what size will fit you then my Lady V?
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
UNITY GOVT A BETRAYAL ALL AROUND
 |  |  |
| Tuesday, 23 June 2009 10:49 | |
The much-hyped, but now abandoned, unity-government concept, first touted by PAS President Datuk Seri Hadi Awang in March, and welcomed by all and sundry within Umno is a betrayal. From Pakatan Rakyat's perspective, it is a betrayal of voters’ trust. Malays who voted for PAS did so because they preferred it over Umno. Non-Malays who voted for PAS didn’t do so because they wanted PAS but because they rejected Umno. In either case, PAS teaming up with Umno is the last thing these Malay and non-Malay voters want. By pushing for unity-government talks, the faction headed by PAS Deputy President Nasharuddin Mat Isa, is betraying PAS’ coalition partners DAP and PKR, which consider Umno the enemy (as do most of PAS' grassroots). Lastly, this faction is betraying PAS itself, which campaigned on a platform of a “welfare state”, with justness for everybody, not just Malays or Muslims. What else could you call a PAS-Umno unity government but a race- exclusive government? Those who are under the illusion that the unity talks could be aimed at setting up a national unity government involving all parties (including DAP and PKR together with MCA, MIC, Gerakan and a host of East Malaysian parties), should look back at what happened right after the March 8, 2008 general election. Just days after the election, then-prime minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi held secret (now, not so secret anymore) unity talks – three such meetings were held according to Abdullah – with a PAS delegation that included Nasharuddin and the current Secretary-General Mustafa Ali. The idea was for Selangor to be ruled by a new coalition between Umno and PAS. According to PAS MP Khalid Samad, who was present at the first meeting, former Selangor Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Khir Toyo was willing to become deputy MB and accept Selangor PAS Commissioner Hassan Ali as MB. Khalid told Singapore's Straits Times last July that during the meeting, the Umno side played up the racial issue, voicing concerns over DAP coming to power and the possible erosion of Malay rights and power. Straits Times reported that other PAS insiders said Umno wanted PAS to cooperate with it in the states ruled by the Islamic party, like Kelantan, Kedah and Perak, and sideline its partners in Pakatan Rakyat. In return, PAS was promised that it would be able to dictate certain terms, such as its choice of MB. This is the kind of "unity talks" we are talking about. So, if certain factions within PAS were to push on with such unity talks, their actions would be nothing less than a betrayal of voters (both Malay and non-Malay), of its coalition partners, and of the Islamic party itself. And what of the Umno side, with so many of its leaders jumping on the unity-talks bandwagon? Umno President and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak got the ball rolling by welcoming such talks. Despite initially being wary and lukewarm about such talks, Umno Deputy President and Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin very quickly changed tack and infamously stated, “We will not impose any conditions and we accept whatever terms set by PAS. As far as I'm concerned, we have to be open.” Such openness, apparently does not extend to PR component parties DAP and PKR. Deputy International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir made it clear that both those parties were not welcome to the talks. He even rationalised the need for Malay-unity talks on the grounds that Najib’s 1Malaysia concept hinged on it. “If they are not united, how are we going to realise the 1Malaysia concept?” he said. “This will be detrimental not only to the Malays but also to other races.” Going by his warped logic, Mukhriz should support a gathering that involves DAP, PKR, MCA, Gerakan, MIC and East Malaysian parties but excluding PAS and Umno. The purpose of such talks? Non-Malay unity, for the sake of achieving 1Malaysia. You can imagine the ridicule that proposal would draw. Umno leaders who harp on Malay-unity talks are not only betraying the 1Malaysia concept but their partners in Barisan Nasional, whom they know only too well, are now so weak that they can’t say a word against the notion of being sidelined by Umno in favour of PAS. Their unwillingness to object to Malay-unity talks is a betrayal to the very constituency they are supposed to represent. Not a word on this matter has been heard from Gerakan President Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon who is the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department for National Unity. Note t hat it's "National Unity" not "Malay Unity". Datuk Seri Samy Vellu offered the lame proposal of Indian unity talks between MIC and various Indian parties and non-governmental organisations. Of course talking to DAP and PKR – both of which have elected Indian representatives at the state and federal level – is not on the cards. But, MCA President Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat takes the cake by offering a red herring that would be laughable if it was not so weak: “We also want to know, through a dialogue, how far the DAP is committed to informing the people of its relationship with PAS. Whether the relationship is cordial or not.” I’m sure there are many Chinese people who would like to know, through a dialogue, how far MCA is committed to informing the people of its relationship with Umno. Whether it’s one of subservience or not. Malaysians may not have yet reached a stage where we can say we are colour blind, but the politicians who are pushing for, or tolerating, the so-called unity talks, must be blind, deaf and dumb if they think the voting public can so easily have wool pulled over their eyes. Unity talks – which is just euphemism for race-based collusion – is a betrayal all around. |
i am changing me hee hee
| WHY MALAYSIA IS NOT MOVING FORWARD? | | | |
| Tuesday, 23 June 2009 09:45 | |
By Lance Wong Like many other guys would do, we went to ‘yamcha’ (have tea) and chat from the earth to the sky. Then of course, we talked about Malaysia’s development and started comparing ourselves with South Korea and Taiwan, the countries with the same development potential in the 90s. I said, we can’t compare ourselves with those countries because Taiwan and S.Korea don’t have issues like racial problems, unfair treatment, favoritism policies and so on. Though I’ve given numerous reasons why Malaysia is lacking behind, my friend said: “Yes, these are existing problems that we should look into and put an end to it if possible; but these are not the excuses why Malaysia is lacking behind.”
