By Kee Thuan Chye
SURE, “politics is the art of the possible” – especially if it involves politicians who can change their tune overnight. That’s why it has been possible for Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat and Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek to suddenly become friends again after a year of fierce animosity between them.
The art of the possible also works with politicians who can forget about scruples and put on a show. Nothing exhibits this more clearly than the outwardly awkward reconciliation between these enemies last Thursday. For added value, the would-be usurper of the presidency, Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai, was also dragged into the act, a seemingly reluctant performer at that. So too was Datuk Seri Kong Cho Ha, who had until now kept a dignified low profile.
It was a show that could easily have given the Goons of that famous British TV comedy a run for their asininity. I laughed so much, I had to call it the Most Laughable Farce of the Year, and nominate Ong, Chua and the supporting players for Best Comic Ensemble.
Who in their right mind would give much credence to this quick-glue patch-up that is aimed at reunifying the MCA? From reports, Ong had to leave the press conference room for 10 minutes to bring Liow and Kong in. Scriptwriters would have their imagination fired up by what transpired in those 10 minutes. They would be wondering, too, about what might be simmering behind those counterfeit smiles flashed for the media cameras. The tears of a clown? The resentment of facing a checkmate?
Scriptwriters would also be wondering if there was an unseen hand behind this sudden volte-face on the part of Ong and Chua since both have said that the prime minister gave them his blessing to get back together. Was this an example of deus ex machina, a la Aristotle? Who is the deus (“god” in Latin)? Are these four men in actuality wayang kulit characters putting on a show at the command of their puppet-master?
Sorry, I got carried away with the dramatic possibilities. I actually meant to ask: Where is the concern for integrity in this latest episode of the MCA saga? At what level is the moral quotient of these men who purport to lead the MCA? How is the MCA going to be credible in the eyes of the Chinese community – let’s not even consider the wider Malaysian public – when what its leaders have done must force us to suspend our disbelief?
Besides, how workable is this hasty marriage of inconvenience between Ong and Chua likely to be?
Chua was the duly elected deputy president. Then he got sacked from the party because Ong looked hell-bent on getting him out. That riled Chua up and he fought back with a vengeance. At the Oct 10 EGM, the delegates sent both a message – they registered a vote of no-confidence against Ong as president, and reinstated Chua as an ordinary member but not as deputy president. In short, both should bow out.
Ong had promised to step down if the no-confidence motion was carried by only one vote, but he broke his promise. After the EGM, 20 Central Committee members urged him to resign. Ong said he felt betrayed by his friends and so he turned the tables on them. A deal was struck between him and his former foe. And now they’re back, shaking hands. How does one perceive all that? Can one view these two men as being other than desperadoes who want to cling on to their positions?
Chua now seems to question the outcome of the EGM. Although the delegates voted against his reinstatement as deputy president, he has applied to the Registrar of Societies to clarify whether he should be reinstated in spite of that – since his sacking from the party has been overturned. This doesn’t show good faith. It shows that he is willing to respect only the resolution that is in his favour and to dispute the one that is not. Surely, this will infuriate some of the delegates. How then can his new pact with Ong help to reunify the party?
There is still a chance that the registrar or the home minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, will decide to have Chua restored to his number two post in the party. If that should happen, what would become of Liow, who has meanwhile been elected deputy president, after the EGM, by the Central Committee? Is he going to be eventually played out and left in the cold? What then might be the consequences?
Chua has said rather glibly, “Then I become deputy president lah.” That’s easy to say, but there may be other ramifications. Right after the EGM, Liow was not thinking of only becoming number two; he had ambitions of becoming the chief. Is he likely to quietly go back to being vice-president and be a model MCA man?
On the other hand, what if Chua does not get reinstated? Would his followers be happy that Liow remain in what was Chua’s domain since the latter was the duly elected one whereas Liow was merely elected by the CC? Is everyone going to take it lying down for the sake of reconciliation and unity? Are warring factions likely to become peaceniks overnight?
Ong says the leaders can now “re-focus on strengthening the party to regain the confidence and trust of the Chinese community and Malaysians in general”. Of course he would say that. What else is there? It’s a platitude he needs to hang on to since he didn’t do the honourable thing of stepping down like he said he would. Who can believe what he says now?
Chua, too, has his own platitude. In justifying the reconciliation, he said, “In politics, they say it is an art to make the impossible possible and the possible impossible.” He might have thought he was adding a new twist with the second clause of that statement, but it could even turn out to be a prophecy. What might have been possible for the MCA – the chance of renewal with the departure of the two “tigers” Ong and Chua – could eventually become impossible.
Kee Thuan Chye is the man behind the book, March 8: The Day Malaysia Woke Up
#1 by Onlooker Politics on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 - 2:25 pm
No matter how much convincing the rationale of “greater unity” given by Ong and Chua can be, it totally does not make sense to me if Chua as an alleged criminal of committing the illegal sex against the nature (in his case, the oral sex) can be spared from being prosecuted in a magistrate court. Do we still abide by the constitutional principle that all men are born equal before Law?
#2 by Loh on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 - 2:31 pm
///Chua now seems to question the outcome of the EGM. Although the delegates voted against his reinstatement as deputy president, he has applied to the Registrar of Societies to clarify whether he should be reinstated in spite of that – since his sacking from the party has been overturned. This doesn’t show good faith. It shows that he is willing to respect only the resolution that is in his favour and to dispute the one that is not. Surely, this will infuriate some of the delegates. How then can his new pact with Ong help to reunify the party?///– Kee Thuan Chye
There appears to be different interpretations as to the authority of an EGM. One considers EGM supersedes the constitution under which the EGM was called whereby a majority decision at the EGM rules. The other argues that the EGM provides the results to be read together with the constitution. The latter should prevail since there are provisions in the constitution that some issues need confirmation by a two-third majority votes from the members assembled. Otherwise an EGM could negate the constitution with a simple majority vote.
Looking in that light, one should now examine whether the Central committee had in fact carried out the decision of the EGM. The EGM did not return a two-third majority to relieve Ong Tee Keat of his Presidency. Those eager for an opening for upward mobility are grumbling that he did not resign, but he could not be accused of not respecting the decision of the EGM read together with the Constitution.
The EGM returned a majority vote for Dr. Chua Soi lek to remain members of MCA. There were doubts as to whether President OTK would be able to accept to work with Chua Soi lek, and to have peaceful coexistence with him. The show of unity on 22 October in MCA building confirms that the two warring factions respect the decision of EGM and declared that for greater unity, they would serve MCA together.
