Posted in Evangeliblis

The things that evangelistas say about Raya

Shows the kind of little mind that they have, what with their petty politicking 24/7. National reconciliation is impossible with this kind of people.


I have no Faceook or Twitter.

58 thoughts on “The things that evangelistas say about Raya

  1. She is right you know. Most of those who went there was to recoup back their GST that Ah Jib Gor collected from them. Guess he never learned his lessons,these same people were holding the placards saying ‘I love PM’before the last GE.

    1. You could be right that she’s right :)

      Nonetheless though, @hannahyeoh’s tweet is representative of the politics played by the Dapster mafia family ala Kit Siang and Guan Eng’s perennial attack-attack-attack all the time on every single thing.

      In an earlier posting I asked if the evangelistas are capable of making peace with Islam. This I feel is the heart of the matter, and the most important and crucial difference between evangelistas and other Chinese who do not belong to the evangelical Christian faith.

      The Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Sikhs etc do not display the kind of knee-jerk enmity that the evangelistas with their political Christianity are constantly showing. It’s so predictable of the evangelistas to hit out even at something like rumah terbuka.

      You will not find an MCA leader mocking Azmin Ali (or previously his predecessor Khalid Ibrahim) to never measure support by the number of people at their open house.

      It’s the evangelista mindset and attitude that renders it impossible for them to make peace with Islam; this Raya open house being one example of how a major date in the Muslim calendar is celebrated by Malays in Malaysia.

      The crux is that the evangelistas will always find fault and want to pick fight with Muslims. Quran 2:120 has already revealed this.

        1. Helen, you’re so right! So politically centric – 24/7 that they forget they’re duty bound to improve the well beings of their kawasan DUN.

        2. The thing is until recently they have been great pals with the other Islamist party that hates everything UMNO like hell – where in the Quran does it condone this hateful attitude?

      1. “You will not find an MCA leader mocking Azmin Ali ”

        But it is quite fun following what Azwan Ali is doing.

  2. even attendance of open house has to be politicized. next thing you know, attendance at the mosque is the measurement and of course how many people attend the masses on sundays.

    1. Even her newborn baby was politized.

      Remember the demand for ‘Anak Malaysia’ birth certificate, and her party DAP and Guan Eng treating the matter as political capital as well as Hannah Yeoh’s own petition to the Prime Minister.

      1. She is a sick person. Wonder what is she displeased about or venting out. There is something eerie inside her.

  3. What she’s trying to say is that the Chinese who attended the open house (or other open houses) went there just for the free food. In attempting to belittle the ocassion, she inadvertently insulted her own people.

    Does this mean that in the future we will be looking suspiciously at non-Muslims who come over to our houses during such festivities?

    Small brain la these people. It would be hypocritical for them to ever hold open houses.

    1. “she inadvertently insulted her own people”

      No. She did not. They are not her people. She is Malaysian First and everything else second and last.

    2. You are right. When I come across all those cinggis at the open houses, I really view them with suspicion. I even asked one of them how he come to find out about the open house and who invited him.
      When they took the food away I stared at them in disbelief. They are really thick-skinned even if the occasion is held at a traditional kampong setting.

  4. I normally disagree with you but not on this. I think it was a silly, disrespectful and irresponsible tweet to make on Hari Raya. No need for it.

  5. They will say anything, these lizards. But when in the company of Malays you will, without any shadow of a doubt hear something very different. Only fools believe these lizards. When I say fools, I m not just referring to Chinese. The Malays, Indians, native Christians, they are all included. Lizards, these lizards, they will say anything.

    1. Well if UMNO were actually doing a decent job in running the country and were not so corrupt themselves, the opposition wouldn’t be half as powerful. All very well calling others fools, but blindly supporting a corrupt regime is just as foolish.

      1. All it takes is for someone to say something and you just come in to respond. The person in the above probably, and I say probably knows that some hound(s) will take the bait and viola ! I doubt the person will respond to your comment. In fact he’s probably laughing right now. See your comment ? So full of anger and hatred, using terms like ‘corrupt regime’. A typical product of a Sunday School.

          1. So you’re here now doing the rounds ? Poking fun at you is one way of spending a Sunday. Oh wait….you’re going to imitate me ? What ? Nice try.

            1. Get a mirror bro. Cos whatever you are accusing me of is pretty much done by your machais here on a daily basis. You have come across as a an idiotic apologist. It’s clear that I have gotten under your skin, just move on.

