the federal votes, there grew a new ecstatically exciting expectation, of Pakatan seizing Putrajaya by GE-14.

But alas, Pakatan is made up of three component parties, each with its own ideology and aspirations, and there's no political ideology more diverse in nature and character than PAS' Islamic theocracy and DAP's socialist secular democracy, though at times I wonder about DAP's claim secularism when a couple of its pollies would forget themselves in their halellujah-ing, wakakaka.

To cut discussions short since I am sure you all have been following the recent poisonous exchange of angry words between PAS and DAP, the honeymoon is over for these two parties. Gone are the days when PAS would praise Lim GE for his humbleness, or DAP's pollies would sprout Quranic verses (after clearing them with Tok Guru, in reality a form of manja-bodek, wakakaka), or DAP thinking of using PAS banner, and PAS offering it, for the 2013 general elections.

But DAP and PAS both want Pakatan to continue as there are mutual benefits but each has its own constituency to answer to. Invariably, with the two having totally different political ideology, there isn't going to be a win-win situation, more so when PAS under Pak Haji Hadi Awang's leadership decided to go solo on its hudud flight. So the DAP ack-ack guns had to be swung into action to shoot the hudud flight down, wakakaka

UMNO, MCA and Gerakan wait happily though anxiously in the wings like hungry grinning wolves for the two so-called Pakatan allies to go centrifugal, with the latter two jeering at DAP. Sadly there's some truth in DAP (perhaps unwittingly and indirectly) encouraging PAS in its Islamic drive, what with Lim GE referring to some great Caliph as the model for good governance and if I recall correctly, Nga from Perak dropping Quranic verses off his lips as if those were Canto sweet-nothings.

PAS on its part seems to be in a self-delusional world of its own, believing it has the support of DAP in its total Islamic ambition. It once criticized Karpal Singh as the sole obstacle to its theocratic aspiration, as if every other DAP pollies were on its side. Today, after its insistence on implementing hudud it blamed DAP as the sole obstacle while it believed other Chinese Malaysians don't mind. Its party president could even bring himself to say some Chinese still have a soft spot for the party.

But I don't agree with what DAP has done, selecting Pak Haji Hadi Awang as the man to be (politically) amputated - excuse the naughty pun - so as to save the general PAS body. The series of DAP insults and condemnations via the media against Pak Haji have virtually turned him into an Islamic hero, a martyr, and will no doubt force even the Erdogens to come to his defence.

How can DAP save the general PAS body when the wounds it has inflicted on Pak Haji has undoubtedly turned the entire PAS gangrenous to DAP's strategy?

The biadap-ish 'amputation' has been badly conceived and crudely and insensitively executed. DAP has in the process alienated the general neutral Malay by its biadap-ish aggression against a senior ulama who's still highly respected by significant segments of the Heartland.

So sadly, I have to conclude that today's DAP is seen to be too aggressive, appearing to Malays as not only ta'sopan santun but far worse, biadap. I feel that the DAP, for all its Malaysian-ness, has too much western political mentality and probably has also forgotten the value and techniques of Asian style negotiations, which take pains to confer mucho face to even the losers.

However, having said that, PAS in the person of Pak Haji and his ulama cohorts were arrogantly intransigent. Everyone could see it was hell-bent on hudud, and to hell with every other considerations including those of its ally. Did it expect DAP to commit political seppuku by supporting hudud?

PAS really didn't care whether it succeeded in its hudud drive, which if it did would of course be a bonus, as its objective was principally to score Islamic political points to stay in power - for more, see the Malay Mail Online's Three things we learned from: Kelantan’s hudud ambition.

Perhaps, in its silly wishful belief, PAS reckons that DAP will eventually capitulate because of DAP's ultra keenness on Pakatan to overthrow BN in GE-14.

But I must assert that DAP in its silly gambit in (politically) amputating Pak Haji from the PAS body has done more harm for itself. It must realize that if it is equally silly enough to still ally itself with PAS, there's a possibility that it will probably suffer its same fate of 1999.

I bet the majority of non-Muslim voters have by now written off PAS, so by continuing association with the party which wants hudud, the DAP may be viewed as a disgusting underling of PAS - don't worry, MCA and Gerakan will be working like mad to press home this perception.

The DAP would have been better off by having a clean breakoff with PAS, minus all those unpleasant ravings and rantings about Pak Haji. Let the Erdogens themselves take appropriate actions on how they would want to continue with DAP in Pakatan. Besides, by vilifying the old man, how would offended Malay voters consider the DAP, especially its Malay candidates like Ariff Sabri, Dyana Sofya and more?

But even if the voters were to forgive DAP for its obsession with allying itself with PAS to take Putrajaya, there is still a very important unanswered question, namely, where is the shadow cabinet?

How will Pakatan deal with that, which thus far, it has cowardly evaded the issue, such a pressing one. It's an issue that's better dealt with now, or sadly, NEVER!

Indeed, how can we expect a stable Pakatan government following GE-14 if it can't even have an agreed shadow cabinet at this stage?

Consider the MB shambles in Selangor following the idiotic Kajang Satay manoeuvre, and now picture the utter chaos of a Pakatan government deciding on the cabinet only after winning GE-14. If Pakatan can't deal with the shadow cabinet NOW, forget about being a coalition.