Your slip is showing

That is just one example of many similar comments. I find that the Chinese always like to boast about how pragmatic they are due to their 5,000 years of civilisation. Even Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad admitted that the Chinese are very pragmatic and he lamented that the Malays are too emotional and feudalistic and not pragmatic like the Chinese.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

One reader sent me an email complaining that his comment was ‘rejected’.  He accused me of blocking his email address but when I tried posting the comment that he sent me I discovered that his comment is too long. And that was why he could not post the comment. He should have broken the comment into two parts. Nevertheless, he assumed that I had blocked or rejected his comment.

The 2,000 character limit is to ensure that spammers do not copy and paste nonsense running into 20 pages or more and post them in Malaysia Today. They have done this before. Furthermore, the spammers post many copies of the same comment. Hence we have had to set a time gap of three minutes between postings.

Another problem we face is DDOS attacks. Over the last month we have been under severe attack almost 24-7, as have many other websites and news portals. These attacks come from all over the world and I was told that hackers take control of millions of computers all over the world to launch these attacks. And that is why we find it so difficult to track them down and block them. They are using ‘middlemen’ to attack us.

Your computer may be one of those millions of computers all over the world commandeered by the hackers to launch these DDOS attacks. Hence you may find your IP address blocked by our server. I suppose we shall have to treat that as collateral damage until the 5th May 2013 general election is over. According to our technical people, this mode of attack would cost a lot of money so whoever is financing these attacks must have very deep pockets indeed.

Below is one comment from a reader regarding my two articles on principles.

Sometimes, pragmatism trumps over principles. How many dinners does one need to organise to raise hundreds of millions for Nurul Izzah to counter Raja Nong Chik's hundreds of millions? The idea was dead from the start.

That is just one example of many similar comments. I find that the Chinese always like to boast about how pragmatic they are due to their 5,000 years of civilisation. Even Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad admitted that the Chinese are very pragmatic and he lamented that the Malays are too emotional and feudalistic and not pragmatic like the Chinese.

I suppose ‘pragmatic’ is a better word than ‘unprincipled’ -- such as ‘meticulous’ rather than ‘leceh (slow)’, ‘friendly fire’ rather than ‘oops’, ‘collateral damage’ rather than ‘kambing hitam (sacrificial lamb)’, ‘flexible’ rather than ‘wishy-washy’, ‘firm’ rather than ‘pig-headed’, ‘decisive’ rather than ‘uncompromising’, ‘faith’ rather than ‘lack of evidence’, and so on. It is merely a choice of words and what people would call ‘politically correct’ rather than ‘propaganda’.

In short, what this reader is saying is matlamat menghalalkan cara (the ends justify the means). I actually like that doctrine. My doctor friend tells me that a glass of wine a day is very healthy and a glass of brandy helps cure your cough. Can I, therefore, drink a glass of wine a day and down a glass of brandy every time I cough (and I cough a lot as those who phone me can confirm)?

My objective is to stay healthy and cure my cough so the wine and liquor that I drink would achieve that. And does not the ends justify the means or matlamat menghalalkan cara? So haram becomes halal just as long as your intentions are noble (matlamat yang mulia).

Talking about noble intentions, Islam says that all Muslims are brothers/sisters. So, in the interest of noble intentions and for the sake of maintaining the Islamic brotherhood, if a Chinese candidate from the opposition contests against a Malay candidate from Umno, whom should we support?

Remember, as the Chinese say, we need to be pragmatic and not idealistic or emotional. The pragmatic thing would be that if we support a Malay candidate against the Chinese candidate then we would be able to strengthen the Muslim brotherhood, as Islam wants us to do.

So, do you really want to choose pragmatism over idealism?

Now back to the issue of the fundraising exercise for Nurul Izzah. One reader posted a comment saying that people refuse to support the fundraising exercise not because they do not support Nurul Izzah but because they hate me.

I like it when people get snared in my traps.

Actually, there were two fundraising dinners. One was organised by Nurul Izzah’s own team and the other by someone else but I sponsored the whole event. Hence I was not involved in the first and only a handful of people knew about my involvement in the other -- at least until the dinner was over. And both dinners managed to raise about the same amount of money.

Hence how goes your theory that people did not support Nurul Izzah’s fundraising exercise because they hate me? Even Nurul Izzah’s own team could not do much better. Using that same logic, if you hate Azmin Ali then is it okay if you do not support Pakatan Rakyat Selangor? What if you hate Anwar Ibrahim? Is it okay then to not support PKR?

Why do you people not want to admit your failings and shortcomings? Why always try to deflect and put the blame on someone else? Just admit that you are all talk and no action. The more you squirm the deeper you get snared.

So now it is okay to not support the cause if you hate one person. That gives me the moral high ground to not support Pakatan Rakyat because I hate certain people in Pakatan Rakyat. These are your ground rules and we are just playing according to your ground rules.

This is typical of Malaysians, in particular the Chinese, Indians and natives of East Malaysia. Dr Mahathir proudly said that in five general elections he never lost his two-thirds majority in Parliament and then you turn around and whack Dr Mahathir and blame the Malays and ask the Malays to ‘wake up’.

Dr Mahathir said he never lost his two-thirds majority in Parliament in 22 years but in 1990 Kelantan, which is in the Malay heartland that has more than 97% Malay voters, was lost to the opposition. In 1995, DAP garnered only 12% of the votes and won 9 Parliament seats while PAS-Semangat 46 garnered 15% of the votes and won 13 Parliament seats plus they retained Kelantan.

In 1999, the opposition won Kelantan and Terengganu and Umno lost its two-thirds majority in the Kedah State Assembly (after the Lunas by-election) plus Umno lost more than half the Parliament seats in that state. PAS also won the most number of seats and the PAS President became the Opposition Leader in Parliament while Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh lost their seats in the ‘Chinese heartland’.

So what do you have to say about that? What do you mean that the Malays have to wake up? Why try to deflect and not admit who is to blame for this? Why try to blame others for your failings and shortcomings? And Nurul Izzah can’t raise enough money because people hate Raja Petra Kamarudin konon and not because you are all talk and no action.

What utter bullshit! You are so full of shit I can smell it all the way from Manchester. So, nak cakap lagi? What is the word they use? Kiasu?