Posted on by Kit

DAP boycott Kuala Terengganu by-election over hudud?

Most intriguing.

MCA has not given up.

The stance of the MCA President Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat is being echoed by his underlings with the MCA leadership continuing to plug the line that the DAP should boycott the Kuala Terengganu by-election over PAS agenda on hudud.

Of course, no indication that MCA would boycott the by-election although there is no renunciation by the UMNO leadership of a series of hegemonistic agendas, whether the “929 Declaration” that Malaysia is an Islamic state or “ketuanan Melayu”.

Forty hours to nomination in Kuala Terengganu by-election on Tuesday morning.

Meanwhile, let the blogosphere respond to the MCA stance – for or against, the pros and cons, merits and demerits as to whether DAP should boycott Kuala Terengganu by-election over PAS agenda on hudud..

249 Replies to “DAP boycott Kuala Terengganu by-election over hudud?”

  1. But, as I see it, Malaysia is everything. She’s not just Islamic state, or ketuanan Melayu, but also multiracial, multicultural, democratic, kingship, freedom of choice… and many many more. Even DAP, whos democratic belief is more towards socialist ideology, is allowed to participate.

    So, why must we stifle ourself on issues created to disrupt the unity that all Malaysians are enjoying right now? Afterall Malaysians are willing to give DAP a chance to rule/govern, and fight against that corrupt practices… but of course, as long as DAP do not disrupt the present harmony Malaysian enjoyed.

  2. Saudara Kit, you must be joking in asking us if DAP should boycott KT
    MCA is bankrupt and are praying you stay away from KT.
    The public there will not support UMNO. Go and roar your heart out. And good luck to all of you in PK.

  3. To me mca is dead and buried, why bother to entertain someone who is dead and gone.

    Hudud or no hudud can be discussed and solve within PR and does not require umno/bn consent. mca had already accept umno call that Malaysia is an islamic country, why do a dead mca crying about this hudud matter.

    DAP MUST NOT BOYCOTT KT BY-ELECTION FOR WHATEVER REASONS THERE MAY BE. DAP MUST STAND TOGETHER WITHIN PR FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE. KT MUST BE WON BY PAS BY ALL MEANS

    Malaysia For All

    GE 13 – No matter what, we must ensure that racist umno bn do not regain the power like they had for the past fifty one years.

  4. MCA is barking at the moon like a mad dog. Just ignore the goons. DAP’s stand on Hudud and Islamic State is crystal clear.
    This tsunami momentum must go on and DAP has to play its role in winning Chinese support for Pakatan in KT.

  5. Full support from DAP to back PAS of course!
    Compared to great target of getting the country back on to progressive track, hudud or not hudud is trivial.

    It is understandable why DAP opposed implementation of hudud as it would mean converting the state into an Islamic State, and Ismalic State is unconstitutional, at least it still is unless there is a constitution re-write. It is a matter of DAP holding on to principle.

    If one day, should it come to a stage that PAS accruer enough madate to implement hudud, that would have been a choosing by rakyat. When that day comes, UMNO ministers should be more terrified then anyone else as they will get their arms amputated for stealing so much from the people.

  7. Ong Ta Kut needs to talk something to prove to UMNO…he is in or out..of BN.
    Out gone case.
    But at least we know….what MCA people are made of…with such a President of their party.
    DAP will support PAS…and DAP carry alot of weight with the Chinese voters.
    MCA is exactly like Samy Vellu..at Lunas..talk big with no influences over Chinese voters.
    I wish Ong Ta Kut will say..if UMNO looses..he will stay at that place forever….like Samy in Lunas.

  8. Kit:

    The CEC should simply come out into the open and state clearly that the DAP is going all out to support the PAS candidate. You should not let all these discussions on the pros and cons fester. As we have seen in the past, these discussions always bring out the worst in people – inflammation and bigotry will always surface. Your so-called extremist supporters will want you to abandon PR – and hence the issue of boycotting the by-election will not arise.

    I know of one lawyer who is constantly championing the need to abandon PR because of his paranoia towards PAS. People like these – RPK calls them the worst kind of Chinese – are what we don’t need at this opportunity for change.

  9. PAS today with only 20+ parliament seats can’t implement hudud laws yet. So why is MCA harping on an issue which in the current political balance of power is still impossible?

    Again, this is very clear obvious indication that MCA has for the past 50 years duped the chinese into believing that they are defending ‘chinese rights’. The truth is there is nothing to defend against unless MCA is suggesting that they are defending us against their very own partners, UMNO from implementing Hudud and taking away chinese rights.

    When MCA claims UMNO is the best partner for it? MCA and UMNO have schemed together for 50 years to divide Malaysians and rob them, while each telling their respective communities they are ‘defending their rights’.

    Before pointing fingers at DAP over something PAS has yet to actually do, they might want to think about what they have allowed their partners UMNO to actually do to the country over the past 30 years.

  11. Yes DAP should boycott KT by election until PAS or Pakatan issue a firm statement to disassociate themself from Hussam Huddud statement .
    So far no statement from Pakatan defacto leader Anwar . DAP must get Anwar to give public statement.

  12. ??????,?????; ??????,??????

    The above Chinese old saying would give DAP sufficient rationale ground to fight against BN in the name of PR. This Chinese old saying would be good enough to shut off Dato Seri Ong Tee Keat’s big mouth!

    Therefore YB Kit, don’t ever hesitate in the political stand of whether to fight forward or to backoff! Our main objective here is to overthrow BN Government first and then resolve on other issues later! Most Malaysians would stand behind DAP if DAP persists in the political cause of democratic socialism! The Malaysians would be able to understand DAP’s expediency in the implementation of overall strategy to win the whole war against Corruption and Piratisation of the BN.

  14. Hukum Hudud kebetulan datang dari Islam, sebuah ugama dan tentulah ugama ugama lain juga akan menyokong hukum ini kerana ia berbentuk am dan menepati kehendak ciri semua ugama. Ciri ciri yang lebih bermaksud (message) mencegah dan tidak diberi penekanan kepada perlaksanaan kerana ia memerlukan bukti bukti yang paling kukuh (100%) dan pihak peguam juga digunapakai untuk menghalang ketidakadilan.

    Ia sesuai untuk semua bangsa termasuk Chinese Malaysian and Malaysian. DAP hanya menjadikan isu politik dan mensalahtafsir untuk ‘mileage political ‘ yang berbentuk perkauman.

    Dalam keadaan jenayah di Malaysia begitu lazim dan terbuka DAP masih menghalang hukum hudud sebagai tindakan yang tidak selari untuk menjadikan Malaysia lebih aman dan selamat. Hudud tidak akan menjadi undang2 yang kekal di Malaysia jika ia tidak adil, sama seperti undang2 lain. Hudud adalah satu hukum tetapi perlaksanaan ke arah yang lebih adil boleh dipinda dan di ubah tanpa mencacatkan hukum itu sendiri.

