Destroy UMNO to save it?

Wakakaka, surely the latest 'asset' to Pakatan Harapan must be the man who has just said that UMNO's 'fixed deposit', namely Sabah, might no longer be in support of the BN coalition (effectively UMNO), a piece of news most ominous for the ruling party vis-a-vis GE-14.

And bizarrely or on second thoughts, perhaps not, wakakaka, the man who said the above has been none other than an UMNO Vice President, Mohd Shafie Apdal, wakakaka again.

I wonder whether, on hearing this news, there have been much wanking and solo groaning in the Pakatan toilets last night, wakakaka once again.

Shafie has in not so many words identified 1MDB's debts of RM42 billion as the underlying factor for the fading Sabahan support for the UMNO-led coalition.

Now, the bloke might well be right because politics is all about public 'perception', but then, technically or more clinically, what would be considered as 1MDB's 'debts'?

Depending on your political allegiance and/or preference, you can choose to believe in RPK's explanation or the Mahathir-faction's interpretation of 1MDB's 'debts'.

To the latter, to wit the Mahathir-faction, 1MDB's 'debts' initially was about the RM42 billion 'disappearing into thin air', but now it seems it has been revised ambiguously to just 'debts'.

However, this is what RPK wrote:

Dr Mahathir and Muhyiddin keep repeating the RM42 billion debts incurred by 1MDB. To them this is all they need to know. They cannot even read a Balance Sheet. If not then they would know that a Balance Sheet has two columns. On one side is the assets and the other side is the liabilities. And you minus one side from the other to come to the Net Tangible Asset or NTA to see whether it is positive or negative NTA.

The issue is not how much the debts are. It is what the NTA is and whether it is negative or positive. It does not matter whether the company has RM1 billion or RM100 billion in liabilities. It is how much its assets are and whether at the bottom line the NTA is negative or positive. This is what Dr Mahathir and Muhyiddin do not understand.

Syed told Dr Mahathir and Muhyiddin that 1MDB is in trouble. And it is in trouble because it borrowed RM42 billion. What Syed did not tell Dr Mahathir and Muhyiddin, maybe because he himself does not know, is that these RM42 billion liabilities is backed by RM51 billion worth of assets. That means the NTA of 1MBD is positive and not negative, which is what counts in business.

They keep calling 1MDB a debt-laden company. 1MDB may have debts but it is not debt-laden because its assets exceed its liabilities. Dr Mahathir’s son’s company was debt-laden. That was why they needed Petronas to bail it out or else the company would have gone bankrupt. 1MDB Is not on the verge of bankruptcy when its assets exceed its liabilities.

Of course most Pakatan supporters today do not believe in what RPK writes, chiefly because his articles have been more in favour of Najib and against Anwar and Pakatan, unlike earlier years. That's your prerogative to like and then dislike him. Afterall, the only permanent thing in this world is 'change'.

As for me, sometimes I believe in RPK's words, sometimes I do not, sometimes half-half depending on the specifics of the content, and sometimes I'm neutral about what he has written, but regardless, I remain in civilised cordiality with and respect for him, just as I remain in civilised cordiality with and respect for my other blogging/Facebook mateys like Ong Kian Ming (DAP), Ti Lian Ker (MCA). Haji Zainol Abideen (Mahaguru58) (PAS), and a host of others who do not share my political position (namely, 'conditional' and not absolute support for DAP).

Today (I stress on this, 'today' that is, wakakaka) I'm less inclined to believe in Mahathir, principally because I reckon his invincible anti-Najib diatribes (which might or might not have been true, or a mixture of the two) have a lot more to do with his (Mahathir's) PERSONAL obsession to CONTROL the governing of Malaysia and government policies rather than for the good of Malaysians and the nation. So forgive me if I'm now very sceptical of what he says or writes.

Thus, I do not believe in Mahathir far far more than I believe in RPK, wakakaka.

But back to post's thread, in my opinion Shafie Apdal has in his statement taken a strong, staunch and solid Mahathir-like stand vis-a-vis Najib which would be the same as being against UMNO the party, but of course which is his right/privilege and also politically natural as he's considered one of Mahathir's men (not unlike former minister of info Zam, former NST group editor & journalist Pak Kadir Jasin, Khairuddin Hassan, Matthias Chang, Muhyiddin, etc).

But nonetheless I've to admit what Shafie Apdal, an UMNO VP, has just commented has flabbergasted me, in that this UMNO man is willing to say such unfavourable things (even if true) which will adversely influence readers' views about his own party's political standing.

Now, would Nurul Izzah ever say anything bad that will adversely affect PKR? Or, would Lim Guan Eng do likewise for DAP? What about Pak Haji Hadi Awang vis-a-vis PAS?

Shafie Apdal's statement about the UMNO president losing support in Sabah could be considered as not unlike the nature of an often-quoted statement (perhaps mythically) attributed to a USAF spokesman giving a post-operations briefing to the press during the height of the Vietnam War, namely, "We have to destroy the village to save it." Wakakaka.

Surely today, with that, Shafie Apdal must and ought to be considered a 'national treasure' by Pakatan, as Mahathir was too (by PAS, I think?) in the lead up to the 2008 general election when he whacked AAB (and consequently UMNO as well) kau kau, wakakaka, and if my recollection is correct, in one of those pre-election Pakatan campaign talkshow-forums organized by none other than RPK, a BIG wakakaka on this.

Syabas Shafie Apdal, you've 'arrived' on the yang side of politics, and signing off this post with a final wakakaka.