The woman behind the man?

Today I wish to comment on a couple of paragraphs, in fact the first two and one half, that RPK penned in his latest post titled Najib's week of victories.

Of course my commentaries on his 'couple of paragraphs' might emerge 'out of context' but WTF, who cares, wakakaka.

Sometimes it's fun this way, because I can then go any which way, but look, if you want to enjoy full context of what RPK has written, visit his blog and don't kacau me, okay? Wakakaka.

The following extracts from his post are:

Those in the know knew that Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad ‘had plans’ for Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak when soon after the May 2013 general election the former started criticising the latter. At first it was a ‘mild criticism’ and basically ‘recycled’ issues that had earlier been used against Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi from 2006 to 2009.

I am now adviser to Petronas
alamak lah, siapa rugi? hehehe 

It was clear that Mahathir was just testing the waters to see how far he could go with attacking Najib. When it was apparent that the criticism was not gaining any momentum, Mahathir had to step back a bit and reconsider his strategy. He cannot attack Najib the way he had attacked Abdullah and hope that the Prime Minister would step down.

Najib was not going to step down like Abdullah did. Najib would need to be ousted or pushed out. And it has to be with great force against the backdrop of very serious charges.

Presumably those initially 'mild criticisms' must have been about:

• the crooked bridge
• removal of someone's grandoise projects, wakakaka
• kowtowing to Sing
• over-favouring the ungrateful Chinese
• etc

But given Najib's known inclination to avoid confrontation of any kind, as Zaid informed us, why did he obdurately or if you like, courageously hang on?

Could it be because:

• he was in reality a brave bloke
• he thought "F* Maddy" for being 'ungrateful' to the son of Razak who resurrected Maddy
• he was too thick to know Maddy wanted him out
• his wife cubit-ed him into staying?

Wakakaka. Let's analyse each one.

The possibility that he was a brave bloke would be contrary to what Zaid told us, that Najib has a mild nature, where he preferred and no doubt still prefers to avoid aggressive, aggravated and acrimonious confrontations.

That characteristic was confirmed by Moody who told us that when Najib wanted to sack him, the PM did not, could not look at Moody in the face. In fact it was left to Moody to ask "Am I being sacked?" to which Najib silently, and seemingly ashamed or embarrassed, nodded his head. OK, he was not brave or if you like, cowardly then, wakakaka.

Second point - given above, I doubt he would dare to think "F* Maddy". OK then, he was not even brave in his thoughts. Wakakaka.

Third point - I doubt he was that thick, precisely and especially as Zaid had informed us of his aversion to unpleasant discordance.

Such people are usually sensitive to criticisms by others so he would have known that he had fallen from Maddy's favour, a favour that was part of a Maddy's strategic sequence to see his scion become PM.

I hope you know the difference between the words 'strategic' and 'tactical'? Wakakaka. Anyway, I believe we can comfortably rule out any aggressive thoughts by Najib towards Maddy.

By the by, just a quickie, wakakaka - my Unc asked whether you guys know Ah Jib Gor's mum, Tun Rahah Noah?

yes, she's a Tun in her own rights 

She's around 84 now, but the most unique thing about her is that EVERY Chinese (Tionghua) Ambassador, wakakaka, posted to Malaysia visited or will visit her as a virtual-mandatory courtesy call.

Do you want to know why? Try and guess dahulu lah, wakakaka.

Anyway, the message my Unc wanted to pass on is that if you want to know Najib's character, look at Rahah Noah's personality.

OK back on track, so where does that leave us regarding Mahathir's initial criticism of Najib gaining NIL traction?

Wakakaka.

China may be the key in North Korean hostage situation

FMT - Malaysians in North Korea barred from leaving, Khairy cries ‘hostage’ (extracts):

SEOUL: The North Korean regime says it will not allow Malaysian citizens to leave the country, hours after both countries sent home their ambassadors amid worsening ties.

“All Malaysian nationals in the DPRK will be temporarily prohibited from leaving the country until the incident that happened in Malaysia is properly solved,” the government-controlled Korea Central News Agency said, citing the foreign ministry.

In an immediate reaction, Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin said the latest move was “tantamount to taking hostages”.

“This is unacceptable. DPRK must allow free passage of Malaysians at once,” he said on Twitter.

There are currently 11 Malaysians in North Korea, nine of whom are embassy staff and two who are part of the UN Food Programme.

The North Korean government, as I posted earlier, is mad, irrational and couldn't-care-less about international diplomatic norms and protocol.