    DAP lebih takut kepada bebayang sendiri, dan ketakutan realiti itu menyebabkan ia sampai bila pun tidak mampu menjadi kerajaan rakyat Malaysia. Orang Melayu dan India tidak memerlukan pemimpin DAP pro Chinese yang perkauman.

  16. No way. It’s a pity to see Ong Tee Kiat getting so low as to sway Chinese votes back to UMNO. I urge you voters not to be fooled and vote for the PAS candidate despite the differences at the moment. PAS is definitely the lesser of two evils by a very long mile. We need to send a clear signal from the outcome of this by-election that the Malaysians want change! For the better!

  18. “Piratisation of the BN” ?? So now you want to strip pieces of BN and sell them away to cronies for them to profit? (undergrad2)

    If you don’t understand about the meaning of “piratisation”, then go ask a farmer who recieved free goats from the BN Government how much his free goats will worth at market price. Then go check the bill from the goat suppliers on the price of the goats given to the farmers at the generosity of the BN government. It will expose the outright looting in the daylight! This outright looting is called “piratisation”!

  24. undergrad2,

    If you want to have a much better understanding on the word “piratisation”, perhaps you may consult a Professional Consultant Engineer on the estimated costs of building the Crystal Mosque in Terengganu. Then go compare the actual costs incurred in building the Crystal Mosque in Terengganu. The huge cost difference is the loot harvest received by the BN dirty politicians. The looting is called “piratisation”!

  26. I suppose the goats are neutered so that they can’t reproduce, and the only supply of goats come from “approved” sources. (Godfather)

    Godfather,

    You are absolutely right. A few top politicians of BN government are in fact the underlying owner of some Australian goat farms!

  27. A bigger anti-BN topic would be the piratisation of IJN, as suggested by another reader in this thread. They are trying to cover up their mess with the Synergy Drive merger by allowing a GLC to achieve critical mass with the acquisition of a public service institution. Who is eyeing the land that the current IJN sits ?

  28. “The huge cost difference is the loot harvest received by the BN dirty politicians. The looting is called “piratisation”!” Onlooker Politics

    Piratisation is the stripping of government assets which are then sold off to cronies who then would make huge profits. It is a play of the word ‘privatization’. A common enough term.

  33. Onlooker Politics: ??????,?????; ??????,??????
    I like that one too. Here’s one of my favourites:
    ????,????

    Sorry! The comment blog here does not display my Chinese Text written in Microsoft Word format! If you would like to see the Chinese Text, perhaps you may go to the comment blog in Chinese Version of Lim Kit Siang Blog!

    The literal meaning of my intended Chinese Text actual means to encourage toleration by the Chinese Community in the acceptance of PAS at necessary expediency!

  35. DAP has already made his stance clear, PAS has already clarify that they won’t pursue the hudud agenda (at least for now). I don’t see any logical reason for DAP to boycott the KT by-election unless one presume by doing nothing, miracle can happen.

    As a side note : I really hate dogs barking non-stop without reasons.

  36. undergrad2,

    Please do not try to be legalistic here and attempt to distort and divert people’s attention to the less important issue.

    The main theme here is that “Piratisation by the BN, of the BN, for the BN” should be given a total denial by the Kuala Terengganu Electoral Voters!

  43. It appears MCA is getting desperate. PR got the hudud thing just about right, for anybody that will pay attention to the behaviour of politicians. 308 was a clarion call for honest politics, and there’ll only be more from now on.

    Not every Malaysian will pay close attention to the behaviour of politicians, however. My hope is that they will be in KT. A BN win there will be another win for BN’s total propaganda machine, not for politics.

    I’m not sure even what MCA are asking for – I doubt DAP would consider fielding a candidate in KT anyway, would they? Aren’t elections here ‘first past the post’? All a DAP candidate could hope to do is reduce the more popular candidates’ totals. I haven’t seen a Pakatan Rakyat endorsement of a lone PAS candidate yet – did I miss that somewhere? Someone please answer the question about coalition candidates – against the rules or not?

  44. undergrad2,
    Please get straight to the point:
    Are you the supporter of or the opponent to the BN’s looting exercise? Or are you a neutral standing in the middle-of-the-road? Please make your stance clear before you rebuke! Otherwise, you are wasting many readers’ precious time!

  46. YB Lim, why boycott KT by-election just because PAS talks about hudud law. Anybody can talk. There is no harm done yet. We have to view the matter as PAS way of countering UMNO to win over Malay votes. Biasalah itu! Malaysian politics. AT the very least, DAP never fails to voice its dissatisfaction everytime the issue is raised, unlike UMNO’s running dogs who only cowered and wagged their tails when Mahatir and Najib declare that Malaysia is an Islamic country! So, who actually should be the one to boycott KT by-election? The MCA has no right to even talk about this issue. They have shamed the Chinese. Additionlly, to overthrow this corrupt government, PAS involvement is essential. Position your guns in the direction of BN first. Any disagreement with your partner in PK can be solved after mission accomplished. GOOD LUCK TO PAS/PR.

  47. The strong Localism of Terengganu residents would ensure that the proposed candidate of PAS, who is the Anak Terengganu (indigenous of Terengganu), be able to win by a leading edge in view of the BN Government’s failure to curtail the running-up inflation despite the lowering of the pumped prices. The recent weakened price situation in relation to commodities such as Fresh Fruit Bunches (FFB) of oil palm and Rubber Latex also gives PAS candidate a big advantage to bag more votes from Kuala Terengganu electoral voters.

    But please don’t bet on PAS at a very high stake. The betting game would have a adverse setback on the electoral result! PR should discourage people from getting involved in betting since it is to PR’s big disadvantage to bet!

  48. Yes, it will be a big mistake for DAP to boycot KT by-election. To me , I fully agree with what Nik Azi said; what’s wrong with Muslim to implement Hudud if it is a requirement of Islam, so long as it is only applicable to Muslim and with clear guideline on cases when it involves Muslim-non-Muslim. Stupid to bring this up again and again! MCA should be the one to boycot because the UMNOputras still insist Malaysia is Islamic state! They have no balls, Ong Takut has proven to be another Chinese traitor once he is up in the throne! We want a Fair, Just and equal Malaysia, with special help be given to all poor irrespective of race and religion. We love all Malaysians irrespective of race!

    DAP strongmen and women must go all out to tell all KT non-Malays not to be deceived by the sweeties given by BN. If the federal policy is fair and just, there is no need of such goodies each time an election comes!

    Vote the BN out of their 3-H; high corruption, high wastage, highly arrogant.

  50. PAS leaders should clear their heads first on the islamic state. If they keep mouthing in public and in the media about huddud and islamic state, they will lose the non muslim voters and mainstream malaysians.