The third resolution returned a majority vote to deny Dr. Chua Soi Lek to retain his position as Deputy President. There was no provision in the constitution to determine the condition under which a person suspended from performing his official duty could be returned to his post. There was however a definite requirement that a person can only be removed from his position when the assembly returns a two-third majority vote. When a position is vacant on account of the incumbent being suspended, for whatever reason, that vacancy exists on a temporary basis of indefinite duration. For a post to be filled, the incumbent has to be removed first. Thus, the provision of the constitution has to be respected. Semantic aside, resolution 3 should be interpreted as to whether CSL should be removed from his position as deputy president. The EGM voted yes but short of a two-third majority to remove CSL. Thus CSL retains his position as Deputy President if the decision of the EGM and the constitution is respected.
Wee Ka Siong demanded that the EGM be respected. Was he commenting on the fact that the Central Committee of MCA did not respect the EGM in allowing Liow Tiong Lai to be voted in as deputy President on 22 October 2009? Liow Tiong Lai too claimed that the result of the EGM should be respected. He should announce now that he vacates the seat so that the implementation of the EGM is complete.
Ong Tee Keat together with Chua Soi Lek announced that they agreed to work together. That has curiously led some members of the Central Committee to declare that their agreement is subject to approval by the Central Committee. It would imply that Ong and Chua cannot respect the EGM on their own to cooperate without the approval of the Central Committee. Since when has the constitution of MCA allowed its Central Committee to form subgroups to endorse unity of members of the party?
The statement demanding that the agreement of Chua and Ong be subject to review by the Central Committee confirms the suspicion of what went through their minds.
They were not happy that the President and his Deputy cooperate with each other, like what they declared they would do after the EGM. They wanted to hear about their ‘horse-trading’ which they tried to prevent by instigating for CSL’s removal that resulted in the EGM. That was the basis why they expressed unhappiness that Chua and Ong agreed to work together without them participating in the discussion. When two parties cooperate has it any business of the third party? That would be only logical if they were negotiating for sharing spoils. But are MCA members there to share spoils. Since they have boldly declared it, they had taken it as natural to be in political party for personal gains, and when they are now more man, their shares are lessened. Yet the Chinese community thinks that MCA is there to guard their interest.
#3 by Bigjoe on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 - 2:50 pm
The real story to ask is What exactly did Najib do to force this? Chua Soi Lek said ‘he had no choice’. OKT is pretending so much it must hurt his face muscle.. What did Najib do to force this?
I believe that Najib threatened to dump MCA. Its the only explanation why CSL said ‘he had no choice’. MCA is worthless if Najib dump it in favour of say ass-kissing KTK/Gerakan..
It goes to show that MCA don’t care what Chinese think of them, they only care what top leadership of UMNO think of them.
There is absolutely no reason to support MCA. If you vote MCA, you vote UMNO.. that is the fact. Stop pretending you are voting otherwise…
#4 by sheriff singh on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 - 3:14 pm
My lawyer friend tells me that if a constitution provides for a ‘special majority’ of 2/3 or 3/4, then a simple majority will not be sufficient. It has no legal bearing as the vote is considered not carried.
But the leader(s) concerned will have to take note that a majority had no confidence in him and he should do what is morally right.
No turning around and forming new alliances under some ‘greater unity’ booolsheet just to stay in power. The two who lost just don’t want to go. They have tasted power and its rewards and are addicted to the core. Their words can no longer be believed or relied upon.
But what about the third forces? They have no qualms about playing their parts in the power grab, but Caesar still lives to strike back.
And so all the factions and fractions don’t and won’t add up to 1whatever.
I remember a Clint Eastwood western sphagetti movie where there was a three-way duel, with each having two guns. Well, Clint won.
Moral of story. If you intend to kill, make sure you shoot straight all the way and make sure your opponent is truly dead. Half kills don’t count.
And if you want to form alliances, weld it nicely in a forge. Otherwise in combat, your sword will definitely break and you will be defenceless.
And if you have a son and daughter, marry them to strengthen the alliance. Else you will have Troy.
#5 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 - 3:35 pm
In justifying the reconciliation (with OKT), CSL said, “In politics, they say it is an art to make the impossible possible and the possible impossible.”
The facts remain: (a) OKT reneged on his word to resign as president if he lost the vote of no confidence; (b) CSL himself said he would resign from all positions (including MP position) due to his sexual imbroglio but reneged on resigning his MP position; LTL himself being party to MCA committee’s decision to sack CSL from MCA fought OTK’s call for the MCA Central Committee to resign along with him when the EGM contradicted MCA Central Committee by reinstating CSL as ordinary member.
So how does one look at the political conduct of the trio or for that matter politicians in general? There are two positions to take.
The first position is that politicians being public office holders must show exemplary conduct. They should show honour, consistency, principles that we look up to as ethical behaviour in our daily life. By these standards the trio will fall short. Indeed I would argue most politicians of whichever political persuasion on both sides of the political divide will generally also fall short.
There is another way to look at political morality. It is a notch down from the first way. This way assumes politicians will twist and turn in their words, be inconsistent making “the impossible possible and the possible impossible”…This way assumes that’s the way the politicians will treat each other. If they want to be honourable, consistent and principled, fine if that’s the way conceivable to earn respect and build support amongst their own ranks in the political pecking order. If they want to be otherwise, that’s also fine as we understand that their paramount objective is to vie for, gain and maintain positions of political power.
We judge their political morality by what promises they keep and realize to us who vote them in as trustees of power to wield to our benefit as beneficiaries, when they have successfully vied for, gained and maintained positions of political power. How they behave to their own kind is of no concern to us. What good if they were honourable, consistent and principled and yet could not muscle the power to deliver to us as voters their promises and benefits? And what’s so bad if they twist and turn and behave Machiavellian for power (between themselves in power struggles) and could deliver the goods to the rakyat? I am sure no one would argue that Lee Kuan Yew, in his rise to consolidate power, had behaved exemplary (in the way we deem so in our private life). Yet he has done well for Singapore on the ends justifies the means premise.
This then reconstructs another way of judging politicians and their “morality” based on Realpolitik where the moral value is placed on his political effectiveness to deliver his promises to his constituency – and not his conduct towards fellow politicians in same party or inter party within a coalition struggling for power. This is consistent with the “game theory” and its various applications in politics as well as business. In a gist it means that politicians between themselves are involved in a game for the end of positions/power just like businessmen for the end of profits…Each game has its own rules. Honour, consistency and principles are not part of for so long as law is not broken! In other words politicians or businessmen may behave honourably, consistently and ethically in their personal lives with families and friends but when they are in the “game of politics and business”, dealing with each other in pursuit of scoring the goals of power or profits, ethics, honour take the back seat and expedience and winning take the front seat, provided all keep to the minimum of not breaking the law….To the question why treat fellow politicians and businessmen that way? Answer : when playing a game, everyone should know the operating rules of the game.
