///This makes your apology hollow: Is it a sincere apology or is it made to score a point?/// – #17 by lkt-56

YB Kit rightly apologised for the Perak DAP convention doormat incident. The basis of apology is correctly stated in his opening statement that “it was not the best of political judgment, taste or example.” For it contradicts DAP’s claim to uphold more matured politics. Stepping on posters of the defectors as a gesture of scorn is juvenile, ad it opens the avenues for political opponents to discredit the DAP. That’s about it – nmo more, no less!

However Kit went further to add, “the Perak DAP convention doormat incident is a lesson to all politicians to be particularly mindful about sensitivities of Malaysians in a plural society and the propensity of irresponsible politicians to turn a non-racial issue into a racial one.” Now this is a classic elliptical statement on his part that requires only an elliptical mind to divine its implications.

To most of us, though stepping on the doormat of 3 frogs’ faces is not the best of taste, there’s no racial connotation involved in this incident. Its just faces of political defectors who happen to be a Chinese and two Malays stepped upon. They were stepped upon to signify the contempt for political frogs that caused the backdoor power usurpation of Perak State Assembly contrary to majority democratic will evinced in the last GE. The act of stepping on frogs’ face can no more be morally reprehensible than the act of those who faces were stepped upon. The incident is not even then an issue involving morals – on who has more or less – the one stepped upon or the one stepping – let alone racial!

It is however Utusan Malaysia, in its editorial, that skewed the doormat incident as one of racial implication by warning that the “DAP leaders should be reminded not to test the patience of the Malays. The act of stepping and leaping across the pictures of Malays is very rude. They have challenged the dignity of Malay leaders,” it said.

So when Kit made the additional statement about the so called “lessons to all politicians to be particularly mindful about sensitivities of Malaysians in a plural society and the propensity of irresponsible politicians to turn a non-racial issue into a racial one”, was Kit directing his comments at:-

1. those within DAP responsible for putting such a doormat heedless of the political repercussions – OR

2. Utusan Malaysia and those other BN politicians who may seize the incident, turn it racial to attack the DAP? OR

3. both ????

It is not clear whichway and to whom Kit is directing his counsel on lessons to be learnt.

If it were directed at or against DAP politicians as in 1. above, it may give the impression that Kit actually endorses the view or at least acquiesces with view of Utusan Malaysia in 2. (This is reinforced by his further rhetorical question – “But have the UMNO and Barisan Nasional leaderships learnt any lessons, whether before or after?” since it is UMNO and Barisan Nasional leaderships which are popularly associated by many with fermenting racial sensitivities).

But if one holds the view that Kit he is not likely to agree with Utusan Malaysia’s skewing of the issue to one of racial implications, then one will have to infer his additional remarks as being levelled obliquely at that news agency, and other BN politicians hence making this a public apology for DAP for the incident – yet coupled with a veiled admonishment against the critics of the incident as well.

To the DAP’s politicians responsible for this doormat incident, Kit’s message is something like – “Think carefully before doing things. You may think is creative or harmless – and it mmay well be- but it is dangerous and inimical to the party’s interest if they present opportunities for the other side to capitalise, seize on, skew, interpret on racial lines in incitment of racial sentiments against the DAP in particular and PR in general.”