This is in response to LimKamPut’s posting Today at 21: 02.53 (11 minutes ago). I said I didn’t know whether there was corruption, the investigations are still on going to establish whether it was primarily negligence (with or without corruption) but as I understand the position, you’re saying that we can all assume is it as least primarily due to corruption and not other separate factors (like negligence or even gross reckless negligence) .

Have I ever wondered disaster, fiasco, incomplete, substandard, cost overrun, or white elephant is one time too many in this country? Yes of course but do we have the facts to say all these are there and they are caused by corruption primarily – for this particular case?

This is not a case of MRR2, cracking, not taking the load of traffic on it which it was supposed to do or PKFZ where costs overruns/burnt rate runs to RM12 billion. This is also not Gong Badak stadium whose roof collapsed just after completion.

We’re talking of Jaya Supermarket that has been there Section 14 PJ more than 30 or 40 years (I think) during which time have you heard about any crack or parts collapsing?

Lim Kam Put asked, “How can you start demolishment work when you have not got the approval from the Department of Occupational Safety and Health?”

However did they start demolishment work? This building has been vacated and derelict for more than one year awaiting demolishment – ask residents there. Why wait so long, I don’t know.

It is not the building proper that collapsed (judging from pictures posted on the Net). It was the back part of the building – a much lower part covering the car parks, and these guys apparently (I stand corrected if wrong) put heavy machinery and structures on top of that, and probably left them there for quite a period (precisely because demolishment work never started) when the engineering calculations (at time of construction 30/40 years ago) did not anticipate support of such weight of heavy machinery at that lower back part of the building. The roof was not built for that purpose to hold such weight. If you say (without awaiting outcome of further findings or further information upon which one could draw inference of what happened) and that happened) that such circumstances automatically implies corruption – as in other cases mentioned – what is the basis? Just because everywhere else corruption is rife?

Are we interested to discuss and see what really happened (the truth) – or more interested to vent our spleen about corruption happening so often around in other cases, not exactly the same as the Jaya Supermarket?

//Let me tell you this, it is not just DAP that equates anything that collapses with corruption. I am telling this: it is the Malaysians in general who feel that way, and DAP is just the mouth piece speaking on our behalf, got it dumbo?//

Fine, it is true that Malaysians in general feel that way, and DAP is just the mouth piece speaking on our behalf but, does “feel so” necessarily means it was or must have been so (even before all facts are investigated and disclosed for inference, and we don’t even consider the fact that this building (the main structure) has been standing more than 30/40 years and that the part collapsed was just the annex (lower part, 2 or 3 storeys for car park to take the load of cars but not heavy machinery and structures in preparation for demolishment work not begun and left idle there)???

Don’t forget that it

What’s so eloquent about the English? (It has been simplified for your understanding). Whats so deep-seated insecurity to ascertain the facts before concluding?

“….given to abuse as their only response….” That is why the question must be asked, who is really trivializing the blog (by such manner of conduct of exchange) assuming that that they have DAP & Kit’s interrest at heart?

I am only addressing Jaya Supermarket building that had stood there for over 30/40 years, and the fact that only the annex carpark collapsed after that building had been vacated more quite some time, and heavy machinery/equipment (instead of cars) were parked there awaiting demolishment. I am only addessing TomThumb’s general comments relating that for this S14 case, it might be due to negligence.

So why egg me to go into another area to speculate on the vast majority of other cases of collapses from bridges to roofs or whatever and the degree of corruption involved???

I am obviously not as qualified as you to speculate (since you might yourself have one time been associated one way or another as consultant to some of these projects).

Why ask when I have already answered that I am obviously not as qualified or learned as you to speculate on whether “vast majority” of collapses of structures in Bolehland can be attributed to corruption (since, I have already yielded to the possibility of your being more experienced in having one time of another been associated one way or another as consultant to some of these projects or the genre of them).

One should observe how the mind of Godfather works. One talks of a specific subject A (collapse of Jaya Supermarket) that he attacks (for the sake of attacking).

When it is shown that subject or issue “A” can be reasonably defended against such attacks, he being not satisfied that his attacks scored hits, next tries to egg/draw the defender of issue A to another area of discussion (in this case the general case of vast majority of collapses of structures in Bolehland and the degree of corruption implicated in this cases) (say wider issue “B”) that was not the issue of discussion/contention in the first place or a subject which the defender has any interest to dwell on.

His aim is to draw defender from A issue that he was not successful in attacking/discrediting to a new “B” issue that he might have a chance to be successful.

You can involve other in these kind of kindergarden tricks : don’t involve me. I don’t come out to play here. I am not interested.

You are trivilizing Kit’s blog here with such your tricks just explained, exacerbated more so if those tricked by you get drawn into such games into an unending cycle of arguments.