Your slip is showing (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
That is just one example of many similar comments. I find that the Chinese always like to boast about how pragmatic they are due to their 5,000 years of civilisation. Even Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad admitted that the Chinese are very pragmatic and he lamented that the Malays are too emotional and feudalistic and not pragmatic like the Chinese.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
One reader sent me an email complaining that his comment was ‘rejected’. He accused me of blocking his email address but when I tried posting the comment that he sent me I discovered that his comment is too long. And that was why he could not post the comment. He should have broken the comment into two parts. Nevertheless, he assumed that I had blocked or rejected his comment.
The 2,000 character limit is to ensure that spammers do not copy and paste nonsense running into 20 pages or more and post them in Malaysia Today. They have done this before. Furthermore, the spammers post many copies of the same comment. Hence we have had to set a time gap of three minutes between postings.
Another problem we face is DDOS attacks. Over the last month we have been under severe attack almost 24-7, as have many other websites and news portals. These attacks come from all over the world and I was told that hackers take control of millions of computers all over the world to launch these attacks. And that is why we find it so difficult to track them down and block them. They are using ‘middlemen’ to attack us.
Your computer may be one of those millions of computers all over the world commandeered by the hackers to launch these DDOS attacks. Hence you may find your IP address blocked by our server. I suppose we shall have to treat that as collateral damage until the 5th May 2013 general election is over. According to our technical people, this mode of attack would cost a lot of money so whoever is financing these attacks must have very deep pockets indeed.
Below is one comment from a reader regarding my two articles on principles.
Sometimes, pragmatism trumps over principles. How many dinners does one need to organise to raise hundreds of millions for Nurul Izzah to counter Raja Nong Chik’s hundreds of millions? The idea was dead from the start.
That is just one example of many similar comments. I find that the Chinese always like to boast about how pragmatic they are due to their 5,000 years of civilisation. Even Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad admitted that the Chinese are very pragmatic and he lamented that the Malays are too emotional and feudalistic and not pragmatic like the Chinese.
I suppose ‘pragmatic’ is a better word than ‘unprincipled’ — such as ‘meticulous’ rather than ‘leceh (slow)’, ‘friendly fire’ rather than ‘oops’, ‘collateral damage’ rather than ‘kambing hitam (sacrificial lamb)’, ‘flexible’ rather than ‘wishy-washy’, ‘firm’ rather than ‘pig-headed’, ‘decisive’ rather than ‘uncompromising’, ‘faith’ rather than ‘lack of evidence’, and so on. It is merely a choice of words and what people would call ‘politically correct’ rather than ‘propaganda’.
In short, what this reader is saying is matlamat menghalalkan cara (the ends justify the means). I actually like that doctrine. My doctor friend tells me that a glass of wine a day is very healthy and a glass of brandy helps cure your cough. Can I, therefore, drink a glass of wine a day and down a glass of brandy every time I cough (and I cough a lot as those who phone me can confirm)?
My objective is to stay healthy and cure my cough so the wine and liquor that I drink would achieve that. And does not the ends justify the means or matlamat menghalalkan cara? So haram becomes halal just as long as your intentions are noble (matlamat yang mulia).
Talking about noble intentions, Islam says that all Muslims are brothers/sisters. So, in the interest of noble intentions and for the sake of maintaining the Islamic brotherhood, if a Chinese candidate from the opposition contests against a Malay candidate from Umno, whom should we support?
Remember, as the Chinese say, we need to be pragmatic and not idealistic or emotional. The pragmatic thing would be that if we support a Malay candidate against the Chinese candidate then we would be able to strengthen the Muslim brotherhood, as Islam wants us to do.
So, do you really want to choose pragmatism over idealism?
Now back to the issue of the fundraising exercise for Nurul Izzah. One reader posted a comment saying that people refuse to support the fundraising exercise not because they do not support Nurul Izzah but because they hate me.
I like it when people get snared in my traps.
Actually, there were two fundraising dinners. One was organised by Nurul Izzah’s own team and the other by someone else but I sponsored the whole event. Hence I was not involved in the first and only a handful of people knew about my involvement in the other — at least until the dinner was over. And both dinners managed to raise about the same amount of money.
