Thursday, March 15, 2018

German bird for Nathaniel Tan

CNN - Angela Merkel sworn in for fourth term as German Chancellor (extracts):

Angela Merkel was sworn in as Chancellor of Germany after lawmakers voted to re-elect her as leader in a close vote on Wednesday morning.

She will now begin a historic fourth term as Chancellor.

Congratulations, Chancellor Merkel on your amazing 4th term as Head of Germany.

A proposal to limit the prime minister's tenure to two terms can be implemented based on convention and does not necessarily require an amendment to the Federal Constitution, the Opposition claimed.

Amanah deputy president Salahuddin Ayub cited the Britain's practice of a term limit by convention, suggesting that the Opposition could seek a similar avenue for Malaysia if wins the next general election.

He said there were already certain existing conventions that were practised when selecting the prime minister, which were not specifically stated in the Constitution.

Salahuddin Ayub must an ignoramus to cite Britain's practice of 'term limit by convention'. He has sprouted nonsense like Nathaniel Tan but I reckon Salahuddin's incorrectness has been due to ignorance while Nathaniel Tan who is supposed to be an intelligent person had propagated fake news (based on a PKR-ista's jealousy and hatred towards DAP) with regards to Guan Eng's term as CM.

Ya lah, those PKR people are so jealous of DAP, wakakaka, even unto making fake news of the most shameful types.

Just a reminder on PM (and thus CM) terms of governing a country or state, Tony Blair had 3 terms, winning his elections in 1997, 2001 and 2004, while Margaret Thatcher had won her terms in 1979, 1983 and 1987. Nathaniel, got that?

In Australia which also practised Westminster Parliamentary system like Britain, NZ, India, Malaysia and Singapore, but with each parliament term of only 3 (instead of 5) years, John Howard served 4 terms, in 1996, 1998, 2001 and 2004.

Much earlier than Howard, Bob Hawke also served 4 terms in 1983, 1984, 1987 and 1990. The closeness of two consecutive terms implied a snap election, wakakaka.

His predecessor Malcolm Fraser had 3 terms, winning the elections in 1975. 1977 and 1980.

John Howard's hero, Robert Menzies won his elections in 1949, 51, 54, 55, 58, 61 an 63, a total of 6 terms.

Across the Tasman Sea, New Zealand saw the following successful PMs, each with 3 terms, namely:

  • Helen Clarke in 1999, 2002 and 2005.
  • John Keys in 2008, 2011 and 2014
  • Jim Bolger in 1990, 1993,and 1996.

As for our Indian friends, both Indira Gandhi and her dad, Jawaharlal Nehru had 3 terms each.

Our lil' red-dot neighbour saw Lee Kuan Yew holding the PM's position for 30 years (if we divide that roughly by 5, that's a simple 6 terms but could be more if LKY had called for early elections), while the Big Kahuna himself right at Nathaniel Tan's doorsteps, Mahathir, held it for 22 years (and still hoping to continue as Pakatan's PM, wakakaka).

Salahuddin Ayub should have been a bit more careful about what he said or he'd be labelled a bullshitter like Nathaniel Tan, wakakaka.

Continuing with the Star Online report:

Salahuddin said a two-term limit for the country's premiership was not a new idea as the United States had amended its constitution to institute the practice following the death of its four-term President, Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Yes, the USA has a presidential system where the president is also the nations' CEO and not a constitutional powerless one like the Sing or Indian President or the Australian GG. The USA does NOT practise Westminster parliamentary system like Britain, Australia, NZ, India, Malaysia and Singapore.

Salahuddin Ayub said that two years ago and I hope by now he as a politician has a basic idea of the difference between the American and Westminster systems?

Pribumi VP Mukhriz Mahathir, who was also present at the press conference, said the two-term limit would prevent abuses of power.

But did he remember how long his dad served as PM Malaysia? OTOH, he could be saying (through a Freudian slip) that his dad as PM abused his powers?

Ain't it so annoying when ignoramus and sinister jealous goons wanted/want to throw the baby (a good parliamentary system like the Westminster system) out with the bath water, to wit, PM or CM they don't like and can't dislodge.

There has been this incessant move to limit Guan Eng's terms as CM. I suspect the issue of CM (and PM) term limit only arose in Malaysian politics because of Guan Eng.  Nathaniel Tan was so sinister and underhanded that he created fake news on term-limits of Western political leaders which did NOT exist.

He even descended into the gutter when he deliberately described Guan Eng as Dear Leader in a letter he penned to Malaysiakini titled Will Guan Eng be Dear Leader for life?.

His rather wicked labelling of Guan Eng as a Dear Leader has made very clear his prejudice and invincible jealousy against Guan Eng, by associating the Penang CM with that sinister title of Kim Jong-il, the former and late president of North Korea.

Was Mahathir limited to only two (2) terms?

If Mahathir was not, why didn't clever-by-half Nat Tan object then?

And the irony of it all is they including 
Salahuddin Ayub's Amanah are now promoting Mahathir to be PM again after he had already served from 1981 to 2003, all 22 years of draconian rule.

