The fact that UMNO led BN would field non malay candidates in predominantly Malay majority area does not prove an iota the argument that UMNO politics is not comunal or race based in terms of Malay hegemony. [No more valid argument than to say the white American calvary in search and destroy missions against rebellious red Indians were not racist just because they had amongst their midst several red indian trackers to help them track and locate where other red indians were!]

This is because the non Malay candidates fielded are those who obsequiously accept its communal hegemonistic policies in the first place contrary to their professed stance of fighting for the rights of their own community or else they won’t be chosen – and their selection is only but a cloak to showcase outwardly a comestic multiracial mantle draping over a super structure of instituitionalised communal policies already erected in place.

Even after they were chosen – and given official positions – if they so much as show a whiff of misgivings about such hegemonistic policies, they would be taken to task as in the case (say) of Gerakan Youth vice chief S Paranjothy who countenanced threats of discipline or even dismissal just because he dared to speak publicly of his empathy for the frustration and anger of the 30,000 Indians who took part in the Hindraf demonstration to express their feelings of being “marginalized, oppressed and ignored”.

For these reasons, Shamshul Anuar’s exhortation – “Make no mistake about it. By penalizing MCA, MIC, you are only penalizing your own race – is not cogent when the common perception from hard and bitter felt experience of generations that it is precisely because they have been supported over these 50 years that the communities whose interest these parties are supposed to represent have on the contrary been neglected and marginalized!

Shamshul Anuar’s arguments will be valid only if the UMNO led BN is shown to have fielded non Malays the likes of (say) Lim Kit Siang or Fong Po Kuan critical of communal policies in majority Malay areas…rather than instead the kind of Non Malay politicians whose subservience are so well known that they dare not even contest in areas where their own race is a majority!

Why UMNO led BN is not even fielding a Malay like Datuk Zaid Ibrahim – he has in fact been unceremoniously dropped – in a Malay majority area of Kota Bharu just because he is enlightened to speak of multiracial and multi-religious approach on many issues he thinks are right for the nation and its peoples.

The fact that DAP does field Malays in even Malay majority areas much less Non malay majority areas is because few Malaysian Malays would join the DAP in the first place, and that is not because of DAP being not multiracial in ideology and approach. The entrenched negative perception of the DAP is in part due to the successful propaganda of the ruling coalition to paint the DAP as ideologically acting against Malaysian Malays’ interest when actually it professes an agenda of fighting for national interests.

Apologies for typo omision in last para of posting – ” The fact that DAP does NOT field Malays ….”

HJ Angus said this in his blog (in relation to DAP’s 8 point manifesto) : “An unfortunate choice of words as bonus implies a reward and it also contradicts the admission that the BN is going to win. No need to make a promise that you feel is not going to happen”.
Link to Angus’s blog – http://malaysiawatch3.blogspot.com/2008/02/report-cards-are-for-school-kids-lah.html

What Angus said about “No need to make a promise that you feel is not going to happen” is, I think, a fair comment.

Now the Barisan National (BN) promises prudence and accountability in its manifesto. The difficulty faced by BN is that these were the same promises made in 11th General Elections in 2004. These promises to many were hardly fulfilled. So the question is what is the reason to think the promises now made in 2008 will be better fulfilled than those in 2004. It is an issue of credibility.

So how could the Opposition in general and the DAP in particular summon the moral ground to raise the issue of credibility in relation to BN if the Opposition in general and the DAP in particular themselves do not look into the question whether their own election campaign promises are credible?

For example (I don’t know whether this is true or not) according to New Straits Times Front page Report of 26th February, the DAP’s manifesto promises among other things “a bonus of RM6,000-00 per family, if the party wins the election”, the bonus coming out from the RM70 billion profit of the national oil corporation Petronas……

If “ the party wins the election” means and should be taken to mean if the DAP wins sufficient parliamentary and state seats to form the government. After all this is the DAP’s manifesto and not PKR’s or PAS’s – but if the DAP contests only 47 parliamentary and 102 state seats out of an aggregate 222 parliamentary seats and 505 state assembly seats in the 12th General Elections, how could it ever form the government (a condition necessary for it to direct Petronas to use RM70 billion profit to pay RM6,000-00 per family) even if due to some fortuitous circumstances, the DAP wins all the 47 parliamentary and 102 state seats?

I think Angus’s point is don’t make extravagant promises that are based on non-existent foundation (ie. formation of government). This is a credibility issue – what’s the point of promising RM6,000-00 per family – why not raise it to RM60,000-00) – knowing fully well one will not form the government to account for that promise, when one does not even evince the remotest hope or miracle of that by contesting all parliamentary seats?

Already the BN, which has still to explain why it has not fulfilled its 2004 promises, is alleging that Opposition parties make empty promises. So why give the BN ammunition to say that the DAP’s promises are empty and by so doing distract the rakyat from the BN’s own promises reneged in 2004 and making it account why its 2008 promises of prudence and accountability should be believed?

When Angus said that it was a poor “choice of words as bonus implies a reward bonus”, it is obvious such a financial reward is no better than the standard tag line of the ruling coalition that, according to Tun Dr Mahathir, would use money to bribe the rakyat into voting its candidates.

So why is Opposition playing the same game as that of the BN? Do you have as much money as them to say such things?

What the Opposition stands for is to ask Malaysians to seek change of mindsets to make things like proper and transparent governance, accountability, Judicial independence, check and balance against abuse of power and corruption, social justice and an end to racial and extremist religious policies – all these intangible things – rather than Ringgit and Sens which it is very game the BN has been playing all along – and with considerable success – from its vantage position as incumbent in control over the state’s resources and wealth!

So why play its game and let it turn around and say you’re making empty promises instead? I can’t fathom the rationale.