They have been not 'babies' usually guidance how to walk, as we have argued. Some of a tip leaders in a antithesis have been in governing body given a 1970s, a small given a 1960s. Hence they have been in governing body as great as leaders in a antithesis given prior to a small of we were even born. In fact, a small have been in governing body even prior to we was aged enough to vote. And we will be 62 this year, thoughts you.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
To be honest, Kuo Yong Kooi, we did not read your earlier dual letters published a month ago. However, given a title of your minute currently isPart 3 of debunking RPK, we had no choice though to read them so which we can reply to all 3 of them. And a usually reason we am responding is given a reader posted a criticism which said:Let's see what RPK will contend or if he cares to respond.
First of all, Kuo, we wish to speak about your choice of title,debunking RPK.Debunkmeans to expose, discredit, uncover up, deflate, demystify, run down, etc. Hence we take it which your minute is directed during running me down rsther than than reply to what we had pronounced in my articles. And, in a same spirit, which would meant we have been attacking me rsther than than what we said.
we would rsther than discuss and/or plead issues, ideologies, doctrines, events, assimilate of events, outcome of events, as great as whatnot. Then we would substantially be means to come in in to an egghead discourse. However, when we have been merely perplexing to defend an attack upon your person, it becomes really formidable to rivet in a suggestive discourse. And this is given we am anticipating it really formidable to reply to your ! 3 letter s. we usually do not know where to start.
Nevertheless, we will try. However, given your arguments, if we can even call them that, have been all over a place, as great as many of your arguments have been basically analogies as great as in a small tools allegorical, we might not be means to do as great a pursuit as we would similar to to do. So bear with me as we take we by a points as great as try, as many appropriate we can, to reply to what we pronounced though starting as great distant in to digression.
we impute to your initial letter:MT Simplified. we read by which minute twice as great as could find anything to reply to. To be honest, we could not even follow your arguments as great as we suppose a initial thing we need to do prior to we reply is to assimilate what is being presented.
Anyway, we went in to great item about a result of shopping a car. Maybe we should afterwards speak about which as well, a result of shopping a car. And my result would go as follows:
When they sole we a car, they claimed which we would be means to get a fuel consumption of 60 miles to a gallon main highway driving, they would give we 3 years giveaway use up to 60,000 miles, engine oil included, 0 interest finance charges up to 5 years upon a maximum 80% loan, giveaway highway tax up to 3 years, as great as so on, similar to how a small cars have been being sole here in a UK. So we pointer upon a dotted line as great as expostulate away after profitable a homogeneous of RM25,000 down-payment upon a automobile which costs a homogeneous of RM130,000. (You can buy a brand new BMW 3 Series for which cost in a UK).
A few months later, we find all sorts of things wrong with a car. You move it behind to a play as great as have been given a check for RM1,200. When we protest, they discuss it we which not everything is covered by a guaranty as they had initial told you. You additionally indicate out which we have been removing usual! ly 48 mi les to a gallon as great as not 60 as claimed. They discuss it we which this is given of your driving habit as great as to illustrate is your fault, not a car's fault. You additionally discover which a giveaway highway tax relates usually if we buy insurance from them. But they assign we RM6,000 a year for a insurance whereas we can get it for RM4,000 if we buy a insurance elsewhere. Hence, a giveaway highway tax does not essentially work out giveaway in a end. And so on.
Now, regulating your same result of shopping a car, would we not feel cheated? And requesting this result to choosing by casting votes for a domestic party which we thought would broach all a promises, as we have done, would we not feel which a 'salesman' had cheated you?
But afterwards in a UK this can never happen. Everything would have to be scrupulously declared as great as someone would even 'interview' we prior to we pointer upon a dotted line to ask we either we assimilate all these conditions as great as conditions as great as either we have been happy with them. The minute conditions as great as conditions would additionally be explained to we one-by-one. And if they told we something opposite from what is, afterwards they would have to reinstate we your money. Yes, your consumer rights have been really great stable here in a UK, distinct in Malaysia.
In conclusion, your result of shopping a automobile is flawed, although which type of result can be used if we want.
On your second letter,Letter to RPK, we consider a usually partial which makes sense as great as which we could substantially reply to would be:Please note which this does not meant which a antithesis cannot be criticized, it's usually a timing of it. It is roughly similar to we have a baby as great as a baby has usually started to sense to walk, we have been a small bit excited about it, though we wish a baby to begin to lift a bag so which a baby can begin to shoulder responsibil! ities. C hill out Mr RPK, usually enjoy examination a baby run around first, sense a baby morality as great as responsibility lessons when they begin to talk.
That appears to be a usually indicate we have been perplexing to put across. The rest appears to be justifying a view which all might not be undiluted though afterwards where we would find perfection? Not even in a west have been things perfect. Hence, in in between bad as great as worse, bad is improved than worse. So do not design good.
we certitude we have not misunderstood what we meant because, to be honest, it is quite formidable to follow your arguments.
