Crapfather said, “why don’t you regurgitate all the anti-PR comments made by you of the past 12 months ?”

You have a problem with anti-PR comments?

Well that is too bad.

When host YB LKS says “submit Comment” he did not say I/we cannot submit an anti=PR comment.

So what is your beef? It is not for you as visitor to this blog to tell another visitor what you like or don’t like to hear or what he can or cannot write.

It is not your blog for you to act like praetorian guard over what others can or cannot write here. You will note that I have never thus far encroached on your right to express an opinion no matter how stupid or disagreeable it sounded to me. So if you don’t like it you can lump it.

Calling a spade a spade is of course but a thing apart from the issue of whether internal disputes of PR should be aired in public.

I wonder where I have exprssed an opinion on this issue or exactly said explicitly that it was a good thing to air internal disputes in public.

The Crapfather should get his facts right first before proceeding in his normal routine of distorting them as much as he pleases.

Come to thionk of it, on this issue of airing internal disputes in public – which is anathemic to the Crapfather – it should be recollected that the BN that he hates is especially good at this principle with big brother UMNO telling MCA, MIC & Gerakan to resolve differences within closed door and not to air them in public!

Confident people with transparent and democratic approach and defensible principles are less inclined to condemn it as do insecure and surreptitious minds fanatical to show a united front.

The fact that Karpal could dispute with Anwar on the principle of defection and Lim Guan Eng/Kit Siang would support an anti hopping law (openly/publicly) that is diametrical opposed in principle to Anwar’s expressed intention last year to canvass 31 defections from BN shows that PR leaders have a higher threshold of tolerance of dissent than some of its fanatical and one tracked minded supporters of dictatorial mindset like the Crapfather who half the time is also too dim-witted to realise that the thing he criticises about BN – lack of openess and transparency from which accountability flows – is the very thing he is guilty of in supporting!

It is a small and insecure mind that cannot brook disagreement and dares not be transparent and open about internal divisions of opinion, fearing that these divisions represent weakness when in fact it represents strength in diversity.

//We don’t tell cintanegara or Kasim Amat that they should not post their anti-PR comments here or how they should write, so we’d be happy to hear from you. Just be mindful of the backlash, One Who Writes Eloquently.// – posting Yesterday at 23: 56.26

The issue is whether there is a democratic space to express opinion here or anywhere – and a tolerance for minority or dissentient opinions as in accord with democratic culture.

The talk about “backlash” is an intimidatory tactic to enforce conformity and suppress expression of opinions deemed unpopular, unuseful or politically incorrect to the one who shouts it.

It should be noted those who are bent of speaking the truth as they see it will not be deterred by whatever the “backlash”.

Would PR leaders like Kit, Karpal, and even Anwar or RPK be saying what they are saying against the powers-to-be if they are afraid of “backlash”?

Such a comment warning “backlash” must be one of the most apt one for the beginning part of the Year of the Ox being almost as intelligent as that of an Ox (no real offence intended for the Ox though for making comparison with the human counterpart).

The Crapfather says, “Now he tells us what “backlash” means. Will he now also define “show-off” ? posting at 09: 14.34 (1 hour ago)
above.

Well, I would define a ‘show off’ as someone who ascribes that quality, as a negative aspersion, to others by reason precisely that much as he personally tries, there is no show on his part except that of misguided prejudice if not plain stupidity.

The propriety of MACC public statement that “there was strong and good evidence” against Selangor Menteri Besar Abdul Khalid Ibrahim in alleged wrongdoing in the maintenance of a luxury car and purchase of sacrificial cows” is questionable precisely because it is premature.

It is premature because section 58 of MACC vests authority to decide whether to proceed with prosecution in the Public Prosecutor (“PP”) (after review of the investigation).

If the decision that “there was strong and good evidence” against Khalid is not one that MACC Commissioner could himself determine for purposes of prosecution what then is the purpose of such a statement, especially making it is fraught with disadvantages and no advantage???

Consider two alternative scenarios (both disadvantageous).

If the PP decides in due course that there is no case to prosecute, this “premature statement” will unnecessarily prejudice Khalid’s repute and at the same time MACC’s ill judgment/opinion expressed too soon not vindicated by AG’s office.

If, on the other hand, the PP/AG should decide in due course that there is a case and would give the “go ahead” for the prosecution, then there is also neither reason for nor duty for MACC at this moment to earlier make such a prior statement to alert the party intended to be charged (so that he could bury his tracks)….

In fact when the charge is eventually preferred against Khalid, some people may even think that it could be made to protect MACC’s face which otherwise, if no charge is preferred, will make the earlier MACC’s statement sound prejudicial without basis.

By reasons of this, it will become an immediate issue why such a public statement from MACC was prior made, out of the ordinary course of events – and its motivations to proceed notwithstanding teh disadvantages spelled ouit – and why similar statement have not been made in other obvious cases brought up by the Lingam Video clip Enquiry and also the larger RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal.

A satisfactory answer (better than just “his point of view” explained by Nazri) is necessary if public’s perception of MACC political neutrality is not going to turn negative.