Should I write about Anwar Ibrahim supporting PAS’ plan to implement hudud laws? Ought I to question his so-called (and quite frankly, very undeserved) title of Asia’s Renaissance Man? Or, perhaps I could write about his complete loss of commonsense when he claimed that rights of non-Muslims (hey, what about Muslims?) will not be affected under a system of law where hands could be irreversible chopped off or people whipped and stoned, especially when we know all too well the quality of our judges?
Asia’s Renaissance Man supporting hudud? Wakakaka!
Or, maybe I should ask whether the DAP is now squirming with such an ally and touted leader of Pakatan? No, am not asking Tian Chua or Eli Wong because those PKR people are utterly hopeless without any spine or independent thoughts, much as I love Eli ;-)
To answer my own questions, alas, no, I won’t because Anwar being Anwar is always tap-dancing around any tulips which would make him personally smell sweet – note his classic evasive weaving 4-face Brahma-nic snake oil salesman talk, with a back door open for escape, where he … stressed … that PR had not discussed the matter and this was only a “personal opinion”.
What I do know is that dearest invincibly anti-DAP Helen Ang would be dancing too, but in rapt delight at DAP’s undoubted discomfort at the ‘out from the left field’ declaration by its unreliable undermining unconscionable Asia’s Renaissance ally wakakaka.
Sorry, Uncle Lim and Lim GE, can’t help you guys – go see Karpal Singh who will surely have a word or two to say about Anwar’s treacherous pulling of the rug right from under the DAP’s feet.
Rather, I prefer to write about Zaid Ibrahim.
But as a refresher, some words first about Zaid that I had written in Pakatan must not avoid the unavoidable as follows:
Zaid committed 3 sins in the eyes of PKR anwaristas:
(1) He didn’t show reverence for Anwar Ibrahim, calling a spade a spade. Anwar has attained such a cult status that to criticize him is not unlike committing blasphemy. There’s no reasoning with his devotees as they are no longer logical or rational, and cannot see anything wrong with him, whether it’s Anwar’s anti-reformasi shame of 916 or the greater humiliating shame of chasing potential tadpoles all the way to Taiwan.
Even my dear Eli Wong was complicit in going to Taiwan on that froggy hunt – shame on her! But such has been the demigod status of Anwar Ibrahim that his followers would even believe the corrupt doctrine of frogs being compatible with political reforms.
That same fanatical blind adoration would place only his family members, Dr Wan Azizah or Nurul Izzah, as acceptable substitutes to the Greatest Man on Earth since Moses, who would deliver them out of the BN-created wilderness, regardless of whether Dr Wan or Nurul, sweet as mother and daughter are, are really qualified. Isn't this BN-type nepotism?
(2) Zaid dared to challenge Anwar's Anointed One, first by attempting to get Nurul, then Khalid Ibrahim to stand against AI’s blue-eyed boy, and finally putting himself on the firing line, only to be frustrated in like fashion as was Chegubard, Jenapala, Gobala, etc, which in turn raised outraged voices of people like Haris Ibrahim and Jonson Chong in disgust at the PKR party polling process (but alas, to a deaf Dr Wan Azizah and an equally deaf what’s-the-name-of that-deer-caught-in-a car-headlights?)
(3) Zaid dared to leave the Greatest Party in the World, and then to strip layer by layer of mythological camouflage off the Greatest Man on Earth since Moses, and worse, in a mature, logical and evidential manner.
Thus, in the Pakatan camp (mainly PKR), Zaid is reviled as … horrors of horror … an anti Anwar traitor. And an anti-Anwar person must be (whether by logic or lack of) an UMNO mole, and f* the facts.
Look, they would say, there’s 'proof', didn't Zaid apologise to Najib when the latter declared he’d repeal the ISA? Look, even his own KITA party members have frowned upon and criticised his apology. It’s absolute proof of his UMNO leanings, if not his display of obsequiousness to Najib.
Really, it’s sad and pitiful to hear/read the recent series of unwarranted and ill-informed criticisms and worse, feral abuses at Zaid. I put it to a clash of culture where some (including his own KITA members) do not understand the meaning of his sportsman-like gesture to Najib.
