Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said yesterday he was confident that the 1Malaysia vision has spurred the people to a new level of optimism which will translate into a stronger support for Barisan Nasional (BN) in the Bagan Pinang by-election.
However, the muck-spreading and mud-slinging campaign launched by Umno/Barisan Nasional in Bagan Pinang yesterday even before the completion of the nomination process had in one fell swoop exposed the hollowness and hypocrisy of Najib’s 1Malaysia slogan as an overarching unifying national objective.
Two racist books were distributed in the Bagan Pinang constituency inciting communal hatred and animosities against Pakatan Rakyat leaders with scurrilous and baseless allegations about the sidelining and betrayal of the rights and interests of Malays – one entitled “Wajah Sebenar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim: Nasib Orang Melayu Selangor” (The Real Face of Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim: The Plight of the Selangor Malays) and the other “50 Kemusykilan Tentang Manusia Bernama Anwar Ibrahim” (50 Questions on The Man Called Anwar Ibrahim)
Such contemptible and despicable tactics in muck-spreading and mud-slinging make complete nonsense of Najib’s 1Malaysia slogan to unite Malaysians regardless of race, religion or territory.
Are Najib and Muhyiddin prepared to denounce and apologise for such racist muck-spreading and mud-slinging tactics employed by Umno and Barisan Nasional in the Bagan Pinang by-election?
What is the stand of the leaders from MCA, Gerakan, MIC and other Barisan Nasional component parties on such racist muck-spreading and mud-slinging and are they prepared to fully dissociate themselves from such despicable tactics with unqualified condemnation?
Or will their leaders, whether Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon, Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu prefer to keep completely still and silent on such blatant repudiation of Najib’s 1Malaysia slogan?
Or are Umno and Barisan Nasional leaders not really that confident about being able to have an impressive victory in the Bagan Pinang by-election despite fielding Isa Samad as the candidate that they have to resort to such desperate, despicable and disgusting campaigning tactics?
#1 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 - 4:59 pm
Why are you telling us about the difference between output and input and relation with outcome being what PR use for nation building as if we do not know?
Is anyone here competing with you on either output/input to cause outcome? And since you know better why we are here than me and possibly some others, we are all waiting for the more important and qualified Kamput to give the input/output to produce outcome (for PR use for nation building). (I already said earlier that Pakatan Rakyat would be indebted to your ingenious input…) So what are you bickering about in your preceding post?
#2 by limkamput on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 - 6:04 pm
read all my postings, past, present and future and you shall know.
#3 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 - 10:13 pm
“read all my postings, past, present and future and you shall know” – LimKamPut.
Now why would I waste even a second of my idle time on a mish-mash of inanities and purile observations at best and self idolization and rabid psychotic delusions at worst?
It would be a shade more productive to count the number of peanuts accompanying my beer before I chew on them.
#4 by 1problem on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 - 10:51 pm
do u think Be eNd can govern well?
i don’t trust all the component parties esp start with U…NO
the components parties…….are coward, betrayal, sell out and liars BIG TIME….
other countries fight for global challenges
bolehland fight for racial political within the country
that’s ONE good project of vision race 2020
cheers!!!
bravo!!!
malaysia boleh
#5 by limkamput on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 - 11:09 pm
Re #3, i have commented on your observation on the livelihood of Isa being appointed Exco and the tacit approval of the “new household” in another thread. I think your observation is too “out in the sky” and imputing too much into nonsense. Yes, i contribute again.
#6 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 - 11:46 pm
Yes you contribute again – like your comment #3 on October 5th, 2009 15:18 in thread “Najib’s defence of Isa’s corruption offence a mega-tonne explosion demolishing his NKRA to “fight corruption” -“Yes some criminals deserve a second chance but they don’t get a second chance to be an ADUN or potentially to become a MB who may affect the livelihood of millions” – which was ‘coincidentally’ similar to my comment #3 slightly earlier on same day October 5th, 2009 13:07 in preceding thread “Bagan Pinang…there is no Plan B (part two)” on Najib saying even a criminal gets a second chance –“No one questions that every person including a convict deserves 2nd chance at rehabilitation but whether the second chance is by way of a chance to hold public office as Yang Berhormat and the peoples’ representative in state legislature.”
Yes you contribute again – ROTFL
#7 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 - 12:43 am
//I think your observation is too “out in the sky” and imputing too much into nonsense.//
Yes I note your observation. Unfortunately it counts little in my books to merit a rebuttal or debate. Sorry.
//Yes, i contribute again.//
Yes, by way of comic relief!
#8 by limkamput on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 - 3:42 pm
//Yes you contribute again – ROTFL//Jeffrey
What are you suggesting? You think you are the only one capable of thinking or writing like that. I want to say in all honesty and sincerity I did not read your piece before i wrote mine. I may be an odd ball to you, but i am never a thief or a hypocrite. I know it is difficult to defend especially when mine appeared after yours. But i want to state categorically that I DID NOT COPY your idea. Please lah, you must at times allow others to be as smart as you, if not smarter than you.
#9 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 - 4:13 pm
///I want to say in all honesty and sincerity I did not read your piece before i wrote mine///…… LimKamPut.
Well here I have to respond the same as you did in comment #45 page 1 of this thread – (quote) “….If I am wrong in my interpretation, I guess many too are in my category. But who am I to argue with the author?…”
/// But I want to state categorically that I DID NOT COPY your idea.///
I am just giving you your own medicine when you so readily impute me copying your idea on the Financial Procedure Act (just because I did not specifically mention it earlier as you did!).
Here is what you said in comment #45 on October 4th, 2009 10:28 in thread “A vote for Pakatan is a vote against corruption”
“Oh, the eloquent posting about the Financial Procedure Act, I don’t even know to laugh or to cry, so much of intellectual honesty being thrown here.”
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
#10 by limkamput on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 - 4:25 pm
That was different, remember there was an endless discussions on PKFZ in which letters of support and guarantee were constantly brought up. My point on Financial Procedure Act was just one posting above yours. Besides, your argument seemed to have changed substantially after my posting on Financial Procedure Act.
#11 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 - 4:49 pm
If you read and understood it properly, it has never changed but I can’t dwell on this other subject here.
#12 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 - 5:02 pm
It suffices to just briefly mention (i) guarantee is not same as letter of support/awareness. What the document is (guarantee or support) issued by former transport ministers is not dependent on its description but the substance of its contents and wordings; (ii) under FPA no guarantee or incurring of financial liability may be issued unless with Treasury/MOF approval. So if (i), construing their wordings is actually mere support letters not necessarily incurring liability from public finances, then contravention of (ii) does not arise. (ii) (contravention of FPA) will arise only if construing the substance of the wordings of letters issued, they are found not to be mere support letters but guarantees ie govt promises to be answerable for debt of the debtor to another creditor. Then the third question arises, that if guarantees were void for contravention can govt subsequently ratify retropectively a void guarantee to make it valid??? Also other questions arise whether if the void guarantees cannot be “ratified” and made valid, whether govt is actually upholding “spirit” of it and morally assuming the liability to protect confidence in future dealings betwen govt agencies like PKA and the market.
I didn’t bring up FPA because it is a technical subject boring to a lot of people but since you brought it up, I elaborated on it’s ramifications. Thats all.
#13 by limkamput on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 - 9:32 pm
Ok, thanks, noted.