    Fact is, there is no way PAS can get 2/3 majority to change constitution to form an Islamic state. So they should not give PAS members the false hopes, not in the next 10 years. Less talk aboit hudud and islamic state, the better for PR to win next election.

    Next for 4 years is critical for PR. PAS leaders should spend more time in next 4 years helping the 5 PR governments to run smoothly and made as a good example of government to other states so that PR has a fighting chance to win more states next election . PAS should stop sniping at Penang, Selangor and Perak every now and then, and bringup of issues that will not win voters.

    PAS is making Anwar’s job very difficult: Take a look at this example
    http://malaysianunplug.blogspot.com/2009/01/is-pakatan-rakyat-on-road-to-self.html#links

    PAS leaders should listen to what Dzulkifli Ahmad said when he was interviewd by Raja Petra. http://malaysianunplug.blogspot.com/2009/01/kuala-trengganu-by-election-pass-damage.html#links

    PAS is giving DAP too much headaches too often. Patience can last only so long. PAS should not take DAP for granted!

  51. I am a Chinese and I support the Hudud laws.
    There are simply too many crazy Chinese who like to gamble, getting drunk, drugs,…. These people should be punished and don’t let them get around with the loose laws. Don’t you think they also don’t like all existing laws that punish them?

    If some one will annouce that the new country will have no laws and you can do whatever you want and commit all the crimes. Do you think you will be elected?

  52. ANYTHING IS BETTER THAN A BN-LED GOVERNMENT!

    PR MUST BE GIVEN A CHANCE TO ADMINISTER THIS COUNTRY. AS IT STANDS, ANY PARTY IS BETTER THAN AN UMNO-LED GANG.
    IN THIS CASE, IT IS BETTER TO DANCE WITH AN ANGEL YOU DON’T KNOW THAN TO TANGO WITH THE DEVIL BN THAT YOU KNOW FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS. 50-YEAR-OLD STRIPES OF SIN CANNOT CHANGE.

  53. Onlooker Politics, please don’t waste your time asking Undergrad2 to go straight to the point. He can’t even walk straight.

    Onlooker should cease his sexual fantasizing of goats – and look somewhere else as his source of sexual gratification. UNDERGRAD2

    Look no further other than yourself. Trying to make a pass on Jong, remember?

    Yep. A good teacher needs a good student. Is he a good student? Undergrad2

    How thick skinned can one get, calling yourself a good teacher. My goodness, you are a half baked, don’t forget, phua tam sai.

  54. Islamic state? Oh no! Not again!!

    This on-going debate about whether Malaysia is an Islamic state or is not an Islamic state should cease at some time. Those who are frightened at the thought of having their foreskins suddenly stolen from them should dismiss such fears. It is not going to happen. What has happened, however, is the process of Islamisation which started more than twenty years ago when Anwar, then with PAS, sold off his brand of politics to UMNO. When the blog’s nincompoop joined government service, there were no halal food and halal outlets although the Jews have been having their kosher food and kosher outlets centuries earlier if not 3,000 years earlier. Malay girls were not wearing their diapers on their heads. Today old man nincompoop insists on all his eleven daughters from all four of his wives put on diapers on their heads. That is more frightening than any debate on the Islamic state by the country’s pinheads.

  56. We have to be vigilant against those PAS-haters who come to this blog to spew their doom and gloom predictions of a PR administration. These are the shameless people who will not hesitate to provide ammunition to Ong Ta Kut and his people against PR in the by-election.

  58. mca,ie otk can bark about hudut laws but the voters will still not give him a chnce.We are more concern about our country and corruptions happening now.At least this law will chop off all the hands of the corrupts.

  60. MCA simply do not have the moral standing to ask DAP to boycott the KT by-election. This MCA hypocrite leader Ong, is simply trying to be mischievous and to gain some political mileage.
    How could they (MCA), have the galls even to bring up this Hudud law issue, when all this while, they have been hiding inside the sarong of UMNO on religious matters. At least, I observe, DAP have not moved from their original position…that is, the party is against the introduction of Hudud law for the country.

  61. Godfather Says:

    Today at 23: 43.43 (3 minutes ago)
    Semua bodoh punya orang – says Limkamput. Does that include your goodself ? I mean the pingat jasa that you got was for long service, and not for “kepintaran”, right?”

    Godfather,

    It is not pingat ‘jasa’. It is medal for ‘long time’ as opposed to ‘short time’ otherwise known as ‘boom boom’ medal.

  63. correction: declared, not declare; PR, not PK Barring any massive election fraud, I see PAS/PR candidate winning this by-election. My assumption is based on the fact that Najib is not viewed favourably, not only by the non-malays but also by a big number of malays. The rumour is that Najib’s name is tarnished by the Altantuuya murder case. Pious muslims cannot support him lest they too become sinners. Besides, they don’t believe he is clean over the purchase 2 kapal selam. Scheming and pressuring his boss, AAB it seems, is beginning to backfire because that kind of act goes against the Malay culture. His impatience to take over the rein only serves to expose his greed for power to furthur his own interest. “Perbuatannya itu bukan cara orang Melayu” Un-Malay? The KT Malays might want to take this by-election to send a clear message to Najib-that his leadership is rejected.

  64. Think a bit medium and long term. Now I think there is no problem for DAP to stand up to PAS and PKR. But I feel that the policies and agenda of all the component parties within PR must be right and acceptable to each other. Otherwise there is no a priori to assume that DAP will not degenerate into MCA or Gerakan in the future. Ok, there are strong leaders like Kit and others who adhere to principles. But they are not going to last for forever. And, what is there to prevent the opportunists within DAP to subjugate and kowtow for a few ringgit more.

    All these to me are quite realistic and probable. While we dislike BN we must also make sure the solution we seek is sustainable and enduring to our interests.

    Godfather, don’t be too presumptuous about my pingat. Don’t behave like Undergrad2. If he gets one, he may put an adv in the paper to tell the whole world.

  66. Boycott the election uncle Lim. Let the BN and UMNO win easily. Many DAP members prefer UMNOPUTRA to win. To them, PAS’ HUDUD is worse than BN’s POLITIK WANG / corruption.

    Please don’t let all these UMNO leaders got their hands chopped for all the money they have piratized.

    Will this statement be the best statement on this page?

