Malaysiakini reports : “Selangor Menteri Besar Abdul Khalid Ibrahim said that the Selangor government will seek the views of state ruler Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah on how it should deal with the controversy surrounding executive councillor Elizabeth Wong.”

Is PKR’s ‘new’ politics that holds justice and human rights as core values which transcend gender, ethnicity and class – and gutter politics – alone NOT sufficient to guide how Selangor government should react to Elizabeth Wong’s offer of resignation?

With all respect to HRH the Sultan, whose wisdom is not doubted, isn’t Khalid Ibrahim’s action a kind of “passing the buck” to the Ruler, when PKR should bear the burden alone on that decision? As constitutional head of religion, would a Ruler have many options on this matter by way of guidance?

Is royal guidance, sought, required mandatorily to be followed/abided?

How does the Selangor situation of seeking royal guidance jive with the situation in Perak in which royal decision (let alone) guidance on MB’s appointment has not be followed by PR?

If (procedurally) constitutional monarch’s guidance will have to be respected, then PR must likewise be prepared that BN would, in connection to Perak State assembly affairs, refer the issue of Mohd Nizar and his PR’s state councillors running a ‘shadow government’ parallel to Zamri’s to HRH Sultan of Perak (again) for guidance, and if the guidance were that Mohd Nizar and his PR’s state councillors running a ‘shadow government’ should immediately desist and disband to end the charade, will PR abide by the royal decision/guidance?

Please note that institution of monarchy, albeit constitutional, is synonymous with upholding tradition.

This is not symmetrical with “our hopes for New Politics” espoused by PKR as stated by Farish Noor.

New Politics surely is not consistent with tradition, is it?

In the beginning Elizabeth said she did nothing wrong and the question of her resigning did not arise when she said that “I will in the meantime continue to carry out my task of serving the people of Selangor faithfully.”

She said very clearly she had done nothing wrong and added “that I am not ashamed of my sexuality as a woman and as a single person. I have broken no law. I stand by the fundamental principle in a democracy that has a right to privacy.”

She also said, “Parti Keadilan Rakyat stands for ‘new’ politics that holds justice and human rights as core values which transcend gender, ethnicity and class. ‘New’ politics also means we rise above gutter politics.”

How come then she now changed her stance so quickly to offer her letter of resignation? The question must be asked : did PR Selangor state government induce her to tender in her resignation?

And to avoid the prospect of not being accused of not walking the talk on “new politics” conveniently pass the buck to HRH the Sultan of Selangor, the constitutional head of Islam, for guidance – when I don’t see the Perak state councillors led by Mohd Nizar turn to the Perak ruler for guidance (instead did not abide with HRH the Sultan’s to step down as MB in favour of Zamri)?

Is there a double standard here?

?

The arithmetic does not add up. “New Politics” my foot – more like old wine in new bottle.

Baradan Kuppusamy reported in The MalaysiaInsider Feb 17:’The party debated the issue long and hard on Monday night and early Tuesday and although it is so painful we had to let her go,” said a senior PKR leader who could not be identified because he is not authorised to comment on the issue. “The party comes first, it has to be protected,” the person said. “We felt our political enemies would extensively exploit the images and other materials during the Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau (April 7) by-elections,” the person said. “The party would be badly damaged.” “Najib’s rise coincides with the loss of Perak and the injection of new vigour into Umno and BN and consequently giving the impression that the Pakatan Rakyat tide might have reached its zenith. Some quarters say BN/Umno – given the changing circumstances and other factors – can possibly win Bukit Gantang or even Bukit Selambau but probably not Bukit Lanjan.Therefore, a comfortable victory in Bukit Lanjan would boost the Pakatan Rakyat at a time when it seems to be in retreat after losing Perak and facing allegations of defections of its representatives in Kedah and Selangor.
In that sense, letting Wong go, saving the image of PKR and winning back Bukit Lanjan, are shrewd political calculations. She had enemies within and outside, a colleague said.’

Baradan Kuppusamy summarised, “The need to uphold a higher moral ground in comparison with the Barisan Nasional (BN) and shrewd political calculations are behind the resignation of Elizabeth Wong.”

I ask how can you be on a higher moral ground in comparison with the Barisan Nasional (BN) when if you said Elizabeth had done nothing wrong and that she was a victim of gutter politics, you reward/give in to the calculations of gutter politicians by creating (party-wise) a situation that she has to resign??? Whatever happen to “new politics”? Bottom line you’re still talking about “letting Wong go, saving the image of PKR to prevent BN exploiting the images and other materials during the Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau (April 7) by-elections and winning back Bukit Lanjan, shrewd political calculations” – everything but the principle of right or wrong, and indirectly in the process giving gutter politicians the motivation to continue this kind of black mail – because such blackmail always yields the desired result of forcing the resignation of the victim! How does that put the party, with all these calculations, on a higher moral plane, I wish to know???

