For those who have been/are adamant about putting Anwar Ibrahim on the hot seat in Putrajaya, with whatever it takes including 'taking to the streets' and storming the Bastille, is not reformasi but deformasi, a movement to benefit one particular person rather than the rakyat. ABU would then be considered as a cultist movement rather than one for democracy, freedom of expression and human rights.
This morning, I read RPK’s two posts, Who the fuck are you to tell me what to do and Imagine.
Needless to say, the former ruffled a few Chinese feathers when RPK wrote:
I can see that many Chinese are prepared to accept the slight corruption and slight everything else in the interest of kicking out a Malay government. This sounds like this is not about eradicating corruption but about kicking out the Malays. From where I am sitting this sounds like it is about Ketuanan Cina versus Ketuanan Melayu.
Yeah, sure, the Chinese are practical and realistic people, not like the Malays who are emotional. The Chinese can accept slight corruption as long as Umno is kicked out. Just make sure the money is in a red and not white envelope.
Do you know that another word for realism is hypocrisy?
Wakakaka. It’s in the same vein as his description in an earlier post of those aged Chinese as ‘prostitutes’ who collected the white-pows from Ibrahim Ali.
Some outraged Chinese would argue ‘realism’ is not ‘hypocrisy’ but ‘pragmatism’.
In RPK’s context, ‘realism’ means ‘the tendency to view or represent things as they really are’.
‘Hypocrisy’, on the other hand, means ‘a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess’.
Thus RPK has been incorrect in equating the two words. However, my ‘pragmatism’ is most appropriate because it means ‘action or policy dictated by consideration of the immediate practical consequences rather than by theory or dogma’.
And I doubt even the most angry Chinese Malaysians would argue against my choice (of word) as Chinese minorities in SE Asia, whether in Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines etc, have been known to be 'pragmatic', principally as a requisite for survival among the majority (and enviously resentful) natives.
But all the above are mere semantics, though I would say Peter’s suggestion of ‘Ketuanan Cina versus Ketuanan Melayu’ is way over the top.
But as usual RPK is deliberately provocative if not anything. He likes to tease, instigate and of course provoke to make a point. But what is his point?
IMHO, it’s exactly the same as what blogger steadyaku47 has urged in his post ABU : I will listen to you. Will you listen to me?
Relevant extracts are as follows:
Because we have endured so many abuses by this corrupt BN government many of you have come to the conclusion that we must have change at any costs. Change this bloody BN government first because anything will be better then a BN government. You are all confident that once change has been effected you will ensure that whoever is in government will do as you want them to do – govern this country in a responsible and accountable manner. Let me remind you of the reality.
We elected this BN government into power. We allowed them to be in power for 53 years. And it is only at this 13th general election that we are hoping to change them? Change them with what?
Who amongst you can tell me that you can tell any Prime Minister of this country how to govern this country?
That is the reality. [...]
Do you understand that once these bastards are in power you are of no significance to them until the next general election? And before the next general election comes there will be enough time for them to do what they will to ensure that they have their way with us. And who will stand in their way to stop them from doing this? Petra? Bersih? Steadyaku47? The Third Force? Mahasiswa? HUH! [...]
This is why we need to start without any compromises because once we are prepared to accept a less then perfect leader then we are telling him that we will accept a less then perfect government. And where will that lead us to? [...]
I am not convinced that we should accept second best to give ABU a better chance to succeed. It will be an insult to the intelligence of those that support ABU to think that they will accept flawed leaders – because is that not the very reasons they want UMNO out? I cannot agree that if I support ABU then I must accept it warts and all.
Now what do we have to do to make ABU a reality? To start with let us recognize the elephant that is in the room – Anwar Ibrahim. I have put in my two cents worth on this guy. I have worked for over two years on my blog in support of this guy....until, like so many others, I became another one of those who now know him for what he really is! And I said enough is enough. He is not fit to be our PM!
I do it not with the intentions of giving UMNO an advantage over what we want to do.
Not with the intentions of weakening your resolve to make ABU a reality.
I do so with the intention of what I think is the right thing to do. And that is to start our ABU campaign in the right manner, with the right leaders and for the right reasons. If what I do makes ABU falters –then let it falter for the right reason – and that is to rid our ABU campaign of anything that could later harm it.
As I read it, RPK’s two posts (mentioned at beginning) are basically driving at the same point, Chinese hypocrisy notwithstanding wakakaka, that we must not compromise on standards, especially that for a Pakatan PM-in-waiting. If we do, then we would not be far off from changing one UMNO for another UMNO.
So, for those who have been/are adamant about putting Anwar Ibrahim on the hot seat in Putrajaya, with whatever it takes including 'taking to the streets' and storming the Bastille, let me say what RPK and steakyaku47 have more or less said, your intention (you may not realize it) is not reformasi but deformasi, a movement to benefit one particular person rather than the rakyat.
