Star, on page N6, gave half a page to the statement by MCA President, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Kiat with the headline: “DAP advised to boycott polls – Ong tells party to prove it opposes hudud”.
But it blacked out my reply to Ong. Not a word at all.
Shame on you Star, which claims to be “The people’s paper”!
What are you afraid of?
Is this your “new journalism”?
#1 by Godfather on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 8:47 am
Limkamput: With your long service medal, and with your command of Queen’s English, I am surprised that you can easily fly off the handle, and claim that what is being discussed here has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
In this thread, as in another previous thread, we have two academics who basically agree with Ong Ta Kut and with what Wong Chun Wai has written in the STAR – the DAP should boycott the KT by-election, and the DAP should demand that PAS drop all discussion on Hudud. Better still, these academics want DAP to boot PAS out of PR, and if that fails, for DAP to exit PR.
These shameless academics go on and on about the dangers of Islamisation, a topic we discussed extensively a year ago prior to elections. Thankfully the electorate thought otherwise and now PR has control of 5 state governments. Still, these shameless academics are not convinced, and are trying to play their broken record about the doom that Bolehland will face with a federal PR administration.
Now, I tell these shameless academics to take their academia elsewhere, to form their own splinter party. I even suggested what their splinter party should be called. However, they obviously don’t have the b@lls to break away and form their own party, despite telling everyone that their party would have wide-ranging support.
What else can we say ? I mean, we have the CEC of the DAP deciding on a course that a small minority object to, and this small minority keeps sniping like some dogs who won’t let go of our ankles. This small minority want to undermine the decision of the CEC, so they provide ammunition to people like Ong Ta Kut and Wong Chun Wai.
I have always said that UMNO is predicated on people who don’t understand the meaning of the word “shame”. I can easily apply this doctrine to the couple of academics here.
So, Limkamput, we are not off topic. Perhaps you can also tell these academics not just to keep their religious beliefs to themselves but also to stop their attacks on PR in this blog.
#2 by Lee Wang Yen on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 8:51 am
In short, I’m saying that the morally right thing for DAP to do as a principled party faithful to its commitment to a secular democracy is to pull out of PR and form a third coalition.
Some may think that this morally right thing to do may not be the pragmatically right thing to do, i.e. an action that will serve the goal of retaining power and gaining more power. But it remains to be argued whether this is the case. It seems to me that staying on in PR with PAS may not serve this goal very well either. Pulling out and forming an alliance with a political ideology more consistent with DAP may serve the goal better, given that the ideology is also consistent with most non-extremist, non-racist parties that are deemed as liberal and progressive. Of course, this remains to be argued in greater details.
#3 by Godfather on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 8:55 am
In fact, these academics are so convinced of their plan they even have a name for the new Third Force – PD. They are so convinced that they will have the support of moderate Malays who don’t believe in the Islamic State.
Of course, these academics are nothing more than racists in disguise, believing in the superiority of their own anti-Islamist thinking. They have simply seized upon Wong Chun Wai’s article to provoke more discord amongst the PR parties.
#4 by Lee Wang Yen on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 9:10 am
A commitment to secular democracy does not entail an anti-Islamic stance, just like such a commitment is compatible with my own theistic belief. As someone who believes in God, I think I can consistently defend a secular democracy.
The fact that I suggest that DAP should work with liberal and progressive Muslim leaders such as Anwar shows that I’m not anti-Islamic (in fact, I even suggested that Anwar should lead the PD), unless one equate PAS’ fundamentalist Islam with Islam. Rejecting theocracy does not entail rejecting theism. An anti-Islamic-fundamentalism stance does not entail an anti-Islamic stance. Many religious people advocate separation of church and state.
At any rate, such a commitment has nothing to do with race. I wonder how someone concludes that a commitment to secular democracy entails racism.
#5 by Lee Wang Yen on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 9:15 am
Lim Kit Siang has reiterated his commitment to secular democrarcy and opposition to Islamic state and Hudud Law. I’m just arguing what he should do to be consistent with his anti-Islamic-state stance (of course, he and others may disagree with me on what he should do to be consistent with this stance). At any rate, his anti-Islamic-state stance does not make him an anti-Islamist racist. This is the distinction we must bear in mind.
