I agree with Loh on the fate of the MCA – if only because I think there should be no place for racist organisations in politics. People can be conservative though. There’ll always be popular support for the MCA as long as explicit racism is permitted (much less mandated) in Malaysia. Is it time for a Malaysian Heritage Party?

Najib said that the result was academic, which should mean that MCA would not act on it.

Why did Najib think that the result was academic? By saying so, Najib recognised that the percentage would represent the opinion of the people, and most probably the Chinese who may or may not be MCA members. Najib knows now that hardly 25% of Chinese would support MCA comes the next election. Najib might have known all along that Chinese did not vote MCA, but he did not possess this clear ratio. Najib knew also that the low support MCA commands is a result of UMNO policies which made MCA unpopular. That policy direction had been set since May 13, and has been getting more discriminatory over time. UMNO could have relaxed its imposing discriminatory racist policies if he had been interested to get Chinese to support MCA. UMNO and Najib are not interested in that outcome.

When Najib said that the results were academic, he might also mean that MCA would not act on the result. The accuracy of the result was never called to question. It is that Najib knew that MCA would stick with BN like a beggar.

I have said in the past that MCA should leave BN. In fact MCA should cease to be a political organization, but to stay on as a NGO to serve the interest of the society. The current MCA leaders are free to join whichever party outside BN. As a NGO, it can still monitor government policies and uses its influence comes next election.

MCA was worried that if PAS joined UMNO, then the Malays will be the ruling party and the others would be in the opposition. MCA had not realised that the Chinese in the cabinet served only to window dress. It is time that UMNO answers its policies based on merits, rather than following TDM’s formula that those policies were supported by MCA and hence the Chinese, to discriminate against the Chinese.

Ong Tee keat should act on the result. He should tell UMNO either to go back to Pre-1969 days with the Provision of review for Article 153 reinstated, or leave BN.

As a foreigner living in Malaysia, OrangRojak probably sees things much clearer than we the Malaysian people, regarding the choice of running mates for Pakatan Rakyat.

Even though the police are often criticized for making baseless accusation on the Opposition Party members, the ISA can still be frequently invoked by the BN-dominated Special Branch Police to put the members of Opposition Party into solitary confinement in the ISA Detention Centre and the Sedition Act can also be occasionally used to harrass the political leaders of Opposition Party by the BN-dominated Department of Commercial Crime or the Criminal Investigation Department of the Police Force. What choice does the Opposition Party still have if it is not to overthrow the BN Federal Government by hook or by crook?

Lee Kuan Yew never denied the opportunities of engaging a political cooperation with the leftist socialists or communists during late 1950s and early 1960s when People’s Action Party of Singapore was still in the infant stage of its party development and was still not able to grasp the political power by its own strength without the support and assistance from other popular leftist leaders and the trade unionists. However, Lee Kuan Yew’s cooperation with the leftists and the trade unionists never turned PAP into a communist party.

Perhaps, those principled gentlemen like Jeffrey and Lee Wang Yen should learn to take the risk of partnering with a susceptible partner if overthrowing Barisan Nasional has been set as the top priority over other considerations in the course of struggle for achieving success in their political cause!

Since Jeffrey and Lee Wang Yen are good in using the technique of logical reasoning in order to arrive at a persuassive conclusion during a discussion, why don’t Jeffrey and Lee Wang Yen give it a try to persuade Nik Aziz and Husam Musa to willingly declare an open renounciation or quietly give up any possible extremism element in the political ideology of PAS? There is no need for Jeffrey and Lee Wang Yen to criticize fiercely on the logical flaw which may have been found in the comment of Godfather, for Godfather always speaks out of a revolutionary passion in favour of his favourite party DAP.

The political fervour or the so-called revolutionary passion which could generally be found in the revolutionists of French Revolution and American Revolution is the essential factor contributing to the success of a noble political cause. (I don’t quote October Revolution of Russia and Chinese Revolution as the historical events which already displayed the importance of revolutionary passion as a contributing factor to the success of a political cause, lest if I don’t avoid Russia and China I may be accused by Dr. Mahathir as a Communist sympathiser or a Chinese Chauvinist Racist.)

