///2. The Pakatan Rakyat Council of Leaders reaffirms our rejection of the idea of forming a Unity Government with UMNO/Barisan Nasional which is clearly a malicious and desperate attempt to compromise the integrity of the increasingly popular Pakatan Rakyat///

Shouldn’t it be Pakatan Rakyat Council of Leaders reaffirms our rejection of the idea of forming a Unity Government with UMNO/Barisan Nasional as well as having Unity Talks with UMNO/Barisan Nasional?

The group within PAS keen to maintain liaison and communication with UMNO/Barisan Nasional has all along promoted opening Unity Talk with UMNO/Barisan Nasional, which is not necessarily synonymous with forming Unity Government with UMNO/BN – at least not yet (openly).

Is any PAS faction allowed to continue Unity Talk based on Unity of Malaysian Malays based on common religion (as distinct from talking about Unity Government) or Pakatan Rakyat’s reaffirmation of rejection of the idea of forming a Unity Government automatically preclude (from standpoint of common sense or whatever) any form of Unity Talk whether based on Unity of race or religion????

On the important distinction between not having “Unity Government” from “not having Unity Talk” (in relation to race or religion) Godfather, in his usual short-sightedness and unthinking way, mocked “Oooooo….the crapshooter now tries to correct the English of the PR Council”, thinking that it is all an issue of English, missing thus (as customary) the woods from the trees!

When one like PAS’s Hadi rejects Unity Govt with UMNO/ Barisan Nasional, it does not necessarily imply one cannot have Unity Talks (whether based on religion or race) with UMNO/ Barisan Nasional.

The more important of the two is Unity Talks that ought to be prevented!

It is Unity Talk that explores parameters whether Unity Govt were possible fater Unity Talk. No one would have Unity Govt without first having Unity talk!

The terms of coming together and what’s the benefit will be ironed out if they are permitted to talk and converse. That is why Unity Talk is more dangerous.

Once talk proves alliance with (say) UMNO/BN is beneficial, then it becomes academic that PAS or a section of it has earlier promised the other 2 partners that it won’t form the Unity Govt with the rival.

This is because when one leaves and unite with a new partner, will one care what one has promised an existing partner (abandoned) earlier?

To use a homespuun analogy. Supposing one has a wife. To have her declare that she will not leave/divorce you and marry (unite) with her ex boyfriend is meaningless if she were allowed – meanwhile – to converse, stay in contact and engage with her ex- boyfriend because it is precisely through these conversations she could detemine with clarity the benefit of changing partners. Once that benefit is confirmed, then it matters not that she has made an earlier cvommitment with existing partner not to look for an alternative partner! She could breach it with impunity because she has already the opportunity (though conversations and talk) with the suitor to prepare for safe landing on the other side of the fence!

So the more important issue in terms of stability of Union of two or three partners is that there should be no unity talk by anyone with the rival opponent (unless all pertners talk together).

To say that all agree to no unity govt/alliance with the rival without making clear that there is also to be no unity talk by one of the partners with the rival is to open a loophole for the most important condition for Unity Govt to take place – the prior Unity Talk laying the groundwork for Unity Government!

I don’t know how even for a person like Godfather who says English is not his first language (as if it were mine) to be unable or refuse to know the difference between the two expressions “government” and “talk”, and thinking that a commitment to no “Unity Govt” is exactly equivalent to commitment to “No Unity talk” revolving around unity of race or religion! Or that one cannot whilst committing no no unity govt is necessarily precluded fvrom no unity talk; or that no unity govt is any meaningful when one is allowed to freely talk with one’s rival without the rest of the other partners; or that such talk may not pave the way to an alliance with the opposite side, by which time, when talk have reached that matured stage of finalisation of merger, the breach of the earlier promise to one ‘s other partners not to have unity govt has become no more relevant or important!

///For one who openly writes “I don’t deny that I write eloquently”, this is simply gobbledegook/// – Godfather

Whether or not it is ‘gobbledegook’ to you is a matter of no consequence to me.

I just want to set the record straight that I have neither stated nor meant to imply that I write eloquently, which you persisted for months at end making/repeating false accusations imputing that I did (in some misty past), thinking that if you repeated this often enough, it would stick on people who were not witness to the exchange in the past, and knew nothing of what was actually said.

Which only shows how despicable and intentionally dishonest the vile manner by which you conduct discourse in this blog.

“I think the pontificating crapshooter should just write simple English for all of us to understand.” I do – only you don’t understand!

Most other time, a blog toothache, of course there are times even you could also be agreeable – once people learn to agree with you!

If making false accusations, twisting and turning with dishonest arguments and misrepresenting others position were a disease, your case, in my observation, is in advance malignancy.

10% trying to contribute to this blog, 90% politiking (as when he alternates between criticising and then praising/redeeming LimKamPut :)

you should join Hadi in PAS and grow a beard too!