As I have stated so often, I respect Haris Ibrahim very much. Currently Haris is pushing the current campaign mantra of ABU or ‘Anyone But UMNO’, urging the voters to vote for any candidate (from any political party) standing against an UMNO candidate in any federal or state electoral constituency.
However, as in any concept, policy or practice, there have to be exceptions. I do not apologise for raising this reminder, because of what I read in Malaysiakini’s Nik Aziz, Hadi for PM if Anwar convicted.
That pompous treacherous solar-powered Hasan Ali is at it again. At best I would say he’s sucking up to the two Pak Hajis, to ensure he retains a place in the list of PAS candidates for the next election, but I am not confident he is not, again, doing UMNO’s work again, by deliberately throwing into the Pakatan leadership ring, an apple of discord.
According to Greek mythology (from Wikipedia), Zeus held a banquet in celebration of the marriage of Peleus and Thetis, the parents of Achilles. However, Eris, goddess of discord was not invited (for she would have made the party unpleasant for everyone). Angered by this snub, Eris arrived at the celebration with a golden apple which she threw into the proceedings, upon which was the inscription καλλίστῃ (kallistēi, which meant ‘for the fairest one’).
Three goddesses claimed the apple: Hera, Athena and Aphrodite. They asked Zeus to judge which of them was fairest, and eventually he, reluctant to favour any claim himself, declared that Paris, a Trojan mortal, would judge their cases.
To cut the story short, Paris selected Aphrodite, who in turn blessed him with the love of the most beautiful woman in the world, Helen, who was the wife of Menelaus the Spartan King. Their adulterous elopement led to the Trojan War and numerous tragedies including the total destruction of Troy.
As I mentioned, there should be exceptions to any policy or campaign thrust. If PAS won’t get rid of Hasan Ali, then wherever he stands we must make an exception to ABU for he is the greater evil than an UMNO candidate.
Other possible exceptions to ABU would be his PAS pro-UMNO partner, Nasharudin Mat Isa, and also Zulkifli Noordin the Kulim Wonder, assuming he doesn’t stand as an UMNO candidate, and likewise our dear Ibrahim Ali.
Hasan won’t be able to stand as an UMNO candidate because his usefulness to UMNO is only valid if he remains in PAS to cause trouble among Pakatan. He'll be finished if PAS sacks him because UMNO will then not touch him with a ten-foot pole.
So, rather than ABU in his case, it should be ABHA – Asal Bukan Hasan Ali or Anyone But Hasan Ali.
Friday, January 06, 2012
Thursday, January 05, 2012
How soon we forget, save for 3 good men
On Christmas Eve, 24 December 2004 (before I started my own blog here), I published a post titled 3 American Heroes at My Lai over at my other (then shared) blogsite, BolehTalk.
The title of that post was unusual because, and I have to ‘fess up, I abhor, despise and would usually condemn the USA’s neo-colonial imperialistic adventures in Vietnam, and in various parts of the world such as Afghanistan, Iraq (Gulf War II) as well as its various intrusive avaricious meddling in the Middle-East and South America.
So it would require a fairly humongous sea-change-type of effort by those 3 American soldiers for me to deem them as heroes.
In that BolehTalk post, I wrote:
Thirty six years (by now, 44 years) ago in My Lai, one of the most shameful episodes in US military history occurred when around 60 American troops massacred 400 to 500 Vietnamese civilians, mainly women and children at My Lai. They raped, mutilated and tortured their victims during the bloody mayhem. The only man court martial-ed for this terrible atrocity was Lt William Calley. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murders but released 3 years later, when pardoned by President Richard Nixon.
But a few among the US soldiers did refuse to participate.
On that dark bloody day, a few good men stood out like bright shining stars, as heroes, true American Heroes.
This Christmas Eve, as we celebrate the birth of Jesus, we remember the Three Wise Men who came from the East to honour Christ. We should also use this special occasion to honour and remember the Three Good Men from America. I post this in deep respect of the three US Army helicopter airmen for their incredible bravery, human decency and honour in carrying out their duties as courageous soldiers on that fateful day at My Lai.
I salute Hugh Thompson, Lawrence Colburn and Glenn Androetta.
For the story of courage, please read here, here and here.
Today, RPK, once a hero to many PKR supporters, is considered by them as a 'zero', cast afloat on an angry roiling sea, facing character massacre a la My Lai from his very same but erstwhile PKR admirers.
These wonders have already made up their minds, all because RPK had the blooming effrontery to criticize their Icon. I’m a bit sick of their mindless anwarista-ish fanaticism.
But on this dark bloody moment for RPK, a few good men stood out like bright shining stars, as sane, balanced, moderate and fair heroes, true to their own perceptions.
While not necessarily agreeing with RPK’s opinions of Anwar Ibrahim, and even chiding RPK for what they consider as his intemperate and untimely attack on Anwar, they have struck a generally fair path. Their comments have been:
But whether Anwar is convicted or not, and whether or not RPK is in the pay or the thrall of the government, it seems to me that both of these controversial figures have played important parts, indeed starring roles, in awakening major portions of the Malaysian public to the perfidies of Umno/BN.
And now it’s up to every Malaysian to be sufficiently inspired and emboldened by these shining examples, however tarnished they now may be or possibly have yet to become, to stand up as leaders rather than just followers; as fighters for their principles rather than passive supporters of public figures.
The above was by Dean Johns in his column Principles beat personalities at Malaysiakini – incidentally, the article’s title is also indicative of Dean’s high level view of the imbroglio.
Then we have:
RPK, whom I continue to respect and love as a brother and friend, even though we may be diametrically opposed in specific instances - and to whom I will always be grateful for his magnificent role as a powerful galvanizer of political awareness - may have decided that Anwar Ibrahim is "morally unfit" to be appointed our 7th prime minister. He has every right to his personal opinion.
The above was by my matey (wakakaka) Antares in his post at his blog Magick River - poor Antares gets annoyed when I address him as ‘my matey’ wakakaka, and I do apologise if my brief extract of his post conveys any incorrect picture of his views.
But the most touching came from a man I truly admire. He wrote:
Many of you may already have forgotten why RPK and Marina are now in exile.
I’ve linked 3 posts below.
The first and the second I wrote in 2008, whilst RPK was detained in Kamunting.
The last, before he and Marina took flight to go into exile.
Please read them all. Read the comments too. Who knows, you might just be reading now what you wrote then.
Have we misrepresented ourselves to RPK?
If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom: and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too – W. Somerset Maugham
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends
Many of you appear to be of the view that RPK has betrayed us, and has sold out.
I think you premise this on his interview with TV3 last March and his latest interview with NST and Utusan.
I do not share this view.
Mine is premised on the man and Marina that I believe I have come to know.
We cannot both be right.
Let us all hope and pray that the error is yours and not mine.
You have my word, though, that should I discover the error to be mine, I will not hesitate to disclose all that I know to you.
Meanwhile, this divergence of view aside, we are all committed to see the end of UMNO and BN’s reign of tyranny and rape and plunder.
Let not this difference of opinion distract us from the work before us.
In my last post I had said that by God’s will, we will, together, plant love, tenderness and respect in this land of ours.
To those of you who believe that this man who once served us all so selflessly has, for whatever reason, left us, I urge you to let the process of planting love, tenderness and respect begin now.
If you truly believe this, rather than hate, pray that God returns RPK to our course.
Whilst I do not advocate this, if you must hate, save it for all that UMNO and BN do.
For me, I will pray that I will never ever have to say sorry to you for being wrong. You might want to add this in your prayers, too.
The above are extracts from Brother Haris Ibrahim in his post Oh Lord, how soon we forget! at The People’s Parliament blogsite.
Indeed, Brother Haris, how soon we forget! But obviously your sense of friendship runs deep and long like Antares' Magick River
I salute Dean Johns, Antares and Haris Ibrahim.
The title of that post was unusual because, and I have to ‘fess up, I abhor, despise and would usually condemn the USA’s neo-colonial imperialistic adventures in Vietnam, and in various parts of the world such as Afghanistan, Iraq (Gulf War II) as well as its various intrusive avaricious meddling in the Middle-East and South America.
So it would require a fairly humongous sea-change-type of effort by those 3 American soldiers for me to deem them as heroes.
In that BolehTalk post, I wrote:
Thirty six years (by now, 44 years) ago in My Lai, one of the most shameful episodes in US military history occurred when around 60 American troops massacred 400 to 500 Vietnamese civilians, mainly women and children at My Lai. They raped, mutilated and tortured their victims during the bloody mayhem. The only man court martial-ed for this terrible atrocity was Lt William Calley. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murders but released 3 years later, when pardoned by President Richard Nixon.
But a few among the US soldiers did refuse to participate.
On that dark bloody day, a few good men stood out like bright shining stars, as heroes, true American Heroes.
This Christmas Eve, as we celebrate the birth of Jesus, we remember the Three Wise Men who came from the East to honour Christ. We should also use this special occasion to honour and remember the Three Good Men from America. I post this in deep respect of the three US Army helicopter airmen for their incredible bravery, human decency and honour in carrying out their duties as courageous soldiers on that fateful day at My Lai.
I salute Hugh Thompson, Lawrence Colburn and Glenn Androetta.
For the story of courage, please read here, here and here.
Today, RPK, once a hero to many PKR supporters, is considered by them as a 'zero', cast afloat on an angry roiling sea, facing character massacre a la My Lai from his very same but erstwhile PKR admirers.
These wonders have already made up their minds, all because RPK had the blooming effrontery to criticize their Icon. I’m a bit sick of their mindless anwarista-ish fanaticism.
But on this dark bloody moment for RPK, a few good men stood out like bright shining stars, as sane, balanced, moderate and fair heroes, true to their own perceptions.
While not necessarily agreeing with RPK’s opinions of Anwar Ibrahim, and even chiding RPK for what they consider as his intemperate and untimely attack on Anwar, they have struck a generally fair path. Their comments have been:
But whether Anwar is convicted or not, and whether or not RPK is in the pay or the thrall of the government, it seems to me that both of these controversial figures have played important parts, indeed starring roles, in awakening major portions of the Malaysian public to the perfidies of Umno/BN.
And now it’s up to every Malaysian to be sufficiently inspired and emboldened by these shining examples, however tarnished they now may be or possibly have yet to become, to stand up as leaders rather than just followers; as fighters for their principles rather than passive supporters of public figures.
The above was by Dean Johns in his column Principles beat personalities at Malaysiakini – incidentally, the article’s title is also indicative of Dean’s high level view of the imbroglio.
Then we have:
RPK, whom I continue to respect and love as a brother and friend, even though we may be diametrically opposed in specific instances - and to whom I will always be grateful for his magnificent role as a powerful galvanizer of political awareness - may have decided that Anwar Ibrahim is "morally unfit" to be appointed our 7th prime minister. He has every right to his personal opinion.
The above was by my matey (wakakaka) Antares in his post at his blog Magick River - poor Antares gets annoyed when I address him as ‘my matey’ wakakaka, and I do apologise if my brief extract of his post conveys any incorrect picture of his views.
But the most touching came from a man I truly admire. He wrote:
Many of you may already have forgotten why RPK and Marina are now in exile.
I’ve linked 3 posts below.
The first and the second I wrote in 2008, whilst RPK was detained in Kamunting.
The last, before he and Marina took flight to go into exile.
Please read them all. Read the comments too. Who knows, you might just be reading now what you wrote then.
Have we misrepresented ourselves to RPK?
If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom: and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too – W. Somerset Maugham
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends
Many of you appear to be of the view that RPK has betrayed us, and has sold out.
I think you premise this on his interview with TV3 last March and his latest interview with NST and Utusan.
I do not share this view.
Mine is premised on the man and Marina that I believe I have come to know.
We cannot both be right.
Let us all hope and pray that the error is yours and not mine.
You have my word, though, that should I discover the error to be mine, I will not hesitate to disclose all that I know to you.
Meanwhile, this divergence of view aside, we are all committed to see the end of UMNO and BN’s reign of tyranny and rape and plunder.
Let not this difference of opinion distract us from the work before us.
In my last post I had said that by God’s will, we will, together, plant love, tenderness and respect in this land of ours.
To those of you who believe that this man who once served us all so selflessly has, for whatever reason, left us, I urge you to let the process of planting love, tenderness and respect begin now.
If you truly believe this, rather than hate, pray that God returns RPK to our course.
Whilst I do not advocate this, if you must hate, save it for all that UMNO and BN do.
For me, I will pray that I will never ever have to say sorry to you for being wrong. You might want to add this in your prayers, too.
The above are extracts from Brother Haris Ibrahim in his post Oh Lord, how soon we forget! at The People’s Parliament blogsite.
Indeed, Brother Haris, how soon we forget! But obviously your sense of friendship runs deep and long like Antares' Magick River
I salute Dean Johns, Antares and Haris Ibrahim.
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
Deconstructing the Perfect Man
Dr Azly Rahman, an academician who holds all sorts of mind-boggling degrees and sometimes writes for Malaysiakini, once propounded that the wayang kulit display of the Ramayana epic or the makyong is a form of neo-feudalistic indoctrination, the type that Hang Tuah suffered from and which Jebat gave two fingers to.
In his article for Malaysiakini Neo-feudalism of the cybernetic Malays he wrote:
In many an analysis of the transformation of the Malay society from the times of the Melaka Sultanate to the emergence of the Malay nationalism we find the conclusion of the idea of a good Malay subject is one who surrenders total obedience to his or her Ruler (the sultan or the Raja). The king is said to be ‘(Allah’s) representative on this earth’ and is thus bestowed with the Divine Rights.
Modernizing it even further, can we say “the idea of a good Malaysian subject is one who surrenders total obedience to his or her political leader (the PM, MB or party leader)”?
Blogger Sakmongkol (Dato’ Mohd Ariff Sabri bin Hj Abdul Aziz) alluded to the modernized ‘expectations’ in a certain way in his post hutang UMNO pada budi orang Melayu.
Azly Rahman proceeded on to say:
But the problem lies not in the here and now but in the past; one that needs to be de-constructed and reconstructed. It lies in the Malay psyche. It lies in the notion of hegemony as it relates to political-economy of totalitarianism and controlling interests that continue to cement the master-slave narrative/relationship of the ruler and the ruled.
That master-slave narrative has become a technology of psycholinguistic control and institutionalised as ‘culture’. The Portuguese, Dutch, Japanese, and British colonialists succeeded because the fertile ground of the slave mentality is already prepared historical- materialistically.
We can see this mentality in the idea that Malay political leader must not be challenged (such as in case of the presidency of the Umno) and this is a manifestation of this neo- feudalism hypermodern inner construct of the Malay in the Age of Cybernetics.
