What Ails Umno. Part 1.

1. In 1924 the Malay writer Zaaba, said the distinguishing feature of the Malays that crushes the pulse of all, is their poverty.

2. He wasn't just talking about conventional economic poverty. He was talking about all round poverty or abject poverty-poverty of behaviour, of work ethics, poverty of the tools that enrich the mind.

3. Thus, they become a servile people, kowtowing like the Indian thamby inhibited or tak lepas laku, terkernying-kernying.

4. It was an emblem of national shame not thought of by the Malay leaders. The archaic Malay rulers sat arm folded contented to rule over a self belittling people and servile majority.

5. Tun Razak had a notion about this. He wrote about it as a student in MCGaygay. But then Tun Razak grew up in a proletarian society. Unfortunately he didn't have time to rectify the problem. He passed away too early.

6. The straight as a ramrod Hussein Onn was happy to manage what he suddenly inherited meticulously. The rot actually began with Nana Mahathir. He had a penchant for picking winners and creating monopolies. Most of the anointed winners he picked, failed. Of course Abdullah Badawi slept throughout. Najib didn't give a damn as long as he could skim. Najib once said to me there's nothing the Malays like than to receive freebies. And later he said the infamous cash is king. And dumb as he looks, Muhyiddin is letting go of everything with wanton abandon probably as he does when with Nika Gee.

7. After 60 years of umno rule why have we not been able to liberate ourselves from the vicious straight jacket? We remained more or less the same little people?

8. As I said, Tun Razak had a notion of the destiny of the Malays. He could have done more if not because of his untimely passing. But my wicked side refused to dwell too much of his good deeds. Let others do it.

9. To me the true revolutioner was Ghafar Baba. When Mahathir balked at going the full nine yards in curbing the excesses of the Malay royalty, Ghafar vowed to challenge Mahathir all out. Mahathir was actually a closet neo feudalist and a compradore running dog.

10. Mahathir was just posturing, actually. He was using the proposed constitutional changes to Parley. He wasn't intending to do real changes. So why should believe a nana who regards everything is just a game?

11. I don't see the excesses and the unconstitutional intransigences of the royalty being curbed but in fact accentuated. So what Mahathir proposed were just BS and the people continued to be played out and laughed at. It's all heaty chicken shit.

12. So what's keeping the Malays more or less in the vicious circle of general backwardness which Zaaba and Tun Razak averred to?

13. I think Zaaba hinted at the reasons why. But the main reason, he said, was the repressive and suppressive rule of the Malay elites. They were more interested in instant gratification. They were also decadent and vision-less.

14. The ruling elites had no notions at all about the rights of the common men. The latter existed to serve the former only. One century earlier than Zaaba, Munsyi Abdullah would write about marauding Malay chiefs and their goons going around villages and townships, brandishing weapons ready to kill the common people.

15. The subservient and slave like role of the common people was always glorified and regarded as, a virtue. Heck, Hang Tuah dived into a shit pit to retrieve an item for the slaving Sultan.

16. Tun Razak on the other hand was not interested in finding the cause. He was more interested to find the solutions. As I said earlier he died too early.

17. Zaaba was able to write from his perspective because he came from the marhaen class. Tun Razak could not be expected to write against his own class, could he? No mystery about that.

18. But to those who want to place Tun Razak in high esteem and exalt him, please do so. I have no problems with that. Ideologically I am more in tune with Zaaba. Its just that.

19. That's why I gritted my teeth when an umno leader said that umnos Weltanschauung is to defend its infamous 3Rs-race, religion and royalty. I don't know these are under threat. Against who and what?

20. It's their own kind that victimizes them. Zaaba was essentially correct when he said the worst enemy of the Malays was the leadership. Malays became like what an African proverb says-the sheep worry every moment about the wolf, when eventually it's the shepherd who eats them. The Malay leaders are like the axe but because the handle is made of wood they convinced the trees they are one of them.

21. Let me speak with candor. The reactionary umno leaders caused umnos defeat after 60 years. They are more interested in preserving their own privileged life than elevating the people's welfare. Plus they have no vision about where to bring the people.
They screwed the whole thing up, now it's our turn to screw them up. Don't get sentimental of them. Its just business. Umno people must not forget that 1 of 7 Malays is umno. There are more non umno Malays than umno men. Think about them. And only 1 of 11 people is umno.

22. Hence, like Zaaba opined in 1926, it's the wrong brand of umnos leadership that's damaging umno. The umno people must adapt or perish. Remember the Quran says if the community don't change what's within them, they will self desruct. Demand the previous leadership resign en bloc . No effing excuses!

23. In part 2, I will discuss the 'Big Lie' perpetuated by the defunct umno leaders.