In other words, ABU would then be considered as a cultist movement rather than one for democracy, freedom of expression and human rights.
Needless to say, the former ruffled a few Chinese feathers when RPK wrote:
I can see that many Chinese are prepared to accept the slight corruption and slight everything else in the interest of kicking out a Malay government. This sounds like this is not about eradicating corruption but about kicking out the Malays. From where I am sitting this sounds like it is about Ketuanan Cina versus Ketuanan Melayu.
Yeah, sure, the Chinese are practical and realistic people, not like the Malays who are emotional. The Chinese can accept slight corruption as long as Umno is kicked out. Just make sure the money is in a red and not white envelope.
Do you know that another word for realism is hypocrisy?
Wakakaka. It’s in the same vein as his description in an earlier post of those aged Chinese as ‘prostitutes’ who collected the white-pows from Ibrahim Ali.
Some outraged Chinese would argue ‘realism’ is not ‘hypocrisy’ but ‘pragmatism’.
In RPK’s context, ‘realism’ means ‘the tendency to view or represent things as they really are’.
‘Hypocrisy’, on the other hand, means ‘a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess’.
Thus RPK has been incorrect in equating the two words. However, my ‘pragmatism’ is most appropriate because it means ‘action or policy dictated by consideration of the immediate practical consequences rather than by theory or dogma’.
And I doubt even the most angry Chinese Malaysians would argue against my choice (of word) as Chinese minorities in SE Asia, whether in Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines etc, have been known to be 'pragmatic', principally as a requisite for survival among the majority (and enviously resentful) natives.
But all the above are mere semantics, though I would say Peter’s suggestion of ‘Ketuanan Cina versus Ketuanan Melayu’ is way over the top.
But as usual RPK is deliberately provocative if not anything. He likes to tease, instigate and of course provoke to make a point. But what is his point?
IMHO, it’s exactly the same as what blogger steadyaku47 has urged in his post ABU : I will listen to you. Will you listen to me?
Relevant extracts are as follows:
Because we have endured so many abuses by this corrupt BN government many of you have come to the conclusion that we must have change at any costs. Change this bloody BN government first because anything will be better then a BN government. You are all confident that once change has been effected you will ensure that whoever is in government will do as you want them to do – govern this country in a responsible and accountable manner. Let me remind you of the reality.
We elected this BN government into power. We allowed them to be in power for 53 years. And it is only at this 13th general election that we are hoping to change them? Change them with what?
Who amongst you can tell me that you can tell any Prime Minister of this country how to govern this country?
That is the reality. [...]
Do you understand that once these bastards are in power you are of no significance to them until the next general election? And before the next general election comes there will be enough time for them to do what they will to ensure that they have their way with us. And who will stand in their way to stop them from doing this? Petra? Bersih? Steadyaku47? The Third Force? Mahasiswa? HUH! [...]
This is why we need to start without any compromises because once we are prepared to accept a less then perfect leader then we are telling him that we will accept a less then perfect government. And where will that lead us to? [...]
I am not convinced that we should accept second best to give ABU a better chance to succeed. It will be an insult to the intelligence of those that support ABU to think that they will accept flawed leaders – because is that not the very reasons they want UMNO out? I cannot agree that if I support ABU then I must accept it warts and all.
Now what do we have to do to make ABU a reality? To start with let us recognize the elephant that is in the room – Anwar Ibrahim. I have put in my two cents worth on this guy. I have worked for over two years on my blog in support of this guy....until, like so many others, I became another one of those who now know him for what he really is! And I said enough is enough. He is not fit to be our PM!
I do it not with the intentions of giving UMNO an advantage over what we want to do.
Not with the intentions of weakening your resolve to make ABU a reality.
I do so with the intention of what I think is the right thing to do. And that is to start our ABU campaign in the right manner, with the right leaders and for the right reasons. If what I do makes ABU falters –then let it falter for the right reason – and that is to rid our ABU campaign of anything that could later harm it.
As I read it, RPK’s two posts (mentioned at beginning) are basically driving at the same point, Chinese hypocrisy notwithstanding wakakaka, that we must not compromise on standards, especially that for a Pakatan PM-in-waiting. If we do, then we would not be far off from changing one UMNO for another UMNO.
So, for those who have been/are adamant about putting Anwar Ibrahim on the hot seat in Putrajaya, with whatever it takes including 'taking to the streets' and storming the Bastille, let me say what RPK and steakyaku47 have more or less said, your intention (you may not realize it) is not reformasi but deformasi, a movement to benefit one particular person rather than the rakyat.
In other words, ABU would then be considered as a cultist movement rather than one for democracy, freedom of expression and human rights.
Read more at: http://ktemoc.blogspot.com/2012/02/elephant-in-abu.html