In our Malaysian culture, imbued with an overdose of Rambo-ish hormones of jaguh-ness on steroids, where the brute is prized over the refine, an apology implies asking for ‘forgiveness’, and if in politics, subordinate servility or a hopeless cringe by a loser. There can be no other explanation.
For those low brow people, there’s no understanding of an apology made in sportsmanlike fairness, like “Hey matey, I read you wrong after all, sh*t man but sorry,. Now, what about a nasi lemak (or in the West, beer)!”
… not unlike losing a non-hostile bet!
But alas, there's no point explaining such to PKR or some KITA people – the culture or etiquette would be beyond their limited intellect.
Asia’s Renaissance Man supporting hudud? Wakakaka!
Or, maybe I should ask whether the DAP is now squirming with such an ally and touted leader of Pakatan? No, am not asking Tian Chua or Eli Wong because those PKR people are utterly hopeless without any spine or independent thoughts, much as I love Eli ;-)
To answer my own questions, alas, no, I won’t because Anwar being Anwar is always tap-dancing around any tulips which would make him personally smell sweet – note his classic evasive weaving 4-face Brahma-nic snake oil salesman talk, with a back door open for escape, where he … stressed … that PR had not discussed the matter and this was only a “personal opinion”.
What I do know is that dearest invincibly anti-DAP Helen Ang would be dancing too, but in rapt delight at DAP’s undoubted discomfort at the ‘out from the left field’ declaration by its unreliable undermining unconscionable Asia’s Renaissance ally wakakaka.
Sorry, Uncle Lim and Lim GE, can’t help you guys – go see Karpal Singh who will surely have a word or two to say about Anwar’s treacherous pulling of the rug right from under the DAP’s feet.
Rather, I prefer to write about Zaid Ibrahim.
But as a refresher, some words first about Zaid that I had written in Pakatan must not avoid the unavoidable as follows:
Zaid committed 3 sins in the eyes of PKR anwaristas:
(1) He didn’t show reverence for Anwar Ibrahim, calling a spade a spade. Anwar has attained such a cult status that to criticize him is not unlike committing blasphemy. There’s no reasoning with his devotees as they are no longer logical or rational, and cannot see anything wrong with him, whether it’s Anwar’s anti-reformasi shame of 916 or the greater humiliating shame of chasing potential tadpoles all the way to Taiwan.
Even my dear Eli Wong was complicit in going to Taiwan on that froggy hunt – shame on her! But such has been the demigod status of Anwar Ibrahim that his followers would even believe the corrupt doctrine of frogs being compatible with political reforms.
That same fanatical blind adoration would place only his family members, Dr Wan Azizah or Nurul Izzah, as acceptable substitutes to the Greatest Man on Earth since Moses, who would deliver them out of the BN-created wilderness, regardless of whether Dr Wan or Nurul, sweet as mother and daughter are, are really qualified. Isn't this BN-type nepotism?
(2) Zaid dared to challenge Anwar's Anointed One, first by attempting to get Nurul, then Khalid Ibrahim to stand against AI’s blue-eyed boy, and finally putting himself on the firing line, only to be frustrated in like fashion as was Chegubard, Jenapala, Gobala, etc, which in turn raised outraged voices of people like Haris Ibrahim and Jonson Chong in disgust at the PKR party polling process (but alas, to a deaf Dr Wan Azizah and an equally deaf what’s-the-name-of that-deer-caught-in-a car-headlights?)
(3) Zaid dared to leave the Greatest Party in the World, and then to strip layer by layer of mythological camouflage off the Greatest Man on Earth since Moses, and worse, in a mature, logical and evidential manner.
Thus, in the Pakatan camp (mainly PKR), Zaid is reviled as … horrors of horror … an anti Anwar traitor. And an anti-Anwar person must be (whether by logic or lack of) an UMNO mole, and f* the facts.
Look, they would say, there’s 'proof', didn't Zaid apologise to Najib when the latter declared he’d repeal the ISA? Look, even his own KITA party members have frowned upon and criticised his apology. It’s absolute proof of his UMNO leanings, if not his display of obsequiousness to Najib.