  67. I am surprise DAP even consider the notion of a boycott thrown to it by the ‘going to be defunct’ MCA-the Chinese running dog Party. It is such a cheap ploy and probably the only one they have left. I simply cannot see any problem with the HUDUD, Shariah and Islamic law which some PAS members propounded and threaten to legislate it should they come into power. This can never happen for several very obvious reasons. First PAS will never be able to come into power alone. If they come into power it will be as a component party of PR meaning they cannot unilateral push forward something that is not accepted by the other parties. Second, it is not possible to force more than 40% of minority or obscure and archaic as these set of mediveal laws. Not many people, if given a choice would want to live like the Talibans. I suspect most of the Malays especially those more liberal and educated ones will be against it. In any case PAS only threaten to impose these laws on the Muslims. So why are the non muslim so work up. This really is a non issue. DAP too has its own set of philosophy and national aspiration which PAS perhaps find hard to accept. But I have not seen PAS walking out of PR yet. So please be sensible. PAS is an ALLY. The people will never forgive DAP if DAP walks away now because of such a stupid issue, which actually was amplified and aggravated by the BN. There is really no reason for non muslim votes to go to BN. I forsee an easy and great victory for PR. Remember nothing can stop PR now because it has the entire awaken Nation irrespective of RACE behind it. Do not disappoint. DAP must go all out to help PAS and PR gardner votes at KT. If Pakatan Rakyat fails, Malaysia will have no more future, that much I am sure. We are falling too far and fast behind the rest of the world. There is no way the corrupted BN is ever going to change that.

  69. “Godfather, don’t be too presumptuous about my pingat. Don’t behave like Undergrad2” Old man nincompoop

    Presumptous? Do you even know the meaning of the word??

    You announced proudly on this blog that after some 20 years’ service with the BN government, the Agong gave you a long service medal. You’re going to deny that now?? You should be proud of your long ‘boom boom’ medal. You owe it to BN. You worked for them and gave your best years to BN. This is all on record.

  70. limkamput Says:

    Today at 00: 00.54 (34 minutes ago)

    And, what is there to prevent the opportunists within DAP to subjugate and kowtow for a few ringgit more.”

    You call DAP leaders opportunists and are no different from MCA, that they would sell Kit out for a “few ringgit more”??

    This is consistent with your earlier statement that the DAP has no “leaders of caliber”.

  71. limkamput Says:

    Today at 00: 00.54 (41 minutes ago)
    All these to me are quite realistic and probable. While we dislike BN we must also make sure the solution we seek is sustainable and enduring to our interests.”

    Stop bloviating!!

    What solution is that?? Gobbeldygook!

  72. I thought bloviating is the other guy’s job,you know that guy from Cambridge who has always this craving to display his inductive reasoning,syllogistic argument and maybe perhaps his Boolean Algebra.

  73. DAP should not boycott the by-election.
    Although very clear…DAP is against Hudud law proposed by PAS…..treat that as internal and democratic freedom of speeches between partners.
    There is no such thing as a perfect marriage.
    But as long as the married couple are quarreling over goodness..to me …that’s good and harmless.
    And the reasons to go against the said law….is too complicated to explain to ordinary Malaysians..right now.
    To put it simply….unite all as Malaysians…as one..into reality first.
    Throw out the ISA and put corrupted politicians into jail…then talk Hudud law.
    Right now…DAP is obligated to do their best…helping PAS to win the election.

  78. monsterball Says:

    Today at 01: 52.54 (16 minutes ago)
    Just like limkamput is the accuser…”

    Old nincompoop generates a lot of poop. He finds it hard himself to keep track! Some poop from time to time has to fall back on his face. You don’t need to do anything.

  80. “Think a bit medium and long term. Now I think there is no problem for DAP to stand up to PAS and PKR. .. Otherwise there is no a priori to assume that DAP will not degenerate into MCA or Gerakan in the future. Ok, there are strong leaders like Kit and others … But they are not going to last for forever. And, what is there to prevent the opportunists within DAP to subjugate and kowtow for a few ringgit more. ” – limkamput

    Oh man! We have elections every 5 years for a reason. And that is precisely because good leaders will not last forever and needs to be replaced.

    Don’t be naive! DAP WILL one day become like MCA/Gerakan. This is not a MAYBE. This is a SURETY as long as we have foolish voters that vote blindly based on race and communal loyalties. When DAP kowtows for a few ringgit more, it is up to us voters to throw them out.

    Malaysians need to get themselves a bit more educated about the CONCEPTS behind the process of democracy.

    Why are we debating about (non existent) policies (i.e Hudud) that is impossible to be implemented in the current term? When the BN government has already robbed the people blind for 30 years?

    Support BN now and this will be a sign to MCA/MIC that the non Malays are cowards and are easily cowed and ‘brought in line’ by threats of Hudud law and Islamization and the PAS bogeyman. KT by-election is extremely crucial to send a signal to BN to end the racial politics.

    I hope these chinese hardliners don’t screw up PR’s chances in KT. PAS MUST win KT seat. Unfortunately i have observed many chinese telling people to punish PAS at the KT elections. That is just plain silly. This will just give the go ahead for the despicable MCA to continue playing the race politics.

  81. DAP should not boycott the byelection.Hudud is a dream by PAS for the conservative Malays(Muslims) and not the liberals.They will not touch the non Muslims.The rhetoric dies as it is told.The oppositon should be as gentlemanly as possible as the whole country is watching.There will be a shift in the thinking processs to the losers.UMNO/BN will suffer tragedy if they lose as it questions the leadership change and marks the era of rot for the BN.

  82. It’ as though that if PAS wins the KT by-election, then hudud will be implemented tomorrow. Only the politically naive would be lead to believe that this is so.

    MCA is politically bankrupt. It just wants UMNO’s fortune to turn for the better so that it is hoping that the status quo would restored and it’s business as usual. That’s is why MCA is talking big about change but it is not willing to abandon UMNO. It is playing for time.

    Go ahead and kick out UMNO’s ass out of KT.

  83. You want Najib to be the PM of Bolehland? Then everything would be turn on its head. Innocents would be arrested under ISA, criminals of the UMNOputra breed can swear on the koran and the long arm of the law would be checked and stopped in its tracks, the MCA breed would be able to buy themselves out …

    If you think that you can afford the risk and throw Najib a lifeline go ahead and boycott KT by-election

  84. You want Najib to be the PM of Bolehland?

    Now the ISA can be used to arrest innocents; criminals of the UMNOputra breed can swear on the koran and do not need to appear before the court; the MCA breed can use money to buy themselves out of their own making; the police cannot find any real criminals to arrest but had to turn to children, women, the weak, the jerit cyclist and peaceful demonstrators as their target. If UMNO is in then the status quo would be strengthened or perhaps even be made permanent.

    If you think that you can afford the risk and throw Najib a lifeline go ahead and boycott KT by-election

  86. Godfather : You should stop ranting. It is boring.

    You could better serve the PR cause by coming out with good and original idea of how to help Kit rebut Ong Tee Keat. [Never mind even if some of your original ideas are not that good or some of your good ideas are not that original.]

    It is still better than stewing and frothing snide and irrelevant remarks polluting the subject under discussion here from your mental crock-pot of fermented grievance which, even without the assistance of the slightest jarring, so readily spill over its stench from the preceding blog thread. :)

  87. BN wins KT by-election because a large majority of Chinese voters would stay home – not necessarily boycotting the elections but feel that they don’t want to play any role in the outcome. To them this is a lose-lose situation.. Win they lose, lose they lose.