What f* bloody hypocrites Pribumi's Mukhriz, Amanah's Salahuddin Ayub and those jealous of DAP and Guan Eng have been.

There can only be one explanation for Nathaniel Tan's shameful fake news - sheer bloody jealousy of Guan Eng's powerful popularity in Penang and hurting (to PKR-ista's) envy of the DAP-led state government.

In the Star Online report Mukhriz ...

... admitted that a prime minister's tenure under an Opposition government could be extended beyond two terms under special circumstances, for example if the leader had become "very popular" among the people.

"If there are extraordinary circumstances, maybe that person has become very popular, then we can consider (more than two terms). But by convention, it should be this way," he said.

Mukhriz was coy when asked if the Opposition would moot a similar term limit for the mentri besar and chief minister's posts in the states they control.

"We haven't deliberated on that yet. This could also be a convention at the state level, but right now our focus is on the one with the most power."

Read between his bloody lines lah
Be very very afraid

Yes, Nathaniel was so shameless in his very crafty calculating cunning mischief that in his letter to MKINI, he cherry-picked dictators to support his silly but sinister arguments, examples of long serving world leaders but who were only those from draconian dictatorships and fascist states, people like Kim Il-sung (N. Korea), Muammar Gaddafi (Libya), Francisco Franco (Spain), Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe), Mao Zedong (China), Hun Sen (Cambodia or Khmer Republic), and Josef Stalin (USSR), though very strangely he omitted Mahathir's name.

But he was so carried away by his mischief that he made fake news relating to long serving equivalents of PMs of the nations of France and Germany, etc.

Well, Angela Merkel has just given the bird to Nathaniel Tan.

f**k your fake news, you effete snob 


  1. so u think no term limmit is better?

  2. 2 terms, 3 terms, 10 terms etc. What's the point?

    So, let the psychologists explain in simple terms how long it takes before leaders becomes corrupt? After 2, 3 or 10 terms.

    Those who propose according to how many terms are just showing off their own human weakness to the temptation of corruption.

    Excluded are those who have a hidden desire and who cannot wait to ascend to the post since that is called personal greed.

  3. You may not realise it, but Tony Blair and Angela Merkel are precisely good examples of where, even in liberal democracies with strong checks and balances, a leader overstaying his welcome can make serious failures of judgement.

  4. Another meaningless topic where the whole purpose is to distrat people from tui lam Najib.

  5. n where is that benevolent authoritative leader aficionado?

    1. Wakakakaka…… sour loser??

      Authoritative leaders f**k up big time, usually at the later stage of their reign when ego caught up with their age!

      Benevolence MUST be a big picture item - not those bleeding-hearted, politically-correct all-round approaches in advancing a cause! Choosing the lesser evil for the good of the masses!

      Hence, good person CANNOT be a good leader!

      Termed leadership also f**k up REAL big bcoz of time constraints due to limited term - either not enough time to carry through a good project OR sapu as much as possible while in power. CSP of Taiwan, pinklips of bolihland & exPOTUS George bush Jr comes to mind.

    2. taiwanese can kick out dpp, can chinese kick out xi or ccp?

    3. Taiwaneses can kick out dpp & get what??

      The same sh*t or 一蟹不如一蟹!

      Meanwhile Taiwan suffers as a WHOLE!

      Kick out Xi? Possible iff there is another strong replacement candidate.

      Kick out CCP? Not possible for the foreseeable future.

      So WHY want to kick out Xi or CCP when everything is okey dokey under their watch?

      Only the misguideds & the blurs WOULD want to change a workable system for the sake of selfish syiok-sendiri-sm of bleeding-heart & politically correct thinking!

      Observe carefully lah how Taiwan IS been slowly ruined by the class of talk big & achieve nothing narcissists!

      Pity 蔣經國's later life effort in defying his old man's legacy to modernised Taiwan & ended up with a bunch of anmokauxai morons messing up the chance.

    4. anmokauxai are not as bad as Jap-dick suckers like former President Lee Teng-hui

    5. That's HOW the bastardised election system worked to allowed a pseudo-Jap who hates to be born a cinakui (as the Jap liked to 'address' the Chinese) to be the head of the state that suffered tremendously under the Jap!

      That bastard has singlehandedly disgraced ALL the Taiwaneses, with the wannabes Taiwanese in towed le!

    6. "So WHY want to kick out Xi or CCP when everything is okey dokey under their watch?"

      not a question of y? i am asking u how? change leader via vote/election would result in not workable system?

      "Only the misguideds & the blurs WOULD want to change a workable system"

      the workable sys is called capitalism, which u synonymous it to chinese marxism /socialism, copy is fine, everyone did that, but wan tp patent it with chinese tis n tat sound bull to me.

      "That's HOW the bastardised election system worked"

      so no election better? n oso answer my earlier question, no term limit better?

    7. U r getting on with words twisting just like KT, perhaps better!

      If there is no WHY, then from where is HOW arises?

      U r terbalik in yr causality of events! Banyak2 pandai.

      Under the current Chinese system, there is still vote/election. Though u might want to argue about its validity. That's yr superficial & shallow understanding of human political system.