I mentioned this in an earlier post titled Negara Gila.

Taking Malaysians as hostages would be saap-saap-suoi (chicken feed stuff) compared to the North Korean government having already kidnapped or murdered people on the international arena.

I recommend staying cool and not provoking that crazy government. They want mucho face.

Barring North Koreans from leaving Malaysia could be counter-productive as Pyongyang couldn't care less about its citizens, who I suspect would be quite happy to remain here as our 'guests' forever.

Go behind the public and diplomatic scenes, don't react to agitations (batu-api-rizations) from/by South Korea or the USA, and instead use the good office of the Chinese government to 'slow-talk' those crazies.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, right, stands with visiting Chinese official Liu Yunshan in Pyongyan

11 Malaysian lives in Pyongyang depend on cool heads in Putrajaya. I wish the government best of luck in arriving at a safe decision for our people, and to our 11 citizens in Pyongyang, selamat bertenang. May the heavens bless and smile on you.

Intolerant Arrogance vs Arrogant Intolerance

In three posts ago, I started my narration with a grandfather's story regarding a Chinese myth on a tripodal Mexican standoff, wakakaka.

This time I will start off with a discussion on the English language, specifically on the use and switching of a noun into an adjective and vice versa, and their effect or outcome, namely, what's the difference, if any, between 'intolerant arrogance' and 'arrogant intolerance'.

Let's start off with some (but not all available) dictionary definitions on both nouns (n) and adjectives (adj), where:

• Arrogance (n) - offensive display of superiority or self-importance 
• Arrogant (adj) - overbearingly assuming; insolently proud; sense of superiority
   
• Intolerance(n) - unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect opinions or beliefs contrary to one's own. 
• Intolerant (adj) - not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc.,different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted 

Re 'arrogance' and its adjective, I would deem the person showing such characteristics or behaving like so to be at worst just a fanning-tailed peacock but not necessarily a bigot. A good example would be the late Muhammad Ali, he who floated like a butterfly but stung like a bee.

But even at just first glance I would say 'intolerance' and its adjective would and could mean or lead one who has intolerance or is tolerant into being a bigot or becoming a bigot, though he/she may not necessarily be arrogant about his intolerance. There could even be a possibility such an intolerant person could be pretty subtle and quiet about his disrespect (and indeed 'intolerance') for others and/or their beliefs.

Thus, I would consider 'intolerant arrogance' as that of a vain person who won't brook any question on his overt hubris or even one who is so damned thick-skin about his pompous pride, wakakaka, while OTOH I deem 'arrogant intolerance' as of a bigot who is open or overtly aggressive about his or her disrespect for others.

Ibrahim Ali of Perkasa and his organisation plus some in UMNO or ex-UMNO (wakakaka) could be said to have exhibited 'arrogant intolerance' while Perkida buat diam-diam saja. Who should we be keeping an eye on?

Down in Australia, once upon a time wakakaka, PM Paul Keating (and even before he was PM and just Treasurer to PM Bob Hawke) was seen by many Aussies as 'intolerably arrogant', with his acerbic comments, retorts and sarcasms reflecting 'intolerant arrogance' as he verbally mowed down his opponents - eg. when he was PM, he insulted opposition leader John Howard (later to be PM) in parliament with this remark: "He's wound up like a thousand-day clock! One (more half) turn and there'll be springs and sprockets all over the building. Mr Speaker, give him a valium."

Back at home, BN people probably see Lim Guan Eng as 'intolerably arrogant', with even his PKR ally Mansor Othman, previously DCM 1 Penang, allegedly describing him as (supposedly behind closed doors) 'angkuh', wakakaka.

But it's okay for people like Paul Keating and LGE to be deemed as 'intolerably arrogant'. As they say, when you have it, flaunt it, wakakaka. It's a world better than be seen as 'arrogantly intolerant'.

In my opinion there is no one more intolerant (arrogantly or subtly or whatever other adjectives you wish to prefix on the word 'intolerance', the noun of 'intolerant') than one deeply religious and who believes wholeheartedly in his/her Almighty One God which in that religious ultra's mind, everyone must subscribe to, or else.

Such religious arrogant intolerance had led to several killings and indeed, even wars.

But surprisingly delightful, Datuk Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar, President of the Muslim Lawyers Association (PPMM), expressed his concern for atheists (wakakaka) during a discussion organised by Perkasa (wakakaka) on the topic of including the Rukunegara in the proposed Preamble to the Malaysian Constitution, specifically on the Rukunegara's espoused belief in god.