  88. Jeffrey Says:

    Today at 00: 23.16 (7 hours ago)
    HJ Angus : read Godfather’s postings. You know what I mean?

    You mean the part about some PAS-haters spewing their propaganda on this blog ? You mean the part about traitors to the PR cause ? Anything wrong with these observations ?

  89. “You could better serve the PR cause by coming out with good and original idea of how to help Kit rebut Ong Tee Keat.”

    Just like you coming out with good and original ideas of how to help Ong Tee Keat write his anti-PR stuff on his blog and in the STAR ?

  90. Counselor, since I am not that good in Queen’s English, and since you have been showing off your prowess here, how about I hire you to write some long-winded dessertations to rebut Ong Tee Keat ?

    Even if you can’t convince the MCA, you can still confuse the hell out of them !

  95. Eh, in a previous thread, it was my vision for BN that is measured by the distance from my eyes to the tip of my nose. What happened to that, PAS-hater ? Or should I say, Islamophobic lawyer ?

  96. I think our lawyer friend is formulating behind the scenes to provide more ammunition to Ong Tee Keat. Someone said once that this lawyer could be an MCA plant to sow the seeds of doubt in a DAP blog.

    Better get rid of this plant before it takes root !

  97. The stench of Islamophobia as preached by this lawyer is very strong indeed. Fortunately many of us have smelled this from afar and are prepared. Fortunately the voters in KT are not swayed by the long-winded propaganda spewed by this pro-MCA lawyer.

  98. “I said more than that. I said I am doubtful of leadership qualities of PR which include DAP, PKR and PAS, not just DAP, got it? Yes I am not among them, but I like to assume that I have more caliber than many of them and in many ways.” Limkaput

    PR should have fielded old man nincompoop! He has caliber. More caliber that all the others added together.

    “Fortunately the voters in KT are not swayed by the long-winded propaganda spewed by this pro-MCA lawyer.” GODFATHER

    Contrary to popular belief, the Chinese in KT have alredy been swayed by Islamophobia.

  100. It is precisely because the KT by election is to be taken not only as a gauge to the fortune of BN in the 13th GE but also as a gauge as to the suitability of Najis as a PM for the country that DAP must put up an extraordinary effort to support PAS to deny victory for BN in KT.

  101. Godfather, Can you come out with something more convincing than mere labelling eg MCA plant, Islamophobia etc?

    It is not necessary for me to say more. What you said is self explanatory to all of your state of mind. You are welcomed to carry on and spew more of what’s on your mind. :)

  102. The Malay votes in Kt will be distributed quite evenly to both sides, BN and the Opposition. The Chinese votes will decide the final outcome, so OTK is playing the Chinese’s fear on PAS Hudud law.
    Good try you MCA scumbags, the Chinese are not beggars and definitely have better sense and intelligence to be coned.
    Ong, take issue with UMNOputeras on ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ than I will be convinced your so called ‘good intention’ on Hudud law is not fraud.

  103. The choice of candidate for KT, while not DAP first choice, is still a good choice for DAP as far as within PAS is concern, he is known as someone who focus on main agenda of reform rather than an all the trappings of Islamic politics. He is known to attack BN and UMNO ways vigorously while not participating in the Islamic rhetoric. He is known for attacking vigorously against corruption and abuse of power.

    This is MCA trash-talking politics to focus on Hudud and DAP because all they got is to divert attention from them shooting blanks (ahem). It makes sense given the trash-talking but can’t back it up president that they have now. OTK is failing to match his trash talk and action which his underlings seem to following and his rival CSL is pointing out everyday.

    You know what they call a trash talker who can’t back it up? A loser….

  104. Kit,

    Why I always see in main stream media reporting DAP is demanding PAS to revoke hudud? TheStar reported “Karpal calls on PAS chief to revoke hudud plan” and so on.

    It is either TheStar is spinning it or DAP really keep insisting PAS to revoke hudud.

    I am tired of BOTH reasons. Can you make them all go away?

    I am boycotting the Main Stream Media in supporting of many bloggers and Malaysia-Today readers. And please, DAP, do your part too.

    Thanks.

  105. Nice to see the contributions by ismailhakim (would PAS still be PAS if they didn’t have PAS objectives?), katdog (so how to educate voters to keep voting out bad governments?), Bigjoe (I hadn’t read anything about the candidate before) and patriotic1994.
    There doesn’t seem to be any benefit in DAP asking PAS to give up on Islamic ambition. PAS is what it is. PR is a coalition of 3 very different parties who share the common goal of replacing a corrupt, incompetent and oppressive government. Malaysian society is what it is. Anybody with political ambitions so strong that they are blinded to their civic duty can see that joining the largest coalition is the way to realise their goal.
    There’s no honest commentator available to most Malaysians to draw their attention to the flagrant everyday violations of democratic practice. For most Malaysians, there simply is no problem – this is what the propaganda tells them. For the parties of PR, principles tell them something is wrong with Malaysian politics, and they each have their own answer. DAP/PAS/PKR’s principles similarly tell them there are 3 (or only 2?) different right ways to do things.
    Campaigning as a coalition is unavoidable, given the nature of Malaysia’s politics. Defeating an incumbent with a uniting policy of ‘happy feeding at the trough’ is going to be very difficult. It would be nice to read some genuinely helpful suggestions.

  106. DAP leaders should have done a door to door campaign to win Chinese support for the PAS candidate. They should provide buses and cars to take these voters to the polling stations on election day. Every vote counts.

    Ceteris paribus, these voters are going to remain indoors come election day. DAP must not let that happen.

  108. undergrad2: DAP must not let that happen
    Malaysians must not let that happen. My relatives and neighbours weren’t going to vote last March either, so I got their IC numbers, found their polling stations, and told them who was driving where so they could share cars. You can’t fight greed with apathy. You only need a few supporters here and there who are prepared to talk to their neighbours (even by phone would do, if you’re not in KT), have access to the polling station info and are able to say “stop the rot!” or something equally catchy.

    Ten times out of ten, if “someone has to do something”, that’s your job.

  109. Obama was the first U.S. Presidential candidate to use the internet in a big way. He was able to get small donors to donate $25 and the result? Millions poured in. He used the internet to organize his supporters, inform ed them what was going on where and whose services were needed where and how. The result? His supporters (strangers to each other) were able to organize themselves into small groups and helped campaign for him. This door to door campaign proved very effective.

    On the day of the election, they organized into small groups to ferry voters to polling booths. Such networking proved very effective.

    Internet penetration in Malaysia may be low but it could still be used to organize support for the election. Volunteers could submit names, addresses and telephone numbers so others could contact them.