      I DIDN'T advocating that a change in leader via vote/election would result in not workable system. U mentioned it in yr blur2-ness.

      I proposed WHY change a workable system just for the sake of selfish syiok-sendiri-sm of bleeding-heart & politically correct thinking!

      Indeed, CHANGE of leader via vote/election would OFTENTIMES result in not workable system. Throughout the human history, especially the current epoch, examples r aplenty in both democratic & dictatorial admins for u to digest.

      Japan has seen many changes for the past 20yrs. All these changes have resulted in a limbo sopo-economic cloud overhangs her nationhood that's still ongoing.

      Ditto with Taiwan! Ditto with UK & Oz!

      Capitalism IS not working, PERIOD!

      There r again PLENTY examples, throughout the current human epoch, which u just refuse to see/acknowledge!

      U can keep fooling yrself no ends.

      The workable system is called Chinese Marxism /socialism. The glaring achievement staring in yr face IS the success of the poverty eradication of ∼80M families being uplifted from dirt poor conditions to a decent standard of living just over 20yrs!

      How many other socialist & capitalist countries have DONE a similar prodigious task? Yr beloved Taiwan?

      Granted, there r 'capitalist' elements been included. But these 'capitalistic' greeds for profit ARE not invented by capitalism. It's a fundamental part of the human transient psychological needs.

      Just like socialism has a transient psychological need of human compassion imbedded within its theory.

      Neither greed for profit or brotherhood compassion IS the sole right of capitalism or socialism. It's just either sopo theory places different emphasis on the part of human psychological NEEDS that they have considered r vital to their core thinking.

      Thus, yr understanding about these ideological patents ARE a real bull in itself!

      Again did I said ANYTHING about no election/term limit is better?

      If I can recalled correctly, my take was/is the benevolence of the key player IS the key deciding criteria!

    8. go read 毛泽东, 千家驹 what is marxism, communism, n socialism. dun twist.

    9. So u r a purist ye!

      Too bad, the REAL world doesn't work with theory, never mind it's whatsoever form!

  6. Angela Merkel could have gone out in a blaze of blinding glory at the end of her 3rd Term.
    As the Leader of The Free World as they dubbed her, since Donald Trump has vacated that role, and in any case he is grossly unfit to play that role.

    Instead, by clinging on like at Klingon , she is now the weak leader of an unstable coalition of parties with divergent ideologies.
    She will likely end her career in tatters.

  7. Can't blame Boboi. He thought that his father was PM of Brunei during those 22 years. So taking over premiership of Malaysia means resetting the leadership clock for 2 terms again.

    1. Mukhriz is a nice quiet person, unlike his father. But he lacks the persona to inspire others thus won't be a good leader especially without dad around

    2. "especially without dad around"
      Perhaps he can embalm the father like Lenin or Mao to get around that conundrum.

    3. like najib? brought out his very rich dad?

    4. Najib's father wasn't alive when he became MB, unlike Boboi whose father lobbied for him.

    5. its normal, father love son, its oso normal, son defame dad, inheritance kot.

    6. Father loved sons, unfortunately his sons didn't inherit his shrewdness, neither in politics nor in business and relied on him for handouts.

    7. can agree, not all son r like his dad, for eg, i believe tun razak is honest n not a corrupted leader.

    8. You may be too young but DAP veterans will remember shoveling blame onto Tun Razak for NEP & bumi agenda. Anyways that point is moot, as Najib went up the political pole w/o papa around to help him unlike Boboi. Strictly speaking on comparing their political careers.

    9. Wakakakakaakakak………

      " i believe tun razak is honest n not a corrupted leader."

      U believe in many RUBBISHES too & the doesn't make what u believe THE TRUE!

      May be u SHOULD ponder the corollary of like father like son!

      This old saying carries the true both ways le!

  8. " Najib went up the political pole w/o papa around to help him unlike Boboi."

    Najib has surrogate daddy-figure aplenty...Mahathir is seriously indebted to Tun Razak for bringing him back from the wilderness..and ever since then ( up til the breakup happening now, wakakaka ), has been keeping an eye, hack in fact keeping both eyes on Tun Razak's son to ensure he becomes the youngest MB ever and then proceeded to be PM, much to the old man's regret now, hehehe. Who says Najib goes up the political pole without good old papa's help ? Mahathir was his father lah, in every sense of the word, except for the surname.

    1. The grand old man was never self-admittedly indebted to anyone but himself. Not to the Indian-Thai heritage where he came from, not to the poor society where he grew up, not to UMNO that made him who he is now.

      He only helped Najib becoz he was expecting the same for his Boboi. He never trusted nobility nor royalty due to his early years brushing with both spheres of society, and while he didn't stop Najib from going up the pole, he was effectively cold storaged by Mahathir's establishment then. Mahathir was much in preference to Anwar's more aggressive cliques prior to Reformasi and they are more susceptible to Mahathir's stranglehold via blackmail. Najib would have remained a Minister level YB if Reformasi didn't happen. Ironic isn't it?