KTemoc's accusation against me was baseless, mischievous and malicious (see endnote). As is the rest of his twisted reading of my article. Secondly, KTemoc has a history feuding with Shuzheng. One is the cheerleader, the other the ideologue of the anti-Malaysian First camp.

Rather than for me to be caught in the middle between two guys flexing their blog muscles, you can read their views for yourself: I wish to remain a M’sian – KTemoc replies Kadir Jasin, and Shuzheng's Kadir has a Chinese problem, K Temoc pontificates , both articles appearing last March.

Shuzheng makes more sense with his analysis that: ‘Muhyiddin when asked by Kit Siang if he would be Malaysian first and Malay second rejected it outright. The fault is Kit Siang's and the inanity of his Malaysian First idea.

‘For as long as there had been a Malaysia, as a split, apposite, dichotomous idea, the Chinese was never first. So who's to say they are now second? Malaysian First is a new branding of Chinese politics, particularly DAP's.’

By the year 2035 (just one generation away), Chinese are projected to dip to 18.6 percent of the population. Yet, it seems that out of every 10 persons who declare ‘I'm proud to be Malaysian’, eight of them are Chinese. Clearly these people are overcompensating. On the other hand, you don't hear Malays desperately reassuring the Chinese and Indians that they (Malays) are eagerly ‘Malaysian first’.

Think about this (quoting Shuzheng): ‘... the apposition of the Malay is the Chinese. The latter was, after all, part of the reason for the federal constitution's article on the special position of the Malays. There are no Malay 'rights' to fight for if there were no Chinese to fight against’.

Now let me address KTemoc's letter. He wrote: ‘Ang and blogger Shuzheng both failed to understand two things: (a) Dr Ridhuan Tee is not a Chinese by choice and a Malay through his constitutional rights, so how and who he looks like is totally irrelevant, and (b) Lim Kit Siang's 'Malaysian First' is not about acceptance per se.’

I don't get KTemoc here. Do Ridhuan's many Malay fans see the ustaz as a Muslim first, and Chinese last (identical to Kit Siang in this respect), if at all? Should the Malays truly embrace him as one of their own, doesn't it then indicate that Ridhuan – more than anyone else – has achieved the First-er benchmark where his fellow citizens are blind to his skin colour?

Hence how he looks is indeed a relevant point to raise, if only to show that the Malays don't discriminate against his Chinese features or Zambry Abdul Kadir's Indian features.

But before I delve into the DAP new-fangled credo of First-ing, we'll examine Barack Obama as the exemplar of American First successfully rising on the shoulders of giants such as Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks which KTemoc is at pains to lecture. If KTemoc insists on a comparison, then ask also if Obama speaks the Kenyan language of his father?

In a comparative local context, our Malaysian Obama would be speaking solely in Malay. If KTemoc wants to go by the Obama formula, we would have no Chinese schools. Obama wasn't educated in Swahili, was he?

Next, would Obama have managed to win the popular vote if he had not been a Christian but a Muslim instead?

Our Malaysian Obama, then, would have to be a Muslim as Islam is the preeminent religion in Malaysia, just as Christianity is the preeminent religion in States. If Lim Guan Eng converts to Islam, as PAS has been praying for, how?

When KTemoc says ‘Lim Kit Siang and many like me do not want to see a Chinese as a future prime minister of Malaysia but rather a Malaysian’, his memory needs a jog. Does KTemoc not recall that Ngeh Koo Ham's party had won the most seats among the Pakatan partners in Perak? Ngeh's a Malaysian, right? Not only that, but a First-er too since that's the ideology his party DAP is preaching.

So how come the Perak state constitution put obstacles in the way of Ngeh-the-Malaysian becoming chief minister? Pray tell, KTemoc.

Since there have been squads of Malaysian First-ers praising Teo for wearing the selendang and baju kurung , I take it they concur that the Malay-Muslim mode of dress is accepted as the gold standard of Malaysian Firstness attire. Or do we ask Shahrizat Abdul Jalil to wear cheong sam and Nurul Izzah Anwar to wear sari to prove that our national culture is one of equality and parity?

KTemoc also laments my purported ‘refusal to acknowledge that Teo had to wear a selendang after a faux pas already chided by the Selangor sultan’. Really, she ‘had to’? Did she have to hop, skip and jump to her next surau visit so soon immediately?

I hope KTemoc realises too that our constitutional monarchy, to whom Teo apologized, is called the Raja-Raja Melayu. Their royal highnesses are not Raja-Raja ‘Malaysia’, by the way.

Next look at the Selangor emblem . Its star and crescent represent Islam. Its spear flanked by two keris are the Malay regalia. Around these is entwined the Jawi inscription 'Selangor' in yellow (colour of royalty) while underneath is the motto in Jawi script -- 'Dipelihara Allah'.

The motto does not say 'United Colours of Benetton'. The audacity of Lim Kit Siang's hope hinges on his nebulous Malaysian First concept beating all the above emblematic symbolism into second place. Does DAP think it can win in this game of Malaysian one-firstmanship?

KTemoc quotes Lim as saying ‘all Malaysians must rise above their ethnic, cultural, religious and geographic differences to seek a common bond with the Malaysian identity transcending all ethnic, cultural, religious and geographic identities’. What is he saying?

I would ask Kit Siang to clearly spell out the ABCs of this 'Malaysian identity' that he's talking about. It seems to me that if he throws out ethnic, cultural, religious and geographic identities (that must be ‘transcended’), what's there left to identify with as the Malaysian-ness replacement?

Until and unless Malaysian First-ers can enlighten us on the components of this elusive 'Malaysian identity', I shall feel more inclined to Shuzheng's critique that ‘to suggest that the Chinese banish their identity for the sake of an 'inclusive' Malaysian-ness is to invent, for the second time, another 'social contract'.’

And as you know, we haven't even been able to see eye-to-eye yet on the first 'social contract'.

____________________________________________________________________________

Definition of 'photoshop'

KTemoc wrote: ‘But unfortunately the worst of her attacks against DAP was when she made no mention of the fact that the photo showing Lim Guan Eng slaughtering a cow in Islamic ritual was a forgery. I hope it's a genuine slipup and not a Shuzheng type of insecure creativity ...’

The sentence mentioned by KTemoc – ‘Lim Guan Eng photoshopped slaughtering cow in Islamic ritual' – was cited together with other incidents: ‘ surau visits, Caliph Umar Abdul Aziz, Chinese/Indian MPs quoting Quranic verses, ' amar makruf nahi mungkar ', etc’.

There is no ‘slip-up’ as alleged. Even if I had for a moment wanted to imply the photo was genuine, I'd have written ‘Lim Guan Eng 'photographed' slaughtering cow...’ – not Lim 'photoshopped' slaughtering cow.

Dictionary.com defines the word 'photoshop' as ‘to alter (a digital photograph or other image), using an image editing application, especially Adobe Photoshop’.

Urban dictionary defines 'photoshop' as ‘Also a term for an image manipulated with the software, which is usually a combination of two or more unrelated images.’