Really, it’s sad and pitiful to hear/read the recent series of unwarranted and ill-informed criticisms and worse, feral abuses at Zaid. I put it to a clash of culture where some (including his own KITA members) do not understand the meaning of his sportsman-like gesture to Najib.
In our Malaysian culture, imbued with an overdose of Rambo-ish hormones of jaguh-ness on steroids, where the brute is prized over the refine, an apology implies asking for ‘forgiveness’, and if in politics, subordinate servility or a hopeless cringe by a loser. There can be no other explanation.
For those low brow people, there’s no understanding of an apology made in sportsmanlike fairness, like “Hey matey, I read you wrong after all, sh*t man but sorry,. Now, what about a nasi lemak (or in the West, beer)!”
… not unlike losing a non-hostile bet!
But alas, there's no point explaining such to PKR or some KITA people – the culture or etiquette would be beyond their limited intellect.
Read this article below:
KITA - the example of Zaid Ibrahim
Zaid Ibrahim is a much maligned man, both personally and as a politician.
When he stood as the PKR candidate in Hulu Selangor, UMNO groped into its bag of dirty tricks and found enough to portray him as a brandy swilling kuda kaki, so much so that PKR’s ally, PAS, was embarrassed in supporting him in the by-election campaign. The only label UMNO didn’t/couldn’t stick onto him was womanizing or buggery wakakaka.
Incidentally, while on Hulu Selangor, Zaid was reported recently in Free Malaysia Today for calling Anwar Ibrahim a liar. Zaid was riled by Anwar’s claim that he (Zaid) had pleaded with him (Anwar) for the opportunity to stand in the by-election for that federal constituency.
Zaid said in fact it was Anwar who selected him to contest. At that time Anwar Ibrahim was at his political nadir following the desertion of seven PKR MPs especially after the cataclysmic failure of his bullsh*t 916, the most shameful un-reformasi folly of Anwar in his power-crazy but failed attempt on 16 Sept 2008.
Zaid suspected that the so-called de facto boss of PKR nominated him because he desperately wanted to make use of Zaid’s high profile personality (my words, not Zaid’s) to regain lost momentum through winning Hulu Selangor for PKR.
Zaid told Free Malaysia Today: “Anwar is a liar and this is how he makes his living in politics. He thought I could pull it off. He did not spend a single sen on me [in the by-election]. I paid the deposit with my money. The party did not do anything to help me. His remarks are a joke. It’s not true.”
Zaid isn’t the only person to say thus of Anwar – in Malaysia-Today there is an article written by Christopher Badeaux which accused Anwar of being two-face, with one message for Muslim audience but a completely different one for western audience. Badeaux condemned Anwar as follows: “... he has played the nasty demagogue at home, then played the good democrat in the West ...”
There’s no doubt that Badeaux doesn’t like Anwar as he took pains to explain to his western readers that Anwar is on trial forforced sodomy and not, as mistakenly described by some more sympathetic western reporters, consensual sodomy.
Though the distinction makes no difference to Anwar’s case insofar as Malaysian laws are concerned, it does to western readers as consensual sex between adults of the same gender is not a crime, and in fact, in the general case, accepted by society. Obviously Badeaux has plunged the knife into Anwar’s heart or, rather, image in the West, by alluding to Sodomy II as a trial for rape.
Back to Zaid - To demonstrate that he had not pleaded to stand in Hulu Selangor, when in the first instance he was already doubtful of his chances in that UMNO stronghold (the 2008 GE result for HS being more of a fluke), Zaid referred to DAP’s Lim Kit Siang and PAS’ Mustapha Ali as his witnesses, that he had asked the two Pakatan leaders for advice.
According to Zaid, Lim and Mustapha told him that “it would not be good for me, as a party member, to decline the offer, because it would seem that I did not want to help the party,"presumably even in the face of his mentioning he wanted to decline because the election odds in HS were against him.
Thus he accepted the candidacy because he had believed Anwar’s offer was made in good faith. He tossed another couple of names as his referees, namely Dr Mahathir and AAB, as to his characteristics/style of never pleading for any opportunities.
