Why the pre-occupation with Anwar? I think Anwar is the only person who save Barisan Nasional from a total collapse to PAS-DAP coalition. PAS is using Anwar as an agent provocateur to continue to harrass the BN government. They are just waiting for BN to put him under ISA so that they can re-create the sympathy factor and ride into power, only this time they will have the Chinese on board and BN will fall like a sack of potatoes.
And Anwar is using PAS because PAS has a very strong political machinery, I think its even stronger than UMNO. It is lean, hungry and most important its a thinking machinery. Even now, PAS is beginning to beat its war drums in Bagan Pinang, and they actually believe that they can score a major upset.
So unless you are quite content to be under PAS-DAP rule,perhaps its time to lay off DSAI, because the more UMNO whacks him, the less useful he can be to rescue UMNO and BN from certain doom.
Just a thought, remember when DSAI split from ABIM to join UMNO. History does not repeat itself, it rhymes.
"Why the preoccupation with Anwar?" Not matter how devilish he is being portrayed by his opponents, no one can deny that he still holds a strong presence and influence in our political landscape. Whether such a presence brings comfort or resentment depends on which side one is on in the political divide. At the same time, we cannot escape the fact that since he appeared in our political life, events have shown that our country did not turn out to be as peaceful and orderly as we had hoped for. His presence has emboldened the PR coalition and its supporters to stir up or instigate one chaotic incident after another.
I emphasise the phrase "his presence" (both physical and mental) because without it, does anyone think PR would be brave enough to have done what they did? It also means he need not have to be present at the scene of the incident for it to happen. All his supporters need is to draw inspiration from his name.
Witness how he has made a fool of our judiciary in his sodomy trial by initiating one delay after another when he knows fully well he is being unfair to the other party (Saiful) and when, in the latest attempt to disqualify the prosecution team, he even went to the extent of contravening the constitutional provision with regard to his rights. Does anyone think he was not appraised by his lawyers about the relevant constitutional provision and that his action was an abuse of court process? Surely, lawyers being lawyers, they are not that dumb; neither is Anwar. It was simply meant to keep alive "his presence".
In fact he has a fool of many people many times over, and this has repeatedly been highlighted in the blogsphere. There have been many evidences of this, of which 16 Sept is one. There are others as shown in this article here. Watch the video under the heading "Anwar sakit berkerusi roda". Isn't that evidence damning enough? The lies he concocted are mind-boggling. We know the rest of the story - how the Anwar stories flooded the blogsphere with critiques and praises in equal measures. If anyone want further explanation as to why people, notably bloggers, are so preoccupied with Anwar, this is it. He created his own persona that attracted the crowd. His supporters (such as the commentator) have to live by it. You live by the sword, you die by it, so the supporters have no cause to complain about the consuming fixation on Anwar. The aforementioned article and video have been in the blogsphere for some time, yet his supporters' obsession vis-à-vis his "innocence" and "saintly" disposition persist. It is for this reason too that this blogger raises the need to uncover the motivation behind the supporters' obsession.
"PAS is using Anwar as an agent provocateur to continue to harass the BN government"? An interesting view, but others will surely counter - and have already done so - that it should be the other way round - that Anwar is using PAS to further his ambition. Otherwise, how do we explain the manner in which certain PAS leaders/members listen to him more than their own party members, to the extent that Anwar is considered their real leader? Remember, Anwar was once a vociferous critic of PAS when he was in UMNO. Now it's the other way round. True, anything can happen in politics - enemies today, friends tomorrow. But Anwar still has people within PAS who do not trust him, as demonstrated by his failure to get a foothold in it through its proxies (the so-called Endorgan) in this year's party election. The PAS-Anwar "bond" is an arguably deceptive one. They are simply tied by political aspirations but their ideological differences remain indisputable. Would PAS be willing to recruit as an agent a person who was once critical of what the party stood for and who therefore could not be trusted? Further, by using the Anwar-as-PAS-agent argument, the commentator is deflecting, conveniently I suppose, from the link between Anwar and his foreign sponsors, which is also well-documented in the article quoted above and elsewhere in the blogsphere. Which then is more tenable - Anwar as PAS agent or Anwar as foreign agent?
"...Anwar is the only person who save Barisan Nasional from a total collapse to PAS-DAP coalition"? Do BN really need Anwar to save itself? BN is in the considerably weakened situation because of the defeats in GE 2008. UMNO, the bulwark of BN, is weakened internally by continuing corruption and its inability to cleanse the party. The only way UMNO/BN can save themselves is to put their house in order, not through Anwar's intervention.
