Dr Mahathir is surprised that there are people who equate voting in the coming general election as nothing more than a choice between “Coke and Pepsi”.
To drive home his point on voting, Dr Mahathir drew an analogy which compared the national car Proton and Rolls Royce.
“Is our ability to think and compare that stunted? If asked between Proton and Rolls Royce what will you choose.
“What’s the difference between the two anyway, they are both motor vehicles,” he posted in his blog this evening.
He said a decision could be made not to buy either one of the vehicles and instead travel on foot.
“It is better to travel on foot. But when you are crossing the road, you are hit by a Rolls Royce. You wouldn’t know because you are dead but the Rolls Royce was driven by a car thief.”
Pretty much everyone has a preference between Coke and Pepsi, even though most people can’t tell the difference. So what is the difference?
“Pepsi is sweeter than Coke, so right away it had a big advantage in a sip test. Pepsi is also characterised by a citrusy flavour burst, unlike the more raisiny-vanilla taste of Coke. But that burst tends to dissipate over the course of an entire can, and that is another reason Coke suffered by comparison. Pepsi, in short, is a drink built to shine in a sip test,” writes Malcolm Gladwell in Blink, explaining why Pepsi tends to win the Pepsi Challenge.
Turning to nutritional content, Pepsi has slightly more sugar, calories, and caffeine. Coke has slightly more sodium.
There are also mysterious differences in the natural flavours included in each drink.
Despite these differences, most people can’t tell the difference, according to a study by Samuel McClure and Read Montague: “Coke and Pepsi are special in that, while they have very similar chemical composition, people maintain strong behavioural preferences for one over the other. We initially measured these behavioural preferences objectively, by administering double-blind taste tests. We found that subjects split equally in their preferences for Coke and Pepsi in the absence of brand information.”
To drive home his point on voting, Dr Mahathir drew an analogy which compared the national car Proton and Rolls Royce.
“Is our ability to think and compare that stunted? If asked between Proton and Rolls Royce what will you choose.
“What’s the difference between the two anyway, they are both motor vehicles,” he posted in his blog this evening.
He said a decision could be made not to buy either one of the vehicles and instead travel on foot.
“It is better to travel on foot. But when you are crossing the road, you are hit by a Rolls Royce. You wouldn’t know because you are dead but the Rolls Royce was driven by a car thief.”
Actually, as far as taste is concerned, there is NO difference between Maddy's “Coke and Pepsi”. In an article on the two soft drinks by Business Insider Australia, extracts are as follows:
“Pepsi is sweeter than Coke, so right away it had a big advantage in a sip test. Pepsi is also characterised by a citrusy flavour burst, unlike the more raisiny-vanilla taste of Coke. But that burst tends to dissipate over the course of an entire can, and that is another reason Coke suffered by comparison. Pepsi, in short, is a drink built to shine in a sip test,” writes Malcolm Gladwell in Blink, explaining why Pepsi tends to win the Pepsi Challenge.
Turning to nutritional content, Pepsi has slightly more sugar, calories, and caffeine. Coke has slightly more sodium.
There are also mysterious differences in the natural flavours included in each drink.
Despite these differences, most people can’t tell the difference, according to a study by Samuel McClure and Read Montague: “Coke and Pepsi are special in that, while they have very similar chemical composition, people maintain strong behavioural preferences for one over the other. We initially measured these behavioural preferences objectively, by administering double-blind taste tests. We found that subjects split equally in their preferences for Coke and Pepsi in the absence of brand information.”
That's as far as 'taste' is concerned, though in 'branding', Coke has an edge.
Likewise with BN and today's Pakatan Harapan, and I stress strongly on "today's" in today's Pakatan Harapan.
Once Mahathir became head of a new Pakatan Harapan of which his party Pribumi (essentially UMNO Baru Mark II) is now boss of, the old Pakatan has very much lost its previous shine. It has become Barison Nasional Baru, wakakaka.