          2. Haha, corrupt regime. Look who is without knowledge, beating around the bush.
            If you ever find a snake in the bush, you know what to kill first.

            1. You’re right, I am not a Malay and therefore should not state the bleeding obvious. It’s not my place to do so apparently and it might insult the sensitivities of UMNO supporters.

              Here’s a quote from Zaid Ibrahim’s twitter, just for you. I think as an ex minster, he has some idea as to what’s going on behind closed doors.

              “This corrupt government must now blocked facebook of millions of us because we will continue writing about corruption and abuse of power”

              1. re: “I think as an ex minster, he has some idea as to what’s going on behind closed doors.”

                Zaid left PKR while KITA left him. He didn’t enough of a ‘real’ idea as to what was going on in PKR and quit the party in disillusionment after he found out their “behind closed doors” shenanigans.

                He had joined PKR in June 2009 and quit in November 2010. He lasted less than 18 months in PKR. He then founded KITA in December 2010 and resigned as KITA president in November 2011. His KITA venture lasted less than a year.

                That’s Zaid Ibrahim’s track record.

                1. And hence why I quoted him. He, out of everyone is the most objective due to the fact that he has been with both sides. He can’t be accused of favouring one side or the other. Zaid has said a lot derogatory things about PR, but has never accused them of rampant corruption the way he has with BN.


                    Oh, then I should be accord the same privilege of objectivity halo as well because I voted opposition in 2004 and 2008, and BN in 2013. So I’m most objective due to the fact that I’ve given my vote to both sides and I can’t be accused of favouring one side or the other (mimicking your logic :)

                    But seriously, please specify what Zaid said that buat hang begitu teruja, and I’ll address his POV.

                    re: “Zaid has said a lot derogatory things about PR, but has never accused them of rampant corruption the way he has with BN.”

                    It depends on what level. Billions of ringgit as in the present 1MDB allegations, no.

                    As to whether Zaid has ever accused the oppo of corruption, the answer is yes. He claimed that the party election process (he ran for PKR Deputy President against Azmin) was corrupted.

                    As to whether the opposition is willing to close an eye to rampant corruption, the answer is hell ya. You all hoisted Anwar on your shoulder as your PM-in-waiting. He’s the man most responsible for money politics in Umno.

                    1. re: “So, if provocations from the Chinese continue, there will be a backlash in the magnitude of May13.”

                      Why provoke, and do it so viciously?

                      re: “2 reporters, Chinese of course, were manhandled.”

                      Three actually: Chan Woei Loon (Sin Chew reporter), Sam Kar Haur (Zhong Guo Bao photographer) and Calvin Foong Yi Kian (Kwong Wah Yit Poh photographer).

                      re: “Later, a mob of Malays thrashed a car and beat up 2 youths. Chinese of course.”

                      Three youths. Initial reports said two but later in the press conference, the motorist said he had two passengers.

                      re: “Violence in retaliation by the Chinese? None.”

                      Police have arrested about half a dozen of the Low Yat Chinese shopkeepers who beat up The Seven rampagers. They will be charged under the Penal Code.

                      re: “War of words over the cyberspace, plenty.”


                      re: “The provocations lending its role to the LY incident as implied by the Malay NGOs, Awang Selamat and its apologists are “….the keenness of a certain “extreme political party” to denigrate Race and Religion.” (among others). The party in question being singled out is no doubt DAP.”

                      Doubtless, though I would narrow it down to the party’s evangelistas and its Dapster mafia family.

                      re: “But why no action?”

                      Tidak apa attitude. What to do.

                      re: “Could it be, however unpleasant their (DAP) stand is to certain quarters, DAP is well within the latitude of what the law allows them in the name of democracy?”

                      A valid point. Awang Selamat has to work harder.

                      re: “Unlike May 13, there is no specific acts of provocations from the Chinese community itself.”

                      I think the provocation is worse today.

                      re: “Threats of lawlessness are currently employed as a reminder to the Chinese community to rein in the opposition.”

                      I believe this was implicit in the Umno-MCA-MIC deal but coded “peace and stability”. But the BN formula has since broken down. MCA is clearly unable to uphold its end of the bargain while Umno may be losing it too, i.e. ability to rein in the Malay far right such as the Low Yat mob.

                      re: “If the law cannot stop the opposition, let’s rain threats of lawlessness onto the Chinese community so that the load are on them to curb the opposition?”