I am not surprised by Zaid readily referring to personalities from both sides of Malaysian politics - Dr Mahathir and AAB from UMNO, and Lim KS and Mustapha Ali from Pakatan - as his character referees or witnesses to what he alleged as Anwar’s blatant lie of him (Zaid) pleading to stand in Hulu Selangor.
And that’s because Zaid has been consistently mature in his political stance, unlike the feral examples introduced by the UMNO faction of Anwar Ibrahim, a vicious herd mentality that now prevails mainly among the PKR anwaristas and some UMNO people.
While in Pakatan, Zaid has repetitively and more importantly, OPENLY, demonstrated his willingness to talk with BN or even be interviewed by UMNO’s mainstream media mouths, such as Utusan and Berita Harian, etc. He had also not hesitated in praising good policies by BN.
I stress on the word OPENLY because there’s a certain someone who talked to UMNO secretly; I have often accused him of wanting to return to that cesspool in which he had once thrived. ‘Tis only the sheer greed of UMNO’s current crop of leaders who saw no room for him in the party that they have spurned his overtures.
Of course it is this very OPEN-minded mentality, befitting that of a mature politician (like Ku Li wishing Lim KS a happy 70th birthday, and the DAP leader in turn wishing an UMNO leader who was hospitalised a speedy recovery) that saw Zaid Ibrahim being vilified by anwaristas.
Their extreme dictate has always been “Thou shall not breathe the same air as the enemy .....” with of course the exception of you-know-who wakakaka.
But they remained dumb, mute and blind when Zaid became the alleged victim of a PKR polling process which has been questioned by several people, including courageous Jonson Chong and neutral but fair-minded Haris Ibrahim.
Other alleged victims of that party poll have been Chegubard, Jenapala (who was mysteriously struck by a phantom 'resignation'), Gobala and in the past, Nallakaruppan (told to stand aside for Anwar's blue-eyed boy), etc. Those rabid dogs* suddenly became diam saja when even thetikus2 were more vocal.
* note it’s not only UMNO dogs that are rabid
Now, if Lim KS or Mustapha Ali were to dare come out and confirm Zaid’s reference of them as witness to Anwar’s lies, I bet you those anwaristas will be calling them all sorts of names as they did to RPK, Haris Ibrahim, etc.
Personality cultism, black & white no-quarters-given politics, ‘either you’re with or against us’ primitive Bush-ism! That’s the politics of anwaristas. And it has spread across to UMNO (from where it originated).
2-party politics? How man, with such immature mentality?
Yup, the sort of mentality that rejoiced in petty pathetic puerile lil’ insignificant things like ousting Rosmah Mansor from her post as Chancellor of Unisel.
I wrote despairingly of Azmin Ali’s pathetic twitter of his paltry ‘victory’ in my February 2010 post (long before RPK clarified his statements in his Stat Dec about allegation of Rosmah being at the scene of Altantuyaa’s demise) Mean-spirited Malaysians:
This is really pathetic, shamelessly partisan and totally mean-spirited.
She was invited by the previous Selangor government so why not let her term as Chancellor finish off without re-inviting her?
Why make such a spiteful announcement? It’s pathetic, pitiful, petty and utterly childish. Don’t Azmin Ali and other PKR leaders have more important things to do, like running Selangor State, than to dabble around with such masturbatory indulgences?
The argument that she should go because she is surrounded by controversies is not only too partisan but unsubstantiated.
We only have RPK’s word that she was allegedly at the scene of Altantuyaa Shariibuu’s last moments to personally ‘supervise’ the demolition of the late model’s corpse – which without any shred of evidence other than RPK's 'I have been reliably informed ...' has been, in my opinion, an incredulous preposterous allegation.
There was also an argument that her Masters degree wasn’t good enough – really, this is such a pathetic shabby argument.
OK, I know PKR is deliberately being vocal about Rosmah as part of their tactic to mitigate the Sodomy II fallout, by ratcheting up the anti-Najib campaign, but PKR should have remained on high moral grounds rather than ….. sorry, I keep forgetting they and UMNO are from the same stock … where spiteful pettiness and mean-spiritedness are their stock-in-trade.