  110. Instead of talk of boycott, DAP must do the reverse and redoubles its effort and use every means possible to help its ally, PAS and PR to win the KT seat. HUDUD or Islamic laws are non issues really. They are just the spent ammunitions of the BN and their running dog component parties. DAP cannot run to indulge in small fights at the sideline with some inconsequential idiots, when they are most needed in KT now. It must show its mettle, resolve and ability to work as a cohesive whole in PR all the way to the Federal Government. This is no small matter because there is not much time and the entire future of Malaysia depends on it. IF PR fails it will take less than 30 years for Malaysia to degenerate into another Zimbawee at the rate we are going today.

  111. Undergrad2 – I wonder if the same could be done (legally) in Malaysia? It’s a bit ’11th hour’ for KT, but I think those tactics could work well for PR in future. Any chance of a forum on such a thing, LKS? Even an online forum / wiki where these things could be worked on at dapmalaysia.org or limkitsiang.com might help. I see plenty of pages at dapmalaysia.org relating to volunteering in person – anything for cyber-supporters?

  112. Together For 1 Nation, 1 Malaysia as 1 United Bangsa Malaysia

    5 January 2009

    To Saudara LKS and All Malaysians,

    After 308 and 2008 dawn, the only Change is a Change in Leadership in MCA and a shift in absolute power from BN to greater check and balance by Pakatan Rakyat. While BN strived to continue in office by constantly reminding the Rakyats to exercise “TOLERANCE” for greater peace, harmony and stability BUT in reality all political parties continue to champion on narrow ground of race/religion/language/party line; etc. All these are done for BN and Pakatan Rakyat SELF INTERESTS without focus on the real issues faced by Malaysians for the proper prescription of medicines to cure all ills faced by Malaysia.

    While the politicians broker for power and money to raise issues and concerns drummed for the gallery, no real work is done for the Rakyats basic needs of love and care, food and shelter. The only Courage to Change is once The Rakyats are not with ME (BN/Pakatan Rakyats) The Rakyats will suffer for not putting ME in power and money. That is why All Malaysians must exercise “TOLERANCE” and restraint for self decay and self destruction under ME rule WITHOUT COURAGE for CHANGE by being focus on the real issues without fear and favor.

    The call for DAP and MCA to boycott KT is obvious cowardice of both divide without interests of The Rakyats at heart. Both DAP and MCA should not use the Chinese race as the decoy for KING maker. When 2 elephants fight the ants got killed.

    Why can’t MCA and DAP just accept the Malaysians Chinese maturity and intelligence to just allow Bangsa Malaysia to make their decision in KT? Why continue to harp on race/religion etc. line when The Courage for Change should be issues centered for the good of 1 Bangsa Malaysia.. I would humbly, suggest to BN and Pakatan Rakyats that as your action and non action are not issues focused but for SELF only, just leave The Rakyats alone for their wise decision. Win as you may BUT not at the expense of The Rakyats.

    All Malaysians, the passing of the bills on judiciary and corruption by both BN and Pakatan Rakyats is a step in the right direction in the common objective of a transparent and respected judiciary system and corruption is bad for man kinds. Just imagine if the 2 issues are mooted and carried by Pakatan Rakyats it will not see daylight in parliament and ALL COWARDICE MPs will toe party line. Even issues dear to The Rakyats can be brushed aside because ME is not in public focus or in bad light. No wonder Dr M coined our MPs as brainless!

    If PAS had been narrow and small to champion Hudud and Islamic Laws, by demonstrating (Is a permit issued!) in front of PAS Headquarter only stir anger and burn the fire of hatred against Chinese.
    As The Constitution spelt out clearly the rights of all Malaysians why play to the partisan and not just focus on the real issues of rights to choice of religion and a law for a specific group can not be the universal law of all Malaysians until and unless 1 Bangsa Malaysia supported it. If MCA is courageous and not BRAINLESS and COWARDICE then MCA should take the PAS dare by the horn that PAS is unconstitutional and that HUDUD and Islamic Laws if implemented is indirect conversion of 1 Bangsa Malaysia religion because all right minded citizens would want to learn about the religion and the laws since 1 is subject to its legislation.

    Saudara LKS, Malaysians Condominium (MC) is still looking for Pakatan Rakyat’s good office to address the 11 years old issues faced on property maintenance. Malaysians Condominium (MC) is jointly developed by a private developer with land from the Local Council which is now managed by a Joint Management Body (JMB) formed under Act 663 with effect from April 2008 .

    The JMB is Chaired by a cohesive minority group with 3 foreigners of the small traders and working class. 4 of the Joint Management Committee members are also related by marriage and blood tie. No audited accounts was presented for 1 decade since 1998. The JMB is also not able to provide any monthly accounts since April 2008 and buy time under Act 663 that the accounts will be audited in due course!

    A sum of RM3.2 millions Sinking Funds billed by the developer/property manager appointed by the Local Council since Day 1 was not accounted for.

    No action was taken by the JMB on the RM3.2 millions and instead JMB now intends to collect further Sinking Funds from owners although JMB have given notice on 8 May 2008 to owners that JMB waived the 7 sens psf Sinking Funds.

    All these are happening with full knowledge of the Authority without any enforcement action made by Commissioner of Building (COB)/MP/Minister, against the JMB to address the issues.

    Surprise of surprise some of the first owners listed in MC are royalties, Tan Sris, Datuks and high ranking civil servants together with foreigners of the expatriates class.

    What a fall from grace and Rakyats Malaysia continue to face shoddy maintenance and services and facilities not provided but billed for by the developer/property manager and now The JMB!

    As MC is in the heart of Kuala Lumpur and only 1 MP who is also The Minister of WP is from BN is the 9 Pakatan Rakyats MPs not capable to take on MC issues as a national agenda on all Strta Title properties?

    Thank you.

    Together for 1 Nation, 1 Malaysia and 1 United Bangsa Malaysia.

  113. Yes you are right,undergrad2 to say that Obama is the first US Presidential candidate to use the Internet in a big way.Because of this he has become today the only president of US not beholden to any big business or for that matter any business.He is only beholden to the people of US cos his campaign is funded by the people of America!
    Kit is the first politician here in Malaysia who also has used the net in a big way
    enabling him and his party to win in a big way as well in the 12th GE.But he can also use it further to help PAS to win the KT election too.All he needs to do is to focus on the king-maker,the Chinese community of KT.Tell them Hudud law is not the main issue.Main issue is whether ,firstly we want Najis to be our PM and secondly whether we want to see a 2-party system to come about.

  114. Boycott it and we are back to square one, imagine UMNO become strong again and MCA and MIC are still holding a lot of parliamentary seats, where they can fill in their pockets again, then the nation will fall.

  116. And why should just DAP boycott it? there are 3 major parties in PR, why they trying to associate DAP with chinese again? old trick!
    Come on, DAP is for MALAYSIAN!
    DAP leaders dont fall for it!