Wakakaka, I know I know, good olde Azly Rahman has been notable for using frightening words in his essays that makes you wonder whether your education has been an utter failure, or you’re an intellectual pygmy, or you're suffering from ataxaphasia, or perhaps you have just overeaten more than your share of pulut-nasi-lemak-cum-banana-santan-curry-ish literature. You suffer hours or even days of slow literary digestion.
Anyway, 500 years of such historical indoctrination have shown that Azly Rahman has been correct, in that Malays in general (& not excluding many other Malaysians) have inherited such a slave mentality or, in its modern and extreme form, slavish adoration of political leaders.
Substitute the word ‘UMNO’ with ‘PKR’ and we have the same stuff, that to PKR members, Anwar Ibrahim must not be challenged, because (to paraphrase Azly’s finding) “the idea of a good PKR member is one who surrenders total obedience to the Great One”.
Thus, except for many of those former members who left in utter disgust or were expelled for bucking the ‘inner coterie’, PKR members never ever question Anwar on, for example:
· The most un-reformasi promotion of frogs in Perak (prior to the drastic ricochet wakakaka)
· The most un-reformasi 916. When asked whether 916, had it been successful, would have been a total disrespect to the people’s democratic choice, many idol worshippers argued PKR couldn’t afford to wait until 2013 to replace UMNO, and thus the end (Anwar as PM) justified the means (including shameful frog-ological cheating of the voters, which of course they criticized most vehemently when Najib/UMNO was the proponent).
· The utter shameful frog-hunting expedition to Taiwan. Tian Chua fitted in but shame on Eli Wong for being party to it, though I didn't heistate to defend her on my blog during the period of her most trying times.
Let me pause here for a while and ask, do you PKR people still believe n reformasi?
OK, I bet your answer would be as above, that PKR can’t afford to wait until post-GE 13 to replace UMNO, and thus the end (to enthrone Anwar as PM soonest) justifies the means whatever these may be, even living in a world of self deception (about reformasi), by burying their heads in the sand like the proverbial ostrich and ignoring the most un-reformasi practices of their idol.
· His out-of-the-blue support of the implementation of PAS’ hudud. Of course I don’t expect the PKR Muslim members to question him on this but why were the non-Muslim members struck dumb during that time? Eli? Tian Chua? Sivarasa?
· His last minute and very personal selection of Loh Gwo Burne (who?) as PKR candidate for the federal parliamentary seat of Kelana Jaya. Loh’s perceived unsuitability as a federal MP led Haris Ibrahim to demand an explanation from Anwar Ibrahim for his (Anwar's) choice, which as with all such challenging queries to PKR, remained unanswered. Bloody great refomasi process.
· The questionable governance of PKR’s last party polls. Hell of a lot had already been written by Haris Ibrahim, (OK, let’s exclude RPK) and PKR’s own members (some still members like Chegubard and Mustaffa Kamil, while others had left) without the need for me to elaborate.
Instead ask Gobala, once chief bodeker of Anwar, Zaid Ibrahim wakakaka, Jenapala (who was marginalized like another Nallakaruppan), Jonson Chong, Chegubard (still in PKR and unlike Mustaffa Kamil, had refused a consolation prize of some party position, but recently backstabbed by PKR insiders), and earlier on, Johari Jasin, Abdul Rahman (membership No 3 and now in PAS).
But I’m sure, in accordance with PKR beliefs, each and every one of them was wrong, evil and a frog like RPK, unlike the precious pristine pure Great One.
I don’t intend to join RPK in commenting on the Haadyai video clip nor on the Sodomy II case, which incidentally brings me to RPK.
Now, while I sometimes don’t agree with RPK, I do with his recent criticisms (minus the Haadyai & Sodomy II incidents) of Anwar and Azmin Ali.
In fact RPK has been far more generous than I have been, in persuading Nurul Izzah to take over the reins (not 'helm', wakakaka) of PKR.
As RPK (and a sweetie once) said, one can be anti Anwar without being anti Pakatan or anti PKR. And I include myself in this group.
But alas, as Azly Rahman wrote, (as modified/modernized by kaytee) “the idea of a good PKR member is one who surrenders total obedience to the Great One” where total obedience also means defending him regardless.
Thus, leaving aside RPK's unauthorized comments on MCLM, I wasn’t surprised to read numerous and very venomous vilifications of him for his opinons on Anwar, while not one comment or query had been raised on Anwar’s credentials as a reformer and his performance in that respect, let alone his suitability as a future PM.
Very few bother to read what RPK said, about the danger of focusing on the personality cult of Anwar instead of policies of Pakatan as a future government (eg. where’s the bloody shadow cabinet? but day in day out, it's all about Anwar vs Najib & Najib vs Anwar - cukup lah!), ...
... leading to such moronic declarations, that if Anwar is jailed, PKR members will storm the barricades at Putrajaya to place Anwar there (of course made by a bloke whose political existence is dependent on Anwar Ibrahim's continuing political influence)
Look, let's consider RPK playing the role of deconstructing (wakakaka, Azly Rahman’s word) the Great Anwar Ibrahim a la what Kassim Ahmad did in his doctoral thesis 'Perwatakan Hikayat Hang Tuah'.
Hang Tuah was the very epitome of Malay heroic loyalty until Kassim Ahmad raised doubts on his iconic status in (circa) 1950.
Dr Bakri Musa commented on Kassim’s thesis as follows:
In it he challenged the traditional interpretation and made the hitherto hero Hang Tuah as nothing more than a palace hack, and elevated the anti-hero Hang Jebat as the true hero, willing to kill even the sultan in defence of honor and principles. Surely Jebat was the reformer wakakaka.
Similarly in studies on the Hindu saga, Ramayana, some modern scholars have questioned the true nature of the epic’s typified heroic Rama and his arch foe, the demonic Ravana. The scholars have considered reversing the roles and status of the two principal antagonists, something that would have been previously considered as an unimaginable proposition, namely, that Rama was a cad in many ways while Ravana was a chivalrous hero of sorts.
Some conservative Hindus may even take that proposition as blasphemous, not unlike conservative Malays on the role reversal of Kassim Ahmad’s Tuah and Jebat.
The studies have focused on what has puzzled Ramayana scholars throughout the centuries, namely, the inexplicable nature of the relationship between Rama and his wife Sita, specifically Rama's deplorable behaviour towards her.
Like Tuah, Rama was the hero of the saga, an avatar of Vishnu born on earth to save the world and the heavens from Ravana. Sita was his loyal wife. Together, with Rama's brother, Laksamana, the three left Ayodha on a pre-destined mission.
They went through trials and tribulation. In the course of their mission until their eventual triumphant return to Ayodha, Rama accused Sita twice of infidelity, even though she was innocent. Each time Sita was forced to prove her purity by ordeal.
But in spite of her repetitive demonstration of virtue, she was considered a tainted partner. Sita was never accepted by Rama as a loyal and full member of the Ayodha family.
Why did such a so-called righteous hero like Rama, ironically termed the ‘Perfect Man’, treat his partner Sita with such distrust, lack of respect and injustice, not once but on two separate occasions? By contrast, Ravana treated his hostage Sita with great respect and chivalry.
So, who's actually the hero and who's the villain in Ramayana?
Rama's caddish treatment of Sita was not his only 'crime'. His treacherous murder of King Vali by stealth from behind a tree while the latter was fighting his brother Sugriva) was disgraceful and most unchivalrous for the 'Perfect Man' Rama was supposed to be.
The dying Vali was so shocked by Rama's treachery that he said (from Wikipedia) "if you are searching your wife you should have come to me for help and friendship. Whoever took Sita even if it is Ravana I have defeated them and would have taken them at your feet and at your mercy".
Then he asked Rama with his dying breath:
Rama showed his unrepentant arrogance in a most disgraceful reply to Vali's third question, as disgraceful as was his equally arrogant reply to Vali's second question.
He said that Vali, King of Kishkinda (a monkey kingdom) was just a monkey, therefore he as a king on the hunt couldn't be bothered whether the prey being hunted was careful or not, dismissing Vali as being in the same category as a deer being hunted.
Such was Rama's unmitigated sin of killing by treacherous stealth the King of Kishkinda, yet whose army he sought for help (through Sugriva) to rescue Sita from Ravana. Can you respect Rama's arrogant and totally unrepentant argument?
Anyway, do consider Azly Rahman's postulation about 'neo-feudalism hypermodern inner construct of believers'.
While I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that PKR people consider Anwar as the ‘Perfect Man’ wakakaka, why vilify RPK for his deconstruction of the Great One and his (Anwar's) alleged disrespect for reformasi, when the former had sacrificed so much (including the safety and welfare of his family) for the latter?
Even if RPK had gone over to bat for UMNO, so what! Assuming for a moment that's true, I believe no one more than RPK has earned that independent right to do so, after so many personal sacrifices for Anwar, without attracting such infantile venom.
After all, Anwar is no greater than Hang Tuah or Rama, though of course I could be wrong here wakakaka.
In his article for Malaysiakini Neo-feudalism of the cybernetic Malays he wrote:
In many an analysis of the transformation of the Malay society from the times of the Melaka Sultanate to the emergence of the Malay nationalism we find the conclusion of the idea of a good Malay subject is one who surrenders total obedience to his or her Ruler (the sultan or the Raja). The king is said to be ‘(Allah’s) representative on this earth’ and is thus bestowed with the Divine Rights.
Modernizing it even further, can we say “the idea of a good Malaysian subject is one who surrenders total obedience to his or her political leader (the PM, MB or party leader)”?
Blogger Sakmongkol (Dato’ Mohd Ariff Sabri bin Hj Abdul Aziz) alluded to the modernized ‘expectations’ in a certain way in his post hutang UMNO pada budi orang Melayu.
Azly Rahman proceeded on to say:
But the problem lies not in the here and now but in the past; one that needs to be de-constructed and reconstructed. It lies in the Malay psyche. It lies in the notion of hegemony as it relates to political-economy of totalitarianism and controlling interests that continue to cement the master-slave narrative/relationship of the ruler and the ruled.
That master-slave narrative has become a technology of psycholinguistic control and institutionalised as ‘culture’. The Portuguese, Dutch, Japanese, and British colonialists succeeded because the fertile ground of the slave mentality is already prepared historical- materialistically.
We can see this mentality in the idea that Malay political leader must not be challenged (such as in case of the presidency of the Umno) and this is a manifestation of this neo- feudalism hypermodern inner construct of the Malay in the Age of Cybernetics.
Wakakaka, I know I know, good olde Azly Rahman has been notable for using frightening words in his essays that makes you wonder whether your education has been an utter failure, or you’re an intellectual pygmy, or you're suffering from ataxaphasia, or perhaps you have just overeaten more than your share of pulut-nasi-lemak-cum-banana-santan-curry-ish literature. You suffer hours or even days of slow literary digestion.
Anyway, 500 years of such historical indoctrination have shown that Azly Rahman has been correct, in that Malays in general (& not excluding many other Malaysians) have inherited such a slave mentality or, in its modern and extreme form, slavish adoration of political leaders.
Substitute the word ‘UMNO’ with ‘PKR’ and we have the same stuff, that to PKR members, Anwar Ibrahim must not be challenged, because (to paraphrase Azly’s finding) “the idea of a good PKR member is one who surrenders total obedience to the Great One”.
Thus, except for many of those former members who left in utter disgust or were expelled for bucking the ‘inner coterie’, PKR members never ever question Anwar on, for example:
· The most un-reformasi promotion of frogs in Perak (prior to the drastic ricochet wakakaka)
· The most un-reformasi 916. When asked whether 916, had it been successful, would have been a total disrespect to the people’s democratic choice, many idol worshippers argued PKR couldn’t afford to wait until 2013 to replace UMNO, and thus the end (Anwar as PM) justified the means (including shameful frog-ological cheating of the voters, which of course they criticized most vehemently when Najib/UMNO was the proponent).
· The utter shameful frog-hunting expedition to Taiwan. Tian Chua fitted in but shame on Eli Wong for being party to it, though I didn't heistate to defend her on my blog during the period of her most trying times.
Let me pause here for a while and ask, do you PKR people still believe n reformasi?
OK, I bet your answer would be as above, that PKR can’t afford to wait until post-GE 13 to replace UMNO, and thus the end (to enthrone Anwar as PM soonest) justifies the means whatever these may be, even living in a world of self deception (about reformasi), by burying their heads in the sand like the proverbial ostrich and ignoring the most un-reformasi practices of their idol.
· His out-of-the-blue support of the implementation of PAS’ hudud. Of course I don’t expect the PKR Muslim members to question him on this but why were the non-Muslim members struck dumb during that time? Eli? Tian Chua? Sivarasa?
· His last minute and very personal selection of Loh Gwo Burne (who?) as PKR candidate for the federal parliamentary seat of Kelana Jaya. Loh’s perceived unsuitability as a federal MP led Haris Ibrahim to demand an explanation from Anwar Ibrahim for his (Anwar's) choice, which as with all such challenging queries to PKR, remained unanswered. Bloody great refomasi process.
· The questionable governance of PKR’s last party polls. Hell of a lot had already been written by Haris Ibrahim, (OK, let’s exclude RPK) and PKR’s own members (some still members like Chegubard and Mustaffa Kamil, while others had left) without the need for me to elaborate.
Instead ask Gobala, once chief bodeker of Anwar, Zaid Ibrahim wakakaka, Jenapala (who was marginalized like another Nallakaruppan), Jonson Chong, Chegubard (still in PKR and unlike Mustaffa Kamil, had refused a consolation prize of some party position, but recently backstabbed by PKR insiders), and earlier on, Johari Jasin, Abdul Rahman (membership No 3 and now in PAS).
But I’m sure, in accordance with PKR beliefs, each and every one of them was wrong, evil and a frog like RPK, unlike the precious pristine pure Great One.
I don’t intend to join RPK in commenting on the Haadyai video clip nor on the Sodomy II case, which incidentally brings me to RPK.
Now, while I sometimes don’t agree with RPK, I do with his recent criticisms (minus the Haadyai & Sodomy II incidents) of Anwar and Azmin Ali.
In fact RPK has been far more generous than I have been, in persuading Nurul Izzah to take over the reins (not 'helm', wakakaka) of PKR.
As RPK (and a sweetie once) said, one can be anti Anwar without being anti Pakatan or anti PKR. And I include myself in this group.
But alas, as Azly Rahman wrote, (as modified/modernized by kaytee) “the idea of a good PKR member is one who surrenders total obedience to the Great One” where total obedience also means defending him regardless.