He commented that while such a tenet will not be a problem for Muslims (or indeed Christians, Hindus, Bahais) it will be problematic for atheists as the latter couldn't and shouldn't be forced to subscribe to Rukun No 1, namely, 'Kepercayaan kepada Tuhan'.

He missed mentioning Jainists (probably none in Malaysia) and made an honest error in his take on Buddhists who do not believe in a creator god or belief in god(s) as a source of their salvation, but his concerns, considerations and care for atheists have been admirable - indeed showing his very inclusive 'tolerance'.

Sad to see and say the attitude of one of my blog visitors with regards to atheists lies on the opposite end of the tolerance-scale.

My fave SOPO lady, Marina Mahathir, was equally delighted with Zainul Rijal's expression, saying:

"This is coming from the Muslim lawyer? Well I'm glad he's standing up for atheists Congratulations! I'm glad he believes in freedom of belief."

How does such a wonderful sweetheart like Marina be the daughter of a man like Maddy?

The answer lies in the (symbol of the) Tao which is sometimes referred to (though not correctly) as the symbol of Taichi. See image below for the answer:

The symbol of the Tao is circle enclosing two (now shown above as equal) interlocking paisleys, where paisleys mean droplet-shape patterns.

The circle represents the universal Tao, the 'way' or 'path' associated with a life lived in harmony with the cycles of change.

As said the image above shows two equal and opposite paisleys but at times they could/would not be equal, showing the cycle of changes in life is dynamic such as, just as a simple example, the change in seasons as in spring to summer to autumn and to winter, and cycling back to spring again.

To ensure a perfect harmonious cycle, when the yang (white) expands (like daylight in summer) the yin (black) must change dynamically (shorter daylight hours), and vice versa, to maintain the circle as perfectly round.

Likewise with a hubby and wifey, wakakaka. When wifey is aggressive, what must hubby do in order to maintain the marriage as a perfect harmonious circle? Wakakaka.

But say that Maddy is the black paisley, wakakaka, look closely and see that within that black or yin paisley, is a wee lil' white circle. Guess who is that

Wakakaka.

OK, another example, look at that white paisley which depicts wonderful kaytee, wakakaka. But within that white paisley is a wee lil' black circle.

It means kaytee is not completely perfect and exemplary, wakakaka. Every wonderful bloke like kaytee has his weak or imperfect point.

And from a black yin-bloke like Maddy, there is a good wee white spot by the name of Marina.

Wakakaka, that has been your Taoism 101 by yours truly.

Thus, from a very arrogantly intolerant Maddy, comes a very multiracial inclusively tolerant sweetheart.

Rukunegara - no room for atheists?

About 2 weeks ago, MM Online published an article taken from Sin Chew Daily where the author Chong Lip Teck wrote Back to the national principles (extracts):

FEBRUARY 23 — Several renowned local scholars and social activists recently proposed to incorporate the Rukunegara as a preamble to the Federal Constitution.

A preamble is a preface outlining the fundamental purposes and guiding principles, aspirations and demands, values as well as ideals of a nation.

Take the United States for example, the constitutional preamble is only one short statement: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The constitutions of some 80 per cent of countries in this world are preceded by a preamble. Our Federal Constitution nevertheless does not have one, but that is not going to undermine its nobility in any way.

We are still able to understand the country's objectives and principles through the various articles defining the Constitution.

But then is it still necessary for us to include the Rukunegara as a preamble to our Constitution?

Over at Malaysia-Today RPK published a post in which a Malay lawyer asked WHAT HAPPENS TO ATHEISTS IF RUKUNEGARA INCLUDED IN FEDERAL CONSTITUTION? 

Now, I am sure you know that interests me, wakakaka, yes, that part about 'Belief in God'.

The President of the Muslim Lawyers Association (PPMM) Datuk Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar, who practices both civil and Shariah law, told a roundtable discussion organised by Perkasa (wakakaka) on the topic of including the Rukunegara in the proposed Preamble to the Malaysian Constitution, that while such a tenet is not a problem for Muslims, alas:

“We cannot force people who don’t believe in God to convert to Islam, we cannot force those who don’t believe in God to convert to Buddhism and so on.”

