Sunday, February 25, 2018

3 of the worst in election campaigns

There is a Western folk superstition that all things (good or bad) come in threes.

hmmm, after serious considerations, I assess the above as 'good', wakakaka 

nah, wakakaka 

Not surprisingly, there is even an example of the deep belief in this saying among some Westerners that there was once a servant who after accidentally breaking an expensive wine glass, quickly picked two very cheap glass items to break, so as to complete the ominous prediction of that superstition, and of course to avoid breaking anymore expensive stuff.

I came across that saying in secondary school when my English teacher put us through an endless drill of knowing, understanding and then writing essays on our own experiences reflecting several English sayings.

The worst, vis-a-vis my essay writing, was Winston Churchill's "I have nothing to offer you but blood, toil, tears and sweat".

I still remember my English teacher's emotional pantomime a la Mark Anthony, with one of his hands (palm down) sweeping horizontally across my class, when he expressed Churchill's immortalised saying, wakakaka.

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:

If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it.

etc etc etc

Yes, on 10 May 199040*, in his first address as prime minister of Great Britain, then facing a mighty Nazi Germany in WWII which started on 03 September 1939, Churchill told the British people, “I have nothing to offer you but blood, toil, tears and sweat”.

* typo pointed out by visitor Monsterball but who described it as 'fake', wakakaka

Now, how the hell was I going to write an essay based on my personal experience when I or every student in my class wan't even born yet, wakakaka. But one of my uncles, wise man that he was and still is, advised me to write that as if I was told a WWII story by an elder - kowtim.

The second occasion I came across the saying was in reading Arthur C Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama, a very popular sci-fi book (which eventually became a series). I read all the books in this series as I loved (still do) those tales.

In Clarke's story, a strange spaceship made a passage through our solar system bypassing Earth. But there was a small window (of time) available for Earth's astronauts to make a visit to the ship and the objective of the expedition, an inspection of it and anything else, before the alien ship left the solar system.

Our intrepid astronauts then found on their visit that everything on board the spaceship had been triplicated - yes, 3 of everything.

And as the spaceship was about to leave our solar system for good, and the astronauts reluctantly left it before it was too far away for them to return to Earth, the final sentence of Rendezvous with Rama had one of the characters in the book having the thought in mind, that the builders of the spaceship, which they called Ramans, do everything in threes.

Once I was taking about 'all good things come in threes' to a sweetheart when she attempted to correct me by her rendition of 'all good things come in trees', providing examples of mangoes, cempedak and durians, etc.

It took a while before she grudgingly accepted that my saying with 'numerals' was the correct one rather than her things arboreal, wakakaka.

But in this post, I will discuss 3 of the worst things that our politicians and/or political parties have said or done in their election campaigns in recent times, well, perhaps not so recent, wakakaka.

Let's start with Najib (BN):

(1) In January 2014 he made his kangkung remarks, which earned him a lot of opprobrium.

(2) This month he made another politically incorrect remark about eating quinoa. Oh Dios mío! Wakakaka.


That statement of election campaign promise might have been made by the PM's aide but it's as good as coming from the PM.

Extracts of that news article in its first two paragraphs says:

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 25 — No more temples would be demolished if Barisan Nasional (BN) wins Selangor in the upcoming 14th general election (GE14), according to Special Officer to the Prime Minister Isham Jalil.

In a special interview with Tamil Nesan editor-in-chief K. Padmanabhan recently, Isham said the BN government now is strongly against wrongful demolition of temples.

Sri Muneeswarar Kaliamman Temple on Jalan P Ramlee

Quite frankly, the news article headline plus the first two paragraph sound really bad, as if the PM (through his aide) was making a threat to Hindus, wakakaka, a la 'Vote for me, then no more temple will be demolished'.

To be fair, the following paragraphs show a different shade, as follows (extracts):

“Religious tolerance and mutual respect among ethnic communities in this country are paramount. Since Datuk Seri Najib Razak became Prime Minister in 2009, a lot of emphasis had been given to the importance of understanding and tolerance among the multi-ethnic communities,” he said.

Isham said a huge sum amounting to more than RM50 million had been allocated for the upgrading and maintenance of temples in the country for the Hindu community.

“However, I am sad to hear that on the contrary in Selangor, since Pakatan took over the state government in 2008, twenty temples have been demolished by the state authority,” he added.

Isham was responding to a question posed by Padmanabhan on the recent demolition of a Hindu temple in Masai, Johor, that was purportedly done by the Johor state government, but in actuality was carried out by the private land owner.

If the headlines have been: RM50 million had been allocated for Hindu temples, wouldn't that be better?

Wakakaka, but that have been Najib's 3 worst pronunciations (though, as mentioned, the last was a MM Online's headline but tough for him).

Okay-dokey, let's look at the DAP and Lim Kit Siang (and I'll be brief, wakakaka):

(1) This one, to be fair to the DAP (but it's vicariously responsible in a way) is more of its supporters' doing than the party itself.