#6 by Lee Wang Yen on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 9:27 am
By the way, my arguments are not meant to convince Godfather, who takes me to be a kid. So there is really no need for Godfather to keep on calling me a dog (lapdog) or someone like a dog (as in one of his latest posts). If he doesn’t like my points and arguments, he should just ignore them after debating them if he cares to do so.
My arguments are meant for those who are willing to discuss the issue rationally. If you have a rational argument, please state it. Otherwise it would be better to igore my posts than to respond with abuses.
#7 by Bigjoe on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 9:46 am
if this was not bad enough, note this by NST:
Selengor MB takes tabloid to task for articles
By : Mazlinda Mahmood
SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR, SUN:
Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim has taken an English daily to task today for articles entitled ‘Rift in Pakatan’ and ‘Kapar MP free to go, says Khalid’.
In a press statement from his office, he said nothing was mentioned on ‘Kapar MP is free to go’ as suggested in the article.
“During the press conference, I said the Kapar MP was free to make his own decision and that he was mature enough to make a good decision as a representative to more than 100,000 voters in his constituency and a member of PKR.
“I also repeatedly stated that the best forum to thrash out issues would be the party’s political bureau,” he said.
He stated that at no time during a short press conference at The Curve on Dec 27, after opening the state’s Christmas celebration, did he said that ‘he was not interested to meet Kapar member of Parliament S. Manikavasagam’.
He had instead said that as a parliamentarian, ‘it would be a better avenue for the MP to meet the party’s leaders’ when asked if he was willing to meet the Kapar MP.
Abdul Khalid, in the statement said that he took the distortion of facts seriously.
#8 by Jeffrey on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 10:10 am
After explaining to Limkamput, that “we are not off topic” Godfather exhorts “perhaps you can also tell these academics not just to keep their religious beliefs to themselves but also to stop their attacks on PR in this blog”.
In earlier thread (Will OKT lead MCA) he attempted to drag Undergrad2 in for help : h e told me that that if I didn’t know what I was holding on both hands, and “if Cambridge can’t give an answer, Undergrad2 will gladly give you the answer” – Yesterday at 11: 45.14 .
Godfather has been ranting about “shameless academics” wanting to form a “third force” – PD – who by the way according to him are also “racists” wanting “to undermine the decision of the CEC, attack PR, so they provide ammunition to people like Ong Ta Kut and Wong Chun Wai”….
It is a delusional and paranaoic thing for Godfather to make a big issue about “academics” influencing “decision of either Kit or “CEC” or in the position to give “ammunition to people like Ong Ta Kut and Wong Chun Wai”….
For heaven sake this is only a blog by which a contraiety of views have been canvassed to discuss issues affecting the nation to which we are all concerned albeit may not share same views on their solutions.
This is not about Lee Wang Yen or academics trying to make or break any coalition and build and promote a third force. They have neither such means nor intention. Here is just a forum to b ounce of ideas.
In reality it is all about you trying to rally and build even within this blog, a coalition of like minded persons not just persuaded to your views but your overriding compulsion to shut others up of opinions to your distate, exacerbated by paranoia.
Come on, Godfather, don’t be pathetic, be your own man, no be a man, fight your own wars, speak your own case, you don’t need to cajole and nudge others to join coalition with you to argue and vindicate your point of view.
If you have any substance and reason in what you say, you will be comfortable in the rightousness of what you say even if 9.999% of readers here are against your view.
Others have your own opinion and can speak for themselves if and when they deem appropriate, and have no reason to be made use of to reinforce your own petty wars.
You have evinced a pathological condition of raising irrelevant issues, calling names (eg “lapdog”, “kid”, “academics”), even writing an advertisement purportedly for a news paper :) just to ridicule views incompatible to your emotional leanings (I won’t say intellectual leanings for I can’t find it anywhere) and in the process hijack the larger purpose of this blog to canvas and discuss points of view even though they may be divided by your small personal purpose of trying to dominate it with only your point of view by choking it with a plethora of sequential rantings and ridiculing of others and calling for support all the time. You even admitted that you “fumed” when discussing issues so what can anyone expect out of you in t erms of civility an d rationality in discourse??
You really have a problem, but don’t project it to this blog in frustration of civil exchange.
#9 by Jeffrey on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 10:14 am
Sorry for typo omission – should be “90.999%” not 9.999%
#10 by Godfather on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 10:29 am
The lapdog writes things like “Jeffrey, your observations are so sharp” and that should please PD’s legal advisor. The next thing the lapdog would say would be “Jeffrey, your fart has no smell”.
