so i say….we change for better NOT for worse!!
never trust the 3 scumbags parties

Welcome back Godfather.
You seemed to have forgotten that those who are mentioned by you happened to be loaded!
By ill gotten gains!
The opposition can ill afford to flood the streets with anything.
But all is not lost.
For a start, all those who posted or visited Uncle Lim’s blog can spread the word, either electronically or by word of mouth.
The most important thing is to tell others that the electorate MUST STOP voting for those self serving parties.
Also, never, ever listen to the propaganda published by the MSM that those parties will reform because what they said is for the sake of getting votes! They’ll gladly sell their mothers to do so! Or their sisters for that matter!
Once the votes are in hand, they’ll ride rough-shod over you AGAIN. And this cycle will keep repeating!
Remember, what they have done to the nation and its people are unforgivable!!!

I guess there might be a local plan that involves a local printer and local distribution company, but I would still expect to be dimly aware of a design for a leaflet. But nothing – nothing is curious! Anybody got reassurance?

Passing on the message by whatever meagre means at our disposal – keep ramming the message home through the alternative media, leaflets, seminars, etc. Those who have financial means should contribute and as we head towards a 2 party (or 2 coalition) system, there’s no reason why corporates should not be encouraged to contribute to PR.

A patronage system cannot favour the majority. A patronage system can only favour the well connected and the privileged; otherwise it is not a patronage. If the people of Bagan Pinang have continued to support a corrupted system, that is not because they have benefitted meaningfully from such a system. It is because they are ignorant and victims of depraved indoctrination. During 1963-65, the country nearly made a break but it failed. We are now trying again, and try we must till we succeed.

What else to campaign on? If religion, the PAs candidate has arguably better credentials. If financial probity, well the BN candidate had been found guilty by his own party of money politics (mitigated ostensibly by him being “good guilty”).

So the only remaining card is race even if it contradicts the top leader’s “1 Malaysia”!

This (Bagan Pinang) is a very crucial by election. If BN ever loses, it will not recover its confidence. If it wins (not marginally but truimphantly) it means, race is still, after 50 years of independence, a crucial factor that overrides downside of manifestly poor credential leaders. It will be a signal to Pakatan Rakyat that its upholding of multi racial Malaysia, as a principle, will militate against it in many areas where the “exchange system” offerred by BN is still very much alive and kicking.

For example, a man acts in a certain way based on his habit or convictions. He will not change, whatever you tell him. These are the facts. However people don’t describe the facts as they are (neutrally) – that he does not change habit or behaviour. They also put in their emotions into their words describing that man. If they believe in his convictions, they’ll describe him as “firm”, if not he’s “obstinate/stubborn”, if they are diametrically opposed to his convictions, then he is described as “pigheaded.” Either way the words used – whether firm, obstinate/stubbon or pigheaded – don’t often throw objective light on what the man really is. They just show where the bias/emotions of the person(s) describing the man lie judging from their choice of words.

Hence in Bagan Pinang a candidate found by his own party as guilty for money politics can be “good guilty” (as if guilty were not guilty) because he never disparaged and acted against his party’s interest just because it found him guilty of money politics. One can also extrapolate to say a person guilty of money politics is also “good guilty” if he ‘shares’ like Robin Hood his money and take care of party or some constituents with it. But is it permissible to twist words this fashion as if telling the objective truth when its far from it?

Like in this blog, just because a poster makes an assessment, which if reasoned and backed by logic and experience, may be described as realistic, can another poster, who emotionally does like the assessment and its inevitable conclusion, just summarily say and reiterate that that assessment is “defeatist” and “stupid” and thinks he can get away with it just because he is condemning the other’s comment, as distinct from the commentator himself as “defeatist” and “stupid” as if there’s a world wide of a big difference in such a case when the derogatory description is based on an emotional rather than a reasoned and intellectual response?

What’s your suggestion for ‘how we pass on the message’? This is the perennial problem, isn’t it? Can we have a whip-round for a sky writer to write ‘vote for change’?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skywriting

On the matter related to this thread, I’d just comment a little on what ENDANGERED HORNBILL said about if “a vote for Pakatan is a vote against corruption”, then a vote for BN is a vote for corruption. Makes sense? Yes, good sense”…

Here we have to look at the idea of “corruption”, how narrow or wide one attributes to it. ENDANGERED HORNBILL refers to corruption of political kind, ie political corruption. It is not confined to just bribery and kickbacks or giving moneys to delegates/voters. In the widest sense, it covers for example favoring supporters and those who vote for a candidate with ‘special’ favours, an exchange which becomes illegitimate when all citizentry/tax payers are entitled equally to these favours, regardless whether they vote for one or not. For examples if I say the exchange is – if you vote for me I’ll bring development to your area ie bridges, schools etc or if you continue to vote for me I’ll perpetuate your priviledges and entitlement based on race. This kind of promises is illegitimate because all citizentry/tax payers are entitled equally to these favours ie development and no racial discrimination regardless whether they vote for you or not.

Yet this exchange is what the ruling coalition is offering on the table for majority of voters in Bagan Pinang to bite….One can call such an offer political corruption or feudal patronage exchange or any other term, but the fact is this offer of an amalgam of ideas comprising Ketuanan/ selective development in exchange for votes and support with one eye closed to the sheninegans of political elites has been going on for more than 50 years witnessing UMNO/BN political domination. So how far does 308 tsunami indicate change in majority’s attitude, extending even to a traditional UMNO stronghold like Bagan Pinang? That’s the question! An appeal to race is an appeal to primodial insecurities. For race not to count at least more than depredations of one’s elected leaders/officials, the majority of voters have to be matured, like what Godfather commented. However one cannot be sanguine that the basic exchange above has diminished in influence and marching to oblivion. Orang Rojak has stated this clearly : “I’m not convinced the lifelong ’support the government voter’ can see the difference – let alone the benefit – in voting PR. I think Bagan Pinang voters should vote PR just for change’s sake.” This is exactly how the existing system perpetuates itself – if “unbroken access to privileged positions makes people lazy and careless” then, the calculations are that people used to them will continue to have insecurities in relation to others, and therefore will vote for a system assuring continuance of the “unbroken access to privileged positions”, never mind that it incurs the downside of leaders being not up to mark, propriety and integrity. An assessment of that might well hold true is realistic and should not be denounced “defeatist” or “stupid”.