Hence how goes your theory that people did not support Nurul Izzah’s fundraising exercise because they hate me? Even Nurul Izzah’s own team could not do much better. Using that same logic, if you hate Azmin Ali then is it okay if you do not support Pakatan Rakyat Selangor? What if you hate Anwar Ibrahim? Is it okay then to not support PKR?
Why do you people not want to admit your failings and shortcomings? Why always try to deflect and put the blame on someone else? Just admit that you are all talk and no action. The more you squirm the deeper you get snared.
So now it is okay to not support the cause if you hate one person. That gives me the moral high ground to not support Pakatan Rakyat because I hate certain people in Pakatan Rakyat. These are your ground rules and we are just playing according to your ground rules.
This is typical of Malaysians, in particular the Chinese, Indians and natives of East Malaysia. Dr Mahathir proudly said that in five general elections he never lost his two-thirds majority in Parliament and then you turn around and whack Dr Mahathir and blame the Malays and ask the Malays to ‘wake up’.
Dr Mahathir said he never lost his two-thirds majority in Parliament in 22 years but in 1990 Kelantan, which is in the Malay heartland that has more than 97% Malay voters, was lost to the opposition. In 1995, DAP garnered only 12% of the votes and won 9 Parliament seats while PAS-Semangat 46 garnered 15% of the votes and won 13 Parliament seats plus they retained Kelantan.
In 1999, the opposition won Kelantan and Terengganu and Umno lost its two-thirds majority in the Kedah State Assembly (after the Lunas by-election) plus Umno lost more than half the Parliament seats in that state. PAS also won the most number of seats and the PAS President became the Opposition Leader in Parliament while Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh lost their seats in the ‘Chinese heartland’.
So what do you have to say about that? What do you mean that the Malays have to wake up? Why try to deflect and not admit who is to blame for this? Why try to blame others for your failings and shortcomings? And Nurul Izzah can’t raise enough money because people hate Raja Petra Kamarudin konon and not because you are all talk and no action.
What utter bullshit! You are so full of shit I can smell it all the way from Manchester. So, nak cakap lagi? What is the word they use? Kiasu?