Just like monsterball, we old warhorses don’t need help from others. Whether it is 90.999% or 9.999 % or 99.99%, we have no time to deal with the theoretical possibilities espoused by those who may not even be registered to vote.
Unfortunately the academics deal with academia only and they don’t know the meaning of the word “shame” when their position is already rejected by the party that they claim to support.
#11 by Godfather on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 10:34 am
Like many lawyers, Jeffrey can only think of “on the one hand, DAP is not supporting my view, and on the other hand, I have no b@lls to break away and start my own party”, so in the end he ends up with holding only one thing in both his hands.
#12 by pee_ash on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 10:34 am
long live DAP!
btw, can someone get the lee fella out of the house?
otk changed a lot after promotion. no more dare to speak, shame on him!
#13 by Lee Wang Yen on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 10:41 am
Godfather either ignores my disagreements with Jeffrey in previous threads as well as the present one or has a genuine difficulty in recognising the existence of a disagreement when it is expressed in a civil manner. If the latter is true, then it seems that a good explanation is that a genuine disagreement can only exist from his point of view when abuses and insults are hurled. On his criteria of ‘disagreement’, I’m indeed a lapdog of Jeffrey, since on those criteria, nothing I write is in disagreement with Jeffrey’s views.
#14 by Jeffrey on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 10:46 am
When Lee Wang Yen suggests a “third force” (PD) he is giving ideas to DAP/Kit of what he perceives is a viable alternative in the longer run.
Now Kit may or may not take such a view into consideration.
We ourselves may or may not agree. If we don’t agree we could state so and tell Lee Wang Yen why it won’t work.
Just because we disagree there is no need to ridicule Lee Wang Yen’s suggestion and impute motives that he and academics are out to undermine PR or asasinate character b y calling names like racist, kid ( as m eaning not experienced) etc.
What Godfather expects are “yes-men” allied to his view. However that is your own pathological condition : don’t project it to Kit or the DAP. They need ideas even ideas critical of them so that they could deliberate and choose options.
They don’t need a set of uniform ideas in stark black – white terms as G odfather would have it, that everything P R does is right and everything else that the “den of thieves” – to borrow Godfather’s major contribution, the hackneyed expression (den of theieves??) – does is wrong.
To give alternative ideas even criticisms is a service to the DAP’s and PR’s, and even the wider nation’s Cause, not to undermine it as petty minds would have us think so.
So to impute motives (of academics trying to undermine PR) is a naked attempt to rable rouse emotions in this blog and to galvanise the ciollective voice to shut up and silence people of opinions whom Godfather does not share.
It is a bad motive on his part; a bad tactic, serving neither PKR/DAP’s wider cause much less nations but his own personal insecurities who could only be assuaged by reinforcement of others views that he is right and those whom he attacks and hurls abuses are wrong and villians to the common cause.
Like I said before if you have emotional/psychiological complexes of these sorts, you take the proper measure of seeking professional help if needs be, you c anot get th e requisite therapy by conducting the excahneg the way you do here.
#15 by Godfather on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 10:47 am
Woof, woof !
#16 by Godfather on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 10:51 am
The STAR’s headline as quoted by Kit:
“DAP advised to boycott polls – Ong tells party to prove it opposes hudud”.
No need for circular and long-winding arguments from the PD representatives here. Just tell us whether you are in agreement with the STAR’s headline above.
Yes or No would suffice. No need for “ifs” and “buts”.
#17 by Godfather on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 10:59 am
I don’t think I am right all the time. I am only right most of the time. I share in the values of democracy where the needs of the majority outweigh the needs of the few. If I happen to be the few, then I either toe the line to be with the majority or form my own party with those who share my views.
In your case, your views have been rejected by the very party you purport to support, and yet you have the shameless ability to snipe from the comfort of your desk, providing ammunition to your party’s detractors.
What I don’t understand is why you don’t have the grace to accept your party’s decision or leave to form your own splinter party. No money or no guts, or both ?
#18 by Lee Wang Yen on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 10:59 am
I have already responded to that question in a previous post, and the response was straightforward, not long-winded at all. Let me repeat it.
‘DAP should get into a coalition without PAS or UMNO either by expelling PAS or forming PD.’
With this, the question of boycotting the KT by-election does not even arise.
