In response to Salas Santino's letter

"Oh, you were finished! Well, allow me to retort."- Jules (Pulp Fiction)

First off we would similar to to thank Salas Santino, a bard of 'Is 2013 break time for BN or Pakatan?', for taking a time to respond to my square 'Umno's final tango before a reckoning'.

However, Santino is operating under a couple of inadequate assumptions which we hope to scold in this response.

we apologize in advance for a length of this reply though we wish to be thorough given this is a choosing season as well as as someone whose essay is pro-opposition, we wish to state my positions clearly as well as unambiguously.

The bard starts by not "faulting" me for "biasness" each time we write forMalaysiakinibut does not insist what this "biasness" is.

For my part, it is not which my biasness have been "exposed" in my columns though rsther than we have spoken my await of a oppositional forces in this nation as well as specifically Pakatan Rakyat in numerous pieces which have appeared inMalaysiakini. A cursory celebration of a mass of any of my articles would have confirmed this.

From what we managed to interpret of a letter, there have been 4 vital points of contention which a bard has of my square (or rsther than me).

The initial is my characterisation of this upcoming ubiquitous election. The second, my "elitist" position as far as governing body is concerned.

The third, my stance upon a two-coalition model as well as a fourth point, a strong contradiction in my criticisms of Pakatan as well as BN as well as my thought in a two-coalition paradigm.

Apparently, to! a bard my "confusion writ large" is my contention which this coming choosing is a "grudge match" in between Pakatan as well as BN.

Santino offers two assumptions of his own (coloured no disbelief by his own biasness) as to why this characterisation is wrong.

The initial is which this coming choosing would be Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim's final shot during a head job in Putrajaya as well as a second, which this choosing is for a "soul of Malaysia" which a bard afterwards goes upon to strut with "well-rehearsed points which have prolonged borne a realities of ? la mode as well as even historical Malaysian politics" in transgression of his own rejoinder to me.

As for a first, what creates a bard consider which this is Anwar's final shot during a title? Anwar has made many claims as well as left during a back of upon them.

Going by Anwar's history, we consider it would be safe to assume which this might or might not be his final try during a throne in Putrajaya as well as his protestations of a former might be only domestic spin.

Furthermore, if many others as well as we assume it is a hate match, it is an arrogance which has during slightest a little credibility given a guts of Pakatan comprises Umno outlaws as well as malcontents who for whatever reasons have joined Pakatan as a possible re-entry indicate into a corridors of power.

Let us not forget which Anwar himself upon assorted occasions has stated which his "retribution" would be opposing those energy players in Umno as well as not a regular members.

In this context, we do not consider it is misleading to characterise this choosing as a hate compare as well as this is not taking into account a punish fantasies of partisans who during any chance they get in a alternative media puke o! ut their desires for retribution opposing a complement of administration which has wronged them.

People (who a bard likes to remind us) have been a car of change, so we see no complaint in lumping them in with domestic parties of their choice.

I see no complaint with this outline since governing body is an endeavour fuelled by assorted human motivations as well as as always, it is up to us (the people), to guard a corridors of energy as well as see to it which a voices have been heard upon top of a din of backroom dealing.

Populist policies

As for a whole "soul of Malaysia" showdown, this is arrogant narrow-minded posturing which unfortunately is a rallying cry of both coalitions in this country.

It would be a credible tender if a polices of both were utterly different, which of course they have been not.

However, a real complaint with this "soul" arrogance from my side of a domestic order is which it furthers a account which Umno as well as BN have been though await as well as a whole of Malaysia is during a back of Pakatan, thereby shortening BN supporters as "ignoramuses" who would be improved off under a Pakatan administration with all a flaws a bard himself acknowledges.

In addition, as far as swinging a worthless "ringgit", is a bard wakeful which Pakatan is you do a same thing with all a populist policies of free education, subsidised fuel as well as (sic) affordable housing?

I have no thought where a bard gets a thought which we am "ever so prone to situate governing body during a chosen level, roughly as if typical Malaysians would be inexperienced by all a politics."

If anything in a comments section of my pieces, we am vilified as being as well "idealistic" which we take to meant placing principle over domestic expediency.

Again, a cursory celebration of a mass of any of my articles would confirm my vox populi stance. If a bard had worried to do a little research, he would have detected my await for grassroots turn movements similar to Hindraf, PSM, my criticisms of a Umno complement of patronage, a MCA as well as solemnly (emerging DAP) plutocracy, a crass conservative governing body of urban middle-class voters, a stroke of Islam upon a average Muslim (my contempt for a apart though next to Pakatan mount with regards to hudud is well documented), not to mention a holiest of holies, my no-holds-barred (some would argue, reckless) criticisms of a Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM), etc. points to a expect opposing of a writer's contention.