The pro-DAP cybertroopers have been excessively abusive, feral and uncouth. They behave like ravenously hungry hyenas, vultures and African wild dogs.

They're turning voters off with their terrible obscenities and unreasonableness. As a DAP supporter I have been appalled by how they had even gone against Sangeet Singh, daughter of our beloved late Karpal Singh, slandering her with abuses.

(2) There's a lot of negativism in DAP politicians' statements, announcements and silly 'I dare you' in their election campaign, rather than what its positives are, like its policies, programs and plans after GE14 (other than broad brief promises).

believe many who support DAP have been fatigued by the party's incessant excessively negative campaign. DAP's anointed PM-designate even insulted voters by saying those who felt that boycotting the election would make no difference were “shallow-minded”

Not a clever move to insult voters and not good for the DAP who reaps vicarious responsibility for the insult because of its too-close association with Mahathir.

Lastly but not least:

(3) having Mahathir among the Pakatan team and worse, as its PM-designate.

This is and will be the singular losing factor for Pakatan and thus the DAP. His contribution (penetrating the Malay Heartland) will be minimum whilst his exploitation of Pakatan at the expense of particularly Amanah and PKR will be maximum, all for his own Pribumi's interests.

DAP supporters have been asking: In GE14 are we going to have to choose between UMNO and UMNO?

no f**king difference 

What profit then has he brought to Pakatan?

I'll leave you with these.


  1. The thought crossed my mind - i.e. What if Pakatan led by Mahathir wins GE14, Mahathir becomes prime minister, Najib is tried and jailed or gets booted out of UMNO, then Mahathir, Mukhriz, Muhyiddin and their Pribumi members split from Pakatan and rejoin UMNO, thus leaving Pakatan as a minority government, UMNO/BN moves a vote of no confidence in the Pakatan government, which falls, a fresh election is held and UMNO/BN wins, and Mahathir or Mukhriz becomes the PM?

    Just a thought.

  2. "on 10 May 1990, in his first address as prime minister of Great Britain, then facing a mighty Nazi Germany in WWII ".....
    FAKE ?

  3. UMNO says DAP is exploiting Mahathir for its "chauvinist" agenda, quote-unquote.

    Ktemoc says Mahathir is exploiting Pakatan for his own gain.

    Looks to me its neither are true....

  4. Wakakakaka……M

    3 of the best 'arguments' for KT's pet loves (courtesy of Alwyn Lau's Opinion on MalayMailonLine)

    1) For the Israel-Arab conflict, my preferred analogy would be: Assume there are four brothers in a house. One brother (“Israel”) left the house, during which time the remaining brothers (“Arabs”) got into a legal squabble (“World War I”), causing them to lose control of their property which has now to be managed by a third-party lawyer (“The British”). After many years, the first brother comes home and asks to be given one room in the house (“A Jewish state”) ─ is that so unreasonable?

    2) One of the #UndiRosak leading proponents claims that Malaysians voters today are like phone users being given two choices, Samsung or Apple, except both have the same faulty chips.

    The nett result of casting any vote, therefore, is that the product will “blow up in consumers’ faces.” Hence, Hafidz’s advocacy of #UndiRosak i.e. rejecting both Samsung and Apple.

    That’s a cute and popular analogy. But, as with all analogies, we must ask which aspect is missing. I could point out that the analogy fails because it doesn’t capture the importance of removing a corrupt political party cum alliance (regardless of the leadership of the Opposition).

    In other words, I could challenge the comparison of Mahathir as PM for Pakatan to merely “the same faulty chip in a different phone.” Alternatively, I could use an analogy of people trapped in a collapsed building to an earthquake (“The BN regime after all these decades”).

    It is urgent to save these people (“Vote out BN”) but the people working on the rescue (“#UndiRosak”) are arguing about who should lead the rescue (“Disputing over Mahathir as PM”).

    3) how many times have people compared Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler? And how would this make sense, since 1) Trump hasn’t ordered the mass execution of anyone that we know of, 2) Trump hasn’t started a World War (yet) and 3) Trump’s Jerusalem decision favoured Israel?

    I would think that to use this analogy would also constitute an insult to Hitler’s victims, since to compare Trump to Hitler is one and the same as comparing Hitler with Trump. So the suffering and deaths of the people persecuted by Hitler are “equal to” those whom Trump opposes?

    Also, people who compare Hitler to Trump are guilty of (yet) another fallacy, that of begging the question (or assuming what you need to prove).

    In other words, they have pre-decided that Trump is an American dictator about to trigger global war and they have made it Trump’s responsibility to prove that he isn’t one.

    KT should choose well to remember:

    This is also a problem which afflicts arguments by analogy i.e. I usually take for granted the (disputable) “fact” that my analogy is perfectly suitable and correct. And if pushed, I’d probably end up defending the analogy rather than strengthening the premise of my case.