“So, Lee, looks like you still don’t get it” – kcb. Frankly I also don’t get it!

The overwhelming majority of those opposed to BN’s policies – and to PAS’s theocracy – would take the position that if it were a straight contest between a BN and PAS candidate, they would support the latter.

The logic of it is based on three (3) premises: –

(1) First, no matter the support for PAS, it would not be able to form a government upon theocratic policies based on Malaysian multiracial composition and mainstream’s rejection of PAS in 2004 General Election; (2) second, a longer term enemy of an immediate enemy is a friend, at least temporarily to the extent the collaboration is necessary to rid and evict the immediate enemy; (3) third, after immediate enemy is rid of, then only proceed on how to neutralize the longer enemy.

Looking again at the premises.

It is not just a question of giving support to a longer term enemy to rid an immediate enemy. It also depends on which you think is a greater enemy to democracy and proper governance – a racist and corrupt enemy or a theocratic and religiously extremist one.

If you think a theocratic one is lesser of the two evils, then it would be logical to vote for PAS in a straight contest between its candidate and BN’s but what if one thinks otherwise – what if a theocracy is worse than a corrupt government, assuming one has basis to form this conclusion judging from the experiences around the world?

It will then be a question of not just giving support to a longer term enemy to rid an immediate enemy, as postulated in (2) above, but more of giving support to a longer term [Greater] enemy to rid an immediate [Lesser] enemy. Now is that logical and sensible to support a Greater enemy?

In evaluating that, part of the equation is whether it is true or otherwise premise no (1) that PAS would not be able to form a government (in due course) because or in spite of this initial support.

How valid however is such an assumption as poster mycroft raised?

If PAS has no potential in this respect why then is BN trying to outdo it in Islamisation?

Also PAS does not need to show its true face at this moment. Right now it is not even mentioning about the “Islamic state” and is in fact fielding as candidate a non muslim!

Why would anyone discount that it is not a mere strategy on PAS’s part to, for the time being, (sacrifice their goal temporarily) to win confidence of non muslims to get their support to rid the BN before (regaining its goal in longer term) of showing its true face thereafter when and if the Opposition does eventually win with it being, in reality, the dominant malay based party instead of PKR leading the pack to form the government?

What Lee Wang Yen has done in last posting is to articulate how that strategy of PAS – this strategy of giving up short term for long term goal attainment – works and how not to be beguiled by such a strategy and yet advance the cause of democracy. [If PAS wins many seats in this election they’ll certainly demand to contest in more constituencies in the coming election. We – supporters of DAP – would not want to contribute to the expansion of PAS. If PAS loses terribly this time, PKR can then contest in more Malay constituencies next time. – Lee Wang Yen].

Dear kcb and Ah Pek,

1. To answer both of you, given a situation of BN (whether UMNO, MIC or MCA) vs Pas, I won’t vote. This is because, having regard to what I think is Malaysia’s longer term interest, I am of the opinion that PAS is a greater evil and therefore cannot vote for it. If I have otherwise thought that BN is greater evil, then I would vote for PAS but the fact is that I don’t : I think PAS is the greater problem.

2. Having said this, I am mindful that there will be a body of ‘not invalid’ criticisms that I am wasting a vote; that it is not practical and pointless. Well that’s a criticism/burden that I have to bear with as much fortitude as I could summon because I just cannot make myself vote for expedience (based on a greater long term enemy of a lesser immediate enemy is still my friend for now deserving of support) in a manner contrary to my conscience of what I think is ultimately good or not good for our country.

3. I am also aware that no one could claim monopoly of the truth and what is right, least of all myself. So maybe many of you are right : vote for PAS. However if, after listening to contrary views, my opinion still remains unchanged, I have to follow my own lights as to what is right or wrong. Ultimately we have to do what we ourselves think is right or wrong. By that I mean based on certain principles and not just practical expedience. That is the only sure compass in difficult and complex situations – at least for me. I can’t speak for others.

This is in response to what Undergrad2 commented : “You are not voting for your enemy, not because the enemy of your enemy is your friend but because you would be denying your enemy of a seat in Parliament. A seat lost is a seat denied.” I agree that it is correct that the issue of whether or not to support ‘enemy of your enemy is your friend’ is subtly but distinctly a separate issue from ‘a seat lost is a seat denied’ for the Opposition esp in terms of breaking the all important psychogical threshold of denying BN’s two thirds majority. This is, in my view, subject to one proviso.

Undergrad2’s position is entirely defensible provided one is of the opinion that there is no costs and danger implicated in the decision to support PAS for now at BN’s expense. ie. with such support PAS will not, in a multiracial society, gain strength and eventually triumph!

Well I just happen to be those who think PAS will, and therefore there is a cost to all of us, maybe not now but long term. Now between a shorter term view and longer term one, I am inclined to the latter. That is my view.

I grant that others may think – and therefore would behave and view the casting of vote differently.

Education is one thing emotions as affected by sustained indoctrination is another. You would recall that the pilots that flew the planes into the Twin Towers were educated pillots – homegrown in the US. :)

Dear Lim Kam Put

Are you advocating censorship here (ostensibly not to influence potential voters here for the Opposition) ? Don’t you think they are entitled to the presumption that they have minds of their own to evaluate conflicting opinions?

AhPek

Talking about the proof of the pudding is in the eating and track record being more persuasive than philosophical debates, PAS is trying level best to be exemplary in the state it controls (and even then its most exemplary is not convincing to me) for it has to ‘show case’ what it does in Kelantan to convince Non Muslim detractors in the rest of the states to win their support and acceptance. It does not necessarily apply if it eventually wins in the rest or majority of other states.

Voltaire is attributed with having said, ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ This was the Renaissance thinker that contributed much to our concept of democratic traditions of which the DAP and this Blog stands for.

However it seems to me that one of its staunchest and passionate supporters has come out with a somewhat contrary version when election is near and that is, ‘I disapprove of what you say, and I will defend to the death my right to say to you that you talk nonsense and ‘intellectual cock’ and should shut up’. That’s the new ‘democracy’ being suggested here ???

“what is the SIGNIFICANT difference between UMNO and PAS today?” The former is an imposter besides being, as you said, more racist and corrupted whilst PAS is genuine in its agenda just like Ayatollah Khomeini was as genuine, non-corrupt and non racist – which is precisely what is more worrying, if you think about it.

Imposter only think of greed and money, bottomline, and can shift positions if taking another stance will also help in the cause of avarice and sticking to the old ways will not.

However the RealMcCoy will not shift and compromise and there lies the problem in the longer run. :)

AhPek,

Sorry I think I misunderstood the context of your “track record” which you meant BN’s whilst my posting was based otherwise on PAS’s.

AhPek,

What you are saying is that non Malays’ predicament is that they are destined to be, at best, only kingmakers in their own country and since they have no power to alone, as a group, do right against wrong and injustice perpetrated on them, then necessarily in the interest of political and economic survival, they have to adopt the principles of Machiavelli of a certain readiness and nimbleness to switch political positions based on situational demands, to prioritize political expediency over principles even to the extent of sacrificing long-held principles for short-term and immediate political gain or reprieve.

Did I get your drift correct?

Ah Pek,

So from what you posted at 11: 42.57, I I take it that I got your drift right.

Few would disagree with your observation that the ‘political system mired in race and religion -based politics’ is so entrenched that seemingly nothing short of a more radical, as opposed to piecemeal approach, to change it.

What is being discussed is which approach to take (at the political level and individual voter’s level) in this complex situation, hence the vehemence of preceding debate.

Don’t misunderstand that I am dismissive outright of your so-called “chameleon” approach: it is one approach shared by many posters here.

The other approach – argued by Lee Wang Yen and myself – has placed greater emphasis on certain long-held principles than political expediency based on situational demands. I believe this latter approach is more in line with what YB Kit said about “DAP leaders being very different from MCA leaders including Ka Ting. DAP leaders are in politics not for self-gain, wealth, position or government position but for our ideals and principles, and love for our country” – with emphasis on the words “our ideals and principles, and love for our country” which, you should realise, are not exactly consistent with the chameleon approach!

At party level, and notwithstanding the principles enunciated by Kit, the fact that the DAP has an understanding with PKR (back to back against PAS) not to engage in three cornered fights is already indicative that DAP, as a party, has already indirectly taken the “chameleon” approach, though not perhaps as brazenly and openly as it did the last time when it had formal ties within the Barisan Alternatif led by PAS.

But the approach of a political party and the approach of a voter at individual level are not necessarily similar.

A political party has to follow political imperatives to win and dislodge the opponent (hence the decision to have a limited common front and least a collaboration sufficient to thwart BN its two thirds majority threshold) whilst as far as the individual goes (at his level), it is also the same except that it is made more complicated by dictates of individual personal conscience, emotions, values or whatever other cherished beliefs and principles including both felt experience and observed facts over decades and postulates or combination of both when exercising his right to vote or abstain….

So it is in the context of this “individual level” of decision making that there has been a debate of what to do when faced with the dilemma of BN versus PAS.

If one takes the ‘chameleon’ approach it will be PAS; otherwise it is either abstention or even BN, if PAS’s platform is viewed as a greater and real threat to our way of life requiring it to be handled first and relegated to the dustbin of political history before isolating and tackling BN by joint force of (say) DAP and PKR.

It is how an individual views it and this is what our debate here is all about – trying to canvass, evaluate approaches of how to tackle a seemingly intractable common predicament so bad that many of us have to (pathetically) throw the support behind a theocratic party (in a one to one BN/PAS contest) even if at the back of our minds we have serious misgivings of PAS’s intentions.

Be that as it may, we should in such debate respect each other’s individual approach on how to handle this problem, when it comes to voting, and should not get so emotionally heated up as to try to shut anyone else up, curtail their right to say their piece or deride what they say as nonsense or intellectual cock for not taking an approach that we personally thought a better one.

The search for approaches to handle it is an ongoing continuous one.