Crapfather (as in father of all craps) says “One Jeff is a Gerakan plant” which is an insinuation that DAP is naive enough to bring in a ‘Gerakan plant’ and let him have the Jelutong seat…If you want to give random crap allegations, have the decency to do so in his blog than spew them here in a space in which counter party does not likely visit and hence has no opportunity to reply.

What is there for Anwar to ask Wong to reconsider her “quit” decision when, after delivering the quit notice the ball is in the Selangor state govt’s court, and he could just direct the Selangor State govt/MB to reject her offer to quit, there being then no need for Khalid to seek royal guidance???

“This is just a BN plot to try to get Liz Wong to quit. Shame on those who practice such gutter politics.” – Kenny Gan

Agreed : so why should PKR gratify such gutter politics by rewarding and giving success to that plot by getting Elizabeth out on the excuse of party interests?

Supposing I am wrong – that it wasn’t for party interests that she be out but that she should stay – on ground of principle. Then even if she tendered graciously her resignation in good faith to show that she did not put her self interest above party’s, it would behoove the party and the Selangor state govt to do right by rejecting her quit offer instead of seeking royal guidance from Sultan of Selangor whilst not abiding with guidance or directive of Perak sultan! What is the logic here??

This is in response only to the three points raised by Loh in his earlier posting at 22:48.33 –

(1) “How do you see double standards?” – Jong puts it well at 18:33.04 – “why now get the Sultan of Selangor involved in politics of the State? Why take a different stand when it comes to Perak?”

(2) “(a) Under the Perak constitution, the Sultan can sack executive councillor but not the MB. Is there the same provision for Selangor? (b)…Khalid might be seeing the Sultan on this possibility…”

On (a), I’m not sure if Selangor state constitution has parallel provisions as Perak state constitution. On (b), I can’t speculate on possibilities but even if Selangor state constitution were to have parallel provisions as Perak state constitution (for the sultan to sack an executive councillor), there is thus far no indication, suggestion or report anywhere that Selangor Sultan has earlier evinced any such intention (for Khalid to go and seek guidance).

(3) “Perak MB wanted the Sultan to dissolve the LA; that was his duty”.

Yes this is true but I wasn’t comparing (a) Khalid’s seeking royal guidance on Elizabeth controversy with (b) Perak MB wanting to see Perak Sultan to dissolve the Perak Legislative Assembly.

I was comparing instead (a) Khalid’s seeking royal guidance on the state government matter of how to deal with Elizabeth controversy with that of (b) Mohd Nizar’s refusal to abide with Perak Sultan’s decision to appoint Zamri as legitimate MB on assumption that both Khalid and Nizar represent the common PR’s position and not just their respective party, whether PKR or PAS position. Here (a) and (b) approaches are inconsistent with each other.

Of course John Lennon and Yoko ono would take nakedness as symbolising truth, humility and humanity by calling for peace and appearing naked on one of their album covers but for the masses, nakedness (except in one’s own privacy/solitariness not publicly exposed) symbolise public shame and embarrassment (regardless of how this came about)!

Even in the privacy of one’s home we would take a bath with door closed when there are other family members around (except perhaps spouse used to it); and even if a girl raped emerged from the bush with clothes tattered or without clothes, we would cover her up (if we had some cloth) to protect her modesty before bundling her off to the police station or hospital as the case may be.

Modesty includes propriety in dress, and to be seen nude by public is an embarrassment/shame (unless one is in special circumstances of a nude beach where all are expected nude or in Japanese/Korean Spa!)

Anything embarrassing/shameful is on a standalone basis incompatible with the dignified, and by extention the dignity of high office.

It will take a very very strong mitigating circumstance to overcome this social taboo and stricture on dress propriety.

As I said earlier we have this hang up about our own and others nudity. We don’t accept its naturalness. We have to cover up or else we feel we have become “indecent”. We feel uncomfortable in other words with being undressed except imediate lovers/spouses having the privilege to know about this private aspect – the word know denoting normal knowledge or carnal knowledge. Anything else is embarrassment/shame. It is a feeling, a conditioning, and not a subject to be intellectualised whether logically it ought or ought not to be the case……

//Heavy traffic don’t count for anything if the people beat round the bush. You miss the point most of the time.//

Like to hear what is the ‘real’ point that bush beaters here have missed. Cre to enlighten?? :)

The Crapfather is talking crap again: people who compare CSL/Vijandran & Elizabeth – even if he does not agree it is a valid comparison – will have brushed all 3 cases raising none of any to any level, just the opposite of what he said about “raised to this level” of drama. One last vestige of democracy left in this country is some people’s exercise of their right to ventilate stupidity and utter incessant nonsense.

What is there that is addressed by the Crapfather in preceding 2 postings 22:03.07, 22:05.33? Just a spontaneous overflow of senseless diatribe permitting no opportunity of a sensible response. Sigh. So sad.