that they have not been given equal opportunities in this and that. The point is, I can see that those who have ‘average’ qualities tend to focus on resentment rather than improvement. But those who are really ‘capable’ tend to serve other countries rather than in Malaysia because they feel ‘more appreciated’. Please stop sighing and use your talents to contribute to our dear Malaysia. Apart from the brain drain I mentioned, the main issue is Malaysians have lost the focus of what is important - changing ourselves. And we have a bunch of ‘holier than thou’ bloggers and commentators who know nothing except how to bash the government without seeing themselves as the ones who bribe cops and resent unproductively or just not give constructive suggestions. I’m not trying to show that I’m better than the rest of you but trying to bring a message that we all can learn together, so that we can do something good for the country. Remember, we’re not moving just because we’re not moving … including me. Finally, I’d like to end this with a story (unknown source): First, I wanted to change the world;
my country;
my family’s change;
Change start from ourselves, including me... and you! http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/23489/84/ |
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
IF you don't get it, tough
Monday, June 15, 2009
Some people just don't get it!
I was amused by the commentators on RPK's latest blog posting on his No Holds Barred column.
My my... RPK sure knows how to write and my my.... so many just don't get the picture. Sigh.... now I understand why RPK is just so fed up with the readers and commentators in Malaysia Today. RPK's writings are way toooooooooo advance for most readers' comprehension. These people just don't get it. Do they bother to read the whole article or do they just selectively read them and make quick conclusions without even bothering to understand the whole article is all about.
So what kinda Malaysians do we have out there? Judging by the flaming that Simon Templar went thru on one of his recent postings and the comments on RPK's latest article, I would say that a good number of readers of MT don't know (borrowing from Simon) jack sh*t about anything and would just go ballistic over some article that challenges their political point of view or if an article is written to have double meanings. Too deep for them ler.
Finding it too hard for you to comprehend this post of mine? Frakin' sorry for you. Why don't you just watch ASTRO channel 613 and perhaps you can learn somthing from there. Duh!
My my... RPK sure knows how to write and my my.... so many just don't get the picture. Sigh.... now I understand why RPK is just so fed up with the readers and commentators in Malaysia Today. RPK's writings are way toooooooooo advance for most readers' comprehension. These people just don't get it. Do they bother to read the whole article or do they just selectively read them and make quick conclusions without even bothering to understand the whole article is all about.
So what kinda Malaysians do we have out there? Judging by the flaming that Simon Templar went thru on one of his recent postings and the comments on RPK's latest article, I would say that a good number of readers of MT don't know (borrowing from Simon) jack sh*t about anything and would just go ballistic over some article that challenges their political point of view or if an article is written to have double meanings. Too deep for them ler.
Finding it too hard for you to comprehend this post of mine? Frakin' sorry for you. Why don't you just watch ASTRO channel 613 and perhaps you can learn somthing from there. Duh!
4 comments:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Maniac,
I have to disagree with you on this one. RPK's main line of argument seems to concentrate on the "user" and the "usee", the former being the guilty party, and the latter being innocent as he was deemed to have been used.
If this was the case then all the concentration camp commanders who killed all the Jews during WW2 are innocent because they were ultimately following orders from Hitler. The International Criminal Court does not buy into this line of argument. Many concentration camp commanders have been tried and incarcerated for their involvement in this heinous crime.
Another example...if I asked a hitman to kill someone, both the hitman and I would be tried and sentenced if we were to get caught. There is no get out of jail card for the hitman if he pulled an RPK and said he was the "usee".
On this basis, Chin Peng should be let into Malaysia if his lieutenants were accorded that privilege. If Chin Peng is still deemed to be ineligible for entry into Boleh-land, then we should expel his lieutenants too. No double standards here.
Gooster: You are spot on actually. I'm not disagreeing with you on your intepretation of the article. My post was mainly pointing out the inability of most MT readers who are unable to comprehend that article. Just read the 100++ comments there and decide for yourself. :P
i actually think that this article by rpk was badly written. honestly, i haven't got a clue if he was being sarcastic or really agaianst chin peng being allowed back.
but generally, i agree with maniac that the people who comment on MT don't understand most of articles posted that.
ST,
Well done - you honestly haven't a clue about the RPK article and, in the same breath, you diss the MT commentators saying that "the ppl who comment on MT don't understand (sic) most of the articles posted there".
Can't blame you - RPK has a serious dark sense of humour.
Next time, I humbly suggest, you read his articles with a 2-sided mind set (winner/loser).
What he always wish to put across is when you are the "usee" there are very few choices. Actually none. You are between the devil n deep blue sea. You are damned either way.
For example, the International Court will not buy the sniper's/commandant's line. They are the victors - you are the loser, you pay.
Back to the Chin Peng case (or any other case). When you are the master/victor, and you want it so, it will be so.
Bottom line: to the victor, the spoils, and what ever judgement they wish to mete out. On the other hand when you have been defeated, no matter what reasoning(s) you present... sarcastic, roundabout, direct... quite useless.
RPK does not want you to think bring CP back or not. He presents the case, and wants you to think: do you think it's fair/unfair to bring him back?
You think, you choose. He's not shoving the support/non-support down your throat.