Thus, leaving aside RPK's unauthorized comments on MCLM, I wasn’t surprised to read numerous and very venomous vilifications of him for his opinons on Anwar, while not one comment or query had been raised on Anwar’s credentials as a reformer and his performance in that respect, let alone his suitability as a future PM.
Very few bother to read what RPK said, about the danger of focusing on the personality cult of Anwar instead of policies of Pakatan as a future government (eg. where’s the bloody shadow cabinet? but day in day out, it's all about Anwar vs Najib & Najib vs Anwar - cukup lah!), ...
... leading to such moronic declarations, that if Anwar is jailed, PKR members will storm the barricades at Putrajaya to place Anwar there (of course made by a bloke whose political existence is dependent on Anwar Ibrahim's continuing political influence)
Look, let's consider RPK playing the role of deconstructing (wakakaka, Azly Rahman’s word) the Great Anwar Ibrahim a la what Kassim Ahmad did in his doctoral thesis 'Perwatakan Hikayat Hang Tuah'.
Hang Tuah was the very epitome of Malay heroic loyalty until Kassim Ahmad raised doubts on his iconic status in (circa) 1950.
Dr Bakri Musa commented on Kassim’s thesis as follows:
In it he challenged the traditional interpretation and made the hitherto hero Hang Tuah as nothing more than a palace hack, and elevated the anti-hero Hang Jebat as the true hero, willing to kill even the sultan in defence of honor and principles. Surely Jebat was the reformer wakakaka.
Similarly in studies on the Hindu saga, Ramayana, some modern scholars have questioned the true nature of the epic’s typified heroic Rama and his arch foe, the demonic Ravana. The scholars have considered reversing the roles and status of the two principal antagonists, something that would have been previously considered as an unimaginable proposition, namely, that Rama was a cad in many ways while Ravana was a chivalrous hero of sorts.
Some conservative Hindus may even take that proposition as blasphemous, not unlike conservative Malays on the role reversal of Kassim Ahmad’s Tuah and Jebat.
The studies have focused on what has puzzled Ramayana scholars throughout the centuries, namely, the inexplicable nature of the relationship between Rama and his wife Sita, specifically Rama's deplorable behaviour towards her.
Like Tuah, Rama was the hero of the saga, an avatar of Vishnu born on earth to save the world and the heavens from Ravana. Sita was his loyal wife. Together, with Rama's brother, Laksamana, the three left Ayodha on a pre-destined mission.
They went through trials and tribulation. In the course of their mission until their eventual triumphant return to Ayodha, Rama accused Sita twice of infidelity, even though she was innocent. Each time Sita was forced to prove her purity by ordeal.
But in spite of her repetitive demonstration of virtue, she was considered a tainted partner. Sita was never accepted by Rama as a loyal and full member of the Ayodha family.
Why did such a so-called righteous hero like Rama, ironically termed the ‘Perfect Man’, treat his partner Sita with such distrust, lack of respect and injustice, not once but on two separate occasions? By contrast, Ravana treated his hostage Sita with great respect and chivalry.
So, who's actually the hero and who's the villain in Ramayana?
Rama's caddish treatment of Sita was not his only 'crime'. His treacherous murder of King Vali by stealth from behind a tree while the latter was fighting his brother Sugriva) was disgraceful and most unchivalrous for the 'Perfect Man' Rama was supposed to be.
The dying Vali was so shocked by Rama's treachery that he said (from Wikipedia) "if you are searching your wife you should have come to me for help and friendship. Whoever took Sita even if it is Ravana I have defeated them and would have taken them at your feet and at your mercy".
Then he asked Rama with his dying breath:
- What was my crime?
- Even if I committed a crime (with my brother), what is your right to kill me?
- The third statement shows Vali's disapproval of the way Rama killed him. He says, "I was fighting with some other person and was not careful enough when you shot me."
Rama showed his unrepentant arrogance in a most disgraceful reply to Vali's third question, as disgraceful as was his equally arrogant reply to Vali's second question.
He said that Vali, King of Kishkinda (a monkey kingdom) was just a monkey, therefore he as a king on the hunt couldn't be bothered whether the prey being hunted was careful or not, dismissing Vali as being in the same category as a deer being hunted.
Such was Rama's unmitigated sin of killing by treacherous stealth the King of Kishkinda, yet whose army he sought for help (through Sugriva) to rescue Sita from Ravana. Can you respect Rama's arrogant and totally unrepentant argument?
Anyway, do consider Azly Rahman's postulation about 'neo-feudalism hypermodern inner construct of believers'.
While I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that PKR people consider Anwar as the ‘Perfect Man’ wakakaka, why vilify RPK for his deconstruction of the Great One and his (Anwar's) alleged disrespect for reformasi, when the former had sacrificed so much (including the safety and welfare of his family) for the latter?
Even if RPK had gone over to bat for UMNO, so what! Assuming for a moment that's true, I believe no one more than RPK has earned that independent right to do so, after so many personal sacrifices for Anwar, without attracting such infantile venom.
After all, Anwar is no greater than Hang Tuah or Rama, though of course I could be wrong here wakakaka.
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
The RPK-Haris Ibrahim saga
RPK & Haris Ibrahim - a great partnership in the newly formed MCLM but which future now holds a big question mark!
The Malaysian Insider (TMI) article MCLM president quits, says undermined by RPK reported that Haris Ibrahim tendered his resignation as president of the MCLM, after citing as reasons for his decision two of RPK’s recent and very damning interviews – see my previous post RPK amputates 'gangrenous' Anwar Ibrahim from Pakatan?
Brother Haris resigned as MCLM’s president because he has been terribly upset by RPK’s:
(1) unilateral assertion (meaning minus prior consultation & agreement with Haris & other MCLM office holders) that The Rights group (MCLM) is not a 3rd force and therefore would not contest the next general election, and
(2) remarks that ‘the Egypt-style people’s revolution was not an answer for Malaysia due to the delicate racial balance’ because according to RPK, “they (Chinese voters) don’t want Tahrir Square type of change”, saddening Haris because according to him “... my friend (Raja Petra) should continue to see us as Malays, Chinese, Indians, dll (others).”
The overall effect, according to Haris, has basically put a spanner in his (Haris’) ABU campaign.
I lament the end of a great RPK-Haris Ibrahim partnership in MCLM, a movement to promote good parliamentarians and parliamentary practice of first class Westminster-type democracy.
But is there any hope of salvaging the relationship and the impetus of MCLM?
Before I comment on that, let me provide my personal take on the two protagonists.
Let me start with RPK.
I came to know of (rather than ‘know’ per se) RPK in 2005 when I, influenced very much by Jeff Ooi's blogging, started blogging under the mentorship of my erstwhile partner, Mr X, at the BolehTalk blog.
Then, after I posted a piece critical of Anwar Ibrahim, much to the consternation of my partner and friends wakakaka, RPK contacted me by email with a brief message which I replied with courtesy and kept its contents confidential for the last 7 years. Thereafter we have had no further person-to-person contact.
Out of respect for confidentiality, as should be observed in any private correspondence, I have no intention of ever revealing that message.
As I had written before, cynical kaytee hasn’t been and isn’t exactly a bloke known to be particularly fond of RPK personally (I treat him with clinical neutrality), though of course I do admire, respect and am a wee envious of his creativity and ability to influence many politically.
But I do not always agree with his arguments, for example, those relating to his inflammatory Stat Dec and his take on Ombudsman. I’ve written several posts to disagree with the former – see my post RPK a willing captive in his statutory declaration and ...
... shot him down on the latter when sometime immediately after the March 2008 GE, he wrote about instituting an ombudsman (or committee) for the then 5 States under the DAP-PKR-PAS governments. But what took my breath away was his over-the-top proposal when he stated (for some obscure reasons):
“The Ombudsman must be above the Chief Minister and Menteri Besar. It must have the power and authority to summon even the highest man in the state to come before the committee for questioning on anything at all that may be perceived as wrongdoing, transgressions, deviations, etc. And the Ombudsman must have the power and authority to recommend the removal of any public servant or politician who may have committed a breach of discipline, even if he is the Chief Minister/Menteri Besar.”
I was totally flabbergasted by his remarks of "... above the Chief Minister and Menteri Besar ..." and the accompanying power-this and power-that for the proposed ombudsman.
I then wrote: This is going too far, putting an unelected person above the elected representatives of the people!
Mind, this seems to be a common problem suffered occasionally by very learned people, both in BN and Pakatan, where I'm more critical of the latter who promoted and supported frog-ology, yes, even a DAP sweetie like Hannah Yeo who broke my heart when she wrote in defence of Mr man man lai’s 916 attempted but failed coup d’état.
I wrote that having an Ombudsman establishment a la RPK’s proposal would not be unlike instituting the structure of the Iranian government, where the unelected clerical Supreme Leader and the Assembly of Elders in Iran can overrule decisions and policies of the elected President and the Majles (Parliament).
In my post I left a message for RPK to ‘keep my ombudsman steak medium rare please’ so as not to overcook the new (Ombudsman) meal by making him/her into a pseudo-Ayatollah with supra-constitutional powers over the people's democratically elected representatives – for more read my post Post election snippets (1).
Now you know why Karpal Singh is my spiritual leader in politics.
To summarize on RPK, I respect and admire him, but would accept his arguments only after I have personally analyzed their merits, unlike those who gushingly called him ‘The Great RPK’ or even fawningly ‘yang sangat mulia’ wakakaka when he sang songs they loved to hear, but alas, denigrated him as a ‘turncoat, traitor, UMNO paid bum, etc’ when he didn't.
As for Brother Haris Ibrahim, what can I say about this wonderful man, other than he is a sincere socio-political activist who’s brave, dedicated, self-sacrificing and straight talking – so straight that people could use his character to calibrate rulers.
Do you realize that I once disliked him wakakaka, much to the distress of my blogging matey, Lucia Lai of Mental Jog blog. Then one day, Haris wrote a piece titled Jambuism, and in that process, indirectly revealed to me his intrinsic character, as epitomised by his perception of God.
As I wrote in my response Omnia Vincit Jambuism:
Strangely (or should it be) for an atheist I find God’s judgement as presented by Haris very touching. If there is a God ;-), surely Haris’ version has to be the true one - One who is kind, just, loving, compassionate, humorous, and definitely One confidently above silly (human projected) petty nonsensical jealousy.
I am reminded of a quote by one of the Hindu Trinity, Krishna who said “Whoever you pray to, it is I who will answer”.
But the story of Jambuism also tells me a little about the author, and I now look at him differently. Yes, I now like him ;-)
Okay, now you know how my dice (for those two) would fall, but having said all these, my opinion on Brother Haris' complaints against RPK turns out to be a 50:50 split, as follows:
I support Haris in that RPK should not have arbitrarily decided on MCLM’s behalf (that it won’t contest in the coming GE) without prior consultation with Haris and other MCLM office bearers. In this, RPK has been arrogant and insensitive in ignoring that the president of MCLM possesses the right and courtesy to be consulted prior to such important public announcement.
However, on the second point vis-à-vis RPK’s remarks that ‘the Egypt-style people’s revolution was not an answer for Malaysia due to the delicate racial balance’ and that “... (Chinese voters) don’t want Tahrir Square type of change”, I support RPK.
Much as Brother Haris may be striving for the idealistic non-ethnic approach. and I truly admire him for this, I reckon RPK has been realistic in stating an important truth, that (reading beyond his straightforward statement of our ‘delicate racial balance’) the Malays, and not just UMNO Malays, are unlikely to accept any Tahrir Square type of revolutionary protests, regardless of the worthiness of the cause or even if PAS or Anwar Ibrahim organizes them, if they believe or are made to believe the Chinese are behind the revolt against the BN government.
And we know UMNO will present it as a violent Chinese (throw in the communist for good measure) coup d’état to overthrow and remove the Malays' sacred cow (removed a la NFC's management? wakakaka), namely their agama, raja dan bangsa.
Haven’t various UMNO people (including big names) already and repetitively primed the heartland on this 'threat', of the Chinese potential and aim to take over the country (and instal a Christian PM), preposterous as its likelihood may be?
Recalling my question: But is there any hope to salvage the RPK-Haris Ibrahim relationship?
The ball lies in RPK’s court, to apologize to Haris for not consulting him on saying MCLM will not field a candidate in GE-13.
The Malaysian Insider (TMI) article MCLM president quits, says undermined by RPK reported that Haris Ibrahim tendered his resignation as president of the MCLM, after citing as reasons for his decision two of RPK’s recent and very damning interviews – see my previous post RPK amputates 'gangrenous' Anwar Ibrahim from Pakatan?
Brother Haris resigned as MCLM’s president because he has been terribly upset by RPK’s:
(1) unilateral assertion (meaning minus prior consultation & agreement with Haris & other MCLM office holders) that The Rights group (MCLM) is not a 3rd force and therefore would not contest the next general election, and
(2) remarks that ‘the Egypt-style people’s revolution was not an answer for Malaysia due to the delicate racial balance’ because according to RPK, “they (Chinese voters) don’t want Tahrir Square type of change”, saddening Haris because according to him “... my friend (Raja Petra) should continue to see us as Malays, Chinese, Indians, dll (others).”
The overall effect, according to Haris, has basically put a spanner in his (Haris’) ABU campaign.
I lament the end of a great RPK-Haris Ibrahim partnership in MCLM, a movement to promote good parliamentarians and parliamentary practice of first class Westminster-type democracy.
But is there any hope of salvaging the relationship and the impetus of MCLM?
Before I comment on that, let me provide my personal take on the two protagonists.
Let me start with RPK.
I came to know of (rather than ‘know’ per se) RPK in 2005 when I, influenced very much by Jeff Ooi's blogging, started blogging under the mentorship of my erstwhile partner, Mr X, at the BolehTalk blog.
Then, after I posted a piece critical of Anwar Ibrahim, much to the consternation of my partner and friends wakakaka, RPK contacted me by email with a brief message which I replied with courtesy and kept its contents confidential for the last 7 years. Thereafter we have had no further person-to-person contact.
Out of respect for confidentiality, as should be observed in any private correspondence, I have no intention of ever revealing that message.
As I had written before, cynical kaytee hasn’t been and isn’t exactly a bloke known to be particularly fond of RPK personally (I treat him with clinical neutrality), though of course I do admire, respect and am a wee envious of his creativity and ability to influence many politically.
But I do not always agree with his arguments, for example, those relating to his inflammatory Stat Dec and his take on Ombudsman. I’ve written several posts to disagree with the former – see my post RPK a willing captive in his statutory declaration and ...