                      Did you know that prior to the May 13 Jakarta riots (1998), churches in Indonesia had been torched?

                  2. maaf cakap lah ye..Zaid tu kami org melayu islam tak terima dia pun sebagai rujukan apa apa tentang melayu islam…you of all chinese never touch the reality and you really do not understand us muslim malays

      2. Mr. Najib, by his own misguided acts and injustices has essentially coaxed out the worst characteristics in the people – Malays, Chinese, Indians, Others.

  6. Before committing his shooting spree, the Muslim gunman in US texted this Islamic text – Hadith 38 – containing the verse: “Whosoever shows enmity to a friend of Mine, I will indeed declare war against him.”

    Compare that to Hannah Yeoh’s text. Certainly, politics is better than bullets flying.

    Muslims who have anger toward Hannah Yeoh should vent their frustration in kind,i.e. via twitter. But the fear is that the typical Muslim Malay would keep his anger to himself until he lets it loose in a violent manner. The Low Yat incident may have been such an example.

    1. The complete hadith no. 38 of the “Forty Hadith” collection of Imam Nawawi is as follows:

      Abu Hurairah r.a. reported that the Messenger of Allah s.a.w. said:
      “Allah the Almighty has proclaimed: “Whosoever acts with enmity towards an intimate servant of Mine (waliullah), I will declare war against him. Nothing endears My servant to Me more than his doing what I have made obligatory upon him. And My servant continues drawing nearer to Me with supererogatory (nawafil) prayers so that I will love him. And when I love him, I shall be his hearing with which he hears, his sight with which he sees, his hands with which he handles, and his feet with which he walks. And if he asks from Me, I shall surely grant it to him, and if he takes refuge in Me, I shall certainly protect him.'”
      [recorded by Al-Bukhari]

      It is very puzzling how the psychotic gunman could have interpreted this hadith to justify the murder of innocent people. This well-known hadith actually describes the devotional elements in a human being who has embarked on the path towards knowledge of and nearness to Allah Most Merciful. And the recompense of the Lord Most High for such of His intimate friends (wali Allah) whom He shall protect from the mischief of the evildoers.

      Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim

      1. That’s obviously your interpretation. His interpretation involved shooting at military men stationed in the US. Were they viable targets in his mind, according to the religious text? Obviously in his mind, yes.

        There is nothing puzzling about how some religious interpretations can lead to violent acts. Islam is the central belief in the lives of many Muslims. For such people, they can’t separate the day-to-day, secular activities from the mystical and religious part of their lives. And it has to be admitted that there are strongly worded Quranic verses and Hadiths that can influence Muslims to engage in violent actions, especially when provoked.

        The solution to this is to emphasise a separation of mosque from daily public life. Over the centuries, it has been shown that austere Islam (usually of the fundamentalist variety) has not provided stable and progressive civilisation. Muslim scholars have to adopt secular ideals, but they are too power hungry to let that happen.

        1. “The Guardian” reported that this 24 yr old killer Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez had been visiting some mid-east countries prior to the shooting incident. He must have been indoctrinated with radical and violent interpretations of holy scripture in those places. This has been the modus operandi of political Islamist groups for many decades.

          The Prophet s.a.w. revealed that it was Allah Most High that made the statement: “Whosoever acts with enmity towards an intimate servant of Mine (waliullah), I will declare war against him ….” Thus we read that it is the Lord Himself that will wage war against the party that oppresses “the friend of the Lord.”

          Therefore, the killer had (1) perceived that he and his radical companions were being oppressed by the American military as a whole; (2) and also presumed themselves as qualified to be “wali Allah” or “intimate friends of Almighty God”; (3) and also presumed that they were authorized by Allah to carry out the revenge attack on the soldiers at the military recruitment center.

          According to classical mainstream Islamic jurisprudence, each of those three presumptions require scriptural validation by virtuous scholars and they must abide by the logical criteria for sound legalistic reasoning.

          Therefore it can be surmised that the radical gunman and his companions must have been puzzled over their political vendetta and being short on wisdom had taken things into their own hands, for which they must suffer its consequences.

          We detest warmongers whoever they may be, but we maintain the importance of the rule of law and order in any society. There cannot be justice without compassion and also no real compassion without justice.