#19 by Godfather on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 11:12 am
I would not normally bother to respond to these infantile comments by theoreticians if not for the fact that I know that these clowns have a hidden agenda – to sow fear into the electorate about the dangers of Islam and Islamisation. Yes, these guys purport to argue their case here because of their need to demonstrate how “backward” a religion that conflicts with theirs is.
This is racism at its worst – to hide behind a political party that has decided that cooperation, not confrontation, is the right way forward, and making use of this party’s organs to spew hatred and fear.
Thank goodness the electorate isn’t buying their message of doom and gloom.
#20 by Lee Wang Yen on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 11:14 am
Godfather has a strange principle of democrarcy, according to which DAP, PKR, and PAS have been acting undemocratically.
The majority of Malaysians have chosen BN in all general elections, including 2008.
But that does not mean that it is there is anything undemocratic or wrong for DAP, PKR etc to continue to persuade Malaysians to reject BN and opt for them and their policies.
#21 by Lee Wang Yen on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 11:17 am
oops… ‘…does not mean that [strike out 'it is'] there is..’
#22 by Jeffrey on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 11:17 am
Godfather’s remark that “ I share in the values of democracy where the needs of the majority outweigh the needs of the few” is untenable because Demcracy protects rights of minority unlike the situation here, the majority…. If what you say were true why don’t you support the BN which has majority parliamentaery seats representing majority of voters?
In respect to your other point “In your case, your views have been rejected by the very party you purport to support”, I am glad you speak for the DAP or its Central Committee about a point of view (ie 3rd Force) just brought up by Lee Wang Yen, what a day or two ago.
Again you have n o sense of relevancy. What does acceptance or rejection by DAP or its Central Committee have to do with any personal view expressed by any commentator here?
Just like the other presumptious remark, “What I don’t understand is why you don’t have the grace to accept your party’s decision or leave to form your own splinter party.”
Your party’s decision? You’re saying anyone here whom you disagree here (Lee Wang Yen for example) is a registered party member of DAP? You know that as a fact ?
I am not. I have not said any particular political party is my party. I have said before I side which ever side holds the truth for the wider cause and benefit of our country. It is not partisan so why are still harping on the wrong track?
You say, “I don’t think I am right all the time. I am only right most of the time”.
“… I am only right most of the time…” hmmm.
I am glad you think that of yourself. I can’t say more, I can rest my case.
#23 by Lee Wang Yen on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 11:23 am
There is no reason to say that someone who opposes Islamic state and advocates secular democracy hates Islam or Muslims. I think Kit Siang does not hate Islam or Muslims though he opposes Islamic state and advocates secular democracy.
#24 by Godfather on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 11:24 am
Thank you , President Lee of PD, for your confirmation of your stance that DAP should divorce itself from PAS and not having anything to do with PAS, whether it is for the KT by-election or anything else.
That puts you in agreement with what Ong Ta Kut said and was quoted in the STAR, right ? Just yes or no would suffice.
#25 by Lee Wang Yen on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 11:27 am
Do you have problem understanding the sentence ‘The question of …does not even arise’?
#26 by Godfather on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 11:34 am
“There is no reason to say that someone who opposes Islamic state and advocates secular democracy hates Islam or Muslims.”
I would agree with that in theory. In practice, what you and Jeffrey have done, and did so before the March 8 elections, was to promote the weaknesses of the Islamic state through Islamic beliefs and pronouncements. For example, your legal advisor imputed that there cannot be a fair, transparent and accountable Islamic state because the religion does not allow such a system to exist. Your legal advisor imputed that there can be no advanced Islamic state because historically there has never been one. Your legal advisor explained that there will be mass indoctrination of Islamic beliefs in an Islamic state, and that would not allow for free and fair elections.
I think I have said enough here. One commentator in a previous thread said that you are probably an MCA plant. I think you and your legal advisor are just misguided supremacists.
#27 by Godfather on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 11:38 am
President Lee, just humour me lah. Does this mean that you support the call by Ong Ta Kut that DAP boycott the KT by-election and prove that it opposes Hudud ? Yes or no will do. You are too young to use the phrase “the issue does not arise”.
#28 by undergrad2 on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 11:43 am
“Godfather Says:
Today at 08: 47.37 (2 hours ago)
Limkamput: With your long service medal, and with your command of Queen’s English…”
Limkaput never set foot in England. He attended a community college in the U.S. paid for by the UMNO led government. Returned to Malaysia to serve the government for no less than twenty years. Was awarded the long service medal same as the department’s driver got. All in his own words. So how could you say he has command of the Queen’s English??? He’s constantly thinking in Malay and translating it to English.
#29 by Lee Wang Yen on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 11:44 am
Lim Kit Siang has also highighted the weaknesses of theocracy in his previous writings. Indeed, the weaknesses of theocracy are the reason why we opt for secular democracy.
#30 by Jeffrey on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 11:45 am
Godfather, Lee Wang Yen has just contradicted you on your sweeping statement in his posting 11: 23.44 (3 minutes ago).
Answer that or have the grace to admit that you have nefarious intention of describing him, whom you disagree, as “anti-Islam” just to shut him up. This is really a despicable habit on your part.
How does calling him names like ‘President Lee of PD’ advance discussion or whever other miscellaneous things you’re saying???
And you’re trying to be a trial advocate with your “yes or no, would suffice” :)
No I don’t think you should be judge more than a lawyer since you have the prime pre-requisite and qualification – “judgmental!” :)
And also the belief “I don’t think I am right all the time. I am only right most of the time”.
Ever since I visited this blog I don’t recall any one else including regular contributors as having made such a claim “I am only right most of the time”.
Your last statement vindicates succinctly all that I am saying here (which you have with some justifification describe as “long winded”) in trying to shed light as to why you conduct discussion in the dogmatic manner as you compulsively do here.
Thank you for summarising my say so succinctly and sovereignly. :)
l
#31 by Lee Wang Yen on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 11:46 am
oops…’…highlighted…’
sorry
#32 by undergrad2 on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 11:49 am
Lee Wang Yen having spent time in England has greater claim to the use of Queen’s English.
#33 by Jeffrey on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 11:51 am
Sorry it should be “No I think you should be judge more than a lawyer”, not the other way around, see how your cross examination confused me. :)
#34 by Godfather on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 11:54 am
You are most welcome, counselor, except that I don’t understand what “sovereignly” means. That’s besides the point. Can you then answer for President Lee as his legal advisor ? Are you in support of OTK’s statement as reported in the headline of the STAR ?
#35 by Lee Wang Yen on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 11:55 am
One of the most admirable qualities I think the British have is their inclination and ability to discuss and argue things gentlemanly. I’m still learning and trying my best to emulate them.
#36 by Godfather on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 11:57 am
Undergrad2: Limkamput’s long service medal has nothing to do with his command of Queen’s English. Just read his colourful comment in the earlier thread about 2 young doctors trying to write a letter to the Health Minister.
#37 by Lee Wang Yen on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 12:01 pm
Jeffrey has already addressed that question in his earlier comment, which I thought was a ‘sharp observation’. Godfather was too busy calling me a dog that he might have missed that ‘sharp observation’ of Jeffrey.
#38 by Jeffrey on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 12:05 pm
The other point that you are fond of saying is that people like Lee Wang Yen and me who warn the country against the danger of a theocratic islamic state are supremacist and racist, but you have not explained why these dangers are not real or even shown that you are aware of what theocratic islamic state implies, its foundation o f thought or system of government as may be drawn from example around.
All you are paranoaic about is rid the den of thieves, by any any means and at any cost. Never mind in the process, the theocratic agenda is acquiesced to, not resisted and allowed to advance on the back of others not receptive of it ; never mind that once established a genda it may be irreversible…
Your notion of what is long term well being of the country is just that measure of distance between your eyes and the tip of your nose, which I hope is protruding far enough, but from what I can see it is only up to the BN, and its displacement, full stop! :)
#39 by Godfather on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 12:06 pm
Not any dog. Just a lapdog, a poodle. Not the real type of dog.
#40 by FY Lim on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 12:08 pm
What is hudud law as advanced by PAS. This law is meant for to be for Muslims and applied to those who profess Islam as their religion. There are Chinese and Indians who are non-Muslims in Kelantan and if you care to ask them what is the implications of Hudud law being implemented , they would say that it is the Muslim way of life and they would not be affected.
Well, BN magnified this hudud law for the coming KT by-election to create fear among the non-Muslims to fish for votes. They will then get PKR , DAP and other PR personalities to comment and then the newspapers will capitalise on the confusion created.