... shot him down on the latter when sometime immediately after the March 2008 GE, he wrote about instituting an ombudsman (or committee) for the then 5 States under the DAP-PKR-PAS governments. But what took my breath away was his over-the-top proposal when he stated (for some obscure reasons):
“The Ombudsman must be above the Chief Minister and Menteri Besar. It must have the power and authority to summon even the highest man in the state to come before the committee for questioning on anything at all that may be perceived as wrongdoing, transgressions, deviations, etc. And the Ombudsman must have the power and authority to recommend the removal of any public servant or politician who may have committed a breach of discipline, even if he is the Chief Minister/Menteri Besar.”
I was totally flabbergasted by his remarks of "... above the Chief Minister and Menteri Besar ..." and the accompanying power-this and power-that for the proposed ombudsman.
I then wrote: This is going too far, putting an unelected person above the elected representatives of the people!
Mind, this seems to be a common problem suffered occasionally by very learned people, both in BN and Pakatan, where I'm more critical of the latter who promoted and supported frog-ology, yes, even a DAP sweetie like Hannah Yeo who broke my heart when she wrote in defence of Mr man man lai’s 916 attempted but failed coup d’état.
I wrote that having an Ombudsman establishment a la RPK’s proposal would not be unlike instituting the structure of the Iranian government, where the unelected clerical Supreme Leader and the Assembly of Elders in Iran can overrule decisions and policies of the elected President and the Majles (Parliament).
In my post I left a message for RPK to ‘keep my ombudsman steak medium rare please’ so as not to overcook the new (Ombudsman) meal by making him/her into a pseudo-Ayatollah with supra-constitutional powers over the people's democratically elected representatives – for more read my post Post election snippets (1).
Now you know why Karpal Singh is my spiritual leader in politics.
To summarize on RPK, I respect and admire him, but would accept his arguments only after I have personally analyzed their merits, unlike those who gushingly called him ‘The Great RPK’ or even fawningly ‘yang sangat mulia’ wakakaka when he sang songs they loved to hear, but alas, denigrated him as a ‘turncoat, traitor, UMNO paid bum, etc’ when he didn't.
As for Brother Haris Ibrahim, what can I say about this wonderful man, other than he is a sincere socio-political activist who’s brave, dedicated, self-sacrificing and straight talking – so straight that people could use his character to calibrate rulers.
Do you realize that I once disliked him wakakaka, much to the distress of my blogging matey, Lucia Lai of Mental Jog blog. Then one day, Haris wrote a piece titled Jambuism, and in that process, indirectly revealed to me his intrinsic character, as epitomised by his perception of God.
As I wrote in my response Omnia Vincit Jambuism:
Strangely (or should it be) for an atheist I find God’s judgement as presented by Haris very touching. If there is a God ;-), surely Haris’ version has to be the true one - One who is kind, just, loving, compassionate, humorous, and definitely One confidently above silly (human projected) petty nonsensical jealousy.
I am reminded of a quote by one of the Hindu Trinity, Krishna who said “Whoever you pray to, it is I who will answer”.
But the story of Jambuism also tells me a little about the author, and I now look at him differently. Yes, I now like him ;-)
Okay, now you know how my dice (for those two) would fall, but having said all these, my opinion on Brother Haris' complaints against RPK turns out to be a 50:50 split, as follows:
I support Haris in that RPK should not have arbitrarily decided on MCLM’s behalf (that it won’t contest in the coming GE) without prior consultation with Haris and other MCLM office bearers. In this, RPK has been arrogant and insensitive in ignoring that the president of MCLM possesses the right and courtesy to be consulted prior to such important public announcement.
However, on the second point vis-à-vis RPK’s remarks that ‘the Egypt-style people’s revolution was not an answer for Malaysia due to the delicate racial balance’ and that “... (Chinese voters) don’t want Tahrir Square type of change”, I support RPK.
Much as Brother Haris may be striving for the idealistic non-ethnic approach. and I truly admire him for this, I reckon RPK has been realistic in stating an important truth, that (reading beyond his straightforward statement of our ‘delicate racial balance’) the Malays, and not just UMNO Malays, are unlikely to accept any Tahrir Square type of revolutionary protests, regardless of the worthiness of the cause or even if PAS or Anwar Ibrahim organizes them, if they believe or are made to believe the Chinese are behind the revolt against the BN government.
And we know UMNO will present it as a violent Chinese (throw in the communist for good measure) coup d’état to overthrow and remove the Malays' sacred cow (removed a la NFC's management? wakakaka), namely their agama, raja dan bangsa.
Haven’t various UMNO people (including big names) already and repetitively primed the heartland on this 'threat', of the Chinese potential and aim to take over the country (and instal a Christian PM), preposterous as its likelihood may be?
Recalling my question: But is there any hope to salvage the RPK-Haris Ibrahim relationship?
The ball lies in RPK’s court, to apologize to Haris for not consulting him on saying MCLM will not field a candidate in GE-13.
Sunday, January 01, 2012
RPK amputates 'gangrenous' Anwar Ibrahim from Pakatan?
Ho ho ho ho ho.
Hello there, would that be Santa (Father Christmas), late by more than a week? Maybe his tardy arrival were due to some of his reindeers being made to disappear by a woman who had abracadabra-ishly changed them into condominiums? wakakaka.
No, it’s RPK with his political and personal dis-endorsements of the Great One, Anwar Ibrahim, much to the distress, disappointments and dismay of the PKR camp – see following at Malaysia-Today:
(1) Anwar morally unfit to become PM, says RPK
(2) ’Rights group not a third force’ - RPK
(3) RPK: There’s life after Anwar
(4) RPK: “Anwar may become irrelevant”
(5) RPK says confident Anwar man in sex video
Oh, how those anwaristas would love to mutilate, mangle and mafoolaat RPK wakakaka. Already the predictable, childish and zombie-like "RPK has been bought by UMNO" comments can be seen in a number of intercative online news media and blogs. Instead, I would advise those losers to wear sack cloth, powder themselves with ashes and wail for seven days and seven nights as per Esther 4:1 (KJV), with apologies to the author of the solar-powered King James version of the Bible for substituting Mordecai with ‘PKR’ wakakaka:
When PKR perceived all that was done, PKR rent his clothes, and put on sackcloth with ashes, and went out into the midst of the city, and cried with a loud and a bitter cry.
But other than the year being new, there’s nothing new in RPK’s views about Anwar. On 14 April last year (that is/was 2011), RPK stated more or less the same in The Malaysian Insider’s article RPK says Pakatan disunited, Anwar incapable to lead.
Then, RPK condemned Anwar for exactly the same things, broken promises, the disgraceful 916 undemocratic bullsh*t and most important of all, a lack of political and economic leadership, especially in a number of incidents in Selangor.
I blogged immediately after The Malaysian Insider’s article in a post titled RPK and the necessary destruction of Anwar Ibrahim? where I wrote:
We know that Anwar Ibrahim is NOT, repeat, NOT the reformasi champion he claims to be.
Recall, this has been the man (then DPM and director of BN elections in Sabah in 1994) responsible for the Great LEAP Forward in that State that year, when Pairin, leader of the party with the majority of seats from the election, went to the residence of the YDP Negeri to claim the CM post, and found that not only were the gates of the YDP Negeri's residence locked and closed to him, but that he had by then become the Opposition Leader, thanks to Anwar Ibrahim, Master of frog-ology.
Remember, this has been the man who wanted to be PM on 16 September 2008 with 82 federal parliamentary seats against AAB’s 140, and attempted to bully his mathematically-muddled claim through by nothing more than his hope for an encore of his dubious Sabah achievement, which, thankfully for democracy and the supremacy of the ballot box, proved to be a fantasy as surreal as some scenes in James Cameron's 'Avatar'.
And surely the most humiliating outcome for him (and embarrassing for Pakatan) from that shameful incident had been the rejection of his vainglorious and failed coup d’etat by none other than His Snooziness, the Sultan of Somnambulation. Even AAB could see through his cheap trick.
Reminder, this has also been the man who sent a team of frog hunters to Taiwan. Reformasi? Surely my good sir/lady, thou but jest! […]
….. Haris Ibrahim and Peter have formed the MCLM, with its first high profile task being to offer de-frog-itized candidates to PKR (but not DAP or PAS) for the next general election.
Why? Because they believe Anwar Ibrahim could no longer be trusted to lead the charge against BN nor to select good candidates to offer to the rakyat as their parliamentary representatives.
The way I’ve read it, Peter and Haris are both fed up with the political incompetency, insincerity and lack of will of Anwar Ibrahim, Azmin Ali and their innermost coterie to truly reform their party and run it as a model of democratic, just and transparent process, thus as the natural primus inter pares of Pakatan.
Instead, we've learnt those PKR leaders have been accused of stacking the odds in their personal interests, to shore up their own political positions, their fiefdoms, instead of nurturing true democratic conduct, and eliminating and removing genuine and legitimate dissenters within PKR. Yes, they’re light years from being political reformers where the only evidence of that so-called ideology or democratic process lies only with and in 9 alphabetical letters, r-e-f-o-r-m-a-s-i, that’s all.
Anwar Ibrahim, Azmin Ali and their innermost coterie belong better in UMNO, though some UMNO members might take umbrage at this suggestion.
Anwar Ibrahim is more than just ‘damaged goods’. As he’s a biological creature, let’s use the term that I believe Peter sees him as being. Anwar Ibrahim is now ‘gangrenous’ to Pakatan, and thus, must be amputated off before his presence poisons the entire body and life of the coalition.
Thus I do not see Peter, master of strategy extraordinaire, as having defected to the other side or being bought over by UMNO. I believe Peter sees the (political) destruction and removal of Anwar Ibrahim (and his like-minded coterie) as a necessary step to the continuing life of Pakatan and in its fight against BN.
Like Cato and his declaration of "Carthago delenda est" (Carthage must be destroyed), RPK believes in the necessary and total destruction of Anwar Ibrahim and inner coterie for Pakatan (Rome) to survive as a viable political alternative to the BN.
Hello there, would that be Santa (Father Christmas), late by more than a week? Maybe his tardy arrival were due to some of his reindeers being made to disappear by a woman who had abracadabra-ishly changed them into condominiums? wakakaka.
No, it’s RPK with his political and personal dis-endorsements of the Great One, Anwar Ibrahim, much to the distress, disappointments and dismay of the PKR camp – see following at Malaysia-Today:
(1) Anwar morally unfit to become PM, says RPK
(2) ’Rights group not a third force’ - RPK
(3) RPK: There’s life after Anwar
(4) RPK: “Anwar may become irrelevant”
(5) RPK says confident Anwar man in sex video
Oh, how those anwaristas would love to mutilate, mangle and mafoolaat RPK wakakaka. Already the predictable, childish and zombie-like "RPK has been bought by UMNO" comments can be seen in a number of intercative online news media and blogs. Instead, I would advise those losers to wear sack cloth, powder themselves with ashes and wail for seven days and seven nights as per Esther 4:1 (KJV), with apologies to the author of the solar-powered King James version of the Bible for substituting Mordecai with ‘PKR’ wakakaka:
When PKR perceived all that was done, PKR rent his clothes, and put on sackcloth with ashes, and went out into the midst of the city, and cried with a loud and a bitter cry.
But other than the year being new, there’s nothing new in RPK’s views about Anwar. On 14 April last year (that is/was 2011), RPK stated more or less the same in The Malaysian Insider’s article RPK says Pakatan disunited, Anwar incapable to lead.
Then, RPK condemned Anwar for exactly the same things, broken promises, the disgraceful 916 undemocratic bullsh*t and most important of all, a lack of political and economic leadership, especially in a number of incidents in Selangor.
I blogged immediately after The Malaysian Insider’s article in a post titled RPK and the necessary destruction of Anwar Ibrahim? where I wrote:
We know that Anwar Ibrahim is NOT, repeat, NOT the reformasi champion he claims to be.
Recall, this has been the man (then DPM and director of BN elections in Sabah in 1994) responsible for the Great LEAP Forward in that State that year, when Pairin, leader of the party with the majority of seats from the election, went to the residence of the YDP Negeri to claim the CM post, and found that not only were the gates of the YDP Negeri's residence locked and closed to him, but that he had by then become the Opposition Leader, thanks to Anwar Ibrahim, Master of frog-ology.
Remember, this has been the man who wanted to be PM on 16 September 2008 with 82 federal parliamentary seats against AAB’s 140, and attempted to bully his mathematically-muddled claim through by nothing more than his hope for an encore of his dubious Sabah achievement, which, thankfully for democracy and the supremacy of the ballot box, proved to be a fantasy as surreal as some scenes in James Cameron's 'Avatar'.
And surely the most humiliating outcome for him (and embarrassing for Pakatan) from that shameful incident had been the rejection of his vainglorious and failed coup d’etat by none other than His Snooziness, the Sultan of Somnambulation. Even AAB could see through his cheap trick.
Reminder, this has also been the man who sent a team of frog hunters to Taiwan. Reformasi? Surely my good sir/lady, thou but jest! […]
….. Haris Ibrahim and Peter have formed the MCLM, with its first high profile task being to offer de-frog-itized candidates to PKR (but not DAP or PAS) for the next general election.
Why? Because they believe Anwar Ibrahim could no longer be trusted to lead the charge against BN nor to select good candidates to offer to the rakyat as their parliamentary representatives.
The way I’ve read it, Peter and Haris are both fed up with the political incompetency, insincerity and lack of will of Anwar Ibrahim, Azmin Ali and their innermost coterie to truly reform their party and run it as a model of democratic, just and transparent process, thus as the natural primus inter pares of Pakatan.
Instead, we've learnt those PKR leaders have been accused of stacking the odds in their personal interests, to shore up their own political positions, their fiefdoms, instead of nurturing true democratic conduct, and eliminating and removing genuine and legitimate dissenters within PKR. Yes, they’re light years from being political reformers where the only evidence of that so-called ideology or democratic process lies only with and in 9 alphabetical letters, r-e-f-o-r-m-a-s-i, that’s all.
Anwar Ibrahim, Azmin Ali and their innermost coterie belong better in UMNO, though some UMNO members might take umbrage at this suggestion.
Anwar Ibrahim is more than just ‘damaged goods’. As he’s a biological creature, let’s use the term that I believe Peter sees him as being. Anwar Ibrahim is now ‘gangrenous’ to Pakatan, and thus, must be amputated off before his presence poisons the entire body and life of the coalition.
Thus I do not see Peter, master of strategy extraordinaire, as having defected to the other side or being bought over by UMNO. I believe Peter sees the (political) destruction and removal of Anwar Ibrahim (and his like-minded coterie) as a necessary step to the continuing life of Pakatan and in its fight against BN.