          [Hadith no. 13 of Imam Nawawi’s “Forty Hadith”]

          On the authority of Abu Hamzah Anas bin Malik r.a. (the house-servant of the Messenger of Allah) that the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) said :
          “None of you will truly believe until you love for your brother what you love for yourself.” (related by Bukhari & Muslim)

          *Traditional Muslims have a maxim that serves as a reminder to spiritual seekers: “Be careful who you take your religion from, but be wary of your own motives in seeking for knowledge.”

          1. Reading this response supports the idea that religion and the secular world should be segregated.

            Who are these virtuous scholars that you refer to?

            Legal reasoning should be sufficient. No need for sembahyang istikharah from so-called virtuous scholars. All humans are fallible, so none can be virtuous.

            1. You shouldn’t propose statements about Islamic governance without having studied it properly. Now to address your criticisms:

              (1) It is normative in Islamic law that no human being is infallible in his thoughts and actions (ma’sum) other than the Prophets sent by God on High.
              (1a) Your statement that “all humans are fallible, so none can be virtuous” is antithetical to every form of ethical religion or system of ethics, namely that:
              Man is dignified – and increased in virtue – by the right moral decisions that he makes and likewise debased by his own immoral behavior.

              (2) You say that “legal reasoning is sufficient”. May we know what “legal reasoning” consists of in your understanding? In terms of its subject and its scope.

              (3) You say “no need to sembahyang istikharah from so-called *virtuous scholars* “. May we inform you that “Istikhara” (Arabic) means to ask Allah to guide one to the right thing concerning any affair in one’s life, especially when one has to choose between two permissible alternatives, e.g. a career choice, getting married, etc. A man should consult “good righteous persons (ie. virtuous individuals)” before setting out to do something of import, because Allah says, “And consult them (O Prophet) in affairs (of the moment),” (Qur’an, 3: 159) and one of the characteristics of the men of faith is that “they conduct their affairs by mutual consultation” (Qur’an, 42: 38).
              Hence, a *virtuous scholar* would seek God’s illumination but he would also consult people of goodwill and understanding in the matter (virtuous people) to arrive at hopefully a right and proper decision for action.

              1. Whenever Alqaeda, the Taliban and Isis wage war, it is obvious they feel they are ‘guided’ by God. They believe they are doing the righteous or virtuous thing.

                Therefore, point 1a can’t be true especially when there is possibility of multiple interpretations of what ‘virtuous’ means. Therefore, virtue is not something that should be part of the legal process. It is incumbent upon modern forward-thinking societies to make a legal process based on methodical rationalism.

                The legal process in Malaysia and many parts of the Islamic world is now fraught with those who claim virtue. And this pattern is also evident in the political process, which is why the likes of Hannah Yeoh appear so disgusting to many on this blog. She and people like her use ‘virtue’ to claim the moral high ground, but they provide no rational evidence to show why they are better than their peers.

                Virtue is not the same as ethics. Virtue is about morality and ethics is about right conduct, which may differ from issues of morality. Let’s not get deep into semantics, but this can be illustrated by an example. It is clear in contemporary cases that it is ethical to allow euthanasia for people suffering tremendous pain, but it is obviously unallowable under traditional moral standards.

                As for legal reasoning, we have science and rationalism as tools that can help us make legal decisions. I find many flaws in Western and Eastern legal processes. Both rely on judges and juries which are sometimes overburdened or unqualified to judge on the technical aspects of a case. But at least Western legal processes use rationalism, which is the standard agreed upon by all participants in legal cases.

                In the western legal process, an adversarial process is also used to unearth the flaws in the argument of either the plaintiff or the defendant. This may be considered a reliable and robust process. But the process falls apart when the lawyer representing one side zealously defends his argument and ignores the truth in pursuit of winning. Again, compare the legal process and the prevailing political process. It is clear that contemporary politicians pursue only one goal– to win. This leads the politicians to abandon ethical standards when it suits them.

                The Islamic legal process uses concepts of ‘virtue’ and ‘religious standards’ as substitutes for rationalism. It requires all parties to assume the same standard, which requires a level of belief. This can lead to conflict in cases where science supersedes or takes precedence in a legal argument.

                Here’s an example. Let’s assume a case where an Islamic ‘doctor’ prescribes camel urine to a patient in order to cure an ailment and subsequently the patient dies due to MERS .In such a case, an Islamic court might judge the doctor as innocent and let him go because hadiths show that camel urine is allowed to be used as medicine according to Islamic standards. This verdict might not satisfy the family members of the dead patient. However, in a Western court of law the medical science would reveal that camel urine is known to be a source of the deadly MERS virus thus making the ‘doctor’ liable and guilty of malpractice.

