Many people have been concerned with PM Najib’s refusal to answer a question when he was at the Selangor Club recently. Najib went there to give a talk where he made a moving speech about Selangor Club being the birthplace of Malaysia, his father’s role … yadda yadda yadda …

Alas, for poor Najib, at the end of the speech he was ambushed by someone who asked him whether he (Najib) would ensure a peaceful handover if Pakatan wins majority rule in the next general election. Najib just walked away.

Personally, I thought the question was highly politicized and rather impolite, given the occasion of Najib’s visit. Though we may want to see the downfall of the UMNO government, we normally don’t insult a guest of honour by telling him he’ll be a loser, and then to add insult to injury, ask him how he will receive the incoming government, wakakaka.

As Ecclesiastes 3:1 (KJV) tells us “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven“.

But of course Najib could have, with a smile, said “yes, because Malaysia is a democracy“, which would have quelled any subsequent concern. He didn’t.

Perhaps he was so outraged by the imprudent, impertinent and insolent question, given he was the guest of honour of the club, that he refused to entertain the question.

Or was he?

There have been suggestions that Najb’s subconscious (about what?) blockaded any answer from him, ironically implying Najib was being truthful (in refusing to make a diplomatic lie), wakakaka.

So, was Najib angry or truthful?

If the latter, then our grave concerns would be justified, especially if we remember that he had vowed to ‘defend’ Putrajaya to the ‘last stand’.

Shades of May 13, that sure as hell doesn’t sound reassuring for our peace of mind.

One of the fears that we have been harbouring since UMNO has been put on the back foot (of losing), has been the possibility of the losers resorting to undemocratic means. Their sinister motivation would be more of a compelling imperative to avoid legal prosecution rather than continue the looting.

The stories of post-WWII revenge killing of Japanese collaborators, in both Malaya and elsewhere, have been horrifying, and thus the consequences of revenge ‘legal’ prosecutions can be equally intimidatingly scarey to those guilty – the more guilty they are, the more they’ll be quaking in their Testoni’s and Berluti’s, the more they are likely to resort to whatever means to avoid prosecution.

And we need importantly to bear in mind that in the ‘losers’ camp’ will also be some senior members of the police, civil service, etc, and god forbid, the military. And wasn’t it Armed Forces chief General Zulkifeli Mohd Zin, who in August last year described four servicemen who confessed to marking thousands of postal votes in three separate general elections between 1978 and 1999 at army and air force bases across the country, as traitors for whistle-blowing (revealing all)?

Back in 1969, after May 13 Tun Razak considered imposing military rule, but he was advised by the Army Chief, General Hamid, not to do so because, in Hamid’s words, he (Razak) won’t be able to get back control of the land once the military was allowed to take over – such was the scrupulous and sterling apolitical quality and professionalism of our military senior officers in those days, when by lamentable contrast, the above mentioned Armed Forces chief had been disgracefully political and politicized.

But then, we have the abysmal example of the current Minister of Defence who has politicized the military through overt declaration of using the military against civil activities of the federal opposition – does that idiot know the roles of the army in peace time vis-à-vis internal/civilian affairs?

How we have allowed our civil and military servants to become so pathetic and unprofessional in their character, values and bahaviour!

But the above threat is only one of possible 3 confronting our nation. I wish to share my thoughts with you on the other two threats.

There has been an awakening of nationalism in Sabah and Sarawak that bodes no good for the continuing cohesion of Malaysia. Many are the people of the two Eastern States who are pissed off with Putrajaya for their treatment by a succession of patronizing and condescending PMs who viewed both States as only equal or even lesser to one of the 11 in Peninsula, when the constitutional fact of Malaysia has been one of a merger of Malaya (or the Peninsula), Sabah and Sarawak (and previously Singapore), and not of 14 states.

Thus, rightfully Sabah or Sarawak each should have status and the associated allocations & developments on at least a pro rata quantum to that for the entire Peninsula, but alas, these were not provided. Mind, Putrajaya has been concentrating most developments in its favourite Klang Valley, with some feeble efforts in recent times in the Johor Iskandar zone, so other Peninsula states especially those governed by Pakatan (Kelantan and Penang) have also been marginalised.