As an atheist, I appreciate his inclusiveness in his discussion but on just a point of correction on his kind considerate words, I need to inform that firstly, Buddhists do NOT believe in an omniscient God as per the Abrahamic religions, and that secondly, Buddhists seek enlightenment (nirvana) by their own effort without the need for the blessings nor help of any god.

While not exactly atheists, Buddhists are almost atheistic in their spiritual beliefs.

Meanwhile a bigot in another media worries the shit out of his mean head that inclusion of our Rukunegara as preamble to the Malaysian Constitution will deprive the UMNOutras of their privileges and Lowyat2.

A week earlier than above, Dr Kua Kia Siong wrote in MM Online Keep the Constitution secular and inclusive (extracts):

There is an attempt by some “eminent persons” to install the Rukunegara as the preamble to the Malaysian Constitution. If there is indeed a need for such a preamble, it ought to reaffirm the principles of secularism and inclusiveness in the Constitution.

In my humble opinion, any attempt to have a preamble to our Constitution needs first to be discussed by all the communities in the country including the Orang Asli, debated and passed through Parliament; secondly, it has to be inclusive.

This “national philosophy” of Rukunegara was proclaimed on Merdeka Day, 1970 as a response to the racial riots of 13 May 1969 when the country was still under a state of Emergency.

Like the National Culture Policy, it was drafted by selected “eminent persons” rather than involving representation from all Malaysian communities and it did not go through a democratic process of debate, nor was it passed by the Federal Parliament.

While most of its aspirations are noble and acceptable, namely, “achieving a more perfect unity...; preserving a democratic way of life; creating a just society...; guaranteeing a liberal approach towards her rich and varied cultural traditions; and building a progressive society...”; nevertheless, its principle of “Belief in God” is not inclusive of all Malaysian faiths.

Any Preamble should include all peoples and stress social justice and democracy.

wtf? what about us? 

I understand where Dr Kia is coming from in his erudite article, and I support his views, but on a more realistic note, I wonder whether the immediate period after May 13 was conducive for a community forum cum discussions on formulating a national philosophy-principle?

After the troubles, traumas and tragedy of May 13 (1969), on instructions from Tun Razak, Tun Ghazali Shafie, then the flamboyant whiz-kid of Malaysian politics, conceptualised, 'created' and formalised the national ideology of Rukunegara.

I believe strongly that Ghazalie might have borrowed the idea from our neighbour Indonesia but amended that to naturally include our monarchy in our version.

Additionally, as a Muslim himself, the Indonesian's Sila Pertama, KeTuhanan Yang Maha Esa must have appealed to him, hence we get in our 1st Rukun the principle of 'Kepercayaan kepada Tuhan'.

Indonesia has had the Pancasila since 1945 even way before it gained independence from the Dutch.

Soekarno visualised a national need to unite the different peoples of the Indonesian archipelago. He based his Pancasila on the concepts of socialism, nationalism and monotheism.

Initially he formulated the Pancasila as:

1. Kebangsaan Indonesia (Indonesian Nationality), an emphasis on nationalism.
2. Internasionalisme, an emphasis on justice and humanity.
3. Musyawarah Mufakat (Deliberative Consensus), an emphasis on Representative democracy which holds no ethnic dominance but an equal vote for each member of the council.
4. Kesejahteraan Sosial, influenced by the idea of the welfare state, an emphasis on populist Socilaism.
5. KeTuhanan yang Maha Esa, an emphasis on monotheism and religiosity.

But after several quite fierce debates among Indonesian leaders, the 5th Sila (of belief in god) was promoted to No 1 position to appease those of the Abrahamic faiths, but much as the Muslims wanted the word Allah in it, the Pancasila avoided that, replacing instead Tuhan in that position which was more acceptable to Hindus and Christians, while the original 1st Sila (of nationalism) was move to No 3, and modified here and there to be what it is today, as follows:

1. Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa
2. Kemanusiaan Yang Adil dan Beradab.
3. Persatuan Indonesia.
4. Kerakyatan Yang Dipimpin oleh Hikmat Kebijaksanaan, Dalam Permusyawaratan Perwakilan.
5. Keadilan Sosial bagi seluruh Rakyat Indonesia.

Incidentally many Indonesians do NOT know that the title (but not content) of their national ideology, the term Pancasila was borrowed from the religion of Buddhism.

Pancasila in Buddhism means the 5 Precepts (but not Commandments as in the Abrahamic religions), a daily principles/ethics that Buddhists strive to practise and live by, namely, to strive not to kill, not to steal, not to have sexual misconduct, not to lie, and also to abstain from fermented drink that causes heedlessness (meaning 'showing a reckless lack of care or attention').