The morality of politicians is then judged by what they deliver to us as promised. We’re not part of the game as politicians to politicians!
#6 by Loh on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 - 3:45 pm
///MCA president Ong Tee Keat today came under renewed pressure from his former loyalists over the peace deal inked on Oct 22 with ex-deputy president Dr Chua Soi Lek.///–Malaysiakini
The trio denied that they had a hand in trying to get CSL removed which resulted in the EGM. Now CSL is allowed back amounting to status quo if he regains the deputy post, they should have no quarrel if they had not worked against CSL before the EGM. So the claim that the trio started the scheme to remove CSL has sound basis.
The two persons agreed to shake hands. They can have peace projects anytime they choose. Since the CC is now half controlled by LTL, he should get his followers to resign en bloc. Then Ong and Chua can leave with a satisfied defeat.
///But the leader(s) concerned will have to take note that a majority had no confidence in him and he should do what is morally right. ///– Sheriff Singh
That is generally true, but then one has to guard against being taken for a ride. In the recent EGM, the confidence vote was linked to the CC decision, though OTK was voted on rather than the Committee. Further, the results showed that 45 persons used the occasion to achieve their ulterior objective. If that number changed the outcome of the result, I suppose one has the ‘moral right’ to resort to the constitution, rather than to follow convention. The events that followed would convince anybody not to have given up and fall into the trap of those who manoeuvre for their own career development.
#7 by Winston on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 - 4:00 pm
We all know the caliber of these so-called “leaders”.
The only way to rid of them is to boot them out as soon as possible.
#8 by taiking on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 - 4:05 pm
A plot worthy of the silver screen? Certainly. And in 120mins (maybe less) the story must end. In the circumstances, what can one expect of the scriptwriter and the director who are behind the production? Is it any wonder why one often find bonus scenes recorded on CDs as extra attraction? So oi mca, show us the bonus scenes pls. Can we have them on CD? Upload them to Youtube if you may.
#9 by limkamput on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 - 4:26 pm
We have often complained about citizens’ interests being sacrificed once the government is elected and installed. Now party members and even party delegates also do not mean very much to the leaders once they are in power. This is how corrupted and despicable most politicians have become in this country. How can we ever trust them to be the custodian of conscience, ethics and decency is really beyond me. You fellows can continue to discuss why this and why that, whether legal or illegal and whether compliance or otherwise. In the final analysis, it all boils down to clinging on to the power and good life come what may – moral or immoral, decent or indecent, fair play or treachery. It really does not matter any more, so please don’t waste your energy and time analysing it.
#10 by Yee Siew Wah on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 - 4:32 pm
Malaysian chinese politics at its best. I play your backside you play mine la!
The rakyat esp the chinese has have enough.
Kick the present bunch of no good politicians out in BN come GE 13.
#11 by undertaker888 on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 - 4:48 pm
Ya…it reminds me of a comedy I used to watch when young and made by belly pain with laughter.
O ya…it was the Three Stooges…curly, larry and moe….slap slap bonk bonk toot toot hoi polloi
#12 by k1980 on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 - 4:54 pm
Put 3 cups of tea, 2 of which are poisoned, in front of Ong, Chua and Liou…. all of them pick a cup and drink simultaneously…the only one left standing is to be castrated and the entire mca disbanded for being a bandit organization. Problem solved and the same procedure moves on to the MIC, Gerakan, PPP…
The still sulking Rojakman will approve of this method
#13 by taiking on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 - 6:04 pm
It is my observation that najib is actually a status quo man. Not a bold fella. Not one who could lead the nation into uncharted zones. Not one who sets new directions. He may speak as if he is taking everyone there. In reality he is birdless and quite plain underneath. He won’t and he would’nt dare to do that which has never been done before. Preserving nep, re-cycling/re-using expired/rejected politicians, reverting fully to malay for science and maths, maintaining AP, keeping rejected mca leaders, and many many more.
And are you still sulking Rojakman? Cheer up. Come on pick on someone here if that helps. But just make sure you dont pick on me. It might just make me sulk in your stead.
#14 by monsterball on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 - 6:06 pm
When have Malaysians ever talk so much about politics…after an election…non stop…since 12th GE.
Why so?
If we do not talk….UMNO’s powerful half truths advertising in papers and Najib’s slogans will brainwashed so many young voters.
It is UMNO who never work….keep talking politics…more than ever before..twisting and turning…conning and scheming…acting and never feel shameful to be such great hypocrites.
It is UMNO…showing how to succeed with lies and deceits…never ever admit any mistakes..and it will be Malaysians..that will become the post hypocritical people on earth…if they keep supporting UMNO.
Malaysia is the only country in the world…not one day…the government do not try to fool Malaysians …….talking politics…day in day out……the signs of a desperate government..and that is non other than UMNO BARU.
#15 by k1980 on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 - 6:33 pm
In America, there is the Baby Einstein flimflam—a third of all American babies from 6 months to 2 years old had at least one ‘Baby Einstein’ video”!
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/the-great-baby-einstein-scam-531147/
But in Bolehland, we have the 1malaysia caper
#16 by undertaker888 on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 - 7:22 pm
YB Kit
The bast@rds are torturing Raja Petra’s son in Sungai Buloh prison. What can you and we do about this?
#17 by ringthetill on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 - 10:51 pm
Looks like the MCA opera has overtaken the UMNO sandiwara in terms of entertainment rating. Sounds like a good story line for a locally produced RTM drama.
#18 by OrangRojak on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 - 11:09 pm
“still sulking”
I abhor violence. I’d rather see something like this happen to Malaysia’s racists:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8321372.stm
I don’t know whether it will ever happen here. As bad as they are, I wouldn’t like to even excuse somebody mistreating them. Maybe one day Najib’s expensive new Marketing Consultants will try to turn the Brain Drain into a positive feature and sell the idea of a Racist Renaissance in Malaysia, inviting all the people the rest of the world doesn’t want to replace the ex-Malaysians it did. “If you can’t beat them, come and join us!”.
I quite look forward to prime time on Astro Baru with “Celebrity Racist Politician Death Match”. Several of them at a time would be locked in a room in Plaza Masalam, furnished for the event with that infamous hotel’s cameras (I read recently 4 of them – is that right?) and giant inflatable number ones, like Jeux Sans Frontieres (see YouTube).
