I Malaysia and 1 Israel are similar to put people first. But what does one expect of public relations – put people other than first?

APCO is international – its natural they have within their organisation some affiliates, associates or personalities or individuals who are Jews. Is APCO to be condemned for that and by extension the govt taking advice from it?

This whole thing revolves round guilt by association! To be linked in whateverway to the Isrealis is treated as taboo. That’s what Anwar is saying isn’t it??

Lookj at the logic – supposing APCO is in position to draw on its international experience (including doing work for Israelis) to advise us well on reform initiatives whether in fields of health, education and strengthening delivery of services to the benefit of our peoples. But here we’re saying that because APCO has a few Jewish adviser or because APCO has learnt a few important lessons from advising the Jews (as well as others), we should shun APCO or the govt is wrong to appoint APCO. This is anti-Jewish paranoia (dunno whether based on racial or theological basis) of extreme level: Anwar has nothing better else to engage the ruling party than to play on anti semitic theme just like his nemesis TDM?

Lim Kam Put’s posting #13 is clear example of arguing for the sake of arguing.

Re his first paragraph: Why don’t I ”look at what the other side has done so far (and as of this morning, including taking the independent MPs to Washington”? Then criticize it at least for its pretence of having nothing to do with the two becoming independent. Better still criticize your own self (PR) why you took in the kind of people who after winning their seat jumped out under the pretence of “independent” and going for a trip with the PM to US. What has that got to do with what I said?

Re his Second Paragraph: He said “may I know why we need this public relation (PR) firm to advise the government on PR? If there is sincerity in policy and action why is there a need for PR? The whole PR exercise is a baloney, if you have not realised that. Why pay so much to ask a group of PR executives to advise us on policies?”

In the first place who has said there was a need for a PR firm? Who has said that the whole PR exercise is NOT a baloney for this verbiage to be poured out?

Then you criticize the PM lah why he wasted money (RM23 million) to engage APCO for “1 Malaysia”, what’s the need and so on – but what has that got to do with criticizing APCO’s appointment not so much on its help not being needed or wasteful but, as Anwar did, on grounds that APCO has within its organizations Jews consultants and that it has done consultancy for Israel (in other words guilt by association on racial/anti-Semitic grounds)???

Then Lim Kam Put sums up: “What is there that we still do not know to bring this country to its rightful path? This country lacks sincerity, not because we have no expertise. This country is corrupted, not because we lack competency. We did not lose our way; we are caught in the quagmire of racism, bigotry and parochialism. We therefore need different solutions, certainly not public relation”.

These are all misdirected and irrelevant comments. Did I say APCO’s appointment was a needful or a worthwhile expenditure of money?

I did say “supposing APCO is in position to draw on its international experience (including doing work for Israelis) to advise us well on reform initiatives whether in fields of health, education and strengthening delivery of services to the benefit of our peoples. But here we’re saying that because APCO has a few Jewish adviser or because APCO has learnt a few important lessons from advising the Jews (as well as others), we should shun APCO or the govt is wrong to appoint APCO”?

As the word “supposing” implies, it’s hypothetical that “IF” APCO’s appointment were beneficial would it make sense to condemn it just because on the fact alone that it has Jew consultants/ experience advising Israel govt? This a rhetorical question to sharpen contrast of why anyone should condemn appointment of a Consultancy firm not mainly because its advice is no good or that its services are not needed but just because of its Jewish connections alone, as consistent with the thrust of what Anwar criticises.

To show this by use of “supposing” does not pre-judge or assume the appointment of that consultancy is by itself justified or needful on other grounds.

However Lim Kam Put takes it as his privilege to forever misread what is posted, to misconstrue what in context is meant and intended to be meant, to be unable to distinguish what’s relevant from what is not, and to accuse others of talking cock when he is prime offender of that.

///You accused Anwar of underhand tactic./// Lim Kam Put

I accuse him of appealing to race and religion based on anti-semitic (in his criticisms of APCO’s appointment).

I have no beef if he were to otherwise criticise APCO’s appointment on grounds that its a waste of money or that they could give no worthwhile advice.

It is PR’s platform to minimize play of issues on race and religion, and that includes being anti-semitic, dioesn’t it?

Its not a question of whether Anwar can resort to underhand tactic if the opposite side resorts to underhand tactics (like enticing your people away and joining the PM in US).

Its a question of Anwar showing that the Opposition is a measuring cast of a big difference from the ruling coalition in terms of PR being of more integrity and eschew underhand tactics unlike BN – but accordong to Lim Kam Put, tit for tat, Bn’s underhand tactics justify PR to reciprtocate. What foolishness is this? Someone this kind of tactics shoot its own foot: how is PR to convince Malaysians of its inclusive agenda and multiracial approach if Anwar picks on APCO’s appointment as a bone of contention with BN based (not on APCO being incompetent, wasteful etc) but mainly on the fact alone that it has within its organisation Jewish personnel/advisers and that it has done work for previous Israelis govt (1 Israel)??? This whole thing smacks of anti-Semitic racism.

///APCO’s appointment should be condemned for its Jewish link because no matter how underhand the tactic may be, it is justified given the situation and circumstances the opposition face today/// – Lim Kam Put.

When you oppose the BN for its underhand tactics, it makes no sense to me that you try to defeat it by resorting to the same underhand tactics, thus bringing down yourself to same low level as your opponent, thus providing no incentive for electorate/voter to make a choice why you are better than the BN.

Your line of thinking is thus bereft of logic, a neurological mystery at best, which makes even more nonsense when you support a racist/anti-Semitic position of Anwar condemning APCO’s appointment on principally the grounds of its Jewish connections (indirectly vilifying the Jews) in diametrical contradiction of PR’s own platform to be inclusive and not play on race/religious issues.

Luckily our Saudara YB Lim Kit Siang is not so desperate and still knows the right from the wrong : he has never openly supported Anwar’s criticisms of APCO’s appointment on anti-semitic premises.

I need neither your agreement nor approval of what I comment here. Its just that it is irritaing when you do not distinguish issues properly, consistently fail to se the relevant from the irrelevant and yet have this propensity to flagellate your criticism of another’s comments that you have not properly understood context and nuances like a misplaced spermatozoa up the rectal channel to nowhere particularly productive in terms of clarifying issues under discussions, though they may well appealing to sentiments/hearts of people like Winston than the beter part of their rational thinking.

///That simple, i have one support. Do you?/// – Lim Kam Put

Irrelevant and foolish again. It is not the number of support whether 1, 2 or a 100.

It is who and what is right that matters.

Don’t talk like a child on a table wondering what the topless woman’s gyrations are all about.

Whilst you have the right to coment here, don’t forget that you have too the right to remain silent (to protect against self incimination). You appear making a special effort to be more obtuse today than you ordinarily are or what?

Why “egocentric”? Did I say I alone determine what is right?

I merely said that your argument of having “one support” is irrelevant, and ought not to be cited in the first place as if that matters a lot as it does not serve as a measure to determine who and what is right.

Again you are presumptious in your interpretation – that I said I was right and hence “egocentric”. Did I say I make that determination?

You’re very blunt, undisciplined and inaccurate in the reading and thinking process in relation to what others say.