                You may argue that some hadiths are not reliable and others are, but this gets into the details and relies on human interpretation. But scientific evidence, will make the conclusion irrefutable.

                Unfortunately, fundamentalist Muslims will not abandon their religious texts. They consider them to be unalterable and humans are not qualified to create laws to supersede them. This is the fundamental problem. Fundamentalists accept only ‘God’s’ laws, but you won’t accept man-made laws. This immutable aspect of fundamentalist Sunni Islam mode of thinking makes reconciliation impossible.

            2. Sir, I hope that a mental slip made you declare that virtue has no place in legal reasoning. In Chinese civilization that would make you a proponent of “deterministic legalism”

              The Chinese legalists argued that what people understand best is force or compulsion. They believed that man is incapable of governing himself and therefore should be governed by others. This is because the individual is naturally lustful, greedy, lazy and jealous and almost always acting out of self-interest. They also thought that people were short-sighted in their thinking and could not make necessary sacrifices in the present to achieve long-term gains.

              The masses were thought by the legalists to want security despite having to work for it themselves; thus, the commoners should entrust a higher power with the establishment of security. For these reasons, the legalists argued that these higher powers must draw up draconian laws to govern the people that mandate swift retribution if and when they are broken. This implied a system of rewards and punishments, good versus bad, right versus wrong – with no grey areas in between that can be articulated. The legalist theory thus sees “man” as innately non-ethical. In Pavlov’s psychological terminology, the legalist methodology would be known as “classical conditioning”.

              Confucius, on the other hand believed that a just society originates in the heart of the individual. If a person upholds true values in his being, then his family and relatives will be blessed, and if the family is in good moral standing, then the community, and consequently society itself, will bear the fruits of virtue. Confucius never stated whether human beings are born good or born evil. He did, however, profess that all humanity shares certain intellectual and emotional qualities and needs, and also spiritual faculties. Certainly, human character can be cultivated through concerted study, proper relationships and the sincere practice of meaningful rituals.

              Confucian scholars find the ideas of the legalists to be too extreme. Confucius believed that force and structure without compassion would smother society. He sought refuge in traditional virtues; he thought that the only way to stem the chaos in society was to reincorporate the practices and behaviors from China’s “golden age” during the Chou Dynasty, into his times. Felicity in social relationships would occur for the people if they contemplated the excellent virtues of historic men and women and began cultivating in themselves the traditions they recognize and cherish. This transformation process alone would bring people together under a common and acknowledged cause and, if it was fully undertaken, would aid in both virtuous government and a shared morality.

              Confucianism, like Buddhism and Taoism, although their roots had once been nurtured in Chinese soil, they are universalist in nature – the discipline of virtue pertains to all human beings.

              1. It is good that you shared knowledge about Chinese jurisprudence. It’s very interesting.

                From what you’ve written, the process appears very similar to what Hobbes proposed in his ground breaking book, the Leviathan. In his book, the law-giver and final decision maker in any dispute would be the ruler or king, who would hold a monopoly of the power. This was effective in a society that wasn’t based on rationalism, which was the case in the time of the book’s publication (it was written in the 17th century).

                The concept of absolute government was useful in establishing order in a time when people didn’t know how to argue in a reasonable manner. Most arguments led to violence.

                In modern Islamic societies, it is obvious that the same techniques proposed by Hobbes are used to justify the enforcement of the law and to maintain the government . As such the process is done not through reason, but through extreme force. Unfortunately, the Muslims living in today’s world who do not accept reasoned arguments tend to stage an uprising using violence, not through peaceful protests.This is largely due to the fact that the main option under Islamic thinking is to wage conflict. Remember, rationalism and reasoned arguments are not viable options. Only force is allowed and it is believed that the ‘winner’ or conquerer in any violent conflict is by definition correct, as ‘God’ helped guide them to victory.

                Coming back to Europe, the age of enlightenment started in the 18th century. It was during that time that Europe saw alternatives to the Hobbesian system of government. Democracy was adopted, but it required the people to have an understanding of what civilisation meant. It required all participants to think for themselves and this was helped by the use of the printing press, which allowed mass production of books that educated the populace.

                Throughout history, Sunni Islam has rejected rationalism and this still evident today. In the early days, Muslims even rejected the early use of the printing press to make copies of the Quran. They regarded the process as prone to error, which was inevitable because the printing press technology was popularised by the Europeans who didn’t know Arabic. The rejection of this technology was one the main reasons that led to Islam’s decline. Sad really.