To make it a bit more spicy, we could dress them only in those funny aprons guys wear when they’re being caned, and give them each an Aynel Confession Extraction Tool*. The winner would get an enormous prize and a nice house somewhere far away, but would have to blame the injuries millions of people watched them receive from their recently deceased peers on an Opposition leader, and go through a pseudo-religious honesty ceremony so that publicly doubting them would be a capital offence.
I haven’t got anything sensible to say. I think I might still be sulking.
*There is no evidence that such an item exists – I created it merely for the sake of entertainment, of a kind.
#19 by sheriff singh on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 - 11:48 pm
The Brit Police should have gone to see a “friendly” magistrate and obtained a court order to prevent any member of the public to gather “within 50 meters of the BBC premises”. And it would be very effective if backed by truck loads of Brit FRUs with water cannons perhaps.
Reminds me of what some did and will do tomorrow in that state run by illegals. And Nero will continue to fiddle as he is above it all and will not interfere.
#20 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 12:17 am
Frankly, other than mere intellectual exercise or curiosity, I ask, who will be interested on who is right or wrong between Ong Tee Keat, Dr Chua Soi Lek, Liow Tiong Lai, Kong Cho Ha, Wee Ka Siong or chew Mei Fun; or whether the MCA’s peace plan is a lasting one or a lull before the storm ; or whether MCA’s image is discredited as UMNO’s stooge after the UMNO’s arbitration of the dispute – if, indeed, MCA has been written off, and all efforts are now concentrated in Pakatan Rakyat (PR) and helping it to achieve the critical mass to win the next general election and form the Federal Government?
It is altogether a different perspective if one begins to doubt whether realistically PR can make it ie. be cohesive enough to win the next general election or run the Federal government!
If one begins to have doubts, it is also not without basis, considering not only the lack of common principles between PAS and DAP of diametrically opposed ideologies but also the intra-parties’ intense in- fighting and politiking of late, for examples:-
· Open conflict between Nik Aziz/ “Erdogan” faction against the group comprising Abdul Hadi Awang, Dr Hasan Ali, Mustafa Ali
· Conflict between Azmin Ali and Zaid Ibrahim, and now open revolt by 14 PKR Sabah Division chiefs over Anwar/Amin’s choice of Ahmad Thamrin Jaini as the PKR’s state chief over the head of PKR’s vice-president Jeffrey Gapari Kitingan. The latest news (from Joe Fernandez, Oct 27, 09
of Malaysiakini) is that Jeffrey Kitingan did not take Anwar’s calls, has resigned as PKR vice- president/member of PKR supreme council. All peace overtures by Anwar through emissaries like Michael Bong and party secretary-general Salehuddin Hashim have been rebuffed. “I told Bong to tell Anwar that it’s too late. I have already burnt my bridges,” Jeffrey Kitingan ws reported to have said. The latest rumour is that Salehuddin Hashim is also contemplating resignation. An implosion of PKR due to Anwar’s mishandling (for example Jeffrey complained that Anwar sent emissaries to old comrades rather than resolve problem face to face) is significant because it is Anwar/PKR that stands in the middle and holds on balance the diametrically opposed DAP and PAS together: so if PKR, as a glue that welds together DAP & PAS flounders due to internal politiking what is going to happen to DAP and PAS collaboration?
The renewed interest in MCA – and its goings on – may be inversely proportional to the burgeoning problems within PR.
The thinking is : if PR is not more viable to take on UMNO, interest will naturally shift back to the ruling Barisan Nasional as the coalition as the “Devil we know” rendered unreplaceable by default of PR.
If this is true, then renewed interest on MCA is natural as hopes begin to be pinned on MCA restructuring, after the turmoil, to become a more assertive coalition partner to balance and serve as a counterweight against UMNO’s excesses and to ameliorate the position of the minority Chinese.
There is then one reason only to be bothered about MCA – when one does not bank anymore his hopes on PR! Otherwise why bother about MCA????
#21 by sheriff singh on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 12:22 am
PKR is a one man show with only one act, maybe two. Curtains.
#22 by sheriff singh on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 12:23 am
Sulking? Why? What happened? Been away doing an excursion thing and must have missed something.
From why I can gather from reading in between the lines, those guys out there just misses their daily rojak. Without it their daily lives are empty. Oh come on, give them their ‘fix’ even if its only a placebo.
Say, did I mention my trip retracing the Linggi river recently?
Then we went to look for your famous nasi ayam and rendang, the best this side of the galaxy you said.
Couldn’t find the place man. The Chinese man nearby only sells only pau and the tire shop at the corner didn’t sell it.
So where man? Can you be more specific? Maybe a GPS reference? Don’t keep it to yourself lah.
#23 by OrangRojak on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 12:47 am
Jeffrey – inversely proportional to dimming promise or proportional to burgeoning problems?
Sherrif – maybe there are more DAP offices nearby than I know! Here it is:
http://maps.google.com.my/maps?q=2.560926,101.814497&num=1&t=h&sll=2.560919,101.814514&sspn=0.002862,0.003975&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=2.560919,101.814514&spn=0.002862,0.003975&z=18
They don’t start cooking until 6pm or so.
I’ve been sulking about the excursion from “Malaysian Malaysia” in a recent LKS article. I almost became a Jeyakumar Devaraj supporter … but the 1950s rhetoric on the PSM website was a bit too much.
#24 by OrangRojak on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 12:48 am
Jeffrey – inversely proportional to dimming promise or proportional to burgeoning problems?
Sheriff – maybe there are more DAP offices nearby than I know! Here it is:
http://maps.google.com.my/maps?q=2.560926,101.814497&num=1&t=h&sll=2.560919,101.814514&sspn=0.002862,0.003975&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=2.560919,101.814514&spn=0.002862,0.003975&z=18
They don’t start cooking until 6pm or so.
I’ve been sulking about the excursion from “Malaysian Malaysia” in a recent LKS article. I almost became a Jeyakumar Devaraj supporter … but the 1950s rhetoric on the PSM website was a bit too much.
#25 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 1:45 am
OrangRojak, good to see you’re back. Burgeoning problems (to me) imply dimming promise.
#26 by Onlooker Politics on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 2:14 am
Jeffrey,
As a matter of fact, Sabah politics are a typical example of the politics of chasing immediate personal material well beings without considering the importance of sticking to the political principles. PKR is very unlucky to have someone who is full of rebellious blood like Jeffrey Kitingan to join PKR as a vice president.
If Jeffrey Kitingan could go quarrel with his next of kin brother, Pairin Kitingan, in the past during a time when the unity of Kadazan people in Sabah had already enabled PBS to win a simple majority in Sabah during early 1980s, it is no surprise for us to find that Jeffrey Kitingan may leave PKR any time from now on, especially when Najib is so keen and so taciturn in using the goodies and candies as a bait to fish political support.