I hope DAP will never descend to such petty bickering.
I also lamented that in the face of such rabid fanatical mindless mean-spirited mentality:
(a) we aren’t quite ready for a two-party political system,
(b) some politicians don’t consider all citizens of this country (including their own supporters and political opponents) as fellow Malaysians, and
(c) political attacks are often ad hominem rather than directed at the policies, governance and conduct of the other side.
Thank goodness Zaid Ibrahim, Lim Kit Siang and Haris Ibrahim are showing the way to mature Malaysian politics.
When he stood as the PKR candidate in Hulu Selangor, UMNO groped into its bag of dirty tricks and found enough to portray him as a brandy swilling kuda kaki, so much so that PKR’s ally, PAS, was embarrassed in supporting him in the by-election campaign. The only label UMNO didn’t/couldn’t stick onto him was womanizing or buggery wakakaka.
Incidentally, while on Hulu Selangor, Zaid was reported recently in Free Malaysia Today for calling Anwar Ibrahim a liar. Zaid was riled by Anwar’s claim that he (Zaid) had pleaded with him (Anwar) for the opportunity to stand in the by-election for that federal constituency.
Zaid said in fact it was Anwar who selected him to contest. At that time Anwar Ibrahim was at his political nadir following the desertion of seven PKR MPs especially after the cataclysmic failure of his bullsh*t 916, the most shameful un-reformasi folly of Anwar in his power-crazy but failed attempt on 16 Sept 2008.
Zaid suspected that the so-called de facto boss of PKR nominated him because he desperately wanted to make use of Zaid’s high profile personality (my words, not Zaid’s) to regain lost momentum through winning Hulu Selangor for PKR.
Zaid told Free Malaysia Today: “Anwar is a liar and this is how he makes his living in politics. He thought I could pull it off. He did not spend a single sen on me [in the by-election]. I paid the deposit with my money. The party did not do anything to help me. His remarks are a joke. It’s not true.”
Zaid isn’t the only person to say thus of Anwar – in Malaysia-Today there is an article written by Christopher Badeaux which accused Anwar of being two-face, with one message for Muslim audience but a completely different one for western audience. Badeaux condemned Anwar as follows: “... he has played the nasty demagogue at home, then played the good democrat in the West ...”
There’s no doubt that Badeaux doesn’t like Anwar as he took pains to explain to his western readers that Anwar is on trial forforced sodomy and not, as mistakenly described by some more sympathetic western reporters, consensual sodomy.
Though the distinction makes no difference to Anwar’s case insofar as Malaysian laws are concerned, it does to western readers as consensual sex between adults of the same gender is not a crime, and in fact, in the general case, accepted by society. Obviously Badeaux has plunged the knife into Anwar’s heart or, rather, image in the West, by alluding to Sodomy II as a trial for rape.
Back to Zaid - To demonstrate that he had not pleaded to stand in Hulu Selangor, when in the first instance he was already doubtful of his chances in that UMNO stronghold (the 2008 GE result for HS being more of a fluke), Zaid referred to DAP’s Lim Kit Siang and PAS’ Mustapha Ali as his witnesses, that he had asked the two Pakatan leaders for advice.
According to Zaid, Lim and Mustapha told him that “it would not be good for me, as a party member, to decline the offer, because it would seem that I did not want to help the party,"presumably even in the face of his mentioning he wanted to decline because the election odds in HS were against him.
Thus he accepted the candidacy because he had believed Anwar’s offer was made in good faith. He tossed another couple of names as his referees, namely Dr Mahathir and AAB, as to his characteristics/style of never pleading for any opportunities.
I am not surprised by Zaid readily referring to personalities from both sides of Malaysian politics - Dr Mahathir and AAB from UMNO, and Lim KS and Mustapha Ali from Pakatan - as his character referees or witnesses to what he alleged as Anwar’s blatant lie of him (Zaid) pleading to stand in Hulu Selangor.
And that’s because Zaid has been consistently mature in his political stance, unlike the feral examples introduced by the UMNO faction of Anwar Ibrahim, a vicious herd mentality that now prevails mainly among the PKR anwaristas and some UMNO people.
