RUN THAT BY ME AGAIN

Okay, say that Khalid immediately resigned the day after the Kajang by-election, would all this dirty linen regarding Khalid be made public? Or would it be if Khalid had resigned then all this dirty linen would have been hidden in the closet, to be revealed only if Khalid does not listen to Anwar?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

My last few articles have attracted quite a number of very interesting comments. And I say ‘interesting’ only because these comments sound a bit weird. One reader even alleged that my logic is not consistent. I am not too sure how logic can either be consistent or inconsistent. How do you measure consistency (or the lack of it, as the case many be) when it comes to logic?

Maybe my logic is not consistent (whatever that means), as one person said. So then let us dissect some of your logical comments and see what level of consistency we are talking about here. Maybe then I can better understand how to be consistent with my logic.

By the way, ‘logic’ means ‘reasoning’. Reasoning is when you argue an issue using common sense. Hence either you have common sense or you do not. I am not too sure how common sense can be inconsistent.

For example, you may say: ducks swim. I swim. So I am a duck. That is the logic you apply in reasoning why you think you are a duck. But that is reasoning without applying common sense. I do not know how to label that — whether it is consistent or inconsistent logic.

So you see, that is the type of small minds that we are faced with, which I talked about in my yesterday’s article (READ HERE). And these are the minds that are arguing and debating about why Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim needs to resign.

Should I take these people seriously or just regard them as dog shit stuck on the sole of my shoe?

Anyway, let us recap on the logic these people apply in arguing or debating the issue of the Selangor Menteri Besar Crisis.

They say that the majority want Khalid to go, so Khalid should just go.

Which majority are they referring to? The 30 Selangor state representatives who met two days ago? Or the 1,758,179 Selangor voters who voted in May last year — 1,055,069 who voted for PKR, DAP and PAS and 703,110 who voted for Barisan Nasional.

So you see, 703,110 Selangorians voted for one party (BN) while 1,055,069 voted for three parties (PKR, DAP and PAS).

For purposes of this discussion let us say that PKR, DAP and PAS, which shared the 1,055,069 votes, got one-third of the votes each (although it cannot quite be divided equally three ways).

DAP and PKR want Khalid ousted. So that comes to roughly 700,000 voters. PAS (at least not yet) and BN do not. So that comes to about one million voters.

So how can you say that the majority want Khalid to resign? Which majority are you talking about? Do DAP and PKR represent the majority of the 1,758,179 voters who voted in May 2013? How do you reason that using your ‘consistent’ logic?

You say that Perak should be the example of how Khalid should be removed. But then Pakatan Rakyat does not regard the removal of Nizar Jamaluddin as the Perak Menteri Besar as legal. Pakatan Rakyat, in fact, does not recognise Nizar’s removal. Yet you want Perak to be the ‘good’ example of how to remove Khalid?

The fact that Nizar’s removal resulted in the fall of the Pakatan Rakyat state government in Perak is inconsequential. The vote of no confidence is not against the party in power. It is against the Menteri Besar. So we are comparing apples to apples in comparing Selangor to Perak, contrary to what many of you say.

Umno was deregistered in 1988. For months Umno no longer existed until Umno Baru was formed. But the Prime Minister and his cabinet stayed in power. None of the ex-Umno cabinet members belonged to any party. But since no vote of confidence was passed in Parliament against the Prime Minister he did not need to resign.

The fact that Khalid does not belong to any party is inconsequential. Was a vote of no confidence passed again him? If not then he stays in office.

In Perak’s case, the Sultan decided that since Pakatan Rakyat no longer commanded the majority in the Perak state assembly then the government should be handed to Barisan Nasional. That was a change of government.

In Selangor’s case, will the support from the 30 state representatives for Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail result in a change of government? Whether Khalid does or does not have majority support, it is not going to result in a change of government. So why does the Selangor Sultan need to make haste like the Perak Sultan did in Perak?

If, however, the removal of Khalid will mean a change of government, then this is a serious matter that needs immediate attention. But the government remains the same. They only want to change the CEO from the same government.

But why, in the first place, do they want to change the CEO? Is there a good reason for this? Yes, say DAP and PKR (without the agreement of PAS, their equal partner in Pakatan Rakyat), because Khalid is a crook.

How did you determine that Khalid is a crook? Did SELCAT (a Selangor state government committee) investigate him? Did the investigation find him guilty? Why did SELCAT not launch an investigation against Khalid and haul him before a hearing?

Khalid was the Selangor Menteri Besar for one term. Then Pakatan Rakyat saw fit to give him a second term. Then, three months into the second term, PKR (not Pakatan Rakyat) decided that he is a crook who should be removed. So they planned the Kajang Move and launched it a few months later in January 2014.

When did Khalid suddenly turn crook? In June 2013? In July 2013? In August 2013? Or was it in September 2013 when they planned the Kajang Move? It could not have been earlier because he was given a second term before that. What crooked deed did Khalid commit in June, July, or August 2013?

Assuming that Khalid did commit a crooked deed between June and August 2013, why did PKR cover it up? In February 2014, one month after the Kajang Move, people like DAP’s Tony Pua were still singing Khalid’s praises and said that he is extremely honest and hardworking. They boasted about how Selangor’s reserves had bloated to RM3 billion because of Khalid, a new Malaysian record unmatched by any other state in Malaysia since the beginning of time.

Only after the Kajang by-election and when Khalid refused to step down to make way for Dr Wan Azizah did they start revealing Khalid’s so-called transgressions. Why reveal it one year later? If Khalid must go because of these transgressions then Pakatan Rakyat must have known about them a year ago because it was a year ago when the Kajang Move was mooted.

Okay, say that Khalid immediately resigned the day after the Kajang by-election, would all this dirty linen regarding Khalid be made public? Or would it be if Khalid had resigned then all this dirty linen would have been hidden in the closet, to be revealed only if Khalid does not listen to Anwar?

Is this what we call transparency, accountability and good governance à la Pakatan Rakyat?

And where is SELCAT? Have they started investigations into Khalid’s misdeeds? And if not, why?

And is my logic still inconsistent?