If Anwar is to continue put trust in Jeffrey Kitingan for hope of getting a victory in Sabah in the next general election, then I am afraid that Anwar will be making a fatal mistake by holding an over-optimistic view about the positive effect which can be exerted by Jeffrey Kitingan upon the political strength of PKR.
Jeffrey Kitingan is a habitual unprincipled man. By right, there should be no good reason for any right thinking politician to want to have too much business connection with such a notorious unprincipled man as Jeffrey Kitingan. Jeffrey Kitingan is a crucial factor which has caused the divisiveness among the Sabah Kadazans for the past 2 decades. If he could not even get along well with his own brother Pairin Kitingan, how could we expect him to stay loyal forever to Anwar without being moved by any possible material temptation being offered by Najib?
Pakatan Rakyat is in big crisis now. If Anwar is not even able to stabilise the internal rife within PKR, I really do not see how he is going to have the political legitimacy to call for the greater unity among PR’s component parties. Nowadays, I am so afraid to bet on Pakatan Rakyat’s win in the next general election. My best hope on Pakatan Rakyat may be reduced to an unambitious hope, that is, to hope that Pakatan Rakyat can still keep the status quo by holding more than one third of the parliamentary seats and denying Barisan Nasional two thirds majority by the next General Election.
#27 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 2:18 am
However you are right that burgeoning problems in PR are proportional (rather than inversely proportional) to interest in MCA’s problems, which are therefore inversely proportional to dimming hopes in PR. Thanks.
#28 by OrangRojak on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 2:23 am
I’ve missed you all. Well – some of you, anyway.
It’s a question of magnitudes – Burgeoning problems = increase, dimming promise = decrease. Renewed interest = increase. Proportional to (some constant x the burgeoning), inversely proportional to (some constant / the dimming). Though I suppose if you were a ‘glass half empty’ kind of person you might say ‘burgeoning problems’ while imagining the heavy ’empty’ space pushing the bar down on your chart of political stock values.
I feel autistic now. Did anybody read ‘The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time’ a few years ago? I enjoyed it.
#29 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 2:41 am
Onlooker,
Onlooker you seem to put all the blame on Jeffrey Kitingan. I wonder if thats a fair apportionment of blame. Apart from whether he is, according to you, not ‘principled’ – then here I wonder if he is any worse than many other politicians here in semananjung or Sabah/Sarawak given my cynical view that politics is mostly chasing immediate personal material well beings – the fact is if majority 14 divisions favour their own (a Kadazaan) in Jeffrey Kitingan as PKR Sabah chief, what’s Anwar’s beef? After all Jeffrey Kitingan held high position as PKR vice- president/member of PKR supreme council. Wasn’t it the understanding (with Anwar) that he would be in charge of Sabah side of PKR? Lets hear from some Sabahans here what they think.
#30 by OrangRojak on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 2:43 am
Onlooker Politics – is ‘Political principles’ not the same kind of oxymoron as “no excessive violence, unless it’s necessary”? I imagine a truly principled person might struggle to do what is necessary in Malaysia’s current political condition: to set aside principles and adhere to a common platform to give the impression of a government in waiting, where ‘impression’ is locally defined as pretty much just like BN, but perhaps with less overt corruption and fewer deaths.
I struggle to come to terms with the easy castigation of individuals who disagree with the self-styled leaders of Pakatan Rakyat. Part and parcel of forming a single amorphous entity as the natural successor of BN is to cover up not only the vote-losing behaviours of PR members, but also to hide any truly principled members who might wish to make respectable commitments to their supporters about the kind of Malaysia they’ll try to deliver once in power. It’s those kind of commitments that would give some Malaysians hope, but would keep the idealistic member’s peers in PR awake at night wondering how they would enrich their cronies if whatsisname spends the money on something more diffuse.
I understand completely the need for a single vehicle for the sole purpose of changing the government at the next election. If the vehicle is a Wira with a comically large spoiler, alloys and blue lights in the grille – that is, something not very good at all pretending to be something better – I wonder if the ‘dare to hope’ voter won’t see it for what it is. Is there no better way of constructing the Pakatan Rakyat vehicle?
#31 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 3:03 am
Sorry 17 (not 14) out of 23 divisions in the state do not want any leader sanctioned by Kuala Lumpur foisted on them. Don’t you think dictating from PKR HQ in KL as to who should be the appointed state leaders in Sabah feudalistic like UMNO/BN and not so democratic as expected of Anwar?
You have also to ask what is the reason in PKR party secretary-general Salehuddin Hashim having rumoured to have already sent a strongly-worded letter of resignation to PKR (after he talked to Kitingan and failed to pacify him) – and what about the Amin-Zaid tiff in which Amin was reportedly not happy about Zaid going over the Sabah for a book launch???
#32 by jbozz on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 9:14 am
What i can see of Najis vision is setting up a Police State as we have now witness in our own eye in Perak, the state assembly sitting today. Is there any Democratic country in the world having so many FRU, and police station outside the assembly hall? If you read history how Hitler’s seize power from the Germans you will learn how the current 1Malaysia leader is doing. Strike FEAR in the people, crush them with might, this is the 1Malaysia we are seeing in Perak.
#33 by jbozz on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 9:21 am
Just like Musollini and Adolf Hitler, Najis continue his rhythm to set up his dictatorship dynasty and continue to spread lies to suppressed Perak opposition with police & FRU.
#34 by OrangRojak on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 10:00 am
The mangled twitpic URL in LKS’ twitter feed is this one:
http://twitpic.com/n7nss
It’s a strangely small version of the image you can see in the live feed on anilnetto.com, just scroll down to 09:01
#35 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 10:01 am
///Is ‘Political principles’ not the same kind of oxymoron…? and other matters raised in 1st paragraph of posting #30/// – OrangRojak
I take it that “political principles” imports reference to a strong element of consistency of principle.
I further take it that it is not the kind of “rigid” consistency, which is unyielding and unbending in applications in the face of challenges by political competitors to one’s position and power as events unfold.
For such a rigid consistency is arguably petty and unimaginative if its going too thwart one’s ultimate goal in the bigger picture of things in relation to the attainment thereof….
What is therefore important is that, amid vacillation of principle between the many acts, utterances and behaviour of a politician, as situation demands, the politician does not get lost amid his many minor inconsistent acts and moves but retains steady focus of his ultimate goal of which he is consistent to. It is therefore a kind of tolerance of the many petty inconsistencies deemed necessary in between one’s course (hence politicl consistency an oxymoron in this sense) in a general constant direction towards the ultimate destination, and if there is general constancy in the course towards this ultimate objective, that will be passable and qualify as ‘Political principles’ (without it being oxymoron)!