While in Pakatan, Zaid has repetitively and more importantly, OPENLY, demonstrated his willingness to talk with BN or even be interviewed by UMNO’s mainstream media mouths, such as Utusan and Berita Harian, etc. He had also not hesitated in praising good policies by BN.
I stress on the word OPENLY because there’s a certain someone who talked to UMNO secretly; I have often accused him of wanting to return to that cesspool in which he had once thrived. ‘Tis only the sheer greed of UMNO’s current crop of leaders who saw no room for him in the party that they have spurned his overtures.
Of course it is this very OPEN-minded mentality, befitting that of a mature politician (like Ku Li wishing Lim KS a happy 70th birthday, and the DAP leader in turn wishing an UMNO leader who was hospitalised a speedy recovery) that saw Zaid Ibrahim being vilified by anwaristas.
Their extreme dictate has always been “Thou shall not breathe the same air as the enemy .....” with of course the exception of you-know-who wakakaka.
But they remained dumb, mute and blind when Zaid became the alleged victim of a PKR polling process which has been questioned by several people, including courageous Jonson Chong and neutral but fair-minded Haris Ibrahim.
Other alleged victims of that party poll have been Chegubard, Jenapala (who was mysteriously struck by a phantom 'resignation'), Gobala and in the past, Nallakaruppan (told to stand aside for Anwar's blue-eyed boy), etc. Those rabid dogs* suddenly became diam saja when even thetikus2 were more vocal.
* note it’s not only UMNO dogs that are rabid
Now, if Lim KS or Mustapha Ali were to dare come out and confirm Zaid’s reference of them as witness to Anwar’s lies, I bet you those anwaristas will be calling them all sorts of names as they did to RPK, Haris Ibrahim, etc.
Personality cultism, black & white no-quarters-given politics, ‘either you’re with or against us’ primitive Bush-ism! That’s the politics of anwaristas. And it has spread across to UMNO (from where it originated).
2-party politics? How man, with such immature mentality?
Yup, the sort of mentality that rejoiced in petty pathetic puerile lil’ insignificant things like ousting Rosmah Mansor from her post as Chancellor of Unisel.
I wrote despairingly of Azmin Ali’s pathetic twitter of his paltry ‘victory’ in my February 2010 post (long before RPK clarified his statements in his Stat Dec about allegation of Rosmah being at the scene of Altantuyaa’s demise) Mean-spirited Malaysians:
This is really pathetic, shamelessly partisan and totally mean-spirited.
She was invited by the previous Selangor government so why not let her term as Chancellor finish off without re-inviting her?
Why make such a spiteful announcement? It’s pathetic, pitiful, petty and utterly childish. Don’t Azmin Ali and other PKR leaders have more important things to do, like running Selangor State, than to dabble around with such masturbatory indulgences?
The argument that she should go because she is surrounded by controversies is not only too partisan but unsubstantiated.
We only have RPK’s word that she was allegedly at the scene of Altantuyaa Shariibuu’s last moments to personally ‘supervise’ the demolition of the late model’s corpse – which without any shred of evidence other than RPK's 'I have been reliably informed ...' has been, in my opinion, an incredulous preposterous allegation.
There was also an argument that her Masters degree wasn’t good enough – really, this is such a pathetic shabby argument.
OK, I know PKR is deliberately being vocal about Rosmah as part of their tactic to mitigate the Sodomy II fallout, by ratcheting up the anti-Najib campaign, but PKR should have remained on high moral grounds rather than ….. sorry, I keep forgetting they and UMNO are from the same stock … where spiteful pettiness and mean-spiritedness are their stock-in-trade.
I hope DAP will never descend to such petty bickering.
I also lamented that in the face of such rabid fanatical mindless mean-spirited mentality:
(a) we aren’t quite ready for a two-party political system,
(b) some politicians don’t consider all citizens of this country (including their own supporters and political opponents) as fellow Malaysians, and
(c) political attacks are often ad hominem rather than directed at the policies, governance and conduct of the other side.
Thank goodness Zaid Ibrahim, Lim Kit Siang and Haris Ibrahim are showing the way to mature Malaysian politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.