Thus when once there was the difference of day and night between BN and Pakatan Rakyat (not Pakatan Harapan), there is now no significant difference between BN and today's Pakatan Harapan (essentially Barison Nasional Baru) apart from their respective 'branding' as for the difference between Maddy's “Coke and Pepsi”.
Mahathir tried to draw a distinction between Rolls-Royce and Proton to emphasise that there is a difference, but REALLY, can one draw an analogy between the soft drink pair of 'Coke and Pepsi' and then with a giant-midget pair 'Rolls-Royce and Proton'?
 |
you tell me which is Proton and which is Rolls-Royce? |
Hasn't he being silly or more likely, deceitful in changing a comparison into a humongous contrast?
He might as well compare a Boeing 747 with a Cessna 172.
 |
Boeing 747 and Cessna 172 |
Functionally, there is no difference between a Proton and a Rolls Royce or between a Boeing 747 and a Cessna 172, as all bring a person from Point A to Point B. The vital difference is safety. Which is safer? BN or Pakatan Harapan or Pakatan Rakyat or Pakatan Harapan Rakyat? The most important is to see who is the driver or pilot? What if he or she is old? One should not take risk and compromise safety.
ReplyDeleteBoeing 747 carries around 450 people and can fly intercontinental, with a couple even direct from London to Sydney. A Cessna `172?
DeleteThe pro&con of Coke vs Pepsi (similarly with any flowery comparison) r irrelevant here!
DeleteSimply, it's a poor excuse of not been able to see the forest for the trees.
CHANGE is a must that bolihland must decide now.
The old, decayed & petrified government format has been too deeply intertwined with the f**king alifbata.
Who started the rot is academic & good for witch hunting to past time & to establish a warning lesson that soon to be forgotten via human nature.
If one is looking for REAL change then bathing the old Malayana via fire IS the only cleansing option.
No two about it!
The coming change COULD bring uncertainties. But it's definitely BETTER than die standing now with the current kleptomaniac regime.
Some might argue that's like jumping from fire into pan (kt's bombastic analogy). But that's exactly the cleansing process that bolihland needs NOW.
The time is short & limited. The failure in the undoing of the current regime is irresponsible to yrself & future M'sians.
as for 'coke versus pepsi' ask mahathir as he said it
Deleteas for your reckless bullshit, see Perry Index 226, wakakaka
1st mamak didn't initiate the 'coke versus pepsi' symbolism.
DeleteI believe it's coming out from some bleeding heart's blur2 insight in reaction to associate Prof Azmi & Amiga's forum talks.
Superficially sounds logical but missing the key argument miles apart!
What has The Tortoise and the Hare race got to do my take?
R u trying for one of yr mom's readily confused tactic ke?
I am referring to a single person. I have flown in a Boeing 737, and I was the only passenger.
ReplyDeleteonly 1 voter?
DeleteWa lau-eh, the ONLY passenger in a flying Boeing 737!
DeleteR u trying to 'show of' yr status?
In that 737, two pilots + a stewardess(since only 1 passenger) + u = 4 persons onboard the plane.
Less the two pilots, as u won't be seeing/talking to them. That leaves only the stewardess & u.
Wakakakaka.....
What have u done to that stewardess?
Perhaps the stewardess was dressing like the Kiwi's complaint about air AsiaX?
It was a commercial flight.
DeleteCommercial flight carrying 1 passenger in a 737 designed to carry 200max pax!
ReplyDeleteOnly in bolihland & only that famed wau can do that!
I have had a personal experience with the wau when flying back from Narita to KL in a airbus sometimes ago.
The flight was almost empty with less than 10 passengers on board (econ, business + 1st). The 10 of us had a field days on the flight, together with the generosity of the 6 air stewardesses.
The wau could easily 'code-loaded' us with the other airlines plying the same route with some delay & adjustment. The frustrating passengers could be easily pacified with some upgradings.
This makes business sense than flying a whole plane back with 10 passengers! Granted, the plane might have other immediate schedule. But nothing couldn't be done with well system planning.
Now, yr 1 passenger flight on 737!
If it's true then any wonder why the wau kept bleeding money as there was no tomorrow le!
There r/were just no good people around to man the system.