I think we can understand this – by realpolitik, as distinct from idealistic criteria.
More than ever is the question – what is their ultimate objective when they attain power? For PR’s politicians if they continue bicker as they now do, no one will ever find out because they’ll never even be able to get there!.
Also there is something interesting about OrangRojak’s suggestion that there may be “hidden” or embedded amongst the many inconsistent behaviour of (say) PR’s politicians castigated, the “truly principled members who might wish to make respectable commitments to their supporters about the kind of Malaysia they’ll try to deliver once in power.”
Is this not speculation based on hope (fast dimming in light of recent developments) or is there something (not easily seen by an untrained eye) that some or one or two of them (PR’s politicians) actually, in spite of the bickering and jostling for power and position, even at this stage, do evince qualities to make these respectable commitments and are more likely than other politicians to deliver once in power? If so, in whom do you see this quality amongst the many PR’s top politicians? If one is on speculation, isn’t there also any “truly principled” politicians who, as an exception to the general rule, may be speculated to be equally hidden/embedded within the BN’s political firmament on whom hopes may be pinned that he is likely to deliver on respectable commitments (on less corruption, less racism and less deaths) if he gets to be in power? This does bear relevance to the question regarding on which politician and on which side one wants to throw support behind.
#36 by monsterball on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 11:12 am
MCA was voted out in 12th GE by Malaysians..especially by Chinese community….yet OTK said he stayed back for the Chinese community.
Malaysian Chinese value dignity and principles in life …more than money….sweat..toil and suffer in silence…without begging UMNO for this or that…and waited till 12th GE….to throw MCA out.
Facts cannot lie….and this “1 Malaysia” PM brought MCA back to support his divide and rule government…the “1 Malaysia” he is talking about…so call diversity to unity…the same old stuffs said 54 years ago.
MCA and Gerakan are the scums of the earth to the Chinese community…and what we are seeing are the acting and false sword fighting….like sworn enemies..then shake hands..and end up saying…all are together for the sake of the Chinese community.
When have MCA ever represents the Chinese community?
Chinese community really hates MCA….and that is a fact.
MCA depends on UMNO voters to succeed….yet they feel no shame..year in year out…talking nonsense….when UMNO is trying to buy the country up…so serious…yet they support this formula.
MCA are the scums of the earth in low class politics.
Begging for few millions…to build chinese schools ans temples are what they are good at…to fool chinese voters…year in year out…while billions are stolen by UMNO…from tax payers money. You mean MCA does not know all these? Sure they do…especially under Mahathir…and that’s why voters voted them out in 12th GE.
Enjoy their opera shows..but never allow MCA to fool young Malaysians.
#37 by OrangRojak on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 11:29 am
Sorry, I may be being naive about ‘political principle’. In a representative democracy, the prime political principle must be to be as popular as possible. The problem in Malaysia is that communicating the essential qualities that a voter could use to determine how vote-worthy a politician is, is fraught with difficulties. Perhaps the difficulties in communication make it inevitable that politicians will rely on pointing out the flaws in their opponents, rather than trying to offer any new statement of intent that would make an easy target for their critics.
If we were to play fantasy football – and I have very shallow knowledge of Malaysian politics – the principled politicians appear to me to be people like Karpal Singh and Ku Li. I don’t know about Ku Li’s UMNO critics, but Karpal certainly attracts his fair share of gag requests. He is outspoken, but I find it hard to fault him when he’s not being obviously insulting. I’m very impressed by Nizar, though I’m not convinced many people would count him as ‘top’ – I think age and a voter predilection for political dynasties might count against him. In fact the whole dynasty issue seems to make fantasy politics much more difficult – there seems to be a promotional gulf between the current leaders and their ‘juniors’ that I would struggle to believe was purely due to performance.
Perhaps it would be better not to try to identify principled politicians. The disconnect between them and the voters due to Malaysia’s bastardised media means we can know very little with confidence. I would normally wish to read very many critics’ opinions of politicians and their parties before trying to make my mind up, in the belief that the critics are earning their money by being insightful, knowledgeable, rational experts on the subject with transparent affiliations. But this is Malaysia…
I had better get some work done. The feed of news from Perak is too distracting.
#38 by Onlooker Politics on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 1:03 pm
I believe Anwar is facing a big political dilemma in Sabah now. If Anwar is to continue allow a Sabahan of Kadazan-Dusun origin to lead PKR Sabah, he will never be able to attract much support from the muslims, including the Kadazan-Melayu and Bajau in Sabah. If Anwar is to appoint a Muslim as the head of PKR Sabah, the Kadazan-Dusun group of PKR members may protest or threaten to quit PKR. Party unity is something not easy for PKR to achieve in Sabah in view of Sabahans’ deep-rooted habit of living with communalism.
Perhaps Anwar should encourage Jeffrey Kitingan to leave PKR and form a Sabahan-based political party in Sabah. This expediency may be the best way for Anwar to concentrate his effort in the trial to achieve party unity in Peninsular Malaysia and Sarawak. If PKR is to appoint a Christian as the PKR Sabah top leader, it is quite likely that Anwar will face the heavy load of open fires for his alleged pro-Christianity approach in Sabah from the Umnoputras during the campaign of the next election. His political advent in Sabah may cause backfires to himself in Peninsular Malaysia because Anwar has already been frequently accused by the Umnoputras for being too close to non-muslims in Peninsular Malaysia since his being released from jail.
Anwar will still need the support from the Malays in order for him to become the next Prime Minister of Malaysia. He cannot totally allow himself to stay above the politics of communalism at the moment without facing the strong criticism from the Umnoputras since Malaysia’s different ethnic groups are basically still going along the line of communal politics and the Malays will be easily attracted by Umno if the Umnoputras continue to appeal to racist incitation during the political campaign.
#39 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 1:32 pm
///Perhaps Anwar should encourage Jeffrey Kitingan to leave PKR and form a Sabahan-based political party in Sabah./// – Onlooker Politics in comment #37 above.
If Jeffrey Kitingan were to leave PKR he could return to the fold of his brother’s Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) within BN; if he were to form a new Sabahan-based political party why should he join up with PR – why not BN?
///Anwar will still need the support from the Malays in order for him to become the next Prime Minister of Malaysia. He cannot totally allow himself to stay above the politics of communalism at the moment without facing the strong criticism from the Umnoputras since Malaysia’s different ethnic groups are basically still going along the line of communal politics/// – Onlooker Politics in comment #37 above.
