Some people say that politics is an art of perception. Perhaps Anwar should take the advice from Dr Asri, the Mufti of Perlis. Dr Asri suggested the using of time tested method of u;timate truth recognised by Muslim community: swear in the name of Allah.

Way back in 1998, Anwar , despite suggestion by many, refused to perform such an act. Why Anwar hesitates is beyond my comprehension. If I were to be accused of sexual act that I had not committed and resulting in my sacking ( not a minor post but that of a powerful office of Deputy Prime Minister), I would rush to perform such an act in full view of press.

So, Anwar, what are you waiting for? By the way, Dr Mahathir is not the first person to tell Malaysian he believes Anwar is homosexual. The honour belongs to Vice President of PAS, Mohd Sabu.

Before Anwar was sacked, he had field days in condemning Anwar on alleged homosexuality. Dr Mahathir was not spared either. He was challenged by Mohd Sabu to sack Anwar.

Questions: If MS was sodomised by AI against his will, why did he not report the act after he was poked the first time? Did he consult NR after his vigin penetration?

Well, I don’t need to masquerade as one. But if I were indeed an a masquerader, you had wasted much of your valuable time engaging me.

I am also not even remotely suggesting that A and N were like Stalin and Hitler. (Once again, poor comprehension of English.) There was also no attempt on my part to be dramatic. There are already too many dramas going on in Malaysia during the last few weeks. My view, which you may choose to accept or reject, is that when one is confronted with two bad apples one doesn’t need to choose any one of them to eat. The bin is the suitable place for them.

Every Malaysian who is eligible for voting has only one vote to take care of. As far as I am concerned, when I don’t vote for either one, I am not for anyone, incumbent or otherwise. How others use the votes is beyond my control.

Your statement that there are so many so many qualified Malaysia for PM is of no value if there isn’t a realistic chance of them being elected. Likewise your statement asking others to be careful about sacrificing is merely stating the obvious and is of no value if you cannot provide an alternative. Unless of course, by providing no viable alternatives, you are taking the default position and supporting the incumbent.

Hilter and Stalin? Surely, you jest. I would not go so far to suggest that Najib is like Stalin or Hitler. There is really no need to be that dramatic. If indeed that these are the only two viable alternatives and you do not support either of them, then you are by definition supporting the incumbent. If that is your position, then please simply state it and let’s not hypothesize something that is not realistic.

Enlightened? Yes, very much so. I understand your position. You will do better if you do not try and masquerade as an intellectual fence sitter.

Oh btw, thanks for your kind comments on Uncle Kit. I am quite sure the other readers appreciate it as well.

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.