**********************************
你快站不住腳了
這只是其中一個留言。我發現華人很喜歡吹噓他們在5000年歷史的洗禮下變得如何的務實。就連敦馬哈迪也承認華人是很務實的而他為馬來人的情緒化與封建感嘆。
原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin
譯文：方宙
一位讀者給我發了封郵件，向我投訴他的留言被‘拒絕’了。他指責我‘封’了他的郵址，但儅 我嘗試著要把他的留言放上網時我發現他的留言實在是太長了。這就是他放不上的原因，他應該把留言分成兩段。無論如何他假定這是我在阻止他發言。
那2000個字的上限是爲了防止那些垃圾邮件发送者在MT上拷貝和張貼那些可以長達20頁的胡言亂語，他們之前曾那樣做過。不止這樣，他們還會重復的張貼同樣的留言，所以我們設下了3分鐘才可以張貼第二段留言的設置。
另外一個問題是DDOS攻擊。在這個月裏我們受到很嚴重的，近乎24小時的攻擊。其他的新聞網站也一樣。這些攻擊的發源地來自全球各地，而我還被告知那些駭客同時閒操作著上百萬的電腦來進行這些攻擊。這就是爲什麽我們很難將他們定位和封鎖他們的原因。
你的電腦可能是這上百萬被駭客用來進行攻擊的其中只一，所以你可能發現你的IP地址會被我們的服务器封鎖。我猜想直到5月5號我們還是會遭到這大選的‘附带损害’。根據我們的技術員，這類的攻擊是很耗錢的，背後操手的口袋肯定很深。
以下這段留言是一名讀者對我那兩篇有關原則的文章所發的：
有時候實用主義會勝過原則。你要舉辦多少個晚宴才能幫努魯湊獲上億元來對付 Raja Nong Chik’s 呢？這個主意打從一早就失敗了。
這只是其中一個留言。我發現華人很喜歡吹噓他們在5000年歷史的洗禮下變得如何的務 實。就連敦馬哈迪也承認華人是很務實的而他為馬來人的情緒化與封建感嘆。
我想‘務實’比起‘沒原則’更好聽吧—-就像是‘細緻’對比‘leceh（慢吞吞）’，‘誤傷’對比‘噢慘了’，‘附帶損害’對比 ‘kambing hitam (代罪羔羊)’，‘靈活’對比‘左右搖擺’，‘堅定’對比‘固執’，‘決定性的’對比‘永不妥協’，‘信念’對比‘缺乏證據’等等。這只是名詞上的選擇而以，就像很多人會說‘政治上是正確的’而不是‘宣傳’。
簡短的說，這位讀者要表達的是matlamat menghalalkan cara（目標可以合理化方法）。我其實很喜歡這個講法。我的醫生朋友告訴我一天一杯紅酒對身體有益，而一杯白蘭地會幫你止咳。這是不是代表我每天就可以喝一杯紅酒和每儅我一咳嗽時我就應該來一杯白蘭地呢（那些曾打電話可我的人可以證明我會經常咳嗽）？
我的目標是保持健康和醫好我的咳嗽而紅酒和白蘭地可以幫我做到。這不就是目標可以合理化方法嗎？所以Haram可以變成Halal，只要你的目標是高尚的 (matlamat yang mulia)。
講到高尚的目標，回教談到所有穆斯林都是兄弟姐妹。爲了維護這個高尚的目標，在大選裏儅一個華裔候選人對壘一個來自巫統的馬來裔候選人時，我們應該支持誰呢？
記住，正如華人常講的，我們應該是務實的而不是情緒化或理想化的。而在此踏實的選擇將會是支持那個馬來候選人來鞏固穆斯林之間的手足關係，真如回教教義要我們如此做般。
所以你真的要放棄理想來選擇務實嗎？
現在讓我們回到努魯的課題。另一位讀者指出人們不支持湊款活動不是因爲他們不支持努魯而是因爲他們討厭我。
儅有人被套入我的陷阱時我是很得瑟的。
其實湊款晚宴一共有兩場，一場是努魯的隊伍自己舉行，另一場的籌備者其實是另有其人而我只是負責出錢而已。所以說我並沒有參與第一場而只有少數人知道我參與第二場—-大多數人是事後才知道的。這兩場晚宴湊到的款項都大概一樣多。
請問你那“人們不支持努魯是因爲他們討厭我”的理論要如何站得住腳呢？就連努魯的自己人也做得沒有比我好。用囘你的理論邏輯，那如果你不喜歡阿玆敏那是不是就等於你不支持雪州民聯？那如果你也不喜歡安華呢？你是不是就可以不用支持公正黨？
爲什麽你們就不會承認你們的失敗和缺點呢？爲什麽就只會把錯怪在他人身上呢？你承認你是只講不做就好了嘛。你越蠕動，你就會被套得越深。
所以現在儅你討厭一個人時你是可以不用支持那個理念的。那好，我現在有了道德的注腳，可以不用支持民聯了，因爲我討厭民聯内的某些人。 這就是你的規則而我們只是遵照你的規則而已。
這就是典型的大馬人，特別是華人，印度人和東馬土著。馬哈迪很光榮地說在他期内5屆大選他從來沒喪失過2/3的多數席位，而你們就轉過來干屌馬哈迪和怪罪馬來人，要馬來人‘醒過來’。
馬哈迪說他22年來在國會從沒輸過，但在1990年他輸了吉蘭丹的州權，一個97%都是馬來選民的馬來州屬。1995年，行動黨只贏了12%的選票而拿下了9個囯席，但精神黨-伊斯蘭黨贏了15%的選票和拿下了13個囯席。他們也成功地衛冕了吉蘭丹。
1999年，反對黨在吉蘭丹和登嘉樓獲勝和在吉打取得多於1/3的州席。巫統也在吉打州輸掉一半的囯席。伊斯蘭黨贏得了最多的議席，伊黨主席成了反對黨主席。當時林吉祥和加巴星在他們的華人區輸了。
你現在還想講什麽？馬來人必須醒起來是什麽意思？爲什麽要閃躲不願承認誰該爲此擔罪呢？爲什麽要把你的失敗和缺點全怪在其他人身上呢？還有，努魯湊不到錢是因爲人們都討厭Raja Petra Kamarudin而不是你只講不做。
真他媽的廢話！你全身都是用來裝屎的，臭得連我在曼徹斯特也嗅得到。所以，nak cakap lagi? 那個詞是什麽來著? Kiasu 驚輸！