The KT by-election is fought not based on Hudud laws alone but the greater issues of corruption , religious extremism , transparency, fair play , freedom of expression , non questioning on mother tongue language , etc. In fact UMNO had slept with PAS before and no one questioned their sincerity on this issue of hudud.
The Chinese and Indians should be aware that the handouts and the sweet talks would not guarantee their survival in politics but the greater issues that affect their future generations. Do you want Gerakan leaders pictures to be stepped and torn and had to keep quiet about it ? Why is the BN national leaders keeping mum on this ? Is UMNO sincere on this ?
All the races in the country are entitled to equal treatment and care before the law.
The voters of KT should decide. DONT VOTE for the party because you had been given a good handout this time around. Your decision affects your children’s future.
#41 by Godfather on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 12:10 pm
Counselor, you honour me. I didn’t realise that the BN’s displacement is only the distance between my eyes and the tip of my nose. Hallelujah ! I like your optimism. If only you would stop bashing the Islamists. And keep your poodle under control.
#42 by Lee Wang Yen on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 12:14 pm
According to Oxford Dictionary, ‘lap-dog’ is a real dog. Definitions from other sources confirm that a ‘lap-dog’ is a real dog.
If you have discovered from the above paragraph that you’ve used a wrong word which you did not intend to use because you misunderstood that word, you should just admit it and apologise for unintentionally calling others animals, unless you had that intention after all.
#43 by undergrad2 on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 12:19 pm
The Republicans would like to see more de-regulation, a smaller government and lower taxes. The reason why the country has found itself in such a financial mess today is because there was too much de-regulation. Hefty tax cuts were given to the top 1%. The Democrats believe in a greater role for the government, more regulations, and higher taxes. The ideological distinction is never more pronounced.
Yet we are seeing signs of the Obama Administration rolling back on tax increases because of the serious recession. The Republicans on the other hand have agreed to massive bailouts because they know they have no choice. This is in contrast to their core values as Republicans.
So why are we mired in issues like religion? Kit understands this better than anybody else. We need a pragmatic approach if we are to work together to gain control of the federal government. Pragmatism must trump ideology. Keep issues like religion on the back burner. Focus on the economy.
#44 by Godfather on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 12:21 pm
Oxford Dictionary ? You mean Cambridge Dictionary, don’t you ? Read it up there, and you will find the true meaning of the word “lapdog”. In the Hokkien dictionary, it is called “Chau Kau”.
#45 by Lee Wang Yen on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 12:23 pm
Thanks! Next time I’ll try Hokkien dictionaries when I read Godfather’s English posts.
#46 by Godfather on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 12:25 pm
Don’t be overly sensitive, President Lee of PD. You are definitely not an animal. Animals don’t go to Cambridge or use empirical evidence for their thesis.
Take some advice from an old warhorse (and I’m not an animal either). If you want a long productive career in politics as president of a party, then you have to have a thick skin. Not unlike a lawyer’s skin.
#47 by Lee Wang Yen on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 12:25 pm
It remains to be argued that working with PAS is a pragmatically more sensible approach compared with working with a coaltion without PAS and UMNO (i.e. PR without PAS or PD).
#48 by OrangRojak on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 12:26 pm
The to-and-fro of Political Fantasy Football has been entertaining. The ‘PD’ thing caught me off guard, nearly lost my tea laughing. I’m sure my local authority won’t mind you borrowing “The Sinking Ship of Port Dickson” for your party logo.
Having crowbarred in a nautical theme, some of those arguing appear to be elderly, and can see a shore in the distance when they’d almost given up all hope after spending decades adrift. They don’t want anybody rocking the boat. Some players appear to have youth on their side and are saying “if there’s one beach, there’s bound to be a better beach elsewhere” and have started pulling at the oars.
You’re both right, but while fighting over the oars, the boat might sink. Since the “better beach” participants have youth on their side, why not help the elderly row to their shore? It doesn’t really matter if they’re wrong, you’ve got a lifetime of tugging left in you. Once ashore, you can patch up your boat. After everybody has had a chance to explore the beach, you can hoist a new sail for an imagined promised land.
Can DAP TV organise a broadcast with you lot arguing from the comfort of some expensive sofas? I’d watch that.
#49 by Lee Wang Yen on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 12:27 pm
Godfather sounds like the BN MPs who talk like bullies in the parliament.
#50 by Lee Wang Yen on Monday, 29 December 2008 - 12:28 pm
oops… ‘…coalition…’