Anyway, regulating your same result of a baby needing to crawl prior to it can travel or even run, again, we consider this evidence is flawed. You have been working upon a premise which a antithesis leaders have been all greenhorns. Hence they need to be given time to sense a ropes prior to we take them to charge for their shortcomings. But which is usually it. They have been not greenhorns. In fact, they have been really experienced as great as grown politicians. In fact, a small of a antithesis leaders have even some-more knowledge than a supervision leaders. Hence, your evidence is a fallacy as great as to illustrate flawed.
They have been not 'babies' usually guidance how to walk, as we have argued. Some of a tip leaders in a antithesis have been in governing body given a 1970s, a small given a 1960s. Hence they have been in governing body as great as leaders in a antithesis given prior to a small of we were even born. In fact, a small have been in governing body even prior to we was aged enough to vote. And we will be 62 this year, thoughts you.
Anwar Ibrahim has been in governing body given a 1970s as great as a Cabinet Minister given a 1980s. He was additionally Finance Minister as great as a Deputy Prime Minister cum Prime Minister-in-waiting for seven years. Hadi Awang was once a Opposition Leader in Parliament as gre! at as Me nteri Besar (Chief Minister) of Terengganu for 5 years as great as a statesman given a 1970s. Mustafa Ali has been a statesman given a 1960s as great as a member of a Cabinet when PAS joined Barisan Nasional in a 1970s. And so upon for people such as Niz Aziz Nik Mat, Lim Kt Siang, Karpal Singh, as great as a rest.
Hence your result as great as your evidence which a baby contingency be authorised to initial sense how to travel have been not really apt. These have been not babies which we have been articulate about. These have been grandfathers. And these grandfathers have been upon foot given a 1960s as great as 1970s, even prior to many of we were born.
Anyway, when they campaigned for a votes, they betrothed us which if we were to opinion for them we would be guaranteed a improved government. They went in to great item about a shortcomings of a benefaction supervision as great as how all which would shift if we altered a government. This is what they said. we am usually reminding them about what they pronounced as great as what they betrothed us. And we am reminding them which they have not delivered upon what they promised.
If during a choosing discuss they had explained which they have been all small babies as great as will initial need to sense how to travel prior to we can design them to run -- again, regulating your result -- afterwards we would accept your result as great as evidence which we might be awaiting as great many as great fast. Then we would determine which we should lay behind as great as relax for 5 or ten years as great as concede time for a antithesis leaders to get a reason upon things. Whether time is upon a side as great as either Malaysia can means to 'mark time' whilst a rest of a universe moves forward during fast speed is an additional have a difference altogether. But if which was what was asked from us prior to we voted for them afterwards we would have no choice though to lay behind as great as relax for 5 or ten year! s even i f it kills me, figure of speech, of course.
But which was not what we were told. They really quietly told us everything which was wrong with a benefaction supervision as great as what improvements we can design if we kick out which government. They did not discuss it us which 5 years or ten years after we shift a supervision afterwards we would see change. They usually told us which if we shift a supervision we would be guaranteed of change.
Using your same argument, Najib Tun Razak has hardly served a single term as Prime Minister. He has been Prime Minister for less time than, say, Khalid Ibrahim has been a Menteri Besar of Selangor. Hence, given Khalid should be authorised time to sense how to walk, should Najib not additionally be authorised a same given Khalid has been a Selangor MB longer than Najib has been a PM?
Okay, right away let us speak about a third minute today:Freedom though knowledge - Part 3 of debunking RPK.
Again, as in a initial dual letters, we speak a lot though contend nothing. This is what 'good' governing body is all about: being means to speak a lot as great as nonetheless contend nothing. Nevertheless, there have been a small tools which we could substantially reply to.
Again, we have played with analogies in this minute as well. For example, we said:Malaysia's stream domestic meridian is similar to having a large brag in a schoolyard for a long time. You have taken a charge to train a small child which is being bullied. You have to be patient as great as kind to a small kid. Every time a small child makes a mistake, we bash him up for his mistake given we design a aloft standard. How afterwards do we design this small child to mount up to a large bully?
we have already replied to 'the baby needs time to learn' so we need not repeat what we have already said. My usually criticism is which many in a antithesis were essentially those 'big bullies' which we imput! e to, be hind in a days when they were in a government. In a 1980s as great as 1990s, they were a 'big bullies' which we have been articulate about. Today, we revoke these one-time 'big bullies' to 'small kids' being bullied by large bullies.
What do we design me to contend about that? How do we reply to a scenario of a hunter right away being a wanted as great as becoming victims of a really diversion which they played when they were in a position of power? For example, issues similar to bribing a voters, phantom voters, illegal immigrants being given citizenship in exchange for votes, as great as so on, were games played by a really people who have been right away a victims. And what about a sub-standard education system, BTN, a problems with a judiciary, a problems with a police, as great as whatnot?
