Has Zamri the legitimate mandate? Of course not. There were no state elections. State government was formed via political defections of 4 who crossed in betrayal of their constituencies’ mandate on 308. There is no moral legitimacy. Here legitimacy is a reference to acceptance based on a process lawful, authentic, genuine as verified by votes and hence credible. We know all this.

There is however a complication when discussing complicatedb issue of moral legitimacy. The BN says what is sauce for goose is sauce for gander. No double standards here! Last year PR’s defacto head Anwar Ibrahim claimed that he had the numbers (31 defectors) to form a new government on Sep 16th! His capability is backed by impressive resume. [In 1994 Anwar, at TDM’s behest, brought down the PBS government via massive party-hopping. He started the ‘frog hopping’ culture, and is called the “king of Frogs” by Dr Koh Tsu Koon]. In Perak, the King of Frogs lost his frogs to the other side.

If Anwar had suceeded on Sep 16 on vote of no confidence on PM via kataks, would LKS ask, as he does today of Zamri, whether Anwar had moral legitimacy to rule as PM without general elections?

LKS/DAP then tried to reconcile Anwar/PKR’s position. Kit said PKR would not accept crossing over to the opposition if “Kataks” were driven to do so by money and power. They must prove crossed over on the principle of wanting to bring about change to improve the lot of the people.

This is fiction: if Kataks were principled driven, would they have won their seat under BN’s ticket? How do you prove money and power versus principle? One can no more prove Kataks hopping to PR are driven by principle as those hopping to BN for power and money. Lets get real.

This is summary is BN’s argument : the sword cuts both ways. No double standards. Those of us who condemn Najib’s coup de grace in Perak and who say Zamri has no legitimate mandate are “double standards” – no escape from that fact – because had Sept 16 succeeded, many here would not, for a second, raise the same argument of moral legitimacy/mandate to rule on Anwar’s part as PM.

We are all educated: we cannot deny the undeniable. The strangest part is that civil societies NGOs would too the same double standards. Anwar/PKR can do it – but not BN. There must be a rational explanation why normally rational people would in the face of double standards, refuse to admit so – why in normal circumstances double standards is not Ok but when dealing with BN, it is OK. My next post will deal with the “whys” as it relates to issue/true meaning of “moral legitimacy” and mandate.

Contiuning from earlier posting : The position of The Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (BERSIH) summarizes the sentiments.
BERSIH basically contends that the opposition parties might have won the elections on 308 outright if it was in fact clean, free, fair and transparent with no vote buying, no gerrymandering, no phantom votes, no disenfranchising young voters partial for change going to vote, no using of tax/public funds to buttress BN election machinery to finance campaign, selective deployment of development funds from public purse to induce votes etc…Most important there won’t be a level playing field in election unless it is perceived that we have an independent Election Commission, and when there is a dispute, an independent judiciary as well!
In the political game/process of elections to ascertain the “mandate” the field of contest must be even or else the results do not reflect the truth about where that support truly lies.

So if we’re talking about Moral Legitimacy & Mandate to rule as determined from results of election, to many opposition supporters/civil society/NGOs the BN has no moral legitimacy to rule based on even the 308 election results because of the validity of BERSIH’s claims!

Of course besides claims to moral legitimacy to rule based on elections in last 50 years, the BN also stakes also ideological legitimacy, institutional legitimacy and functional legitimacy.
A brief explanation: Ideological legitimacy includes the idea of power sharing between races/NEP etc; institutional legitimacy, a reference to check & balance within system such as independent referee/judiciary and functional legitimacy, a reference to how ministries civil service/local authorities perform.

These legitimacies – ideological, institutional, functional – are also questioned by BN’s detractors as, in their perception, race/religious schisms got worse, rampant corruption shown, “political eunuchs of those who purportedly represent minorities, judiciary independence shaken by Lingam’s video clip revelations and draconian laws and selective application, not to count abuse of power….

So there must be change because there is no more moral, ideological, institutional and functional legitimacies left for defense of status quo.

For this reason normally rational persons/NGOs/Civil society who would recognize double standards for what they are and condemn it, are strangely willing to overlook it if committed by the Opposition fighting for change. They are willing to tolerate double, triple and quadruple standards for the Opposition and none for the ruling coalition!

The basic reason is status quo position has no more moral and other legitimacies to many BN’s detractors, and change justifies double standards because the first Moral Legitimacy and mandate derived from electoral victory by ruling coalition from a contest – in an uneven playing field – has already been questioned and is doubted along same lines as BERSIH’s arguments and points. It is almost felt that the rulingh coalition side that has long lost the primary moral legitimacy has forfeited its right to question the counter party (Opposition) secondary moral legitimacy in relation to its double standards ibn looking at political crossings! :)

Malang nya ada orang yang termakan cili pedas tetapi langsung tak sedar dan terasa!

If Karpal Singh asks Anwar to resign, it is because Karpal thinks Anwar’s fame in canvassing crossovers has basically undermined PR’s cause to morally condemn BN’s using the same method to usurp control of Perak’s state government….In other words PR could not effectively demolish the moral legitimacy of BN’s coup based on defections because Anwar first advocated this means and thus forfeited PR’s high ground.

So why do you think I spent two lengthy postings discussing the issue of the scope of ‘moral legitimacy’, the small and the big picture? It is to give a counter explanation to the direction Karpal Singh is proceeding in his thoughts.

But of course to some people who read but nothing goes in will describe my effort as “a pathological desire to show off, to make lengthy postings in order to cover up their flip-flopping ideas”.

Quick to judge – in the worst light – but slow to comprehend, a trait of the arrogant and the dogmatic (then) whose only flip flop and change now is just the reverse – dogmatic and arrogant!

Instead of helping the PR Cause and leave marks of insight you have persistently littered the blog with stain of your irrelevant and abusive comments directed at personalities and the way they write, whether long or short, riding a high moral horse of calling Karpal a mad dog to be leashed or Mohd Nizar to throw back his honorific title with absolutely no understanding of the dynamics of the situation or its implications and just shooting from your mouth that filth which from the pit of your stomach cannot restrain with no time for filtration from the upper part of the mouth .. What can I say? I really don’t know who is the mad dog here.

Whilst I am trying my best to counter what Karpal is doing and saying, our friend Godfather is trying to attack me (stip naked prostitutes) for lengthy postings to show off and cover up flip flop. . Calling you stupid/pedantic/arrogant would be an insult to stupid /pedantic/arrogant people! You don’t understand what you read – and as usual, what is at stake here when Karpal goes to speak his mind!

Karpal Singh is calling a spade a spade. He is putting principles of what he thinks is right well above political expedience. He won’t condone double standards as what liangyuh raised in posting February 9th, 2009 at 02: 09.47. On that basis, he made an open criticism of defacto leader Anwar Ibrahim.

It is likely former vice-chairman of Transparency International’s Board of Directors Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim who has joined the DAP as the DAP’s vice-chairman will associate with and support the statement of Karpal Singh, the DAP national chairman.

You can question their method of voicing political stand for the DAP – or dissent – that is too public (not behind closed doors like BN component parties) and convenient for BN to exploit.

However we have no basis to question their integrity and principled stand : certainly not call them “mad dog” as blind extremists will do.

YB, whatever happens, Karpal Singh reflects the principles – and the straight talk of the unvarnished truth fearless of the consequences – that the DAP has (and you have) always stood for over the years and defended above the imperatives of political expedience.