Like Cato and his declaration of "Carthago delenda est" (Carthage must be destroyed), RPK believes in the necessary and total destruction of Anwar Ibrahim and inner coterie for Pakatan (Rome) to survive as a viable political alternative to the BN.
Malaysian of 2011
Traditionally, around end of December each year, news media like to ‘roundup’ the year’s important headline-making news, while Time Magazine likes to nominate who it considers as the most significant news-making person or institution of the Year; and of course Playboy announces the Playmate of the Year wakakaka.
I prefer the latter, yes, I’ve to confess to having a wish to view Playmate of the Year wakakaka, but in this post I’ll forgo the girlie pictures and write on whom I believe to be the socio-political Malaysian of the Year 2011.
I reckon it’ll be boring to continue nominating RPK or Haris Ibrahim as they would have been nominated years before. Neither would I name Ibrahim Ali or Utusan Malaysia as newsworthy anymore as their strident shrill and sickening bigoted comments have become flat like an overexposed piece of keropok because of over airing wakakaka.
How about sweeties Ambiga Sreenevasan or Auntie Bersih? Both are wonderful sweethearts but I want someone more intriguing and who’s likely (has the potential) to make an impact on the political scene.
What about Dr Mahathir who in recent times has disappointedly been propounding the Chinese threat to Malays? I suppose he really meant the threats to UMNO-Malays rather than general Malays. No, not him!
Hmmm, I wonder whether Dr M has read a delightful summary of the year’s threats to Malays, in The Malaysian Insider’s piece MILF-PRON Special Report for 2011: Malays under threat, delightfully written by Yusseri Yusoff. Following are extracts of his article:
While Mahathir continued his series of warnings to the Malays by warning that the Malays could end up like the Palestinians who sold their own country out to the Jews, a new threat to the Malays reared its ugly head — Kentucky Fried Chicken could possibly be out of Malay hands.
Based on an unconfirmed rumour it was said that the majority owner of KFC in Malaysia Kulim Bhd could be sold off to a non-Malay company and therefore this would constitute a major threat to the ability of Malays to consume chicken fried in 11 secret herbs and spices.
The owners of Kulim Bhd Johor Corp denied the rumours. When asked whether they were the ones responsible for spreading the rumour the owners of the Radix Fried Chicken chain refused to comment They did however say that Radix Fried Chicken contained more that 11 herbs and spices as well as Tongkat Ali and quite possibly ginseng, for a stiffer fried chicken experience presumably.
Wakakaka, good one Yusseri, but sorry, no, you’re not my Malaysian of 2011 …
... and likewise nyet for Lim KS, Lim GE, Karpal Singh & his once-machai Dr Rama wakakaka, the Pak Hajis from PAS, or even the woman who made kerbau disappear by turning them into kondos, wakakaka.
Most certainly nyet also for Mr man man lai and his blue eyed boy and princess.
Neither would I consider blokes who used corrupt money/gifts to fly to Mecca to perform their Haj’s, or him who pompously claimed to be a solar-powered Malay saviour or his buddy who cowardly blamed a woman for his seditious sms-ed lies.
The man I have in mind is probably the most intriguing politician in Malaysia, a man (sorry ladies) who sits on the side of Coalition A, yet has been considered by/offered to Coalition B - in other words, he is seen as also ‘acceptable’ to side B.
Many have been the scenarios offered as to why he is the best UMNO candidate to head (not ‘helm’ for god’s sake, wakakaka), bizarre as it may sound, Pakatan Rakyat.
His principal proposer has been Dato' Mohd Ariff Sabri bin Hj Abdul Aziz who’s better known in the blogging world as Sakmongkol AK47, a blogger who’s generally unhappy with the way UMNO has gone songsang and grossly corrupt since its earlier nationalistic days. Incidentally, I read DAP has purportedly been headhunting Dato' Mohd Ariff Sabri.
By now, I’m sure you are aware I’m talking about Tengku Razaleigh, affectionately known as Ku Li, a once-powerful politician destined by his karma, kismet and mea-lee to sit by the sideline of power politics for the last 25 years, and make many Malaysians wonder whether, by a mere but treacherous change of tide of around 40-ish UMNO party votes, he was the best Malaysian PM we never had?
Now, intriguingly, the question is: could Ku Li be the best PM we will have?
I don’t propose to go into why Anwar won’t be PM (lots have already been written on it), while the proposed replacements for him are mere moronic fantasies of some diehard anwarista cultists. Nor will DAP accept a PAS PM and naturally, vice versa. Thus Ku Li’s potential as a unifying figure to head Pakatan (post a '2nd-time incarcerated' Anwar) grows more significant.
I believe DAP will accept him and PAS perhaps grudgingly so, after some hard considerations of realpolitiks and their wish to be in a cohesive Pakatan government. PKR may come to the party after much budak-type rolling on the floor cum heels thumping merajuk-ing by someone wakakaka.
But, like Empat Ekor, much as we know the probability of winning runs into odds of one in several million, you can never win unless you play (buy the ticket).
So, all the arguments for Ku Li by Sakmongkol or any of his staunch proposers will be bloody useless unless Ku Li actually joins Pakatan. He must make up his mind now or it'll be too late.
Nonetheless, his intriguing (3rd time I've used this adjective to describe him) middle-of-the road potential to head and present a strongly unified Pakatan in GE-13 stares at us in the face.
Ku Li has to be my (socio-political) Malaysian of 2011.
I prefer the latter, yes, I’ve to confess to having a wish to view Playmate of the Year wakakaka, but in this post I’ll forgo the girlie pictures and write on whom I believe to be the socio-political Malaysian of the Year 2011.
I reckon it’ll be boring to continue nominating RPK or Haris Ibrahim as they would have been nominated years before. Neither would I name Ibrahim Ali or Utusan Malaysia as newsworthy anymore as their strident shrill and sickening bigoted comments have become flat like an overexposed piece of keropok because of over airing wakakaka.
How about sweeties Ambiga Sreenevasan or Auntie Bersih? Both are wonderful sweethearts but I want someone more intriguing and who’s likely (has the potential) to make an impact on the political scene.
What about Dr Mahathir who in recent times has disappointedly been propounding the Chinese threat to Malays? I suppose he really meant the threats to UMNO-Malays rather than general Malays. No, not him!
Hmmm, I wonder whether Dr M has read a delightful summary of the year’s threats to Malays, in The Malaysian Insider’s piece MILF-PRON Special Report for 2011: Malays under threat, delightfully written by Yusseri Yusoff. Following are extracts of his article:
While Mahathir continued his series of warnings to the Malays by warning that the Malays could end up like the Palestinians who sold their own country out to the Jews, a new threat to the Malays reared its ugly head — Kentucky Fried Chicken could possibly be out of Malay hands.
Based on an unconfirmed rumour it was said that the majority owner of KFC in Malaysia Kulim Bhd could be sold off to a non-Malay company and therefore this would constitute a major threat to the ability of Malays to consume chicken fried in 11 secret herbs and spices.
The owners of Kulim Bhd Johor Corp denied the rumours. When asked whether they were the ones responsible for spreading the rumour the owners of the Radix Fried Chicken chain refused to comment They did however say that Radix Fried Chicken contained more that 11 herbs and spices as well as Tongkat Ali and quite possibly ginseng, for a stiffer fried chicken experience presumably.
Wakakaka, good one Yusseri, but sorry, no, you’re not my Malaysian of 2011 …
... and likewise nyet for Lim KS, Lim GE, Karpal Singh & his once-machai Dr Rama wakakaka, the Pak Hajis from PAS, or even the woman who made kerbau disappear by turning them into kondos, wakakaka.
Most certainly nyet also for Mr man man lai and his blue eyed boy and princess.
Neither would I consider blokes who used corrupt money/gifts to fly to Mecca to perform their Haj’s, or him who pompously claimed to be a solar-powered Malay saviour or his buddy who cowardly blamed a woman for his seditious sms-ed lies.
The man I have in mind is probably the most intriguing politician in Malaysia, a man (sorry ladies) who sits on the side of Coalition A, yet has been considered by/offered to Coalition B - in other words, he is seen as also ‘acceptable’ to side B.
Many have been the scenarios offered as to why he is the best UMNO candidate to head (not ‘helm’ for god’s sake, wakakaka), bizarre as it may sound, Pakatan Rakyat.
His principal proposer has been Dato' Mohd Ariff Sabri bin Hj Abdul Aziz who’s better known in the blogging world as Sakmongkol AK47, a blogger who’s generally unhappy with the way UMNO has gone songsang and grossly corrupt since its earlier nationalistic days. Incidentally, I read DAP has purportedly been headhunting Dato' Mohd Ariff Sabri.
By now, I’m sure you are aware I’m talking about Tengku Razaleigh, affectionately known as Ku Li, a once-powerful politician destined by his karma, kismet and mea-lee to sit by the sideline of power politics for the last 25 years, and make many Malaysians wonder whether, by a mere but treacherous change of tide of around 40-ish UMNO party votes, he was the best Malaysian PM we never had?
Now, intriguingly, the question is: could Ku Li be the best PM we will have?
I don’t propose to go into why Anwar won’t be PM (lots have already been written on it), while the proposed replacements for him are mere moronic fantasies of some diehard anwarista cultists. Nor will DAP accept a PAS PM and naturally, vice versa. Thus Ku Li’s potential as a unifying figure to head Pakatan (post a '2nd-time incarcerated' Anwar) grows more significant.
I believe DAP will accept him and PAS perhaps grudgingly so, after some hard considerations of realpolitiks and their wish to be in a cohesive Pakatan government. PKR may come to the party after much budak-type rolling on the floor cum heels thumping merajuk-ing by someone wakakaka.
But, like Empat Ekor, much as we know the probability of winning runs into odds of one in several million, you can never win unless you play (buy the ticket).
So, all the arguments for Ku Li by Sakmongkol or any of his staunch proposers will be bloody useless unless Ku Li actually joins Pakatan. He must make up his mind now or it'll be too late.
Nonetheless, his intriguing (3rd time I've used this adjective to describe him) middle-of-the road potential to head and present a strongly unified Pakatan in GE-13 stares at us in the face.
Ku Li has to be my (socio-political) Malaysian of 2011.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Nurul Izzah & Chegubard backstabbed by PKR insider!
Extract from The Malaysia Insider (TMI) - Despite claims, Zaid says not rejoining PKR:
Datuk Zaid Ibrahim today denied rumours that he would be rejoining PKR, saying that allegations of discussions between him and Nurul Izzah Anwar on the matter were untrue.
The KITA president was responding to the contents of a letter being circulated on blogs, which alleged he had met the PKR vice-president to discuss his return to the Pakatan Rakyat leadership.
Before making any comments, please reflect carefully on what I wrote in January 2011, in a post titled The Poison within PKR - Part III wakakaka (extracts follows):
In spite of my hero Karpal Singh condemning Zaid, I have written in support of the latter – see my previous post Zaid Ibrahim - suffers no fool gladly.
When he was in PKR at the time leading to the party polls (before he tossed his hat into the election ring) Zaid Ibrahim was criticised for being erratic because one moment he said he would not challenge the deputy presidential post IF (initially) Nurul Izaah took up the challenge*, then (subsequently) IF Khalid Ibrahim did so, and the next (only when both Nurul and Khalid didn’t) he took up the challenge.
* Azmin Ali went into a panicky tizzy when Nurul casually mentioned her interests, and ‘advised’ Nurul against it because people would talk. Bet you Anwar had a few private words with Nurul
The standard anwaristas' cries against Zaid Ibrahim were his inconsistencies (in supporting Nurul, then Khalid, before standing as a candidate himself), and their accusations unimaginatively attacked Zaid for his lust for power.
But I didn’t see any inconsistency in Zaid’s manoeuvrings. In fact there was a very consistent objective in his support for firstly, Nurul, and subsequently Khalid Ibrahim, before he personally challenged Azmin Ali in the party election. That objective was to prevent Azmin Ali from coasting home on an Anwar-provided free ticket into the deputy president post. He wanted Azmin Ali stopped!
Yes, Zaid was invincibly against Azmin Ali, the man for whom Anwar Ibrahim instructed Nallakaruppan to stand aside in a party VP contest some years back, and which drove Nalla out of the party in angry frustration. Nalla would have easily won that VP position because of the strength of his Indian supporters in PKR.
Subsequently, Zaid resigned from PKR for what he saw as unacceptable, unsalvageable and unforgiveable dodgy party polling to ensure the election victory of a favoured son. And he wasn’t the only one to complain. In another of my January 2011 posts Gobalakrishnan leaves the poison behind I wrote:
So the virtually impossible has happened - Gobalakrishnan, once PKR’s chief bodek-er of Anwar, has resigned from PKR in disgust. Who would have ever predicted this prior to the recent party polls - a poll which had led many party stalwarts as well as notable and neutral socio-political observers to question the integrity of its process.
Silence from the party leaders, or their caught-with-pants-down inability to reply the challenges by the complainants have invited the inevitable destructive implosion.
And instead of pressuring the party leaders to be fully accountable, predictably, the moronic PKR fanatics lambasted Gobala as a snake, frog, UMNO-MIC mole, running dog and with various animal appellations. Will they do likewise to other complainants like Chegubard, Jonson Chong, Mustaffa Kamil as they did to Zaid Ibrahim, Gobala, Nallakaruppan, etc?
Read also Malaysia-Today’s The sour grapes syndrome where RPK wrote:
Whenever anyone resigns from PKR or Pakatan Rakyat, the opposition supporters always say it is because these people are ex-Umno or ex-Barisan Nasional people; so what do you expect? These ex-Umno or Ex-BN people are not reliable or honest and eventually they betray the opposition cause and go back to their old party, is the argument we are given.
Does this argument apply to all ex-Umno or ex-BN people in the opposition who are yet to leave the opposition to go back to the ruling party?
… ex UMNO and ex BN people like Chua Jui Meng, Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, Azmin Ali and wakakaka Anwar Ibrahim?
Anyway, Jonson Chong left just as did Zaid, Gobala and Nalla, and a host of others. Mustaffa Kamil was given a high party post, an act of mollification which incidentally Chegubard resoundingly rejected.
Given this background of unmitigated dissatisfaction, distaste and disgust with the EC-type party elections/management, signaling the utter corrupt rot in the party, do you think a man like Zaid Ibrahim, who could have remain within UMNO as a minister, would consider rejoining PKR?
TMI also reported that: Online portals and blogs including Malaysia Today have claimed the letter was written by Nurul Izzah’s political enemies within PKR following speculation that she would become PR’s future candidate for prime minister.
For more, see Malaysia-Today’s Nurul Izzah nafi surat beracun.