The last 'abstain from fermented drink that causes heedlessness' is far more flexible than 'must not drink' - in other words, people like kaytee take it to mean yamseng-ing is OK so long as one does NOT degenerated into or commit acts of heedlessness, wakakaka.

Oh BTW, Panca means 5, as in Panjab (or anglicised as Punjab, which means land of 5 Waters, a reference to the tributaries of the Indus River, namely Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Sutlej, and Beas), ...

pancawarna (5 colours meaning 'technicolour'), ...

pancaragam (orchestra), ...

pancaindera (5 senses), etc.

The 1st Sila of the Indonesia Paancasila 'KeTuhanan yang Maha Esa' is far more monotheistic than our 'Kepercayaan kepada Tuhan'. Even up to today, Indons are still debating their No 1 Sila as it goes against the principle of freedom of belief (particularly to polytheistic adherents like Hindus and those subscribing to folk beliefs and shamanism) and freedom of expression.

Article 29 of the Indon Constitution, on Religious Freedom, states two seemingly contradictory national religious doctrine, as follows:

(1) The State shall be based upon the belief in the One and Only God. 

(2) The State guarantees all persons the freedom of worship, each according to his/her own religion or belief.

Looks like the Indons want to have their monotheistic cake and also eat the rest, wakakaka.

I personally would advise to leave the Rukunegara or any variations of it outside the constitution as the Rukunegara (in its present form) will never please everyone, from ultra-ulamas (of the Abrahamic religionists) to the polytheistic believers to Buddhists/Jainists to agnostics to atheists, wakakaka.

if you are not greeks or italians you may be excused

wakakaka 

Sorry, Sorry, Sorry

FMT - Malaysia expels North Korean ambassador (extracts):

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia has ordered the North Korean ambassador to leave the country, hours after he was summoned by Wisma Putra.

Kang Chol is now declared persona non grata, and must leave the country in 48 hours.

“Malaysia will react strongly against any insults made against it or any attempt to tarnish its reputation,” Foreign Minister Anifah Aman said in a statement tonight.

Anifah said Kang Chol was expelled after he failed to answer the summon to the foreign ministry to meet with ambassador Raja Nushirwan Zainal Abidin, the deputy secretary-general for bilateral affairs, at 6pm today.

“The ministry has, via a Diplomatic Note sent to the embassy this evening, informed the North Korean government that the Malaysian government has declared His Excellency Mr Kang Chol persona non grata.

You know, I feel sorry for His Excellency the Ambassador twice over.

Firstly, I feel sorry for him as he had no choice but to bersandirawara macam ia biadap-gila in order to show his mad government back in Pyongyang that he's a loyal Kim-Jong-un-ista, in other words, just as mad as they are, or, as I had written in a news media readers column and which Minister Nazri had also commented in likewise fashion, the poor bastard would probably be executed when he returns.

Secondly, I feel sorry for the Ambassador's unavoidable expulsion per se which may yet see him executed, depending on the mood in Pyongyang.

Then finally, I feel sorry for our own Malaysian Ambassador in Pyongyang who will be expelled from North Korea as an inevitable tit for tat diplomatic gamesmanship.

Sorry, Sorry, Sorry lah in keeping with Pribumi-Pakatan policy on shadow cabinet, wakakaka.

Opposition shadow cabinet in Shadowland

Let me start off with a Grandfather's story wakakaka. Once my late Granddad told me when I was a kid about the mythical magic story of the snake, rooster and centipede.

Each of the three creatures possessed magical powers in the form of its own life-long nurtured magic pearl. However the story I want to relate to you is not so much about that magic pearl but their Mexican standoff.

Now, you may ask: What's a Mexican standoff

Wikipedia informs us: A Mexican standoff is a confrontation between two or more parties in which no participant can proceed or retreat without being exposed to danger.

As a result, all participants need to maintain the strategic tension, which remains unresolved until some outside event makes it possible to resolve it.

Well, the snake wanted to devour the rooster for the latter's pearl in order to double and enhance its own magic powers, but it dared not move from its secret location for fear of the centipede which wanted to sting, blind and poison the snake, precisely for the same purpose.

And guess what, the centipede continued to hide for fear of the rooster which wanted to peck at and eat up the centipede, again for the same reason but likewise, the fowl dared not move in case the snake located its position.