  117. As much as I admire and respect Karpal Singh…..sometimes I think he is totally…a very stubborn man…..too straight forward…straight as an arrow…and with a brave heart.. like Lim Kit Siang for Malaysians.
    But LKS is trully smart to counter fight UMNO in every angle.
    Karpal…just talk….and go to jail.
    However….he is also stupidly falling into MCA’s trap…..in cunning politics. For that…Karpal cannot compete.
    Like I said….no marriage is 100% perfect..and Karpal can actually say…..”lets leave Hudud law matters aside……and let DAP supports PAS as part of Pakatan Rakyat party obligation…in the Terengganu by-election”
    By forcing PAS to say ….openly they also reject Hudud law…right now..where Islamic matters are major factors to win…muslim votes…Karpal is not logical and practical as a politician to fight cunning opponents.
    He is simply…too good a lawyer..to good a politician for a very good clean uncorrupted country.
    I hope DAP will not boycott the by-election.
    Hadi Awang is the pain in…? for PAS.
    Karpal is such …..for DAP.

  118. Whatever MCA wants DAP to do, DAP should just do the opposite.

    MCA is a useless party. BN has delayed the next decrease of petrol prices for several days (it’s already Jan 5th now), and I don’t see them doing anything about it even though they are supposedly part of the ruling federal coalition.

  119. There is something about BN candidate that I like to point out. I have been watching him campaign and the one thing I notice is that the guy’s body language sends out all sort of wrong signal. You can tell that people don’t feel comfortable with him personally unlike Abdul Wahid Endot. People genuinely like Abdul Wahid, feel comfortable with him even the Chinese.

    Its no wonder the first statement BN candidate did was to say he did not want personality to come into the picture. If you notice, children even run away from him unlike Abdul Wahid. There is something fake and untrustworthy about this guy body language. His friendliness is forced, hesitant, unessarily aggressive some times and not commited enough at other, does not come from the heart but the head.

  121. Dear All,

    It appears that the BN sponsored media machineries are at full force over the past few weeks in order to ensure a must win for its candidate. Khairy Jamaluddin had articulatively lured Husam to state the actual stand of PAS on Hudud as a component member of Pakatan Rakyat (PR). For all said and done, I sincerely believe that PAS should at some point states its official stand on Hudud as PR aspires to be the guardian of the federal government. Similarly, DAP has to declare its stand if PAS is adamant of establishing Hudud. However, one must always be reminded and aware that PAS has been consistent that Hudud is only meant for Muslims and has nothing to do with non-Muslims. But having said that, political parties will always manipulate the issue in order to gain popularity and votes. For example, MCA’s cleverly manipulated on Islamic state issue in 1999 and 2004 general elections by its “A vote to DAP is A vote to PAS” which oblitereated DAP, annihilated DAP’s quest of reaching the hearts of the Chinese. I was told that even the staunchest DAP supporters altered their votes to MCA then.

    We will surely see the same propaganda being played up again this time around in KT and DAP must be prepared for the worst. The Chinese voters constitute 11% of KT electoral and they are extremely important to both PR ands BN. As of now, BN has made some good progresses in winning the Chinese votes at KT as they started earlier. PAS and PR component members have at least two weeks to change the minds of the Chinese. The recent land titles issue in Perak can be an issue for PR to capatilize as it concerns Chinese settlements. It is good to note that PR Perak has already started giving out those titles to the applicants, defying the order of Federal Government.

    So, DAP being a multi-racial political but the most Chinese supporters should lead the charge in KT. Having said that, I believe PR has a score of issues to amicably settle within component members as they need to move forward in one single voice and with the same objectives for the betterment of Malaysia going forward into the future.

  122. Dato Seri Ong Tee Keat should have heard about the a story of Si An Mutiny, which recorded the kidnap of Generalisimo Chiang Kai Shek by Nationalist Young Marshal Chang Hsueh Liang at Si An. Chiang was later set free after he had agreed to sign a peace treaty with Communist Party of China in the presence of Young Marshal Chang. The peace treaty finally led to the cooperation between Communist Army and Nationalist Army in the joint effort to fight against the Japanese Imperialist invaders.

    Chang, being a Nationalist Leader, was trying to pursuade Chang to mobilise all Nationalist Army’s armed forces strength in order to focus only on the fight against one single common enemy, i.e. Japanese Imperialist invaders, and not to divert the attention to fight against Chinese Communist members, who were seen as the brethrens to the Nationalist Chinese. Chang’s expediency in taking custody of Generalisimo Chiang by force was taken as a disloyal misconduct and Chang was later put into the house arrest by Taiwanese Nationalist Government for the rest of his life.

    In the eyes of many Chinese people, Young Marshal Chang was indeed a Chinese hero who had helped save China from being colonised by Japanese Imperialist invaders.

    The moral of the story:
    If DAP Chairman Karpal Singh and DAP Secretary General Lim Guan Eng could continue to cooperate with PAS under the coalition of Pakatan Rakyat in order to focus on the attempt to overthrow Barisan Nasional and to seize the Government Forming Power from Barisan Nasional, most Malaysians would endorse them on their so doing because the main objective of overthrowing Barisan Nasional could justify all means, by hook or by crook. After going through 51 years’ pains and suffering under the administration of Barisan Nasional or its predecessor, the only hope left for the oppressed and underprivileged Malaysian people would be lying in CHANGE. Yes, CHANGE. We want a CHANGE. No matter whether we can stand to gain much from the CHANGE, we don’t really care much now! What we actually want is a CHANGE. As for all questions raised by Barisan Nasional, our answer is “enough is enough!” We don’t want to see a Prime Minister coming from the camp of Barisan Nasional anymore.

    Hopefully, the CHANGE we hope for will be a CHANGE that can make our dreams come true! We want a CHANGE for a better future and for the sake of our next generations.

  123. Chang, being a Nationalist Leader, was trying to pursuade Chiang to mobilise all Nationalist Army’s armed forces strength in order to focus only on the fight against one single common enemy, i.e. Japanese Imperialist invaders, and not to divert the attention to fight against Chinese Communist members, who were seen as the brethrens to the Nationalist Chinese.

    Sorry! A typo… a second “Chang” shoud be “Chiang”!

  124. I don’t know why a lot of people are arguing about Hudud & Qisas again. Non-Muslim dominated political parties are against it just because of their ignorance and afraid of losing support from their representative people. First, understand academically what is Hudud & Qisas and explain to your representative people without any prejudice. Why not taking it as one of the solution that we can apply to our country law especially for Muslims. Secondly, respect other party’s ideologies and missions, then other parties will respect your party. Thirdly, let’s the democracy decide either Hudud & Qisas can be implemented legitimately- we need 2/3 votes which are not likely with current state. Finally, please stop talking about Hudud & Qisas due to your ignorance because you are insulting Islam practitioners (@Truth Muslims) without your knowledge. Truth Muslims will not insult other religion practices. Please play respect to religious matter and focus on your effort to bridge closer Muslims and non-Muslims in Malaysia at least.