I’m not in the least surprised at the attempted backstabbbing of Nurul, considering someone in PKR recently framed Chegubard (Badrul Hisham Shahrin) with a falsified twitter. Someone is sh*t scared of Nurul becoming No 1. Oh, PKR is indeed a nest of vipers - the acorn hasn't far from the oak tree.
And just who would be Nurul's political enemies within PKR?
Just go through this post again and you should be able to find the answer.
Related:
(1) KITA - the example of Zaid Ibrahim
(2) Zaid Ibrahim - suffers no fool gladly
(3) Anwar & Zaid Ibrahim's - chalk & cheese
(4) PKR party election - the horror stories continue
(5) Gobalakrishnan leaves the poison behind
Datuk Zaid Ibrahim today denied rumours that he would be rejoining PKR, saying that allegations of discussions between him and Nurul Izzah Anwar on the matter were untrue.
The KITA president was responding to the contents of a letter being circulated on blogs, which alleged he had met the PKR vice-president to discuss his return to the Pakatan Rakyat leadership.
Before making any comments, please reflect carefully on what I wrote in January 2011, in a post titled The Poison within PKR - Part III wakakaka (extracts follows):
In spite of my hero Karpal Singh condemning Zaid, I have written in support of the latter – see my previous post Zaid Ibrahim - suffers no fool gladly.
When he was in PKR at the time leading to the party polls (before he tossed his hat into the election ring) Zaid Ibrahim was criticised for being erratic because one moment he said he would not challenge the deputy presidential post IF (initially) Nurul Izaah took up the challenge*, then (subsequently) IF Khalid Ibrahim did so, and the next (only when both Nurul and Khalid didn’t) he took up the challenge.
* Azmin Ali went into a panicky tizzy when Nurul casually mentioned her interests, and ‘advised’ Nurul against it because people would talk. Bet you Anwar had a few private words with Nurul
The standard anwaristas' cries against Zaid Ibrahim were his inconsistencies (in supporting Nurul, then Khalid, before standing as a candidate himself), and their accusations unimaginatively attacked Zaid for his lust for power.
But I didn’t see any inconsistency in Zaid’s manoeuvrings. In fact there was a very consistent objective in his support for firstly, Nurul, and subsequently Khalid Ibrahim, before he personally challenged Azmin Ali in the party election. That objective was to prevent Azmin Ali from coasting home on an Anwar-provided free ticket into the deputy president post. He wanted Azmin Ali stopped!
Yes, Zaid was invincibly against Azmin Ali, the man for whom Anwar Ibrahim instructed Nallakaruppan to stand aside in a party VP contest some years back, and which drove Nalla out of the party in angry frustration. Nalla would have easily won that VP position because of the strength of his Indian supporters in PKR.
Subsequently, Zaid resigned from PKR for what he saw as unacceptable, unsalvageable and unforgiveable dodgy party polling to ensure the election victory of a favoured son. And he wasn’t the only one to complain. In another of my January 2011 posts Gobalakrishnan leaves the poison behind I wrote:
So the virtually impossible has happened - Gobalakrishnan, once PKR’s chief bodek-er of Anwar, has resigned from PKR in disgust. Who would have ever predicted this prior to the recent party polls - a poll which had led many party stalwarts as well as notable and neutral socio-political observers to question the integrity of its process.
Silence from the party leaders, or their caught-with-pants-down inability to reply the challenges by the complainants have invited the inevitable destructive implosion.
And instead of pressuring the party leaders to be fully accountable, predictably, the moronic PKR fanatics lambasted Gobala as a snake, frog, UMNO-MIC mole, running dog and with various animal appellations. Will they do likewise to other complainants like Chegubard, Jonson Chong, Mustaffa Kamil as they did to Zaid Ibrahim, Gobala, Nallakaruppan, etc?
Read also Malaysia-Today’s The sour grapes syndrome where RPK wrote:
Whenever anyone resigns from PKR or Pakatan Rakyat, the opposition supporters always say it is because these people are ex-Umno or ex-Barisan Nasional people; so what do you expect? These ex-Umno or Ex-BN people are not reliable or honest and eventually they betray the opposition cause and go back to their old party, is the argument we are given.
Does this argument apply to all ex-Umno or ex-BN people in the opposition who are yet to leave the opposition to go back to the ruling party?
… ex UMNO and ex BN people like Chua Jui Meng, Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, Azmin Ali and wakakaka Anwar Ibrahim?
Anyway, Jonson Chong left just as did Zaid, Gobala and Nalla, and a host of others. Mustaffa Kamil was given a high party post, an act of mollification which incidentally Chegubard resoundingly rejected.
Given this background of unmitigated dissatisfaction, distaste and disgust with the EC-type party elections/management, signaling the utter corrupt rot in the party, do you think a man like Zaid Ibrahim, who could have remain within UMNO as a minister, would consider rejoining PKR?
TMI also reported that: Online portals and blogs including Malaysia Today have claimed the letter was written by Nurul Izzah’s political enemies within PKR following speculation that she would become PR’s future candidate for prime minister.
For more, see Malaysia-Today’s Nurul Izzah nafi surat beracun.
I’m not in the least surprised at the attempted backstabbbing of Nurul, considering someone in PKR recently framed Chegubard (Badrul Hisham Shahrin) with a falsified twitter. Someone is sh*t scared of Nurul becoming No 1. Oh, PKR is indeed a nest of vipers - the acorn hasn't far from the oak tree.
And just who would be Nurul's political enemies within PKR?
Just go through this post again and you should be able to find the answer.
Related:
(1) KITA - the example of Zaid Ibrahim
(2) Zaid Ibrahim - suffers no fool gladly
(3) Anwar & Zaid Ibrahim's - chalk & cheese
(4) PKR party election - the horror stories continue
(5) Gobalakrishnan leaves the poison behind
Monday, December 26, 2011
Kim Jong-Nurul?
One of the most troubling observations of Malaysian politics is the cultism of personalities, such as Tun Razak, Dr Mahathir, Anwar Ibrahim and yes, on the opposition side, Lim Kit Siang and Pak Haji Nik Aziz, and subsequently (again but this time on the other side of the political fence) Anwar Ibrahim, wakakaka.
It's troubling because cultism often leads to what I term as ‘Kim-ism’, a word derived from the ‘Great Leader’ (wakakaka) Kim Il Sung, president of North Korea from 1948 to 1994. He was succeeded by his son Kim Jong Il (1994 to 2001), who in turn had been succeeded by his son Kim Jong Un.
Now, would it be wrong for leading politicians to be joined and/or succeeded by their sons/daughters, like Tun Razak was by Najib, Dr Mahathir by Mukhriz, Lim KS by Lim GE, Pak Haji Nik Aziz by Nik Adli (who had the misfortune to be detained for 5 years under ISA for alleged terrorist activities and membership in KMM) and Anwar Ibrahim by Nurul Izzah?
Shall I also add AAB by s-i-l KJ? wakakaka.
Externally, there’s our neighbour Lim Kuan Yew being succeeded by his son Lee Hsien Loong (with another PM Goh CT in between), Soekarno eventually by Megawati, and then there’s the ruling oligarchy of the Philippines which has kept the presidency principally among 3 families.
Even sweetest Aung Sung Suu Kyi is the daughter of Aung San, founder of modern Burma or Myammar.
Sons and daughters (and son-in-laws wakakaka) succeeding their fathers/mothers (and f-i-l) as political leaders are found everywhere, in the USA, Australia, etc and are particularly common in the States of the sub-continent such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
If these sons and daughters are qualified, capable, competent and experienced enough to be political leaders in their own rights, then why not?
But when a young brat is shoved upwards like Kim Jong Un, then it is ‘Kim-ism’. I personally believe Najib being made MB of Pahang at 21 years old was definitely an act of ‘Kim-ism’, though to be fair to him NOW, some 30 over years have since gone by, during which time he was exposed to a variety of political & ministerial positions before assuming the position of PM, not unlike PM Lee Hsien Loong of Singapore.
Najib certainly has the experience and exposure to be PM, thus we should no longer accuse him of benefitting from cultist promotion anymore, though whether he is/will be a good one remains to be seen ...
... which brings us to Nurul Izzah, the so-called Putera Reformasi and beloved icon of the anwaristas.
Many have been the times I read/heard of the preposterous proposals for Nurul to be nominated as the PM of a Pakatan-ruled Malaysia, in the event of the non availability of her father. Those proposals have been so unrealistically moronic, leaving me flabbergasted by the puerile mentality of those blind-as-bats idol-worshippers. Then I could only think of poor hard working, politically far superior Fuziah Salleh, who only lacks the (questionable) pedigree to be considered!
10 days ago, RPK made a far more reasonable proposal to chart Nurul’s progress upwards, one which appears to be practical and not unlike the one Lee Kuan Yew had done for his son Hsien Loong, where the Chosen One is incrementally exposed to various appointments and experiences before finally stepping onto the Hot Seat.
RPK wrote this in his post The need to chart Nurul Izzah’s career path. Some relevant extracts follow:
Nurul Izzah must first be groomed and trained for national leadership. In the next election she should contest a state seat, maybe in her ‘home-state’, Penang. Then, if she wins that state seat, she should be made one of the Deputy Chief Ministers, or at the very least a State EXCO Member (State Minister) of an important portfolio.
This will give her the opportunity to learn the ropes. Her job as a state minister would give her the experience she needs to eventually take on the task of a federal minister, or even as one of the Deputy Prime Ministers (assuming by then Malaysia has three Deputy Prime Ministers once Pakatan Rakyat takes over the federal government).
Furthermore, this will also allow Malaysians the opportunity to gauge her performance as a Deputy Chief Minister or a State EXCO member. [...]
Even if Pakatan Rakyat gets to win the next election and gets to form the federal government there is no problem with Nurul Izzah spending a stint in the state government before moving up to the federal government in the 14th General Election -- assuming, of course, Pakatan Rakyat wins the 14th General Election. By then Nurul Izzah will be about 40 or so and at just the right age to take centre stage in the federal government ... [...]
Just as my thought asked ‘why not Selangor State?’ I arrived at RPK’s explanation:
“And why Penang and not Selangor?” you might ask. Well, because Umno is saying that Penang is controlled by the Chinese and with Nurul Izzah as one of the Deputy Chief Ministers she can demonstrate that the Chinese do not control Penang and that Lim Guan Eng is not the dictator who runs Penang like it is his personal kingdom. Furthermore, Nurul Izzah would have no problems working with Guan Eng plus we Malaysians would not be losing any sleep wondering whether she would sell out the opposition and go join Umno. This would put to rest the ‘frog’ issue.
I opine very strongly that RPK’s explanation of why Penang and not Selangor for Nurul has been very poor and unconvincing. May I ask of him:
(1) Does this mean Mansur Othman as DCM Penang cannot 'demonstrate that the Chinese do not control Penang and that Lim Guan Eng is not the dictator who runs Penang like it is his personal kingdom', whereas by some magical man man lai power, Nurul can?
(2) Does that mean Mansur Othman, unlike Nurul, is a potential frog?
Let's be frank here Peter. I believe the real reason why you haven't proposed Nurul for the post of Deputy MB of Selangor (assuming all assumptions for this possibility can become true) is because you know that will embarrass PKR in the eyes of DAP, if we were to recall that Khalid Ibrahim fell so sharply and smartly in line with the ‘no deputy MB for Teresa Kok’ “requirement” because he didn’t have the balls and Pakatan heart to insist that she assumed that post – see my post on 24 March 2008 Khalid Ibrahim failed to show resolute leadership?
Thus proposing Nurul as a future deputy MB of Selangor can only bring that spineless acquiescence back into focus.
Peter, you should tell it like it is, rather than come up with such a pathetic excuse (and offend Mansur Othman in the process wakakaka). Sorry matey, you need an occasional rap on your knuckles.
It's troubling because cultism often leads to what I term as ‘Kim-ism’, a word derived from the ‘Great Leader’ (wakakaka) Kim Il Sung, president of North Korea from 1948 to 1994. He was succeeded by his son Kim Jong Il (1994 to 2001), who in turn had been succeeded by his son Kim Jong Un.
Now, would it be wrong for leading politicians to be joined and/or succeeded by their sons/daughters, like Tun Razak was by Najib, Dr Mahathir by Mukhriz, Lim KS by Lim GE, Pak Haji Nik Aziz by Nik Adli (who had the misfortune to be detained for 5 years under ISA for alleged terrorist activities and membership in KMM) and Anwar Ibrahim by Nurul Izzah?
Shall I also add AAB by s-i-l KJ? wakakaka.
Externally, there’s our neighbour Lim Kuan Yew being succeeded by his son Lee Hsien Loong (with another PM Goh CT in between), Soekarno eventually by Megawati, and then there’s the ruling oligarchy of the Philippines which has kept the presidency principally among 3 families.
Even sweetest Aung Sung Suu Kyi is the daughter of Aung San, founder of modern Burma or Myammar.
Sons and daughters (and son-in-laws wakakaka) succeeding their fathers/mothers (and f-i-l) as political leaders are found everywhere, in the USA, Australia, etc and are particularly common in the States of the sub-continent such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
If these sons and daughters are qualified, capable, competent and experienced enough to be political leaders in their own rights, then why not?
But when a young brat is shoved upwards like Kim Jong Un, then it is ‘Kim-ism’. I personally believe Najib being made MB of Pahang at 21 years old was definitely an act of ‘Kim-ism’, though to be fair to him NOW, some 30 over years have since gone by, during which time he was exposed to a variety of political & ministerial positions before assuming the position of PM, not unlike PM Lee Hsien Loong of Singapore.
Najib certainly has the experience and exposure to be PM, thus we should no longer accuse him of benefitting from cultist promotion anymore, though whether he is/will be a good one remains to be seen ...
... which brings us to Nurul Izzah, the so-called Putera Reformasi and beloved icon of the anwaristas.
Many have been the times I read/heard of the preposterous proposals for Nurul to be nominated as the PM of a Pakatan-ruled Malaysia, in the event of the non availability of her father. Those proposals have been so unrealistically moronic, leaving me flabbergasted by the puerile mentality of those blind-as-bats idol-worshippers. Then I could only think of poor hard working, politically far superior Fuziah Salleh, who only lacks the (questionable) pedigree to be considered!
10 days ago, RPK made a far more reasonable proposal to chart Nurul’s progress upwards, one which appears to be practical and not unlike the one Lee Kuan Yew had done for his son Hsien Loong, where the Chosen One is incrementally exposed to various appointments and experiences before finally stepping onto the Hot Seat.