We go round and around on this point. Malaysia’s ‘first past the post’ system forces unattractive choices on the opposition. DAP and PKR could reject PAS, but the consensus (I think) is that this would cost them the next election – possibly even before the next election if PAS were to be forced into UMNO’s arms like a bitter ex-girlfriend. If DAP and PKR maintain their alliance with PAS, there is some hope of success at GE13, even if some suggest it may be a short honeymoon.

Life is full of difficult choices, and people will inevitably use whatever means at their disposal to achieve their ends – whether there’s an explicit set of instructions on the matter in their favourite work of fiction or not. I think Farish makes a good job of putting a reasonable point in his article. The point is that PAS, for its own ends, should pay better attention to the reasons for its recent success. The wider issue of Pakatan Rakyat’s choice of running mates is moot, as there simply is no choice. This isn’t a proper parliamentary democracy: second place is a total loss.

Since I condemn you as an extremist and bigot, I’m glad you accept the point that you engage in the same demagoguery, twisitng, misrepresenting others’ positions…
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That’s why I also want to expose the danger of listening to a crapshooter who does not deny that he writes eloquently.

This is our best opportunity for significant change and you don’t want to wait another 10 years….whether from BN or PK.

The above is a classic specimen of rabble-rousing.

In case you say that English is not your first language I need to explain: to rabble rouse is to arouse collective emotions by leveling incitive and instigative accusations against selected targets convenient for such a purpose, never mind that the accusations are neither supported by facts, cogent arguments nor reasons.

The interest of the rabble rouser is not quest of the truth or facts on any issue – he gives two hoots on that except where it serves his agenda – but merely to leverage on and exploit the collective sentiments of readers in this blog (frustrated with excesses of the BN over the years and placing hopes on Pakatan Rakyat to end them) and making their bile of the audience rise to the brains.

There can therefore be no meaningful exchange between the rabble rouser (a small time blog demagogue wannabe) constantly inciting passions (maybe as a means to vent his own frustrations) and those others who discuss with a view to ascertain the balanced truth.

However why should we be let off a rabble rouser?

He is engaged in a combination of conscious and unconscious ways in the very same demagoguery, twisting, misrepresenting others’ positions, making false accusations as the very same racists, extremists and bigots on the other side of the political fence that he vehemently condemns here. Not only are such methods hypocritical but they are also dangerous.

Think about it.

All you need to do is to make the suggestion that the narcissistic QC Wannabe and his sidekick the Cambridge Kid ” try to mix around much more often with PAS leaders in order for them to get a better hold on the religious thinking pattern of PAS leaders”.

These anti-Islamists will come at you not with just one retort, they will come after you with continuous foot-long postings condemning PAS, condemning you, and in the process reveal their true colours – their air of superiority over others, their condescending attitude towards other faiths, their overriding desire to see PR split up. Regular readers to this blog can attest to this.

granddaddy’s blind faith and blind loyalty does injustice to the pursuit of liberty, equality and equal justice for all.

like i said if he wants the cheerleader post he would have to fight for it as there are many contenders here on this blog although most times they do not know what they’re cheering for. that’s what is wrong with dap supporters who frequent this blog to post trash.

1. Jeffrey and Lee Wang Yen were both suspicious about the sincerity of PAS in policy making for protection of the interest of non-Muslim people and of the women if Pakatan Rakyat is to continue include PAS as the component party of the coalition for forming a Federal Government in the future.

2. Godfather is keen to see a much closer tie among the component parties of Pakatan Rakyat because he is filled with the political fervour of wanting Pakatan Rakyat to form a Federal Government in the soonest possible future. Therefore Godfather will tend to rise up quickly to rebute anybody who makes a comment which is deemed to be able to cause damage and deterioration in the relationship between any two component parties within Pakatan Rakyat, such as between DAP and PAS.

3. While Godfather may not be so academically trained in logical reasoning as compared to Legal Counsel Jeffrey and Logics Expert Dr Lee Wang Yen, Godfather’s political enthusiasm and loyalty to party are some precious value which is very much sought after by a party which insists on upholding its political principle like DAP.

4. I do not know Jeffrey and Lee Wang Yen personally. However, from the comments of these two gentlemen, whether posted today or posted in the past, I could strongly feel that these two gentlemen had taken up a political position to strongly oppose PAS as a political partner of DAP. Even though they might have softened their position a bit during the initial stage of Perak Impasse after seeing the good performance of Nizar in cooperation with DAP state leaders of Perak, both Jeffrey and Lee Wang Yen basically still posed a susceptible attitude towards PAS.