If anything in most of my articles, we have been raging opposing a "elitism" in governing body as well as a predicament of a disenfranchised that, domestic elites make use of as talking points in their domestic campaigns, a rsther than hapless being of democracy.

The bard than goes into a prolonged wind about my welfare for a two-coalition model central to which is his fear of a state of "third world democracies".

The bard does not conclude what he means by "functional democracy" as well as his rejection of supposed "third world" democracies similar to India as well as Indonesia, is puzzling given he conjunction gives reasons why they have been dysfunctional nor does he elaborate upon how "substantial changes" in South Africa as well as Fiji, does not fairly simulate a will of a people.

To be honest, we have no thought what indicate a bard is attempting to convey.

There seems to be a little difficulty upon a part of a bard of a concept of a two-party model or rsther than his conflations of a form of democracies as well as a post-colonial realities of a countries he cites.

All a two-party model ensures is which opposing forces through a list box influences a way in which a complement operates through cyclical elections. Substantial changes have been only possible if a distinguish citizens tames a vested interests within these opposing forces.

If Pakatan is frank in reforming a complement as well as they retain a required parliamentary mandate to carry out such reforms, it would be obligatory upon BN to retreat such policies if (unpopular) when they lapse to energy as well as if they retain a required mandate.

Is this a perfect system? Not by a prolonged shot though a bard does not indicate an alternative.

On a other hand, maybe he does. May be he would prefer it Pakatan has a monopoly upon "change" for decades? we unequivocally cannot tell.

Blind loyalty

The bard has difficulty understanding what my "beef" is as well as goes upon to whine which we "can't have it both ways".

Does any a single else see a complaint with this? First, a bard accuses me having "biasness" which he does not define.

Then he claims which my criticism of Pakatan as well as BN is someway having it both ways.

Moreover, how does being vicious of both coalitions as well as subscribing to a two-party paradigm, incompatible?

If anything, by assessing a agendas of a two coalitions as well as making an informed choice not predicated upon blind loyalty, this would safeguard which a two-party complement works.

The complaint here in Malaysia, is which we have never attempted to allow an additional bloc (for assorted reasons) a event to lead this nation though some-more importantly, Umno cannot rest upon a track record or during slightest this is my thinking as an opposition supporter.

However, a punch line is a bard afterwards goes upon inventory his own criticisms of Pakatan as well as BN regurgita! ting a s ame examples we have used in my assorted criticism pieces.

The Perak fiasco, a Kedah shenanigans, "Umno's bribery", a Selangor quagmire, Pakatan "turncoats", PAS as well as a "coy Islamic agenda", Anwar's Sept 16 debacle... scarcely each emanate upon his list with regard to BN as well as Pakatan, is something which we have created about before as well as a couple in a really article a bard finds so problematic. So, dear reader, who is a a single "re-boiling" fully cooked eggs, now?

The bard says it is break time for Pakatan as well as BN. This was pithy in my criticism piece.

The bard singles me (and by a way, it is "the aged commander" not commodore) out for rehashing aged issues, which is mocking since rehashing "old issues" sometimes happens in a echo chamber which is a alternative press, not to mention what BN as well as Pakatan often do.

It would have been profitable to me, if a bard elaborated upon those policies emanate of BN as well as Pakatan which he thinks should be dated as well as which we might have missed, though what we got was a treacherous polemic in which a bard could not even follow his own advice.

As far as me not dwelling upon vicious process issues, maybe if a bard had done a little research, he would realize which process issues be it a final of Hindraf, losing a physical battle, a inlet of press reforms, certain action policies, Pakatan as well as BN conservative tutorial polices (with regards to a PTPTN debate, for example), a armed forces, have been front as well as centre of my pieces.

The bard obviously disagrees with a square though a subject is, is it something we wrote or is it something he is projecting upon a piece?

Santino's creates many assumptions about my domestic leanin! gs as we ll as my writings inMalaysiakinibut offers no justification to justify his claims.

For someone who takes a shot during columnists' inability to recognise a "truth", we was hoping a bard would yield a little note as to where most of us writers go wrong.

The truth is, we get some-more probity from a commenters of my regular pieces than this particular writer.

The bard ends his minute with a allude to from my square he finds confusing. What can we say? It seems ideally transparent to me as well as to many others who review a piece. Go figure.

S THAYAPARAN is Commander (rtd) of a Royal Malaysian Navy.

Read More @ Source

More Barisan Nasional (BN) | Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |

Courtesy of Bonology.com Politically Incorrect Buzz & Buzz