                1. ‘This is largely due to the fact that the main option under Islamic thinking is to wage conflict.’

                  Are you saying the Military Industrial Complex are run by the Muslims? Seriously?!

                  ‘Coming back to Europe, the age of enlightenment started in the 18th century.’

                  Its not late to thank Islam for that don’t you think?

                  ‘The rejection of this technology was one the main reasons that led to Islam’s decline.’

                  Wow. How simplistic.

                  ‘Sad really.’


                  1. WIth a user name islam1st, I am not surprised by your response.

                    See this link:


                    6 out of the top 10 US military hardware buyers are ‘Muslim’ countries. Muslim countries are neck deep in the “Military Industrial Complex”.

                    I think Western countries can thank Islam for not posing a bigger threat to them during their Enlightenment process. It helped them monopolise the best technologies.

                    Rejection of printing press technology is only one of the reasons that led to Islam’s decline. Another was the lack of investment in exploration and new technologies. European countries were stable enough and smart enough to invest in ship building technologies. They then set forth to explore and prove mathematical theories that Muslim scholars had discovered but did not put into practical application.

                    In trying to prove the world is round, the Europeans discovered the New World, which gave the Europeans access to new wealth in the form of gold. They used that wealth to invest in newer technologies. Imagine now if a Muslim country discovered the Americas and colonised it? There are rumors that Muslim explorers discovered America before Columbus, but obviously they did not exploit their discovery.

                2. Yes, the Chinese legalists were very much a part of the autocratic monarchy’s sovereignty. One can imagine the absence of rational and scientific considerations in their law-making, since it is premised on the human being as being a creature characterized primarily by vile and debasing traits.

                  In modern times, Chairman Mao has been the incarnation of the absolutist leader, governing with an iron fist while excusing himself and his elite circle of ethical responsibilities towards the common people – he was stridently anti-Confucius. Mao’s legacy is one of great ambition, personal vanity, and rule by terror – a manifest disregard for the cultivation of virtuous character. Although his communistic legalist stance did achieve for him the empowerment of the military, his many schemes never came close to enriching the state economically.

                  A Guide to the Political Left: Mao Zedong

                  [Mao Tse Tung considered himself to be a “Great Hero,” and argued that, for his elite group, absolute selfishness and irresponsibility was the rule. He said: “Everything outside their nature, such as restrictions and constraints, must be swept away by the great strength in their nature. … When Great Heroes give full play to their impulses, they are magnificently powerful, stormy and invincible. Their power is like … a sex maniac in heat and prowling for a lover … there is no way to stop them.”]

              2. kung, pray tell in which part of china history in the context of governance, virtue n confucianism was being praticed as the mainsteram thought for the entire society? if no, then xxxx view sound reasonable. i think confucius praise highly of zhou have more to do with zhou social hierarchy, nothing much abt virtue.

        2. Breaking Selfishness in Loving Others as Yourself
          w/ Ustaza Lobna Mulla

          And Imam Nawawi specifically stated that in “loving for your brother what you love for yourself” the term “brother” refers universally to all human beings regardless of their race or nationality.

    1. It’s not me in the poster below. Enuff said.

      However, I confess that my spoken BM is almost as fluent as his.


  7. I pun rasa di pergunakan lah Helen.. my chinese “friends” asyik tanya bila i nak buat open house.. but i feel lazy to cook for them this year!!

    1. Takpe … takpe … Mak Jemah, all is not lost. MCA ‘is cooking’ a Raya Open House it seems, at you know where … Maybe our friends can go there, instead.

      Then maybe … DAP Open House for Deepavali. MIC will organise the Christmas Open House when December comes. Come early next year, Umno will organise the CNY Open House.

      So you see … everything’s gonna be fine. God knows “who gets to recoup what” … and maybe … we can all start looking at the girth of our body to measure support … ha ha ha (jangan mare … saya overdose ketupat pulut + rendang, agaknya).

      1. Yup. Mca will host raya open house at lowyat. To show goodwill konon. Funny comes election always vote for evangelistas but when facing problem why ask for mca’s help? Especially in bukit bintang constituency where it remains a dap stronghold forever. If they believe that malay kid is so wrong for stealing what’s the point of holding a raya open house? Just proceed with the charges. The thing which i hate most of j-star is their hypocrisy on covering news. Where we read everything about the alleged phone theft or mob incident by the malays, i hardly find any article regarding clone phones. It’s an open secret that malaysia is a haven for clone phones and please don’t use the excuse not only chinese that has its fair share of unscrupulous trader. In telecommunication market at least, chinese monopolize and decided the market environment and orientation. I thought j-star is well known for its fair and moderate view. Moderate my foot!

        1. A spaniard friend who came here last time asked me where petaling street was since he wanted to but a fake goods for his son. How far does the bad image about fake goods go.Memalukan la those fake traders.

        2. “… comes election always vote for evangelistas but when facing problem why ask for mca’s help?”
          Err … both ada similar attribute/s but different function/s … kot?

          Err … I don’t think it has anything to do with who’s right or wrong nor do I ‘smell anything fishy’ because Jalan Pasar is some distance away but … I think the sound of ‘ke-cing ke-cing'(bunyi cash-register lah) is much lesser heard from ‘you know where’ lah place. Cannot survive on 30% of ‘others’ customers … must make sure geng yang contribute to 70% of the business keep coming in.
          With that incident, sebahagian besar dari golongan yang memegang ekonomi masih tak sedarkan diri manakala sebahagian besar dari ‘customers golongan 70%’ tu masih tak sedar-sedar pula …

        3. “Yup. Mca will host raya open house at lowyat. To show goodwill konon”

          Melayu Celik Hati said…

          Kita perlu faham apa yg MCA cuba lakukan,

          Mrk bertolong-tolongan sesama bangsa mrk apabila berhadapan dgn masaalah tanpa mengira sempadan parti politik, tidak mcm kebiasaan org Melayu sanggup memaki-hamun, kafir-mengkafir, berdendam kesumat dihati hingga kiamat apabila bertentangan pendapat dan kepercayaan.

          MCA tahu apa pun perniagaan org cina TETAP bergantung kpd ‘kuasa pembeli’ org Melayu (kuasa yg telah mengkayakan org cina sejak berzaman). Tanpa pembeli Melayu perniagaan bangsa mrk di Plaza Low Yatt akan jadi ‘hidup segan mati tak mahu’. Ini yg mrk cuba bantu dan atasi.

          Jadi sambutan Raya anjuran MCA ini adalah serampang dua mata, tapi yg penting bagi mrk utk menolong peniaga2 cina disitu walaupun mrk sendiri tahu MCA TIDAK akan dapat apa-apa keuntungan dari segi politik pun. Undi akan tetap pergi kpd DAP jugak.

          Tapi herankah kita dgn wayang kulit MCA ini?
          Melayu yg celik mata tahu MCA tak kisah pun, krn ahli-ahli mrk sendiri pun adalah pengundi2 tegar DAP. Kalau tidak bagaimana undian utk DAP mencapai 90% dlm PRU ke13 dulu?
          Dan bagaimana MCA merelakan akhbar milik mrk The Star menjadi sarang propaganda pihak kristian evangelist penyokong tegar DAP utk menyerang kerajaan dan menghasut rakyat?

          Jadi fikir-fikirkanlah ….

          Tuesday, July 21, 2015 7:26:00 AM

          Excerpted from :

      2. ….MCA ‘is cooking’ a Raya Open House it seems, at you know where …

        What a place.

        Satni nak masuk cookies dalam mulut pun was was kena scrutinize, mana tau makanan pun ada fake wan, esp the ‘halal’ logo!

        Kalau buat kat restoran Melayu tak le risau sangat.

        1. “… buat kat restoran Melayu … ”
          Most likely will defeat the purpose lah …

          “… nak masuk cookies dalam mulut pun was was … ”
          Ada colloboration dengan Menteri WP mah, err … should take care of the problem, right? Tapi kiranya masih was-was jugak … hukumnya … tinggalkan aje/jangan lakukan atau toksah attend. Hi hi hi

  8. Apa yang si nyonya yeoh tu meroyan. ied celeb is not about garnering support as she has constantly in her mind. eid celeb is about goodwill and kindness. why la, bodoh and hodoh, her imagination..always politicking.

  9. She sounds like an old bitter and sour grapes to me. If the open houses of her fellow cadres were flooding in millions with GroupThink zombie sheeple herded by sheep-dog mindguards, she would say,

    ‘This is Malaysia for Malaysians! BN should look at the crowd and be afraid for the next GE!’ … in true mama DAPster style. Minah hipokrit.

Comments are closed.