Someone who seems to have English comprehension problem wrote: “Why are you jumping to conclusion that quickly? I thought you were telling others not to jump to conclusion.”

The passage where the English comprehension problem arose is: “If I were the wife of a man who has received death threat and is in so deep a trouble that he has to take refuge in an embassy, I wouldn’t be smiling so sweetly. If I did not know what the photo in the link was all about, I would have thought it was a mobile phone advertisement.”

If you read the statement I made carefully, it’s a question-no conclusion was made. Anyway, I did not tell others not to jump to conclusion, but only said (somewhere else before) that “I (myself) wouldn’t be too quick to jump to any conclusion here…” Others can jump to whatever conclusion they like in this matter, but I would not.

Sure. But listen and watch carefully: who is talking that he would be the PM in the new government (if there is one) even though he is not yet elected by the people. Beware, lest you are used to advance the ambition of one man. Change a system that is not working, if you can, but if you are not careful you may end up with the same or worst still an even worse one.

I did not say that you have to be afraid of change. But only that if you have to sacrifice yourself for change, make sure that your sacrifice is worthwhile. Who says it has to be Najib or Anwar? That’s what he would like you to believe!

Well, looks like we have the case of poor comprehension of English again.

I said there are “many Malaysians who are MORE QUALIFIED to become PM” and our friend cannot even think of one! Being qualified to be a PM has nothing to do with having a realistic chance. A person who is bad for the country can boost his or her chance to become a PM through smooth talk and deceit, but that does not mean he or she is more qualified than one of my good neighbours (Naim, for example) to be PM of Malaysia. If another example is needed, don’t you think that Mr Lim Kit Siang is qualified to be PM. The odd may be against him because of conventions, traditions or what nots, but his character and ability to do good for the nation should be a better determinant of his qualification to be PM rather than whether or not he had a “realistic chance”.

Well, Adolf Hitler had a realistic chance of being elected to be the Chancellor of Germany. This did not mean he was qualified to be a good leader of Germany. In fact, history showed that he was a bad leader. Should Germans vote for him just because he had a realistic chance at that time and had no better choice presented to them? As I said before in a different way, if, in an election, you were presented with Hitler and Stalin as the only two competing candidates, you don’t have to vote for any of them. The third, fourth, fifth and so on better choice is your conscience, that is, to vote for neither of them if you know that either one is not good for your country.

And don’t you worry about my vote! If and when there is a leader whom I believe would be good for the country, I will cast my vote wisely… Maybe I shouldn’t write too much here lest it leads to further miscomprehension.