  125. Poor lawyer Jeffrey. His pro-MCA, anti-PAS position is being obliterated by the numerous writers on this blog. So much so that he is now muted. Join the Mute Chinese Association, Jeffrey. What you have done for them deserves a life membership.

  126. Pingback: Politics 101 Malaysia :: PR’s parallel campaign in KT? :: January :: 2009

  127. MCA has undeniably been unprincipled in its refusal to part with UMNO when the latter made the Islamic state declaration and continues to pursue its agenda of ‘Ketuanan Melayu’.

    But the fact that MCA is unprincipled in the above sense does not mean that there is nothing wrong with DAP to co-operate with PAS as a coalition partner when the latter has reiterated their agenda of Islamic state.

    DAP should pull out from PR and form a third coalition with parties that are committed to secular democracy and social equality. I have already provided arguments for this proposal in several previous threads.

  128. Malaysia Coward Association chief thieve OTK, LISTEN,

    I would rather have hudud law then Bee eNd to swindle the country’s wealth. With hudud your dirty corrupt hands will not be spared.

    Go to hell, MCA. Don’t ever try to claim you are represent we Malaysian Chinese. You are merely representing a group of thieves.

  129. Godfather, it is not that I am mute but that I can find no justification to respond to your solitary soliloquys and delusional rantings which no one else here (but you) appears to be interested, in disruption otherwise of a forum where readers are genuinely interested in discussing issues raised than settling old scores.

    Besides, your method of argument (if one can call it one) is hardly constructive engagement, often a muskeg of irrelevancies, dwelling habitually on the dishonest method of labeling messenger with generalisations of what you perceive has negative connotation (eg Pro-MCA Islamophobia) hoping that such a label will stick to discredit the position (by that sticking) of whatever he says rather than grappling objectively with the demerits/demerits of a message or a point of view.

    In a sense, it is good in a perverse way in that you serve by the power of negative example of how not to conduct or engage to others.

  130. PR should have fielded old man nincompoop! He has caliber. More caliber that all the others added together. Half baked undergrad2

    Let me tell you what is wrong with PR although when taken together they probably are NOT worse than BN.

    PAS basically is archaic who can’t think beyond religions. They think God and religions are the final solution on everything when history has repeatedly shown that religions have been used and reused by men for their own political and self interests.

    PKR basically still have all the remnants of UMNO – Malay centric, supremacists, thinking that government is a cash cow.

    DAP, despite its progressive ideology, is basically a party caught in the time wrap of half baked socialist-populist sixties.

  131. “Let me tell you what is wrong with PR although when taken together they probably are NOT worse than BN. ” Mr Know All aka Limkamput.

    What does that mean ? PR not worse – does this mean you think they are the same ? Does this mean you think they deserve a chance to form the federal government ? Or forget about them since they are six or half a dozen ? Be more specific, man, don’t talk in riddles like some lawyers we know.

  132. Can Jeffrey and Godfather simply take their fight elsewhere. This place is too sacred and precious for them to indulge in personal vendetta. I suggest both of you channel your energy and time to address the issue under discussion without mudslinging each other. Both of you are excellent thinkers and contributors here and I hate to see you guys waste your talents like this.

  133. “DAP, despite its progressive ideology, is basically a party caught in the time wrap of half baked socialist-populist sixties.”

    You should know that there are factions within DAP. One faction led by a Cambridge professor and his legal mentor can’t be termed progressive. They are so Islamophobic they will say anything to derail DAP.

  134. Islamophobia is a false accusation. Islam per se is not a problem. Islamic fundamentalism such as the type espoused by PAS is the problem.

    DAP should not work with Islamic fundamentalists within a political coalition. They should work with liberal and progressive Muslim leaders in a coalition without Islamic fundamentalists and racists. DAP should have no problem with working under the leadership of a liberal and progressive Muslim leader such as Anwar Ibrahim within a coalition without PAS.

  135. A firm commitment to secular democracy and opposition to Islamic state should not be confused with Islamophobia.

    Lim Kit Siang is firmly committed to secular democracy and opposed to Islamic state. But I’m sure he is not Islamophobic.

    DAP quit BA in protest against PAS’s agenda of Islamic state about a decade ago. I don’t think this was Islamophobic at all. It was simply a principled action reflecting its firm commitment to secular democracy.

    Rejection of Islamic fundamentalism is not equivalent to a rejection of Islam per se.

  136. In 2003, Kit Siang posted five questions on ‘the incompatibility of the PAS Islamic State blueprint with democracy, human rights, women rights and pluralism’ at the Perak DAP state Dinner.

    At the end of the speech, he concludes that ‘ it is most regrettable that the PAS Islamic State document has confirmed that the Political Islam of PAS is incompatible with democracy, pluralism, human rights, women’s rights, cultural diversity and modernity.’

    Such a firm opposition to Islamic State should not be interpreted as Islamophobia. It only reflects Kit Siang’s firm commitment to secular democracy.

  138. Let’s look at the empirical evidence in this thread alone. Reading from top down, I can only see two commentators who are in favour of a boycott – chengho and Professor Lee Wang Yen. Not even my friend Jeffrey has asked for a boycott in this thread (although he has supported a divorce from PAS in other threads). Most are in favour of all-out support for PAS in the by-election.

    So why the heck are we still discussing this ?

  139. I’m disappointed to have to agree with old man nincompoop on the issue of PKR being essentially a splinter group of UMNO. But that is only because old man nincompoop has not volunteered his services as a cleaner. It helps clear the mess after each meetings – tables, chairs, and toilets have to be cleaned.

  140. The following is an extract from a statement Lim Kit Siang made on 30th June 2001, entitled: “BA at crossroads and no more tenable”:

    ‘The issue confronting the Barisan Alternative is whether the PAS leaders are prepared to respect the DAP’s opposition to an Islamic State in Malaysia not because of anti-Islam sentiments but because an Islamic State in multi-racial and multi-religious Malaysia is not compatible with parliamentary democracy, power-sharing in a plural society, human rights and individual freedoms, women’s rights and social tolerance.’

    This is a good answer to the charge of Islamophobia.

  141. Lee Wang Yen Says:

    Today at 17: 55.55 (12 minutes ago)
    A firm commitment to secular democracy and opposition to Islamic state should not be confused with Islamophobia.”

    Fear of anything Islamic (phobia) is not a problem?? Let’s not split hairs here. Old ma nincompoop has none to split. Let’s be fair.

  143. I have never suggested that DAP should boycott.

    I’ve been urging DAP to quit PR to form a third coalition without UMNO and PAS. When that happens, the question of whether to boycott does not arise at all.

  145. