Dichotomy kerangka minda Melayu. Part 1

Bagaimana kita menerangkan kerangka minda orang melayu? Ternyata ia suatu kajian kontradiksi.
Ia mengelirukan banyak pihak termasuk orang melayu.

Pada suatu pihak mereka mempamirkan diri mereka sebagai golongan yang taat beragama walhal kita akan lihat, penjiwaan kepada ajaran Islam yang sebenarnya, tiada.

Perkara ini diterangkan oleh pendita Zaaba sejak tahun 1927 lagi, dimana menurut beliau, satu sebab melayu ketinggalan ialah kerana mereka meninggalkan ajaran Islam yang sebenarnya.

Akibatnya orang melayu umumnya mementingkan ritualism dan  symbolism dari isi atau substance.

Ini menerangkan mengapa mereka kuat bersembahyang,terutama yang sunat2, membina masjid lebih dari sekolah dan hospital, bergolok bergadai pergi haji, berbelanja ribuan ringgit melakukan korban, mengambil berat tentang halal makan minum dll.

Tidak syak lagi kesemua ini mempamerkan mereka golongan yang kuat beragama. Tapi mungkinkah tahap 'religiosity' mereka bertindak sebagai 'menacle' yang memundurkan mereka sendiri?

Jadi, sementara mereka menitik beratkan halal haram dalam makan minum, mereka tidak memandang kesalahan apa-apa, meniduri si ah moi.  Mereka tidak makan babi dan minum arak tapi halal meniduri gilfren cina!

Pengutamaan perkara simbolisme dan luaran ini berlaku dengan pengorbanan beberapa prinsip yang lebih murni.
Kerana itu disamping menonjolkan religiosity mereka orang Melayu menutup sebelah mata kepada korapsi, pencabulan kuasa dan kezaliman birokrasi atau tyranny of the status quo.

Bagaimana kita menerangkan 'dichotomy'  ini?

Bukankah ianya perkara yang menakjubkan bahawa orang melayu boleh menjadi dua ekstrim pada masa yang sama? Pelik bin ajaib.

Yakni mereka mempamirkan religiosity mereka tetapi menghalalkan rompakan dan korapsi mega yang dilakukan oleh bosku dan kemungkinan pembabitan pembunuhan? Dan menghalalkan banyak lagi angkara2 durjana yang lain?

Bagaimana orang melayu berada dalam keadaan nang bohtee nang, kui bohtee kui ini?

Adalah suatu kesilapan menganggap bahawa penyebab penting kepada dichotomy minda melayu ini disebabkan peranan yang dimainkan oleh klas menengah liberal melayu yang menjadi born again  muslims.

Sayangnya golongan ini hanya members of the chattering class dan Hampstead liberals yang hanya berminat untuk kepentingan sendiri dan tidak mempunyai mind shifting capacity. Kesan mereka keatas minda suku melayu keseluruhan nya adalah minimal.

Untuk menjadi suatu ejen pengubahan sesuatu kumpulan mesti mempuyai impak besar., menyiarkan dan melebarkan ideoligi mereka. Kita tidak lihat ini pada golongan liberal u melayu. Mereka hanya berminat pada kepentingan merkeka. Mereka lebih suka menyendiri

Kedua, saya merasakan suatu kumpulan mesti bersifat institusi yang boleh membudayakan masyarakat.

Ambil golongan islamiyyin sebagai contoh., mereka mempuyai impak besar dan bersifat institusi dan boleh mempengaruhi masyarakat menerusi percakapan dan perbuatan. Bukankah golongan ini memerintah masyarakat menjauhi dan tidak mempercayai golongan liberal melayu?

Jadi memberi kredit kepada golongan liberal melayu yang tidak lebih daripada members  of the chattering  class dan Hamstead liberals adalah seperti memberi penghormatan yang belebihan dari yang patut mereka dapat.

Tweet

Read more...

PAS, UMNO and snap election. Part 1

UMNO and PAS are like the characters Vladimir  and Estragon in the Samuel  Becket's play 'Waiting  for  Godot '...Godot  is of course the snap election.

