Identify the good apples, reject the bad ones from both sides of the political divide

What is this Umno leader trying to portray? National harmony and unity?

Identify the good apples, reject the bad ones from both sides of the political divide

This blog has repeatedly stated that the only way for Malaysians and Malaysia to progress healthily and rapidly is to have clean and honest politicians who will make good decisions based on their conscience.

We have also been saying that there are good and bad apples from both sides of the political divide.

“Therefore, it is wrong for Malaysians to make political decisions and choice emotionally and based on party affiliations,” Gerakan Deputy Speaker Syed Abdul Razak Alsagoff said.

He said Malaysians can easily identify good and honest politicians based on their actions and words, but of course people can change overnight.

Nothing is guaranteed, but Malaysians must try to identify and elect the potential politicians who have the courage to make decisions according to their conscience without fear and favour for those who elected him or her.

Condoning such behaviour ... a reflection of true leadership for Malaysians and Malaysia?

Syed Razak, who is Gerakan’s nominee to contest N.37 Bukit Lanjan in the coming 14th General Election (GE14), said “it doesn’t matter which political party they come from”.

“If the majority of those elected from both sides of the political divide are reliable and responsible, all else will just fall in place naturally.

“They will surely make good and responsible decisions for the rakyat dan negara (people and country),” he added.

The article below is biased because it only attacks Pakatan or the Opposition. There are also bad apples in Barisan Nasional (BN), especially individuals who use religion and race to further their political agenda.

Nevertheless, this article by online news portal Malaysia Impact do contain stark facts about the reliability of some Pakatan’s leaders which die-hard Pakatan supporters choose to ignore:

"Pakatan is the devil we know too well

by: Sebastian Loh
July 10, 2017

Imagine being at a restaurant and wanting to order some ice-cream. The catch is you’re not allowed to know ice-cream’s flavor until after you paid for it. It could be chocolate or vanilla. It could very well be essence of vomit. Suddenly, you’re in for a psychological thriller of gastronomic proportions! Having no designated candidate for prime minister, this is essentially Pakatan’s pitch to voters.

Are we now in the habit of paying for food items or products without first knowing what they are? Which sane, self-respecting consumer would tolerate such a policy? Which economy could survive on such a principle? Therein lies the problem. Seat warming extraordinaire Wan Azizah wants to postpone talk about Pakatan’s PM candidate until after the coalition wins the general election. Essentially, we pay first and then they decide what we bought.

Fortunately, not everyone is buying this evasive bullsh*t. Praba Ganesan, chief executive of the NGO Kuasa, described the unwillingness to name a PM candidate beforehand as “morally reprehensible” and “very insulting to the Malaysian public.” He’s absolutely right. The federal government of Malaysia isn’t Forrest Gump’s box of chocolates – we want to know what we’re getting, thank you very much.

Now, Pakatan’s frustrating ambiguity may reinforce the popular perception that it’s the ‘angel we don’t know’ as opposed to Barisan as the ‘devil we know’. But the stereotype simply isn’t true. We know a whole lot about Pakatan. We’ve watched how the opposition coalition has behaved over the last nine years – more, if you consider its previous iterations (eg. Barisan Alternatif). And it isn’t what anyone could plausibly describe as ‘angelic’.

We’ve seen Pakatan consumed by endless infighting. Arguments erupt with embarrassing frequency between the parties and within the parties – if there is a fight to be had, there will be one. Pakatan politicians have warred among themselves over everything from the infamous Kajang Move (leading to the completely unnecessary removal of a popular and competent Selangor menteri besar) to local council elections to seats in the last Sarawak state election.

These are the people who are supposed to calm markets? These are the people who are supposed to convince foreign investors to keep their money in Malaysia? Give me a break. Even 1MDB’s board of directors make for more credible leaders.

The problem is the Pakatan parties agree on very little – except on their obsessive hatred for Najib. We’ve seen how hudud famously tore apart Pakatan Rakyat. This time, Pribumi’s racial politics (full party membership is available only to bumiputeras and the Orang Asli) make a mockery out of Pakatan’s claim to multiracialism and equality.

And what is Pakatan’s stance on Hadi’s RUU355 bill? DAP is obviously against it, but PKR, Pribumi, and Amanah are noncommittal to the point of hilarity. It’s as if endlessly postponing decisions worked out for Pakatan the last time around.

It’s little wonder that Pakatan has struggled to present a set of common policies. From Pakatan Harapan’s formation in September 2015 until today, it has yet to produce a common policy framework despite repeatedly promising one. In that same space of time, Hollywood has released no less than seven feature-length films based on Marvel Comics characters. Even the world of make-believe has been more productive than Pakatan.

Of course, an utter lack of substance follows from an utter lack of principles. Our self-appointed saviors in Pakatan have cozied up with the dictator they repeatedly denounced for decades. That staggering reversal – surely a new record in cynicism – is in itself disqualifying. If Pakatan is this ‘flexible’, why should we believe anything it says in the future?

And if it weren’t obvious enough, Mahathir is neither an unknown, nor an angel. We are exceedingly familiar with his record – a lengthy reign marred by allegations of widespread corruption, mismanagement, and repression. If he wanted to put an end to those problems, he would’ve done so in office. Thinking he could be ‘used’ to bring change, however well-intentioned, is the height of naivete.

Past, as they say, is prologue. And that applies as much to Mahathir as it does to Pakatan. Squabbling, break-ups, evasions, and reversals – Pakatan has never been able to get its act together. And that’s not going to change one bit even if, by some miracle, the coalition of convenience captures Putrajaya. It’s not as if we haven’t given the opposition a chance – we did in 2008 and 2013. But Pakatan flubbed it repeatedly and spectacularly.

So, voting for Pakatan is not a gamble (as commonly thought), but a wholehearted embrace of certain catastrophe. It’s a bit like ordering ice-cream at a restaurant with full knowledge that essence of vomit is the only flavor. And no matter how much you wish it, that scoop isn’t going to turn itself into chocolate or vanilla. Similarly, Pakatan will always be the Pakatan of the last nine years – it’s the devil we know only too well. - Malaysia Impact"

What more can one say about condoning such people who tarnish the image of Malaysia internationally.

N.37 LET BUKIT LANJAN SOAR WITH SYED ABDUL RAZAK ALSAGOFF