“Incessant spewing of “on the one hand it is this, and on the other hand it is that”, all the while holding only one thing in both hands” posting of 22:05.33

Yes it is also democracy that where eloquence fails, vulgarity may also be resorted to as a convenient substitute for incoherence! :)

Godfather said, “What I take issue with is the hidden agenda of this show-off to destabilise PR.” He then cited examples and gave a summary of his stand : “If we hit out at the likes of Kasim Amat or Cintanegara then we should mete out the same treatment to this traitor – the One Who Writes Eloquently and the One Who has a Theory on Everything.”

I am actually very pleased Godfather has explained his mindset/attitude/stance in this posting at Yesterday at 23: 59.53 .

The contents of the posting speak for themselves and everyone could draw the proper conclusions.

I have tried to explain such mindset/attitude/stance in my posting in earlier thread but never could succeed as well as it comes from the “horse mouth” so to speak.

This is one occasion that I will not deign consider it worth the while to contradict him in my own self defence.

In fact, I applaud all that he said, especially about his perception of my “traitorious” motivations similar to Kasim Amat’s or Cintanegara’s.

I can`t possibly take his credit from what – to me – is a very perfect job of self incrimination, done very nicely, I must say.

Surely One4All4One and HJ Angus you could all see that the personal lambasting is hard to stop because there is, in his words, “no double standards” and the same treatment must be meted out just like other traitors like Kasim Amat or Cintanegara.

I look forward to it. :)

MSM is not permitted, as a matter of propriety as well as law, to publish pictures or videos of naked women.

They likely have such pictures/videos for verification to back their story. Or else they will be sued by Elizabeth Wong for fabricating untruths.

AS I understand it, Elizabeth herself does not deny their existence in her press statement. She only denies that she has done anything wrong.

The matter is unlikely to blow up to present proportion if the pictures (at least) if not videos were not circulated and got into MSM’s hands.

“How about a martini then? Shaken, but not stirred?” -TheWrathOfGrapes

Kepala Pening lah, Hello I am no Agent 007, indirectly you are lending subtle credence to the Cappfather’s allegations of me being a BN mole/spy??? :)

a BN mole/spy without an allowance, some more (whilst others get theirs at least RM200 per posting, so according to some “well informed” poster in this blog! :)

TheWrathOfGrapes,

Thanks for your comments Today at 08: 56.33 (2 hours ago)
Behind the mutual mudslingings between Crapfather and me – which looks “personal” and an obvious irritation to the rest – is something actually not really “personal” but a wide gulf in world view and ideological approach including to use in this blog. It is this part that cannot be bridged and will always be a source of mutual hostility.

Although my tilt is in favour of change by PR – on the premise of every change from an existing moribund system always represents a notch better than existing status quo in the slow march to a better society – yet my partisanship is always on the side on what, in my opinion, is good and best interest of Malaysians and country in general, without a steady focus on what – to me – is true and real.

Hence I am not in this sense partisan for or against BN or PR for its own sake and knowing my profound distrust of politicians in general I reserve the right to criticise/praise whichever camp – BN or PR – they belong to if they’re inconsistent or unprincipled and not acting what to me (right or wrong) is in interest of best interest of Malaysians (including our children) and country in general – or otherwise the opposite…..

Godfather’s focus is diametrically opposed. He thinks that our peoples and nations’ first and immediate interest is to rid the Great Oppressor (BN) and for that nothing must be done by way of serious criticism of Pakatan Rakyat or its defacto head, Anwar or any other leaders because such a thing will sow confusion, undermine unity amongst PR’s supporters, destabilise PR and slow its advancement of PR towards the victory line – for the first time so near after 308. Anyone who does that – as I do – is therefore traitorous and better hounded out of this blog since it does no good to the Common Cause.

This is a position I profoundly disagree.

I think if PR or its leaders cannot withstand constructive criticism and pointing failure to their faults even at this juncture – and will be destabilised by legitimate criticisms based on the truth – then I think it would make no difference whether now or later it is destabilised, as it will be, they not grounded on principles that perenially enduring.

Secondly I also think even from perspective of a focussed supporter such as Godfather, there must be a recognition that criticisms of a valid nature againt PR & its leaders are a good thing because they are a mirror to their weaknesses which if they could correct and rectify, which would then serve their cause in the longer run….. Now if the criticisms are invalid they may be argued against and disputed civilly but if they are valid then they should stand and not be silenced by hostility of supporters who view them as destructive/traitorious to the Opposition Cause.

In the first place, I take LKS Blog as serving the Malaysian Cause and not just the PR’s Cause, so I yield the ground to no one who wants to suppress a democratic free flow/exchange of debate of ideas (including criticisms of PR or its leaders) based on service of what is true rather than what is partisan for one side, and I will debate whether civilly or uncivilly, trade insult for insult, reason for reason to defend this ground!