RPK wrote this in his post The need to chart Nurul Izzah’s career path. Some relevant extracts follow:
Nurul Izzah must first be groomed and trained for national leadership. In the next election she should contest a state seat, maybe in her ‘home-state’, Penang. Then, if she wins that state seat, she should be made one of the Deputy Chief Ministers, or at the very least a State EXCO Member (State Minister) of an important portfolio.
This will give her the opportunity to learn the ropes. Her job as a state minister would give her the experience she needs to eventually take on the task of a federal minister, or even as one of the Deputy Prime Ministers (assuming by then Malaysia has three Deputy Prime Ministers once Pakatan Rakyat takes over the federal government).
Furthermore, this will also allow Malaysians the opportunity to gauge her performance as a Deputy Chief Minister or a State EXCO member. [...]
Even if Pakatan Rakyat gets to win the next election and gets to form the federal government there is no problem with Nurul Izzah spending a stint in the state government before moving up to the federal government in the 14th General Election -- assuming, of course, Pakatan Rakyat wins the 14th General Election. By then Nurul Izzah will be about 40 or so and at just the right age to take centre stage in the federal government ... [...]
Just as my thought asked ‘why not Selangor State?’ I arrived at RPK’s explanation:
“And why Penang and not Selangor?” you might ask. Well, because Umno is saying that Penang is controlled by the Chinese and with Nurul Izzah as one of the Deputy Chief Ministers she can demonstrate that the Chinese do not control Penang and that Lim Guan Eng is not the dictator who runs Penang like it is his personal kingdom. Furthermore, Nurul Izzah would have no problems working with Guan Eng plus we Malaysians would not be losing any sleep wondering whether she would sell out the opposition and go join Umno. This would put to rest the ‘frog’ issue.
I opine very strongly that RPK’s explanation of why Penang and not Selangor for Nurul has been very poor and unconvincing. May I ask of him:
(1) Does this mean Mansur Othman as DCM Penang cannot 'demonstrate that the Chinese do not control Penang and that Lim Guan Eng is not the dictator who runs Penang like it is his personal kingdom', whereas by some magical man man lai power, Nurul can?
(2) Does that mean Mansur Othman, unlike Nurul, is a potential frog?
Let's be frank here Peter. I believe the real reason why you haven't proposed Nurul for the post of Deputy MB of Selangor (assuming all assumptions for this possibility can become true) is because you know that will embarrass PKR in the eyes of DAP, if we were to recall that Khalid Ibrahim fell so sharply and smartly in line with the ‘no deputy MB for Teresa Kok’ “requirement” because he didn’t have the balls and Pakatan heart to insist that she assumed that post – see my post on 24 March 2008 Khalid Ibrahim failed to show resolute leadership?
Thus proposing Nurul as a future deputy MB of Selangor can only bring that spineless acquiescence back into focus.
Peter, you should tell it like it is, rather than come up with such a pathetic excuse (and offend Mansur Othman in the process wakakaka). Sorry matey, you need an occasional rap on your knuckles.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
So this is Christmas
All of you, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Bahais, etc, please see this video, the official one for John Lennon’s song titled "Happy Christmas (War is over)".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN4Uu0OlmTg
There is no religious proselytizing message but instead a special question from John Lennon to us.
Really, it's the most meaningful and moving Christmas song that I, a former MBS student and Wellesley Church attendee, have heard. The accompanying video clip is an appropriate powerful enhancement of John's reminder to us, and just how so bloody applicable it is in today's world! One of the few songs that have moved me to tears.
And it may explain in some ways why he was on the FBI’s watch list.
Lyrics to his anti-war song
So this is Christmas
And what have you done
Another year over
And a new one just begun
And so this is Christmas
I hope you have fun
The near and the dear one
The old and the young
A very merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let's hope it's a good one
Without any fear
And so this is Christmas
For weak and for strong
For rich and the poor ones
The world is so wrong
And so happy Christmas
For black and for white
For yellow and red ones
Let's stop all the fight
A very merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let's hope it's a good one
Without any fear
And so this is Christmas
And what have we done
Another year over
And a new one just begun
And so this is Christmas
I hope you have fun
The near and the dear one
The old and the young
A very merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let's hope it's a good one
Without any fear
War is over over
If you want it
War is over
Now...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN4Uu0OlmTg
There is no religious proselytizing message but instead a special question from John Lennon to us.
Really, it's the most meaningful and moving Christmas song that I, a former MBS student and Wellesley Church attendee, have heard. The accompanying video clip is an appropriate powerful enhancement of John's reminder to us, and just how so bloody applicable it is in today's world! One of the few songs that have moved me to tears.
And it may explain in some ways why he was on the FBI’s watch list.
Lyrics to his anti-war song
So this is Christmas
And what have you done
Another year over
And a new one just begun
And so this is Christmas
I hope you have fun
The near and the dear one
The old and the young
A very merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let's hope it's a good one
Without any fear
And so this is Christmas
For weak and for strong
For rich and the poor ones
The world is so wrong
And so happy Christmas
For black and for white
For yellow and red ones
Let's stop all the fight
A very merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let's hope it's a good one
Without any fear
And so this is Christmas
And what have we done
Another year over
And a new one just begun
And so this is Christmas
I hope you have fun
The near and the dear one
The old and the young
A very merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let's hope it's a good one
Without any fear
War is over over
If you want it
War is over
Now...
Friday, December 23, 2011
Undermining the pillars
Last week, in my post Dr Hasan Ali a Kemo Sabe? I made mention of zakat, one of the 5 pillars of Islam.
According to the Quran, this (socialist) social-welfare fund is intended for acts of Islamic piety to support charitable programs for the well-being of less fortunate fellow Muslims. The aim is of course to promote and preserve social harmony between the wealthy and the poor, an equitable redistribution of wealth, and a sense of solidarity amongst members of the Ummah. And I enthused that according to the Quran, the recipients of zakat marvellously need not only be Muslims.
Yesterday I read in Malaysiakini about the Tithe funds (being) used to settle minister's legal fees.
Even as a non-Muslim I am sure the Quran did not have this purpose in mind when it declared the institution of zakat as one of the 5 pillars of Islam.
Yes, the withdrawn sum was repaid, but suddenly/coincidentally (shades of kuestionable kerbau-ish kondos) I recall a case several years ago, of a general manager of a company using company funds to buy shares for his personal ownership, of course with the intention of paying the withdrawn sum back to the company when 'his' shares made the expected profits. Unfortunately for him, a surprise audit discovered his misuse of the company funds for personal purposes, and he had to resign or face charges of CBT.
The Malaysiakini report stated that the … zakat (tithe) fund [was used] to settle advance legal costs incurred by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Jamil Khir Bahrom and two others. The legal costs had been incurred when opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim named Jamil, Federal Territory Islamic Department director Che Mat Che Ali and its chief prosecutor Shamsuddin Hussain, as respondents in the politician's qazaf application.
Surely zakat has never been meant for such a purpose. I opine strongly that PM Najib must ask Jamil Khir Bahrom and the two senior public servants to resign for procedurally misusing the zakat, especially Che Mat who approved a withdrawal of RM63,650 from it.
And I do wonder about the Selangor case where the zakat collection and its use are now amazingly beyond the preview of the State legislative body, the Exco of democratically elected people’s representatives.
On a slightly separate issue, I also wonder about media reports of a few Muslims who would accept questionable all-expenses-paid trips to Mecca for them to perform the Haj, which conduct by every Muslim represents another pillar of Islam.
Is it halal (kosher) to accept dodgy money (of questionable provenance) and use it to perform the Haj?
An sms-ing Mufti didn’t realize how unwittingly correct he had been when he pompously declared that (words to the effect) unlike the Arab people of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh), Malays are far more special to Islam.
His ‘unwitting’ part is that he has correctly identified some of his Malay cronies as 'special to Islam' because they had, in using such monies to finance their Haj and telling outrageous lies to harm others, knowingly undermined the pillars of Islam a la the JKR-built MRR2.
Some 7,000 cracks were detected in 31 of the the MRR2's 33 pillars. Islam has only 5 pillars.
I wonder whether he will be sms-ing this to his buddy, the solar-powered saviour? Maybe they can blame it on the Christians, Chinese or Charbor (women), or Teresa Kok, Hannah Yeo and Teo Nie Ching wakakaka.
According to the Quran, this (socialist) social-welfare fund is intended for acts of Islamic piety to support charitable programs for the well-being of less fortunate fellow Muslims. The aim is of course to promote and preserve social harmony between the wealthy and the poor, an equitable redistribution of wealth, and a sense of solidarity amongst members of the Ummah. And I enthused that according to the Quran, the recipients of zakat marvellously need not only be Muslims.
Yesterday I read in Malaysiakini about the Tithe funds (being) used to settle minister's legal fees.
Even as a non-Muslim I am sure the Quran did not have this purpose in mind when it declared the institution of zakat as one of the 5 pillars of Islam.
Yes, the withdrawn sum was repaid, but suddenly/coincidentally (shades of kuestionable kerbau-ish kondos) I recall a case several years ago, of a general manager of a company using company funds to buy shares for his personal ownership, of course with the intention of paying the withdrawn sum back to the company when 'his' shares made the expected profits. Unfortunately for him, a surprise audit discovered his misuse of the company funds for personal purposes, and he had to resign or face charges of CBT.
The Malaysiakini report stated that the … zakat (tithe) fund [was used] to settle advance legal costs incurred by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Jamil Khir Bahrom and two others. The legal costs had been incurred when opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim named Jamil, Federal Territory Islamic Department director Che Mat Che Ali and its chief prosecutor Shamsuddin Hussain, as respondents in the politician's qazaf application.
Surely zakat has never been meant for such a purpose. I opine strongly that PM Najib must ask Jamil Khir Bahrom and the two senior public servants to resign for procedurally misusing the zakat, especially Che Mat who approved a withdrawal of RM63,650 from it.
And I do wonder about the Selangor case where the zakat collection and its use are now amazingly beyond the preview of the State legislative body, the Exco of democratically elected people’s representatives.
On a slightly separate issue, I also wonder about media reports of a few Muslims who would accept questionable all-expenses-paid trips to Mecca for them to perform the Haj, which conduct by every Muslim represents another pillar of Islam.
Is it halal (kosher) to accept dodgy money (of questionable provenance) and use it to perform the Haj?
An sms-ing Mufti didn’t realize how unwittingly correct he had been when he pompously declared that (words to the effect) unlike the Arab people of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh), Malays are far more special to Islam.
His ‘unwitting’ part is that he has correctly identified some of his Malay cronies as 'special to Islam' because they had, in using such monies to finance their Haj and telling outrageous lies to harm others, knowingly undermined the pillars of Islam a la the JKR-built MRR2.
Some 7,000 cracks were detected in 31 of the the MRR2's 33 pillars. Islam has only 5 pillars.
I wonder whether he will be sms-ing this to his buddy, the solar-powered saviour? Maybe they can blame it on the Christians, Chinese or Charbor (women), or Teresa Kok, Hannah Yeo and Teo Nie Ching wakakaka.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Solar-powered agent provocateur
An extract from from Malaysia-Today’s quote of The Star Online’s article Hasan: PAS has lost sight of the Malays:
(The Star) - Embattled PAS leader Datuk Dr Hasan Ali has continued his tirade against the party, saying that it has lost sight of the Malays since coming under the Pakatan Rakyat banner.
He said PAS had veered away from its fundamental role as a defender of Islam.
“In the rush to take over Putrajaya, we may end up forgetting our core group of supporters the Malays,” he said in an hour-long interview on TV3's Soal Jawab.
Here’s the solar-powered 'savior' of Malay Unity being confused between the supranational supra-ethnic supra-caste religion of Islam and the Malay race.
He was further quoted as saying: ….. a victory for Pakatan and by extension PAS in the next general election would be meaningless under the current arrangement if nothing was done to uphold the place of Islam, the Malays and the royal institution, three issues which he said formed the core of his political struggles.
Since he has shown no evidence to prove that Pakatan is anti Islam, anti Malays and anti-monarchy (all 3 issues are also UMNO-owned accusations against Pakatan), can we safely conclude he is another of the UMNO noises, albeit a solar-powered one?
Of course he won’t willingly leave PAS because he knows his usefulness to UMNO, like any solar-powered frogs, will be sub-zero the moment he steps into the UMNO shade.
So despite his mAjor disagreement with PAS' political objectives he steels his thick face to be extra thick-skinned and malu-lah, shamelessly stays back in PAS. I can only guess that by remaining in a party which he claims to have a meaningless political objective, he will be able to continue fermenting dissent in that party.
(The Star) - Embattled PAS leader Datuk Dr Hasan Ali has continued his tirade against the party, saying that it has lost sight of the Malays since coming under the Pakatan Rakyat banner.
He said PAS had veered away from its fundamental role as a defender of Islam.
“In the rush to take over Putrajaya, we may end up forgetting our core group of supporters the Malays,” he said in an hour-long interview on TV3's Soal Jawab.
Here’s the solar-powered 'savior' of Malay Unity being confused between the supranational supra-ethnic supra-caste religion of Islam and the Malay race.
He was further quoted as saying: ….. a victory for Pakatan and by extension PAS in the next general election would be meaningless under the current arrangement if nothing was done to uphold the place of Islam, the Malays and the royal institution, three issues which he said formed the core of his political struggles.
Since he has shown no evidence to prove that Pakatan is anti Islam, anti Malays and anti-monarchy (all 3 issues are also UMNO-owned accusations against Pakatan), can we safely conclude he is another of the UMNO noises, albeit a solar-powered one?
Of course he won’t willingly leave PAS because he knows his usefulness to UMNO, like any solar-powered frogs, will be sub-zero the moment he steps into the UMNO shade.
So despite his mAjor disagreement with PAS' political objectives he steels his thick face to be extra thick-skinned and malu-lah, shamelessly stays back in PAS. I can only guess that by remaining in a party which he claims to have a meaningless political objective, he will be able to continue fermenting dissent in that party.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
The Golden Calf?
Malaysiakini - PAS declares 'war' against troublesome duo.
Hasan Ali and Nasharudin Mat Isa are the ‘troublesome duo’, said to be sowing/inciting dissent among PAS party rank and file, because in their troubled minds, PAS as a political party can no longer be trusted due to its alliance with non-Malays in Pakatan when it ought to be safeguarding Malay unity together with UMNO.
PAS insiders accused the two alleged sabotaging troublemakers of being sore losers, the former for losing his Selangor head position and the latter the deputy presidency to non-ulamak Mat Sabu in the last party election.
Politics and religion are very sensitive issues raising complex problems but alas, without objective or model solutions to refer to in order to address those problems.