If Anwar is going to be worried strong criticism from the Umnoputras and “cannot totally allow himself to stay above the politics of communalism at the moment” then what is all this claim by Pakatan Rakyat and Anwar/PKR to their supporters about “New Politics” based on inclusivist platform of all races/religions??? Big talk only? What’s the difference of Anwar/PKR/PR from UMNO/BN then?
#40 by Godfather on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 1:55 pm
Yeah, let’s take Anwar out into the backlane and beat the sh!t out of him for being so incompetent and indecisive. Let’s all vote UMNO/BN so that we can maintain the status quo of old politics.
#41 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 2:12 pm
You’re talking about core principles of PR here – an inclusivist platform.
How does that jive with PKR’s insisting to appoint Ahmad Thamrin Jaini as the PKR’s state chief by his creed of being a Muslim when 17 Kadazan dominant Sabah PKR divisions out of 23 divisions prefer PKR’s vice president Jeffrey Kitingan?
Take the case of PKR’s Bandar Baru Kulim MP Zulkifli Noordin.
He led a group to disrupt the Bar Council’s Article 11 forum. Wasn’t what the Bar Council supposed to discuss within core principles of PR? He was supposed to be subject to PKR disciplinary committee’s show cause for his role in the disruption of a forum at the Bar Council auditorium on 9th August 08. However we’ve not heard of what has become of that show cause to Zul. In fact we heard he was rewarded by being appointed a member of the shadow cabinet committee. This notwithstanding he is introducing a private member Bill in Parliament to amend Article 3 of the Federal Constitution so that syariah becomes the official religion of the Federation. Even UMNO does not go that far.
Is making Syaria the official religion of the Federation a part of the core principles of PKR or Pakatan Rakyat? If not why is Anwar retaining him? Does not Anwar just pay lip service to PR’s purported “New Politics” based on inclusivist platform?
#42 by OrangRojak on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 3:05 pm
If Pakatan Rakyat’s platform is really ‘inclusivist’ and they’re voted into power, isn’t there a real chance of a counter-productive Bill being tabled by an idealistic PR member, supported by a small number of PR members, but also supported by 100% of Barisan Opposition (enforced by whip), purely to hoist PR by its own petard?
There’s nothing particularly wrong with inclusivist politics to my mind, except that a PR government would be facing an Opposition for whom the ends justify the means, who wouldn’t vote against a retrogressive Bill on principle, but would vote for it for the sake of bringing about PR’s downfall.
I can see how inclusivist principles might work if big issues were to be decided by referendum. In the local circumstances, they appear to me to be something of a liability.
#43 by monsterball on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 5:59 pm
Do not forget…PR is facing the most corrupted and dictatorial UMNO government…since UMNO BARU was formed.
Against all odds…the only way Anwar can really succeed is hoping many Sarawakians are feeling unfairly treated and kept in silence…until Anwar came along and provide a strong alternative..to UMNO unfair and unjust government.
Before the 12th GE result announced……we can say…East Malaysians are not convinced….but the West Malaysia results did inspire them..and open their eyes and ears.
So many voters voted for peace and harmony…in the past….not to rock the boat…for DAP cannot represents the Muslims. As such..it was only DAP that have the voice representing helpless Malaysians…without much success.
East Malaysians can now see how Selangor and Penang are being governed….with residents…keeping in silence….no complaints…..but do feel the difficulties for PR to show their results…as UMNO make sure…nothing good done will be highlighted in papers.
I think….Anwar is lying low…and he is a very smart and sharp politician.
The delay of a snap election by Najib who claimed he has 62% support..works against UMNO and not PR…and the delay maybe a blessing in disguise for Anwar too.
All in all..it will be the 13th GE…that all will know…are we so stupid to keep on having one party to govern us…or use our powerful votes to change…to let politicians know….they are elected servants….not out landlords or Kings..which UMNO is already thinking…they own Malaysia…by using money to buy loyalties and puppets.
Let Malaysian voters decide and from my personal point of view..UMNO is finished no matter how hard East Malaysians try to support UMNO for personal gains and love to be corrupted…to make deals.
#44 by Onlooker Politics on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 7:42 pm
//…“New Politics” based on inclusivist platform of all races/religions. Big talk only? What’s the difference of Anwar/PKR/PR from UMNO/BN then?// (Jeffrey)
Anwar’s certain controversial behaviours like appointing his right-hand man to the key party post at the state level is not much different from the conventional practices of Umno. As a former Umno leader, it will not be easy for Anwar to get himself out of Umno cocoon and evolve into the beautiful butterfly of “New Politics”. He must by all means grasp the Federal ruling power first before he can initiate a true change upon the Malaysian political culture. It is no easy task for Anwar, as he is facing a tough political opponent, Najib, who is deemed to be a much more versatile Machiavellian than Anwar. Perhaps we have to wait for another 50 years in order to get the chance to see the real political reform happening to Malaysia.
#45 by Joshua on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 - 8:22 pm
The signs of last days –
http://lasttrumpetnewsletter.org/2009/11_09_l.html – The end of the world.
Subject: Fw: [P150Gaya] America – At the Point of No Return! (LastTrumpetNewsletter- Nov ’09)
Quote:
A book was once written by the late Ayn Rand, a mistress to the erstwhile Illuminati hierarch, Phillipe Rothschild. The book is titled Atlas Shrugged, and it is a comprehensive plan and blueprint for world takeover in the last days. Rand wrote of this takeover in somewhat cryptic form for her master, Rothschild, at his behest. On page 413 she wrote the following words: “When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed.”
pw: Com- reneging
#46 by Godfather on Thursday, 29 October 2009 - 8:13 am
Some people like to hammer Anwar on his inclusivist politics, that he didn’t really mean it, that he only played to the gallery. They point to his tolerance of the idiot Zul Nordin or to his defence of Azmin Ali. Some people say there’s really no difference with BN.
So I say to Anwar’s detractors – go vote BN. Vote for another 53 years of “proven” inclusivist politics. Vote for “proven quality” in BN.
#47 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 29 October 2009 - 9:05 am
If Anwar does wrong he should be ‘hammered’. Especially so if what he does is perceived inimical to Pakatan Rakyat’s larger Cause. Though Anwar is the acknowledged defacto leader of PR – and is supposedly the glue that binds the disparate component parties of PR together – the fact is Anwar is not = to PR, the coalition, no more than any part is part of the sum total of all parts of the whole.
For one thing, the rise of Anwar is in part due to support of NGOs and pro Malaysian people like Raja Petra Kamaruddin and many others who fight for a better Malaysia and who support Anwar only because he articulated the aspirations of the Middle Ground and whats right for the country and evinces prospect of taking BN on. They will not support him if he undermines this Cause.
