Helen Ang who has a column Z Sunday in Malaysiakini wrote on the Kelana Jaya opposition candidate just two days ago but in the People's Parliament forum. I have always kept an eye on what Ang writes, because on politics in the Middle East, she stands on the opposite side of the fence to me.
But I like her as she is honest even to the extent of frowning upon Israelis when those Hebraic warriors embarked on their periodic murderous Taliban-ish rampage, which they are doing right now to Palestinian children and women in Gaza. Hmmm, must be full moon as the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians and Israelites all worshipped Moon Goddesses. A few bloodied bodies on the altar for Her Selene Majesty.
Anyway, writing on the choice of candidates in Kelana Jaya in her Kelana Jaya: Compromise and keeping to convictions, while she acknowledged that at times it was necessary to compromise in elections, even for Opposition politicians, she believe that her position in The People’s Parliament forum requires her to maintain principles based on idealism – a case of jaga standards.
She wrote: … compromise is a slippery slope and this is very early in the game to be already backsliding. From the discussions in the Kelana Jaya threads, I see that some commentators have come to believe what is convenient is also what is acceptable.
Could it be possible that she was alluding to some pro PKR supporters averring that if a monkey is stood against a BN candidate they would vote for the monkey ;-)
She continued: On Loh Gwo-Burne’s shortcomings as a speaker and deficient in Bahasa Malaysia, there are excuses made: Not all MPs speak in Parliament; for the hot-button issues, BN could create a ‘no quorum’ precluding any chance for the Opposition even to speak; or this — MPs don’t need really to speak well lah (c.f. the BN ones). Will you allow this much leeway for lack of professional competence if you’re talking about your doctor?
Indeed – if you vote for a monkey to represent you in parliament, you get banana skins back or you are a monkey’s uncle ;-) [above underlining mine]
She said: We’re not angels here, we don’t claim to be overly moral or pious but I’d like to believe at least that the reason we’re all in this [People’s Parliament] forum is because we have a sense of right and wrong, and what we’re striving for is justice. And we, who are neither politicians nor politicking, have really got to start our journey on the right foot.
… Therefore, this forum had earlier established some clear standards on the MP qualifications we desire. Gwo-Burne does not meet these standards.
People’s Parliament would not be consistent if in our appraisal the Opposition is exempted from adhering to standards we ourselves had set, even if we are apt to be kinder to BN challengers given the obstacles they face, among them mainstream media’s biased reporting.
Some opposition supporters already have, that is, exempt their leader from adhering to (basic democratic) standards and I am not talking about Loh
… This means we give due respect to those segments of society who will put Lee Hwa Beng on the winner’s podium and remember that civil society is not a monopoly of Opposition supporters.
Indeed! Are those
She continued: To return to Gwo-Burne, this unproven chap is not winnable. His candidacy is premised on too many structural weaknesses, and depriving Kelana Jayans of viable choice. There are certainly more qualified people in PKR. Or the seat could have been yielded to DAP to contest or an independent who can give Lee a run for his money.
“…and depriving Kelana Jayans of viable choice”. Such public disservice can only be ascribed to some bizarre or selfish motives of the PKR leadership.
OK, maybe giving way to the DAP may be too much of an altruistic ask of PKR, but why can’t someone highly qualified like human rights activist lawyer Elizabeth Wong who, would you believe, actually is a PKR member, represent PKR in Kelana Jaya? So, I must ask, what’s going on in that party?
Ang continued: The duty of People’s Parliament to me is to take a broader perspective on this issue. I cannot agree that we must go to the extent of doing ‘anything’ to deprive BN of votes. This forum was not established to canvass for the Opposition. We have our own rhyme and reason.
Bravo Helen Ang, I love you once again for your integrity and am gonna kiss your cute pert nose as a mark of my respectful admiration ;-) and blast those monkeys - we don't want any more monkeys in Parliament.
My dear peng yu, Anwar Ibrahim protested again 'I'm no chameleon'.
According to Malaysiakini, he was accused by the MCA in an Election 2008 campaign leaflet of:
(1) Being against the Chinese cultural lion and dragon dances when he was then culture, youth and sports minister in 1982
(2) Decreeing that the teaching of Chinese and Indian studies in Universiti Malaya be in Bahasa Malaysia in 1987 when he was education minister
(3) placing non-Mandarin speaking administrators in government-run Chinese primary schools [which provoked an attempted meeting among the anxious MCA, Gerakan and DAP a la Shaolin Temple that led to Operation Lallang - Uncle Lim gained his LLB while eating nasi kandar or perhaps nasi kosong in Kem Kamunting]
Malaysiakini reported his response as: “Nothing I did and said in the language and cultural spheres were not standard BN-Umno policy.”
;-) that’s my boy – it’s always someone’s fault, with those ministerial policies of his being 'standard BN-UMNO polices', not his as Culture and Education Ministers respectively, but someone's, anyone's, whoever in BN or UMNO's.
Who developed policies then on culture if not the Culture Minister?
Who developed policies then on education if not the Education Minister?
He then diverted attention to some other UMNO champion for his keris antics, but note he didn’t (couldn’t) deny he issued those draconian polices, other than it was ‘standard BN-UMNO’ policies, and not His Teflon-ness'.
And you anwaristas wonder why I can’t accept him. If only he had said: “Yes, I did all those and regretted it. Being in prison and outside UMNO have made me see things differently” but alas, he has been too clever (or conceited) by half and lost a golden opportunity to show he has repented.
But then he’s Anwar Ibrahim, isn’t he!
Star Online reported Pak Lah: Component parties decide based on consensus. It reported AAB saying: “Barisan Nasional is not an autocratic party but makes it decisions based on a general consensus among its component parties and there is no bullying between them.”
Puhleeeze lah, Pak Lah, didn’t you humiliate the 9 non-Muslim cabinet ministers in deference to PAS – I blogged on that 2 years ago in PAS, non-Muslim Ministers & UMNO - an Article 121(1)(A) Ménage à Trois
What consensus? What con!
No bullying? No bull!