5. Perhaps Jeffrey and Lee Wang Yen should try to mix around much more often with PAS leaders in order for them to get a better hold on the religious thinking pattern of PAS leaders. Religious dogma or doctrine is never something which is never changed. If religious dogma or doctrine can remain something very static and long-lasting forever, then we will never be able to see the divisiveness between Sunni Sect and Shiite Sect of Islam, and the disunity among different denominations of Christian Churches throughout the whole world!

Anyway, please cheer up everybody. We don’t find a second Khomeini too often too easily! Let’s pray that PAS leaders will turn wise to reject any extremism!

The only PAS guy I like is Dato’ Seri Nizar.

As Hadi recently said: “If you are not a fisherman, you cannot talk about fishing. It’s the same with SIS, if you do not have knowledge about Islam, you cannot talk about Islam,”

SIS is a secular and an extreme feminist party that intially began as a moderate NGO seeking to address the imbalances of the rights of women in the Malaysian context. They then turn ugly by mis-representing Islam and totally twisting the very sources that provide for Islamic legislature. None of their members are qualified nor learned in any of the sciences of the religion and therefore, they remain ignorant to think they can address women human rights without consideration for the cultural pollution that they foolishly link to Islam.

Humility and Tolerance means giving him a free rein like Mafia Godfather to engage in all these undesirable practices in an open forum of participators within the “family” of opposition supporters – without dissent.

His choice of nick/handle (Godfather) is calculated.

Ever seen the film “The Godfather” an American 1972 crime thriller based on the 1969 novel of the same name by Mario Puzo, directed by Francis Ford Coppola starring Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan etc?

There was a scene (don’t know whether Godfather II or III) in which Michael Corleone (Al Pacino), tells brother Fredo to never take sides against the family again after Fredo tries to stick up for Moe Green when Michael is talking to him. (Never mind whether Fredo doing the right thing or not) or Corleone family doing wrong thing – “Fredo, you’re my older brother, and I love you. But don’t ever take sides with anyone against the Family again. Ever.”

Must be our Godpap’s favourite lines. Very telling! :)

“egging” means “to encourage or incite to action”. It means, even when big issues are at stake, he is arguing for the sake of arguing – which is trivialising discussion here. Focus is not on merits/demerits of message – but trying to inculcate “humility and tolerance”.

And then the patronising remark “Hopefully as they get older, they will attain these values” as if “older” necessarily implies widom (humility & tolerance) when some more rigid, dogmatic, intolerant and even senile. It also makes the implicit – questionable – assumption that he is older.

Is this not an irony when the Arrogant who says “Alright boys, I gotta go as my hourly rate is definitely higher than that of the QC Wannabe” preach Humility?

No, that cannot be what I mean if my conclusion is seen in its context. The context shows that what I mean in that conclusion is that ‘one cannot conclude or infer that something is not used/practised/believed today simply on the grounds that that thing originated in the past’.

Godfather has a tendency to misrepresent others’ views and then accuse others of writing long postings when those who have tasted his misrepresentation either elaborate a simple point or make the same simple point in several different ways either in response to his misrepresentation or in an attempt to prevent his misrepresentation.

What it says is that your inference that Jeffrey is spreading fears of Islam ‘based on outdated theories and outdated practises not seen in the modern era’ from your so-called fact that Taqiyya is a 15th century concept is fallacious.

In that inference (as in your oft-repeated question, ‘Are you still using a leaf to preserve your modesty?’) , you illegitimately assume that the fact that an x originated in the past shows that x is no longer believed/used/practised today.

This is a fallacious inference. You can’t assume that Taqiyya is not practised today by Muslims just because it started in or was practised in the 15th or 7th century. If you care to check, you’ll find that Muslims still practise Taqiyya today.

There are plenty of examples to show that your inference is fallacious. The fact that many Christian doctrines were formulated in the Council of Nicea in the 4th century does not mean that they are not longer held today. The fact that the probability theory was developed in the 17th century does not mean that they are obsolete today.

Of course, some ancient practices are obsolete. Your oft repeated mention of the usage of leaves is a case in point. But the above examples show clearly that historical origin in itself does not indicate that something is no longer practised today. Thus, the inference that Taqiyya is not used today because it was used centuries ago is fallacious.