No leader or public figure should, for public or rakyat interest, be shielded from the winds of fair criticisms if he were wrong just because the opposite side that he fights against is as or more wrong!
If Anwar veers away from the inclusivist ideals based on which all have supported him; if out of expedience he acts inconsistent to the larger cause of all who support him, and that of PR, he should be taken to task.
For he is not synonymous with PR itself.
It is trite vthat if hypothetically he were convicted of sodomy charge, someone else (whether Nizar or Zaid) might well take over the leadership mantle of PR.
It is strange that if he were do things wittingly or unwittingly conducive to the implosion of PR or inimical to the interest of the aspirations of all who supported him or contradictory to the very platform on which he rose to become a leader, PR’s supporters are still expected to hold him sancrosanct from criticisms.
So it is strange to say that to criticise Anwar for his wrongdoings must necessarily imply that his detractors vote or support BN.
I imagine there will always be neutral observers or even PR supporters, if they’re not blind supporters, who would criticise any of PR’s leaders, not just Anwar, (instead of cheer or keep silent) if they’re perceived taking a route in departure from the right path to detriment of the larger cause.
#48 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 29 October 2009 - 9:07 am
Correction in 1st para above : it should be “no more than any part is SAME as the sum total of the whole.”
#49 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 29 October 2009 - 9:25 am
TheMalaysiaInsider, Oct 29 reports:
‘ Prominent blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin wrote yesterday of Anwar going into “self-destruct mode.”
“Anwar Ibrahim and many of the opposition leaders have this false feeling of grandeur… but are not grand and certainly far from great.
“They did not make March 2008 happen. The people made it happen. And what the people make the people can break. And the people are of the opinion that the opposition leaders, Anwar included, have lost their direction.”
See link:
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/41699-as-pakatan-wobbles-some-start-questioning-anwar
#50 by taiking on Thursday, 29 October 2009 - 11:00 am
I support Godfather’s statement @ #46.
#51 by Godfather on Thursday, 29 October 2009 - 11:56 am
“No leader or public figure should, for public or rakyat interest, be shielded from the winds of fair criticisms if he were wrong just because the opposite side that he fights against is as or more wrong!
If Anwar veers away from the inclusivist ideals based on which all have supported him; if out of expedience he acts inconsistent to the larger cause of all who support him, and that of PR, he should be taken to task.”
I have no problems with these sentiments. It’s the lopsidedness which which people take Anwar to task vs taking the den of thieves to task that I have an issue with. We have been systematically raped by BN for 53 years, and we now want to throw the baby out with the bath water after less than 2 years ?
#52 by OrangRojak on Thursday, 29 October 2009 - 11:59 am
taiking: hidup
Let’s not get excited. It was only recently that the ability to disagree and criticise was cited as one of Pakatan Rakyat’s superior features over BN. It has to be remembered too, that RPK’s job is sensational reporting, for which he is rewarded with advertising money and threats of incarceration. If I’ve over-simplified the RPK case, someone please clear that up for me, and I’ll happily apologise for any error I’ve made. His motivation, if not entirely aligned with that of another critic, has a financial element. Erring on the side of dispassionate neutral reporting is not an option for him. If he says ‘wobble’, it’s going to come with spin – that’s his job. I’m not a fan, but I think his role in Malaysia’s critical development is positive, on balance.
When I suggest something could be better, I’m not seeking to overthrow anybody, only to actually improve things. The ‘if you don’t like it, go back to BN’ argument doesn’t serve anybody’s purpose well. Doesn’t it remind you of anything? PR currently has a huge problem with not being substantially different from the very thing we hope they will replace.
Rather than cementing the impression, perhaps you could suggest something that would improve matters?
#53 by OrangRojak on Thursday, 29 October 2009 - 12:05 pm
lopsidedness
It’s not lopsided. If you have a disruptive and hopeless student who is ruining it for everybody else, you expel them. If you have one that’s trying, but could do better, you point out where they’ve gone wrong. Expulsion opportunities for the abject failure are few and far between, criticism opportunities for the trying student could be less frequent!
There is no point in pointing out where BN goes wrong. They are hopeless. They obviously cannot promise any of the things we really, really want, because most of the things we really, really want are mutually incompatible with [I’ve censored myself again]
#54 by taiking on Thursday, 29 October 2009 - 2:14 pm
A crossroad with no signs or signals. Where and when does one turn are pretty much left to how one reads the situation then prevailing; and how cleverly one does so. In other words it is all a matter of politics and politicking. We are all there, at the moment. And more so, anwar. Could the grumbling noise in the background (i.e. voters’ voice) be relied upon as guide? One must not forget that the view ahead will appear different to those who are in the front from those who are in the back. The leader in the fore will almost certainly be laboured by issues that are not felt by, or for that matter imaginable to, his followers in the aft.
Peninsular malays have in the last general election spoken out quite clearly. To the majority of them, NEP/malay special rights is no longer an important or pressing issue. Umno misread their changed stance and sentiments and have suffered badly. Umno is still suffering now for refusing to adapt to the new scenario. In fact umno will not change and is incapable of change. You are right Rojakman to point out the futility in all the umno-whacking exercises. For want of a better analogy, that would be like kicking a dead horse.
But umno is no dead horse. Not yet anyway. More importantly, umno, in any form or shape, is no longer wanted by many. 50 yrs of abysmal track record is more than enough for them to bear. Therefore, the whacking efforts were not aimed at resurrecting umno. Rather, they were expanded for the purpose of piling pressure upon umno so that it buckles then collapses like a dead horse.
#55 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 29 October 2009 - 3:04 pm
“But umno is no dead horse. Not yet anyway. More importantly, umno, in any form or shape, is no longer wanted by many.” (taiking)
True, Umno is no dead horse. Umno is just an ill horse, terminally ill. However, if Najib is able to find some kind of enzyme which can help heal the ill horse, then the ill horse may also be turned into a strong and prowess horse.
Likewise, Pakatan Rakyat is also an ill horse. Whether Pakatan Rakyat can stand up as a runner up in the political race between Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional will all depend on whether Barisan Nasional is able to recover much faster than Pakatan Rakyat or not and on whether Pakatan Rakyat is able to give the voters an impression that PR is indeed a reliable healthy horse!
Anyone who is the concerned voter of Malaysia shall feel free to whip whichever horse he/she wants in LimKitSiang Blog (whether PR or BN) if YB Kit is to maintain a favourable political image of liberal and democratical openness in his blog.
#56 by Hugos on Saturday, 31 October 2009 - 8:43 am
Malaysia sleeping mah?? When Malaysia sleeping??