How to believe crime is not increasing when in part it is concomitant to population, increase in wealth but not equitable distribution of wealth, urban and rural drift, influx of migrants, all the factors sociologist would attribute to crime increase unless one really believes PDRM is so efficient to counteract the trend.

‘I think “a serious victim of crime” should be a victim of serious crime, shouldn’t it? I can’t imagine anybody laughing off an abdominal stabbing.’ – OrangRojak

Here I must come to the defence of Kit’s “manglish”. :)

The word (adjective) “serious” as intending to mean “of great consequence” and “importance” is intended by Kit to describe not the offence of stabbing – which by itself, is certainly serious enough if it were intended to so describe it – but the victim.

However if there are “serious” victims, does that mean Kit think that the rest of us who are al so victims are not “serious” victims?

Does it now suggest that the Supremo of DAP, a political party of socialist leanings, is no more egalitarian in treating crime victims into 2 classes, one serious/important and the other of little importance?

No. I read what Kit means is that the victim is an acting OCPD whose job is to curb and stem crime of which he is now a victim.

He is a “serious” victim in the sense that his victimization dramatises more than other ordinary cases by irony that crime is no respecter of persons and is at a stage that it could strike, as it has struck, even a crime buster, and who knows will be next, some one high up in the apex of powers (whose responsbility is to maintain the security of the nation) and who would normally think that he is shielded by security details.

If the PM himself got robbed off his wallet then in context it is a more serious case – and he a more serious victim – than you and I in similar predicament because his case dramatises the irony. :)

A person does not have to spelled out “serious” crime situation when his whole article hightlights the seriousness of crime even by using irony by way of highlight, of a serious case involving a crime buster as used in the context of a ‘district chief also having become “a serious victim of crime”….Who here says that by describing acting OCPD as “a serious victim of crime”, there is any detraction from the general view that crime is serious in this country? What is Godfather arguing about ? Kit’s wrong usage of the word “serious victim of crime” or what? Now on second thought you have a problem in either reading attentiveness or plain faulty thought process.

To me crapshooting is blind interjecting without cogent reason or reasonable justification without following the thread and flow of arguments or thought developing through the postings here.

As usual Godfather’s last posting contains no substance to vindicate what he originally alleged or rebut what I said.

To say I “crapshoot, trying to justify why he needs to go on a crapshoot, typical lawyer doublespeak, all end up holding only one thing in both hands”, all spilling the vehemence, without an iota of substance/rationale to establish how it is crapshoot in the first place, how does that advance what you first alleged – that I deflected the seriousness of the crime to a lesson in English?

In my earlier posting 8: 11.22 (4 hours ago) didn’t I make clear that “YB Kit may politicize but it doesn’t mean that crime situation is not really worsening and is now grave as he politicised”??

To alledge/accuse baselessly, without iota of evidence/substance is a deplorable trait, now it is matched in equal intensity by a total lack of grace to acknowledge a manifest error.

You should have better self respect than continuing such.

And nobody says that the topic is about the use of Queen’s English and that this blog is an avenue for one to show off his prowess of Queen’s English either..” However it is Godfather who implies that LKS has used word “serious” on the wrong noun, ie victim instead of crime. Show to me how that is so. Now no one here says LKS did not say crime is not serious. That is the thread focal point. The fact that he hasn’t used the word “serious” before “crime” does not suggest he views it less so esp when the whole focus of the article is directed to it.

I said he used the word “serious” victim in order to underscore the irony of rising crime respecting no categories o f person including crime buster…. . In my earlier posting 8: 11.22 (4 hours ago), I have said lived experiences and anecdotal evidence, newspaper reports contradict official statistics down playing crime.

So how in the above, have I, Godfather, “deflected the seriousness of the crime to a lesson in English” ?

Don’t talk crap here.

Now that is where the third “sin” is : in camouflaging (1) the making of baseless allegations without following thread of arguments in postings (2) not having grace to admit an error – which are indefensible – Godfather seeks to switch venue/forum of discussion (on OCPD , a victim of crime) to another forum of discussion ie that of whether “UMNO is a lesser evil than PAS”, in wh ich Godfather he could stand on firmer ground on that issue, and he tries to do that by trying to entice and draw me to a different arena of discussion by providing a link – that it is my alleged “hidden agenda” to make everyone dance to my tune of “UMNO is a lesser evil than PAS”, that I should just come out and say that “a PR government with PAS won’t be able to combat crime as efficiently as BN, is it not?

I have never thought ab out such a thing muc h less said it.

You must be thinking I was born yesterday to be drawn from one topic to another just to satisfy your need to cover (1) and (2) above said.

It is wrong of you to waste bandwidth here and waste other readers’ time here by drawing to draw a discussion on an OCB D being a crime victim to the Islamic state or which is worse UMNO or PAS, the only tenous link being the pretext of saying whether crime could be better managed or worse under PR, with PAS or UMNO.

This is not the subject of this blogthread. You are just trying to create this new sub-text of discussion for your own personal purpose of arguing under a different subject regardless of others’ interest here, which is why I say you should learn to infuse more integrity in your purposes and action.

That you should think I would, with alacrity, think for a second th at I would take such a bait (changing subjects) of dishonest argument is naive, to say the least. :)