Before we reasoned out why there will not be one, lets discuss a few other strange things.

Like in the play Godot aka snap election never comes.  So the 2 characters are engaged in useless and idle talk.

PAS and UMNO are readying themselves for a snap election.  Why are they not involving  Muhyiddin's BERSATU?

That would tell the uninspiring Muhyiddin that PAS and UMNO will abandon BERSATU.  They cannot be trusted.

If they ever come to Power, that is. It's an unholy  alliance  between 2 scheming parties!

PAS is essentially a spiritual  party. It derives its legitimacy from being the interpreter of God's scriptures.

As long as it succeeds in hoodwinking some people that its so, some fatalistic destitutes will continue  to support the party.

Thus, it ought to measure its conduct and behaviour  in terms of its religiousity.  In terms of right or wrong, ethical or not, moral or immoral.  That's the  essence of spirituality.

Sad to say there are none of these  at the moment.  That's the sin of the PAS leadership at the moment.  Can the PAS Ummah in general, accepts this?

Because these do not factor in their equation, they are able  to work with 'infidelistic' UMNO.  When they want to work with UMNO its 'muafakat politik'.  When they want to work with DAP, it was  'tahaluf siyasi'. They keep moving the goal posts. Can we trust them?

PAS and UMNO are forming a secretariat.  It's a forced move always involving strenuous mental and physical exertions. Their unity is a fluid one.  Its temporary in nature. It's like chalk and cheese, oil and water.  It will disintegrate  soon.

Out of the blue, the UMNO youth head is calling for a political ceasefire.  It's not a rosy picture  between  UMNO and PAS.  The UMNO and PAS leadership  know this.  The PAS rank and file are not happy with the temporary muafakat with infidelistic UMNO. How can a righteous party like PAS work with UMNO?

A political ceasefire is just that, a temporary cessation  of hostilities.  They stand down to resume war.  Let's see  who's zooming who. No it's not Aretha  Franklin's  song.

Because  PAS has, abandoned its principles it can work with corrupt UMNO. It  can cavort with bosku, Java man and many others. The unethical means justify its unethical ends.

For these reasons I  think that PAS has become hypocritical.  By teaming up with UMNO it has sacrificed many of its divinely inspired principals.

Tweet

Read more...

Adakah gajah boleh terbang?

Adakah orang melayu khususnya dan rakyat Malaysia am nya, suka meraikan kebodohan dan ketongongan? Penceritaan yang karut dan tidak didukung oleh fakta amat disukai mereka.

Demikianlah yang terjadi bila 2 orang matlaon membuat cerita karut.

Cerita karut yang pertama menceritakan bahawa bosku tidak ada kaitan dengan pembunuhan Altantuya. Semua pertuduhan itu disutradara oleh Dr Mahathir.

Bagero punya cerita.

Saya hendak tanya satu soalan:antara orang yang cenderung menggunakan perkhidmatan Altantuya dengan seorang yang tidak-siapa yang lebih  terbabit?

Yang pertama dalam undang-undand kita kata ada legal proximity dan yang kedua tidak ada.  Ia tidak memerlukan seorang rocket saintis untuk mengagak siapa ada kemungkinan kaitan yang lebih.

Sebab itu saya kata ini cerita yang binawe sebab:

(1) Sementara mulut ada cirit birit, otak tidak masuk gear.
(2) Mengandaikan kita semua golongan yang masabodo dan mudah terpedaya.

Cerita yang  demikian tidak lain bertujuan mensucikan bosku. Bosku mahu digambarkan bersih sedang mamat itu tidak. Kalau dia menipu dalam mahkamah dan masjid, kita hanya dapat mengesahkan dia seorang penipu sejak lahir.

Hanya bosku yang mahu menggunakan khidmat Altantuya dan tugas Altantuya hanya menterjemah. Hehe.

Ternyata matlaon yang merekacipta cerita dongeng ini berlagak macam penulis upahan.  Tugasnya menipu. Mungkin dia dapat ribuan atau jutaan ringgit. Apalah jumlah itu semua, kepada mamat yang mungkin menyembunyikan 16 billion di merata ceruk dunia.

Sejak bila kita mengangkat matlaon tidak semenggah menjadi jurucakap yang authoritative bagi pihak kita?

Pendapat yang tidak disokong oleh fakta tinggal pandangan sahaja. Kita mesti sedar perkara ini.

Ada suatu lagi cerita samdol yang menyatakan RPK minta ampun kerana dia takut mati. Semua tuduhan keatas Najib  ialah palsu.

Saya akan percaya 2 cerita dongeng ini apabila melihat gajah terbang.

Ia adalah suatu penghinaan kepada akalbudi RPK jika dia ada intelligence. 
RPK insan yang tidak takut mati. Semua akan mati termasuk bosku.

RPK dikatakan disuruh oleh Dr Mahathir  membuat semua pertuduhan terhadap bosku. Tidak kah kita melihat ada rencana mengaitkan segala perlakuan mungkar bosku dengan Mahathir?

Ini semua menunjukkan ada persamaan antara cerita pertama dengan kedua.

 Cukuplah kita diperbodohkan.

Tweet

Read more...

An elephant can fly.

Between a person dispose of using the services of Altantuya and one who is not, who do we believe to be more likely associated with the murder of the Mongolian woman?

In the first case there is legal proximity.  In the 2nd there is none.

The one likely to be associated  is obvious.  But there is a turpid story telling that want us to believe the second person is involved!

I say turpid because:

(1) Obviously  the brain is not engaged when the mouth suffers verbal diarrhoea.
(2) Assumes that Malaysians in general, and Malays in particular are a bunch  of imbeciles and gullible  people.

I will believe the incredulous  story when I  see an elephant fly. Clearly this is part of an elaborate exercise  to absolve a certain person destined  for Bamboo River resort.

Our gullibility has its limits:, its rubbish to believe that Dr Mahathir orchestrated someone to accuse bosku. The person purveying the fairytale is perhaps a moronic mercenary. What's a few hundred thousand ringgit or perhaps a few million to someone maybe having 16 billion somewhere.

There is a subtle attempt to make us believe that bosku is pristine  and pure.  The fact is he is not.  Only a sexual deviant will want to procure the translation services of a Mongolian  courtier.  She only translates!

There is also an imbecilic  story that says RPK asks for  forgiveness because  he is suddenly fearful of his mortality. Even for RPK, that's an insult to his intelligence. If he has any.

The man does not fear death because every one  dies.  Even bosku.  He's asking forgiveness  maybe he just wants to  come back to  Malaysia.  He has as much rights to be here as the moron selling err telling the story.

Again, RPK was told by Mahathir  to  accuse bosku.
Isn't this story of the same genre as the earlier one?
Both story tellers must be of the same species?

The SDS of  many and the admission  of many  are just dismissed cavalierly.  These can only be done by unthinking mercenaries.

Tweet

Read more...

Historical Amnesia

Some people dispute the SD of Azilah.  They say its impossible to recall and remember things that happened  a long time ago.  Even  things that happened  a week ago we can't remember.  They say we are engaging  in selective  recall.

That's verbal gymnastics.  Certain  things we just remember.  There are no mental exertions. I can also say some people have historical  amnesia.  They  deliberately  deny certain things took place.

Can we then deny Altantuya was murdered? She bombed herself.  What Azilah said cannot be  true. Not possible  for Azilah to remember.

Certain things we just can remember.  I can remember things 50 years ago. I stayed at 600, Jalan Lipis transit quarters Kuantan. That was over 50 years ago.

I can remember my late father stepping on a nail 50 years ago.  Behind our house there was a turi tree. I used to pluck turi leaves to be cooked.  Our neighbour was a Singh family Gurbachan Singh.

The point is we can remember things especially  those that are important  to us and about important  people.  So if Azilah can remember  some details about  the killing of Altantuya, that's not strange.

Things about the brain ability may not be amenable  to legal machinations  all the time.

Historical  amnesia allows us to forgive  Riza Aziz and allows us to deny that 1mdb took place. Bosku is an angel and that DOJ return of monies to Malaysia  is a dream.

Tweet

Read more...

The law is an Hydra - its a many headed monster.

I listened to the commentaries of Apek Cina and believed they must not go unchallenged.  I too leave it to the public to judge.

Let me give you a real story, not a fiction.  One day in Negri Sembilan, before an assembly of UMNO division heads- Zahid Hamidi tells them if your father gives you  money you don't question  where  the money comes from. Later the  government  says the money is stolen.

Are you a thief? No!. You can always say you believed the money is legitimate and you  return a portion, not all of the money.

You are  not  a thief but you are guilty of receiving stolen money.  And returning a portion of the money absolves you.  The sin is erased! Hooray!

Using the same fallacious argument you declare  that Riza Aziz is not a thief.

1) He believes the money came from  legitimate resources  and 2) he returns a portion, not all of the money.  In any case who the fuck is the government?

Isn't that what Apek Cina is saying?

If he can dispute anything what's stopping  him from  questioning  the  legitimacy of government ?

First, the  one giving the money is not  our father and does not enjoy filial  relationship. Second, returning  a portion, not all the  money does not erase  the original  wrong. Savvy?

That being the case, the thief of the powdered  milk can plead he honestly believed what he did was correct, and  he volunteers to return a portion of the money equivalent  of the powdered milk. He has  no  criminal  record  of stealing.

Charge  him  for using excessive force.

The law permits you  to  use force but feather-light force. That so?

The law charges Riza for  money  laundering.  The money  came from  1mdb through  Aabar investment limited. That's too difficult  to understand?

So Tun Mahathir does not need lawyers to clarify things to  him. I from sekolah atap can. A lawyer is like a painter. He can turn black into white.

Of course that is just a fiction.  But if I were to see a snake and a lawyer it's prudent to kill the lawyer first.

The  tape released by sprm has Najib saying so that it would appear-it implies  that Najib  actually  knows the truth.  Would appear and appears  are two  different  things you know.

When Najib  says 'would appear' it means Aaba PJS investment Ltd is farcical.  It launders some hot  money.

The head of Aabar maybe a crown prince, but he's not our crown prince. Unless we are to believe  he doesn't go to the toilet to shit.

Tommy Thomas  says he agrees in principle. To me this means he can agree if there are more evidence,  qualifications and conduct from the plaintiff. He may also not agree.  To read acquiescence  into 'agree in principle  is presumptive.

There  is an assumption  that Riza believes that by returning  a portion of the money he can avoid going in and out of court.

That's Balderdash. Riza agrees because that's an admission  of guilt.

Tweet

Read more...

There's a thousand ways to skin a cat.

Let me ask a question.

A man steals a few cans of milk powder using excessive force he knows how. On the facts he gets convicted and is jailed  for 2 years. The law ignores his level of intelligence.

In another case a person steals over 1 billion says  he doesn't  know where  the  money comes from took the money  from x company  not from y.  He cannot be charged because  he says so returns some of the money he gets away scott-free.

In case 1 the law ignores the level of intelligence while in the second, to cut it short, celebrates  the level of intelligence  and rewards the more sophisticated  person by dropping all charges.

The law says it bases its decision on the facts and that's  why the  sentence  is different.  The degree of mischief  is lost in legal sophistry. The judge does  nothing but interprets the letter of the law.

The law can always be differentiated on the  facts-so that an apek cina can always dispute everything  under the sky while contrarian views to his, because  they don't resort  to social  media, makes us unaware of them. It makes his views seemed persuasive.

Let's  not rush to judgement just because we have not heard contrarian views and therefore  accepts glib arguments from apek cina.

Is the mischief  of stealing $50 more severe than stealing $1 billion? Is hiding behind  technicalities more commendable?
The powdered milk thief behaves in the only way he knows how while the  1 billion felon has many things going  for him including unsolicited defence from an attention  grabbing lawyer.

But who wants to defend the powder milk thief?  Making excuses for the 1 billion felon is more news-worthy.

So lets not be taken in by robust but glib rationalisation.

Tweet

Read more...