Are not all these problems hereditary from a 1980s? And is it not so which many who have been right away in a antithesis were in a supervision in a 1980s? And have been we not welcoming even some-more of these ex-government leaders in to a antithesis as great as giving them hero status? And is a antithesis not starting to give them seats to competition in a coming general election?
When antithesis people leave a antithesis to stick upon a government, we call them frogs, traitors as great as turncoats. When supervision people leave a supervision to stick upon a opposition, we call them heroes, patriots as great as true sons/daughters of Malaysia. This is a attitude of many Muslims as well. Those Muslims who leave Islam have been called apostates (murtad) who should be killed. Those infidels (kafir) who embrace Islam have been called 'saudara baru' (new relatives) who should be given Bumiputera status.
How many sympathy can we design for ex-Nazis who protest about being wanted down by a same Jews whom they once victimised? That would be my result in reply to your analogy.
You would substantially disagree which these people have repented as great a! s to ill ustrate should be forgiven. Forgiven is a single thing. Forget is another. We can pardon though which does not meant we should additionally forget. We can pardon Germany for a WW2 atrocities as great as for what they did to a Jews. But which does not meant we should dont think about what they did as well.
Thieves might repent. But how sincere is this plea if these thieves exclude to give behind what they stole? Should we tighten a eyes to thieves who have repented though go upon to steal? Repentance comes with conditions attached. And so does forgiveness. But forget? Never! Many Chinese have forgiven 'May 13' though which does meant they have lost it as well. But would we design a Chinese to pardon 'May 13' if we go upon to bluster them with 'May 13 Version 2'?
Most of a benefaction Umno leaders had zero to do with 'May 13' in 1969. Most of those guilty of 'May 13' have already died. So given get indignant with Umno? Many Umno leaders were not even Umno members in 1969. But many of we have been still indignant with Umno when we speak about 'May 13'. So be clever with what we argue. The blade can cut dual ways.
Now, per a rest of your letter, we am not means to follow your arguments so we find it really formidable to respond. No doubt we did discuss my articles, though we did not reply to my arguments in those articles. Instead, we talked about me rsther than than about what we said. You additionally sounded really many similar to an apologist by arguing which given we cannot have a many appropriate afterwards we should solve for a second best. Maybe if we concentration upon a issues we raised rsther than than go all over a place we could substantially rivet in a improved debate.
For example, we said:Episode 27 is usually a "Bolehwood" play which got everyone interested.You did not, however, speak about a RM1.5 billion EPF money or a 7,000 houses which Raja Nong Chik is starting to discharge as great as a stroke to Nurul Izzah Anwa! r. In fa ct, we sidestepped this issue. As we said, we talked a lot though pronounced nothing. You speak about guns in America, women's magazines, computer games, smoking,lepak, gambling, fishing, as great as whatnot. The emanate is: can Nurul Izzah reason her chair in a next election? So what has what we pronounced got to do with what we said?
Let me be really blunt. If this were your thesis, we would never get a flitting mark. You have not argued your case great during all. In fact, your supposed arguments have been really muddled as great as there is no smoothness in in between a single evidence as great as another.
You done a anxiety to my article:Prostitutes some-more decent than politicians.However, whilst we done a anxiety to it, we did not reply to my arguments. So given impute to it?
Now, what was my indicate in which article? My indicate is which a Islamic State emanate has been used for domestic purposes. Umno is perplexing to surpass PAS in a 'Islam race'. Umno as great as PAS have been both perplexing to uncover which 'I am some-more Islamic than you'. Hence Islam is a apparatus of a politicians. But we all sidestepped this indicate as great as talked about so many other things.
You additionally done a anxiety to my article:After a horse has bolted.This article is about how we have a tendency to strike those who no longer await us though cover up their misdeeds when they await us. Again, we did not reply to which though went upon to speak about many other things.
When people who have been with us have a mistake, we disagree which we contingency give a baby a possibility to sense how to travel as great as not criticise them usually yet. But when they leave us, we call them all sorts of tainted names as great as reject them. Then we display their misdeeds which was perpetuated when they were with us though which we covered up given they were with us. Now, given they have been not with us any longer, we disp! lay thei r aged misdeeds. Are we not additionally guilty of this?
The sense we have been perplexing to create is which we have been responding to my arguments or my assorted articles. The being is we have not responded to whatever we have argued as great as instead we have been articulate all over a place, disjointed as great as with no anxiety during all to what we said.
In closing, let me contend which your 3 letters have been published inMalaysia Todayin spite of them being vicious of me. we have not called we all sorts of tainted names or cursed we or refused to tell your many vicious letters. That is something we will not find anywhere else. When we criticise both supervision as great as antithesis leaders we am cursed. The same antithesis supporters who curse a supervision for not allowing freedom of debate will not concede me a same freedom of speech.
Do we really need to contend more?
Read More @ Source More Barisan Nasional (BN) | Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |
Courtesy of Bonology.com Politically Incorrect Buzz & Buzz
No comments:
Post a Comment