all boils down to leadership!
when leaders are elected, they should always think of all malaysians. instead, each time they shout,
they shout “hidup melayu”, not “hidup malaysia”!
all malaysians, regardless skin colors, should be treated equally and fairly. not all malaysians are born rich!

As CEO he is irresponsible. As a leader he is without leadership skills. As a spokesman he is dumb. As a listener he is deaf. As a teacher he needs to be taught.

He is a sailor without his boat. He is a writer without the ability to write, without his pen. He is a singer without his voice box, who cannot speak let alone sing. He is a licker without his tongue. He is a footballer without his ball.

He is a carpenter only with the carpenter’s daughter. Figure that one out!

By the way, “provocation in the House” ? “… defending our government and leader” ? I’d watched for a few times the furore in youtube and what i see is the opposition is being robbed the chance to voice out their concerns. Someone please remind our dear Pak Bung that the one he needs to defend the most is the Rakyat…

I still think that Jeffrey’s first interpretation is more plausible in the light of what Dr. Sharom does say in the article. I understand that WFH is trying to provide a charitable interpretation of Dr. Sharom’s words. But I think interpretation has to be constrained by text. Of course, we may think that the author did not intent to say what he says, but we can only infer an author’s intent from what he says and what can be most plausibly inferred from the context of the text.
But I could also see why WFH was led to his interpretation (though I do not think that that interpretation is plausible). Perhaps the main problem is Dr. Sharom’s unclarity. He might have indeed intended to say what WFH interpreted him as saying, but has actually said something different (i.e. what Jeffrey interpreted initially) in his actual words. If WFH’s interpretation were to be plausible, then the Shakespearean fool Dr. Sharom refers to would have to do something foolish in a way that would show that his (the fool’s) boss (i.e. the king) is foolish. But a fool’s foolish action can only bring shame to the king if he is linked to the king in some way (e.g. he is the king’s most trusted assistant) or what he did has something to do with the king (e.g. he is announcing a poorly drawn up plan, which has been seen and approved by the king). Without these, what the fool did cannot bring shame to the king. If what Dr. Sharom intended to say is that Bung-Said’s bocor remarks brought shame to BN or the government just like the Shakespearean fool’s action brought shame to the king, then I must say that the point was not very well expressed given that the parallel between the former and the latter is quite stretched. In the shakespearean fool’s case, it is unclear whether what the fool did should bring shame to the king. If he is not a trusted assistant of the king or did something foolish which reveals some responsibility on the part of the king, then his foolish action would not bring shame to the king. Given the lack of reference to the link between the fool and his action on the one hand and the king on the other, I don’t think this interpretation can be plausibly inferred from the text (even if this is what Dr. Sharom intended to say).

In Jeffrey’s first interpretation, he takes Dr. Sharom’s Shakespearean fool as someone who said something foolish and satirical to tease the king, exposing the shortcomings of the king and his (the fool’s) own foolishness as he did so (i.e. when he said that foolish and/or satirical thing). I think this interpretation is supported by the immediate context of the text. In the paragraph prior to the mention of the Shakespearean fool, Dr. Sharom says that ‘This would normally be the job of satirists and the like and could take the form of the written word or stand-up comedy or even television puppet shows. Unfortunately, we don’t have very much of that in these parts.’ And then he says ‘In Shakespearean plays, the fool plays an important role.’ This seems to indicate that the Shakesperean fool plays the part of the satirists – he says something foolish to tease the king, and thus exposing the king’s wrongdoing (and his [i.e. the fool's] own foolishness). Given that this interpretation seems to be what is suggested by the text, Jeffrey’s points expressed in his response to the first interpretation of Dr. Sharom’s article are well-justified.

But I’m glad that we have people like WFH and Jeffrey who conduct discussion with such admirable civility and humility. These qualities are what we don’t see in our leaders. By the way, as a PhD student, my experience tells me that many scholars in the humanities (especially those influenced by the literary subjects, e.g. continental philosophers [but not analytic philosophers, who hope to emulate the mathematicians/scientists' precision and clarity of thought]) do not prize clarity of expressions. But clarity of thought is very important, and I think Dr. Sharom should work harder in this respect.

Do they care about racial harmony?NO!
They are only selfish pple.

They will go to hell.

That the significant number of the Malays themselves are continually (and successfully, mind you) manipulated by UMNO unceasingly using the fear of non-Malay Malaysians usurping the entitlements of the Malays in economic. education etc.. to keep their grip on the minds of the Malay masses is the other great mystery – how can this go on for so long, in my own mind, for something like 3 generations now. Yet their support base among both the many urban, supposedly informed Malays, as well as the rural Malays, seem never to diminish.

What an Amazing Race…!!

However the likes of Pak Bung is not a comic stand up playing that kind of role of a Shakespearean fool or court jester in the theatre of Parliament.

He was not making fun of those in power. He was not, for example, directing his reference of menstrual cycle to any of his BN women Minister to ask why they tolerated the leaks in the roof of Parliament. He was not deflating any oversized egos of politicians of power so that they were brought down to size to be reminded that they were never too high to forget the people whom they were supposed to serve.

Dear Professor Azmi, this is NOT a metaphor case on all 4(s) with Jerry Farwell versus The Hustler (where the US Supreme Court accepted that it was not libel for ‘Porn’ Publisher Hustler to parody and satirize public figures like respected clergy men Jerry Farwell).

Instead Pak Buung/Mohd said were targeting his jibes, insults and off colour broadsides at those outside the circle of power; at the Opposition, the youngest member of female gender at that, and reveling in his so called wit supported by thumping and cheering of his comrades within that circle of power.

Pak Bung made it very clear that “the words were uttered following provocation in the House. …..and we just defended the government and our leader. I cannot avoid defending the government, there’s no compromise for that.” And Pak Said declared that he was defending Barisan Nasional (BN) when the opposition hurled unreasonable allegations against the government. “When the government is insulted, it is every parliamentarian’s duty to defend the government and its leader,” he said.

There lies the big difference, Dr Azmi Sharom. It is not humourous when our parliamentarian jesters are not trying to be witty, crack a wit to expound a truth, or to satirize and poke fun at Power or at those who hold power and their pomposity and arrogance But Quite On The Contrary to protect the shenanigans of those in power – to curry the favour of, buttress and reinforce the pomposity and arrogance of Power – to vilify and demoralise instead the Opposition and distract their legitimate queries of why Parliament ceiling could leak by diverting the issue to that of the questioner’s other leaking!

I don’t see the humour in this context. It is wit attempted, as an arrogant exercise of power, to show how any kind of statements, even crass and insulting statements, could be made, heedless of common courtesy and human sensitivity, by one within the circle of power against those powerless outside it, without fear of being held accountable!

Questions
1. Who are the Germans in Malaysia?
2. Who are the Jewish in Malaysia?
3. Who is the Hilter in Malaysia?