Thus, those three were locked into a Mexican standoff forever.

Now let's move on to Malaysian politics, wakakaka.

One of the worst performing track records of Pakatan Rakyat was its inability to form a shadow cabinet. Of course Pakatan gave numerous bullshit excuses, arguing that it would be better to have committees of three to oversight each of the government ministry. And coincidentally those committees had one member from each component party.

That in reality meant each of the original three parties (PAS, PKR & DAP) did NOT trust each other or more likely, dared not stake its claim on a cabinet position for fear of the other two so-called allies disagreeing, which would have led to an inevitable collapse of the coalition.

So they prevaricated, procrastinated, pretended, hoping rather moronically that the problem of disagreement, conflicting greed and siapa rajah would magically disappear, supposedly by the powers of the magic pearl of the above-mentioned snake, rooster or centipede.

They (PAS, PKR & DAP) were like the snake, rooster or centipede, trapped in a Mexican standoff. The reason could be distrust, greed, or even hatred.

They delayed the inevitable, wishing against realism that the dirt swept under the rug would magically disappear and make the room somehow clean.

It's just as well Pakatan Rakyat did not come into power because the aftermath, that of forming government, would have seen them fight to the death over which party should get, say, Home Affairs, Finance, Defence, etc, yes those choice ministries.

Well, before such expected squabbling over the victor's spoils came to fruition, Pakatan Rakyat disintegrated, but that breakup was NOT due to any fight over ministerial responsibilities but manifestation of mutual hatred between PAS and DAP. Smiles and matey embraces disappeared and were replaced by ferocious bearing of fangs and ugly words.

Today that same problem still exists in the new federal opposition coalition. How can the new coalition expect and deserve to be elected as the ruling majority when it can't even decide who will be in charge of what? The aftermath scene will be ugly and bloody.

But far far worse than Pakatan Rakyat, the so-called coalition of Pakatan (itself a coalition of DAP, Amanah and treacherous PKR) and that awful Pribumi (its name already an insult to the nons) can't even confirm who will be its PM-designate?

At least the now-dead Pakatan Rakyat had clearly identified Anwar Ibrahim as its PM-designate, much as PAS and Hadi Awang might not have like it, that party because it felt Anwar was immoral and the latter because of personal jealousy.

So who will or can be the Pakatan-Pribumi PM-designate?

uncle, what about me?
yes, but after a while, give way to your cousin, OK?
(thinks: lu tarn koo koo ler) 

'someone' is working for umno so in wrong party

boss, what about your original promise?
moody, sweetie waiting for you so bugger off
dad's got my back

it's all up to you my dear boy

it's all up to you my darling girl

Azmin Ali? - DAP who had been disadvantaged several times already won't be happy with him, and I suspect the Anwar family won't be too.

Mukhriz? - He lacks the persona and Machiavellian-ness to be PM and besides, he won't last long without daddy.

Muhyiddin? - Don't joke. But he can be Chief Adviser to Hadi Awang

Mat Sabu? - The nons will be wary of any Islamic Party candidate and quite frankly, will not support him to be PM.

Lim Guan Eng? - Forget it, he is Chinese and as I've often said, no Chinese Malaysians will be PM for another 50 to 100 years, that is, if they are lucky in 50 to 100 years. I doubt an Indian Malaysian will do too, unless he converts to Islam.

Zaid Ibrahim? - He's too much of a Rambo, meaning he acts on his own initiative and liking, and unexpectedly in the views of others, wakakaka. Besides, Malays do not like him though Chinese may support his candidature.

Nurul Izzah? - Too young and a woman. Some Malaysians who are quite conservative (Malays, Chinese, Indians) won't be quite ready for her as PM.

Wan Azizah? - She's not really a politician and will be a weak PM. Won't last long. I doubt Pribumi will support her. Besides, she'll be stabbed kau kau in her back

Mahathir? Don't mention him please. Besides he's already 90+. If you really insist on a 90+ man to be PM, make sure his DPM will be really the PM you want.

Of course Pribumi can propose a committee of 3 (Mahathir, Mahathir & Mahathir) as PM, wakakaka, while PKR can propose Azmin, Azmin & Azmin, and Mahathir no doubt will propose Mukhriz, Mukhriz & Mukhriz.

The DAP can hope for such ministries as Tourism, Environment and (wakakaka) Federal Territories.

may I be at least an Adviser to Guan Eng?
yes, but with an office in Pulau Burung, Labuan