"...PAS-DAP rule..."? Admittedly the union is holding out but, like any union of disparate ideologies, it is at best a tenuous one. By sacrificing some of its theological aspirations, PAS has gone too far beyond its original objectives that there's bound to be repercussions. There are still leaders and members within the party who continue to be bounded by its original goals and struggle. Judging by what happened in Perak, Selangor and Penang, it's DAP that has become the more dominant partner and this is troubling some PAS leaders. To rule a country under such as fragile union would obviously spell trouble, and this is not discounting its lack of experience in governing a country. The Perikatan Party (later enlarged to become BN) that led the country in 1957, while also lacking experience in governing a country, did not suffer from the same fragility as the current PR coalition. The Perikatan Party assumed control of the country from a position of strength. Can we say the same of PR if it rules the country? Can we say the same of PR in the states it control? So, until PAS and DAP - and PR generally - sort out their differences and get down to the job of proper governance, instead of indulging in squabbling, blaming, and instigating disorder, the possibility of a PAS-DAP rule is remote.
I emphasise the phrase "his presence" (both physical and mental) because without it, does anyone think PR would be brave enough to have done what they did? It also means he need not have to be present at the scene of the incident for it to happen. All his supporters need is to draw inspiration from his name.
Witness how he has made a fool of our judiciary in his sodomy trial by initiating one delay after another when he knows fully well he is being unfair to the other party (Saiful) and when, in the latest attempt to disqualify the prosecution team, he even went to the extent of contravening the constitutional provision with regard to his rights. Does anyone think he was not appraised by his lawyers about the relevant constitutional provision and that his action was an abuse of court process? Surely, lawyers being lawyers, they are not that dumb; neither is Anwar. It was simply meant to keep alive "his presence".
In fact he has a fool of many people many times over, and this has repeatedly been highlighted in the blogsphere. There have been many evidences of this, of which 16 Sept is one. There are others as shown in this article here. Watch the video under the heading "Anwar sakit berkerusi roda". Isn't that evidence damning enough? The lies he concocted are mind-boggling. We know the rest of the story - how the Anwar stories flooded the blogsphere with critiques and praises in equal measures. If anyone want further explanation as to why people, notably bloggers, are so preoccupied with Anwar, this is it. He created his own persona that attracted the crowd. His supporters (such as the commentator) have to live by it. You live by the sword, you die by it, so the supporters have no cause to complain about the consuming fixation on Anwar. The aforementioned article and video have been in the blogsphere for some time, yet his supporters' obsession vis-à-vis his "innocence" and "saintly" disposition persist. It is for this reason too that this blogger raises the need to uncover the motivation behind the supporters' obsession.
"PAS is using Anwar as an agent provocateur to continue to harass the BN government"? An interesting view, but others will surely counter - and have already done so - that it should be the other way round - that Anwar is using PAS to further his ambition. Otherwise, how do we explain the manner in which certain PAS leaders/members listen to him more than their own party members, to the extent that Anwar is considered their real leader? Remember, Anwar was once a vociferous critic of PAS when he was in UMNO. Now it's the other way round. True, anything can happen in politics - enemies today, friends tomorrow. But Anwar still has people within PAS who do not trust him, as demonstrated by his failure to get a foothold in it through its proxies (the so-called Endorgan) in this year's party election. The PAS-Anwar "bond" is an arguably deceptive one. They are simply tied by political aspirations but their ideological differences remain indisputable. Would PAS be willing to recruit as an agent a person who was once critical of what the party stood for and who therefore could not be trusted? Further, by using the Anwar-as-PAS-agent argument, the commentator is deflecting, conveniently I suppose, from the link between Anwar and his foreign sponsors, which is also well-documented in the article quoted above and elsewhere in the blogsphere. Which then is more tenable - Anwar as PAS agent or Anwar as foreign agent?
"...Anwar is the only person who save Barisan Nasional from a total collapse to PAS-DAP coalition"? Do BN really need Anwar to save itself? BN is in the considerably weakened situation because of the defeats in GE 2008. UMNO, the bulwark of BN, is weakened internally by continuing corruption and its inability to cleanse the party. The only way UMNO/BN can save themselves is to put their house in order, not through Anwar's intervention.
"...PAS-DAP rule..."? Admittedly the union is holding out but, like any union of disparate ideologies, it is at best a tenuous one. By sacrificing some of its theological aspirations, PAS has gone too far beyond its original objectives that there's bound to be repercussions. There are still leaders and members within the party who continue to be bounded by its original goals and struggle. Judging by what happened in Perak, Selangor and Penang, it's DAP that has become the more dominant partner and this is troubling some PAS leaders. To rule a country under such as fragile union would obviously spell trouble, and this is not discounting its lack of experience in governing a country. The Perikatan Party (later enlarged to become BN) that led the country in 1957, while also lacking experience in governing a country, did not suffer from the same fragility as the current PR coalition. The Perikatan Party assumed control of the country from a position of strength. Can we say the same of PR if it rules the country? Can we say the same of PR in the states it control? So, until PAS and DAP - and PR generally - sort out their differences and get down to the job of proper governance, instead of indulging in squabbling, blaming, and instigating disorder, the possibility of a PAS-DAP rule is remote.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please adhere to proper blog etiquette when posting your comments. This blog owner will exercise his absolution discretion in allowing or rejecting any comments that are deemed seditious, defamatory, libelous, racist, vulgar, insulting, and other remarks that exhibit similar characteristics. If you insist on using anonymous comments, please write your name or other IDs at the end of your message.