Warrior 231 Says: April 9, 2009 at 9:43 am
Since the party you support, PR, is the epitome of perfection and can never do wrong in the eyes of its fawning faithful, I am perplexed as to why you are so worried about the fate of UMNO which you so revile. Wouldnt it be normal for you to laud its demise rather than hope for its “resurrection”?
Correct me if I am wrong sir, but isnt your crocodilian empathy a tad too nauseous as apparent in your wistfully contemplative tone here:
“Sadly, there does not appear ………….”
Pray, why sadness should suffuse your soul sir, when happiness should reign given the fact that, as you put it,you are about to witness the demise and extinction of a loathed nemesis. Surely, you would applaud the emergence of total domination with PR’s ascension, a domination that will allow you to run roughshod over dissent and contrarian views to your “liberal, secular, egalitarian” idyllic vision of Bangsa Malaysia. You should be delighted nay cock -a-hoop over such a turn of events rather than affect being sombre and gloomy over the inevitable expiration of an ertswhile enemy.
Or is all this concern due to a nagging feeling that the results in BG and BS + in KT indicate a significant proportion of the local polity are not buying your medicinal potions? And that this proportion is demarcated by the fault lines of race as any cogent and objective analysis of all 3 results will indicate.
And given this fact, your dream of rainbow coalition is nothing more than that, an ethereally beautiful yet ephemereally transient being trapped in the twilight zone of light and water, that will be either washed away into sinkhole of Nature by the raindrops of reality or vaporised into oblivion by the sunlight of truth.
Come to think of it, I would rather be entertained by your whoops of triumphal and ululations of joy than be titillated by your schmaltzy condescending dirges. What say you, O Oracle of the Hills and Caves?
P/s: By and large, I dare say your fawning fan base do not seem to share your mawkish sentiments…
The second comment is a follow-up to a response posted by Perwira 231 ( surprise: the mirror image of Warrior 231). Admiral Tojo aside (such debauched cretins abound aplenty in those blogs), the gist of Warrior's observation is food for thought especially the last paragraph to which I will add my viewpoints in a subsequent post (with the analysis, as promised) :
Warrior 231 Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. April 9, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Scum like you are a dime a dozen in these parts and are not worth engaging. Have a nice day in your asylum.
i dont think you understand the import of my letter which sarcastically addressed the blogmaster for his sudden effusion of sympathy for a wounded foe.Nevertheless, i will address a few points you raised though any such response would at best superficial in a nature given the limitations of this fora.
A two-party system an imperative, says who? A two-party system is only workable within a political system that does not have clods as its electorate, charlatans as its leaders and clowns as its checks and balances. A two-party system cannot operate effectively if the political environment cannot accomodate contrarian views let alone dissent.A two-party system cannot exist if the parameters for its existence are pre-defined by individual or group proclivities.
My simple question is why should BN change its race based, power sharing structure just because PR brags it has one which isnt. Why must such a system be so inimical to a two-party system? Why must the party in opposition be a duplicate of the party in power? In a democracy, shouldn’t the prospective consumer be the judge of the viability and sustainability of such systems? If that is the case, why must the future of any party be mapped based on a template dictated by an individual or a group? How can the marketplace of ideas and ideologies thrive and be evaluated if you have consumers like Admiral Tojo making such assessments?How reliable would such evaluations be if such people happen to be in the majority in a hypothetical future?
In an ideal world,(3)would be an abominable abberation that would be naturally rooted out. But in a real politik world, the existence of such systems are tolerated as long as they do not overwhelm the system.., in other words when they breach a certain tipping point, a point well expounded by Schneider (but i digress). Even mature democracies like the US are susceptible to these realities. Ever heard the power lobbyists wield in the corridors of power in Washington? What about the pork-barrel politics of the LDP, the KMT and other political entities in East Asia? Even the Westminster model is not spared from such shenanigans.
Many moons ago, I did write that democracy is essentially a self aborting system layered as it is by many internal contradictions (a point attested to by Arrow).And this truism is never more apparent in countries where the polity is: generally uninformed, susceptible to sinister yet subtle forms of persuasion, lacking the mental faculties to critically evaluate diverse sources of information which often comes in torrents, prone to vote according to racial, religious, linguistic or cultural proclivities + numerous other subjective factors that cannot be enumerated as it would consume too many pixels. Add to that the vast and pervasive inequalities in terms of income and socio-economic status and you have a whole gamut of factors that by themselves may nullify the validity of any choice made by any electorate.. yes..even in the West.
To ameliorate these factors, it has become an accepted notion amongst the rabble that the kinks inherent in the system will be tolerated as long as socio-economic advancement prevails, as in the case of Malaysia. However, now we are confronted with a new reality apparent after post-March 2006 and affirmed by BG and BS,the fracture of an admittedly once fragile polity along clear and discernible racial fault lines.What this portends for the forseeable future is anyone’s guess but no amount of whitewashing will make this fact dissappear.
Given the role some played in the conceptialisation and delivery of this new paradigm, it would be churlish for the self same parties to call for a particular entity to reform itself.Or is this call motivated by the realisation that the genie is out off the bottle, that pandora’s box when once opend can never ever be closed again?Or even more pertinent, is it motivated by the realisation that an “extreme” faction of the PR troika is gaining traction and there is a need to shore up UMNO as a potential balance in any future horsetrading in those smokefilled backrooms?
You can also read Perwira 231 comments here:
Revert : Warrior 231 has, in essence, captured the implications of Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau and they are indeed troubling for the continued viability of Canland as a nation.........