When objectivity is absent, emotions supposedly carry the required answers, more acutely so when the brains behind the emotions are narrow, intolerant or even bigoted.
I suspect the emotions of Hasan Ali (sorry, can’t tell about Nasharudin) vis-a-vis PAS political status quo in Pakatan are based more on racial considerations than that of religious/righteous propriety. He probably sees things through Malay rather than Muslim eyes.
Between a non-corrupt (mainly non-Malay based) DAP and a corrupt (Malay-based) UMNO, which do you think he prefers as a political ally?
There's no need for us to answer as he has already made known his political position via his pronounced preferred and promoted UMNO-PAS (Malay) Unity.
It seems, like the ancient worshippers of the Golden Calf, he is prepared to lie down together with the cow-head people than with a clean non-corrupt ally of PAS.
(As for) those who took the calf (for worship), surely wrath from their Lord and humiliation shall overtake them, and thus do We recompense the devisers of lies - Qur'an 7:152
Hasan Ali and Nasharudin Mat Isa are the ‘troublesome duo’, said to be sowing/inciting dissent among PAS party rank and file, because in their troubled minds, PAS as a political party can no longer be trusted due to its alliance with non-Malays in Pakatan when it ought to be safeguarding Malay unity together with UMNO.
PAS insiders accused the two alleged sabotaging troublemakers of being sore losers, the former for losing his Selangor head position and the latter the deputy presidency to non-ulamak Mat Sabu in the last party election.
Politics and religion are very sensitive issues raising complex problems but alas, without objective or model solutions to refer to in order to address those problems.
When objectivity is absent, emotions supposedly carry the required answers, more acutely so when the brains behind the emotions are narrow, intolerant or even bigoted.
I suspect the emotions of Hasan Ali (sorry, can’t tell about Nasharudin) vis-a-vis PAS political status quo in Pakatan are based more on racial considerations than that of religious/righteous propriety. He probably sees things through Malay rather than Muslim eyes.
Between a non-corrupt (mainly non-Malay based) DAP and a corrupt (Malay-based) UMNO, which do you think he prefers as a political ally?
There's no need for us to answer as he has already made known his political position via his pronounced preferred and promoted UMNO-PAS (Malay) Unity.
It seems, like the ancient worshippers of the Golden Calf, he is prepared to lie down together with the cow-head people than with a clean non-corrupt ally of PAS.
(As for) those who took the calf (for worship), surely wrath from their Lord and humiliation shall overtake them, and thus do We recompense the devisers of lies - Qur'an 7:152
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
‘Fatal Purity’ versus ‘Fatal Pomposity’
I have criticised my hero, Karpal Singh, twice in my blog:
... once for calling for the death penalty for a demented Indian school bus driver who stopped his bus full of small little girls by the road side in an attempt at raping one of his wee passengers in broad daylight and in the presence of the other girls. Horrendous as the crime was, Karpal Singh shocked me with his demand for capital punishment for the culprit. For more read my last year’s post Overcompensating publicly for personal trials & tribulations, and ...
... a second time when he said (words to the effect) that Zaid Ibrahim cannot be trusted because of Zaid's looks – which to me was a bloody stupid statement.
I was wondering whether to criticise him a 3rd time for chewing Dr Rama up in public, but after assessing the whole situation* I decided Karpal has been absolutely right to do so.
* I trust those who have been criticising me for remaining silent in the issue of DAP’s warlords versus godfathers would appreciate that 2 factors have delayed this post, (a) lack of sufficient information previously for me to make an informed comment and, (b) there were other more interesting topics like a PAS wannabe Kemo Sabe wakakaka.
Now, why won’t I criticise Karpal a 3rd time?
* Note: I have commented adversely against Lim GE (for his opposition to use of nuclear power), Hannah Yeoh (for supporting 916), Perak DAP (for stepping on picture-poster of the frogs), Lim KS (for opening the royal Pandora box in Perak immediately after the 2008 election), etc. Only notable DAP bloke I haven’t criticised is former member Lee Lam Thye (another of my heros), wakakaka.
Initially I thought Karpal Singh was suffering from an idealistic affliction known as ‘fatal purity’, the title of a book by Ruth Scurr brought to my attention by my fellow Penang-lang and erudite writer, Dr Neil Khor, who in a letter to Malaysiakini used that title to describe Ong Tee Keat when he (OTK) was ousted by Chua Soi Lek.
Ruth Scurr’s book was on Maximilien Robespierre, known as 'The Incorruptible' during the French Revolution. Robespierre was such an idealist and frightening zealot during a most repressive period of the Revolution that he sent not only the French nobility to the guillotine but also many of his closest friends and associates, such was his fanaticism to democratic ideals.
Okay, there were far more complex issues affecting Maximilien Robespierre but in my brief and very simplified summary of Scurr’s story, I have made an attempt to draw parallels with Karpal Singh’s behaviour.
As I mentioned many times over, Karpal is the spiritual leader of the DAP, its secular equivalent to PAS’ Mursyidul Am.
He has never hesitated to chew the bottom out of violators of, or deviators from DAP’s ideology of democratic socialism. Some of the pelts hanging on his fence (ignoring BN people) were those of Anwar Ibrahim, Nga, and various other DAP leaders. His latest has been Dr Rama.
At the start I was annoyed with him for dressing down Dr Rama in public, but I soon understand that Karpal wanted to demolish any hubristic (and very damgerous) inclinations of some DAP leaders (not just Dr Rama) from becoming the type of warlords seen in MIC, MCA, UMNO and wakakaka PKR. They won’t be allowed to personally nominate their preferred candidates for elections, more so by unilateral public announcements (via the media), and assume that the party has to accept such fait accompli.
Karpal had to, was forced to publicly reprimand Dr Rama because the object lesson would send a clear message to all DAP regional and sectional leaders that the CEC is the only party body authorised to nominate party candidates for any election, nor would the DAP countenance (BN, PKR-type) 'warlords' telling some poor chaps or lassies to 'stand aside' from election to party posts so that the warlords' blue-eyed boys and gals could be guaranteed ascendancy to the party's upper echelon wakakaka. Like me, my hero is a 'process' person.
And that’s why in my eyes, Karpal Singh is the spiritual leader of DAP, a man who demands, ensures and safeguards party adherence to the ideals of democratic socialism. Otherwise, the party will become just another version of MCA, MIC or PKR.
As for ‘fatal purity’, certainly Karpal upholds ideological 'purity' but he hasn’t sent thousands 'fatally' to the political guillotine. Perhaps Dr Rama might be the first one wakakaka.
Dr Rama made a (excuse the pun) 'fatal' mistake in announcing (like a warlord) the names of some members whom he believed should stand as candidates in the coming election. What he ought to have done was to recommend those names to the CEC, but alas, he is relatively new in DAP and hasn’t quite understand the party can only remain true to and clean in its ideological pursuit if every member complies faithfully with party policies, procedures and process.
But having made a 'fatal' mistake (by party standards), he 'fatally' lacks the ability to swiftly address it. Instead he reacted with a pungent jab at Karpal as being a godfather.
Once the sh*t hits the fan, he made a feeble attempt to ‘half’ apologise to Karpal through vague acknowledgment of his admiration and thanks for his mentor (yes, Karpal was his mentor, having sponsored him into the leadership of the DAP), but like Erich Segal in his book ‘Love Story’, Dr Rama believes ‘love means never having to say sorry’ wakakaka, so he tap-danced around the ‘apology’ word, even defiantly saying he didn’t understand that word.
In defending himself he stated (words to the effect) that he wasn’t just an ordinary person (presumably meaning he is Penang's DCM II, and therefore shouldn't be required to apologise), a pompous declaration testifying to his underlying hubris. I believe such an overly proud man won’t be able to survive any loss of face, despite and in spite of the fact he was wrong to act like a BN/PKR-type of warlord in the first place.
I won’t go into the psychology of upper class Indians here but suffice to say that Dr Rama is probably a bloke who would rather ‘die’ than be humiliated as he believes he will be if he has to apologise for his 'godfather' insult to Karpal (and other senior DAP leaders like Chen Man Hin and Lim KS) and the improper and inappropriate announcement of his supporters’ names as candidates for the next election. Aiyoyo, how can he ever face his machais (acolytes) then?
And that’s why he has stated he is prepared to leave (be expelled from) the DAP (rather than apologise).
In many ways, Dr Rama is like his nemesis, Uthayakumar of Hindraf, both growing much bigger ‘heads’ than they had possessed when they started in the political business.
It’s a sad case of Karpal Singh’s ‘Fatal Purity’ versus Dr Rama’s ‘Fatal Pomposity’.
I hope the party’s committee handling the imbroglio can come up with a happy solution.
... once for calling for the death penalty for a demented Indian school bus driver who stopped his bus full of small little girls by the road side in an attempt at raping one of his wee passengers in broad daylight and in the presence of the other girls. Horrendous as the crime was, Karpal Singh shocked me with his demand for capital punishment for the culprit. For more read my last year’s post Overcompensating publicly for personal trials & tribulations, and ...
... a second time when he said (words to the effect) that Zaid Ibrahim cannot be trusted because of Zaid's looks – which to me was a bloody stupid statement.
I was wondering whether to criticise him a 3rd time for chewing Dr Rama up in public, but after assessing the whole situation* I decided Karpal has been absolutely right to do so.
* I trust those who have been criticising me for remaining silent in the issue of DAP’s warlords versus godfathers would appreciate that 2 factors have delayed this post, (a) lack of sufficient information previously for me to make an informed comment and, (b) there were other more interesting topics like a PAS wannabe Kemo Sabe wakakaka.
Now, why won’t I criticise Karpal a 3rd time?
* Note: I have commented adversely against Lim GE (for his opposition to use of nuclear power), Hannah Yeoh (for supporting 916), Perak DAP (for stepping on picture-poster of the frogs), Lim KS (for opening the royal Pandora box in Perak immediately after the 2008 election), etc. Only notable DAP bloke I haven’t criticised is former member Lee Lam Thye (another of my heros), wakakaka.
Initially I thought Karpal Singh was suffering from an idealistic affliction known as ‘fatal purity’, the title of a book by Ruth Scurr brought to my attention by my fellow Penang-lang and erudite writer, Dr Neil Khor, who in a letter to Malaysiakini used that title to describe Ong Tee Keat when he (OTK) was ousted by Chua Soi Lek.
Ruth Scurr’s book was on Maximilien Robespierre, known as 'The Incorruptible' during the French Revolution. Robespierre was such an idealist and frightening zealot during a most repressive period of the Revolution that he sent not only the French nobility to the guillotine but also many of his closest friends and associates, such was his fanaticism to democratic ideals.
Okay, there were far more complex issues affecting Maximilien Robespierre but in my brief and very simplified summary of Scurr’s story, I have made an attempt to draw parallels with Karpal Singh’s behaviour.
As I mentioned many times over, Karpal is the spiritual leader of the DAP, its secular equivalent to PAS’ Mursyidul Am.
He has never hesitated to chew the bottom out of violators of, or deviators from DAP’s ideology of democratic socialism. Some of the pelts hanging on his fence (ignoring BN people) were those of Anwar Ibrahim, Nga, and various other DAP leaders. His latest has been Dr Rama.
At the start I was annoyed with him for dressing down Dr Rama in public, but I soon understand that Karpal wanted to demolish any hubristic (and very damgerous) inclinations of some DAP leaders (not just Dr Rama) from becoming the type of warlords seen in MIC, MCA, UMNO and wakakaka PKR. They won’t be allowed to personally nominate their preferred candidates for elections, more so by unilateral public announcements (via the media), and assume that the party has to accept such fait accompli.
Karpal had to, was forced to publicly reprimand Dr Rama because the object lesson would send a clear message to all DAP regional and sectional leaders that the CEC is the only party body authorised to nominate party candidates for any election, nor would the DAP countenance (BN, PKR-type) 'warlords' telling some poor chaps or lassies to 'stand aside' from election to party posts so that the warlords' blue-eyed boys and gals could be guaranteed ascendancy to the party's upper echelon wakakaka. Like me, my hero is a 'process' person.
And that’s why in my eyes, Karpal Singh is the spiritual leader of DAP, a man who demands, ensures and safeguards party adherence to the ideals of democratic socialism. Otherwise, the party will become just another version of MCA, MIC or PKR.
As for ‘fatal purity’, certainly Karpal upholds ideological 'purity' but he hasn’t sent thousands 'fatally' to the political guillotine. Perhaps Dr Rama might be the first one wakakaka.
Dr Rama made a (excuse the pun) 'fatal' mistake in announcing (like a warlord) the names of some members whom he believed should stand as candidates in the coming election. What he ought to have done was to recommend those names to the CEC, but alas, he is relatively new in DAP and hasn’t quite understand the party can only remain true to and clean in its ideological pursuit if every member complies faithfully with party policies, procedures and process.
But having made a 'fatal' mistake (by party standards), he 'fatally' lacks the ability to swiftly address it. Instead he reacted with a pungent jab at Karpal as being a godfather.
Once the sh*t hits the fan, he made a feeble attempt to ‘half’ apologise to Karpal through vague acknowledgment of his admiration and thanks for his mentor (yes, Karpal was his mentor, having sponsored him into the leadership of the DAP), but like Erich Segal in his book ‘Love Story’, Dr Rama believes ‘love means never having to say sorry’ wakakaka, so he tap-danced around the ‘apology’ word, even defiantly saying he didn’t understand that word.
In defending himself he stated (words to the effect) that he wasn’t just an ordinary person (presumably meaning he is Penang's DCM II, and therefore shouldn't be required to apologise), a pompous declaration testifying to his underlying hubris. I believe such an overly proud man won’t be able to survive any loss of face, despite and in spite of the fact he was wrong to act like a BN/PKR-type of warlord in the first place.
I won’t go into the psychology of upper class Indians here but suffice to say that Dr Rama is probably a bloke who would rather ‘die’ than be humiliated as he believes he will be if he has to apologise for his 'godfather' insult to Karpal (and other senior DAP leaders like Chen Man Hin and Lim KS) and the improper and inappropriate announcement of his supporters’ names as candidates for the next election. Aiyoyo, how can he ever face his machais (acolytes) then?
And that’s why he has stated he is prepared to leave (be expelled from) the DAP (rather than apologise).
In many ways, Dr Rama is like his nemesis, Uthayakumar of Hindraf, both growing much bigger ‘heads’ than they had possessed when they started in the political business.
It’s a sad case of Karpal Singh’s ‘Fatal Purity’ versus Dr Rama’s ‘Fatal Pomposity’.
I hope the party’s committee handling the imbroglio can come up with a happy solution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)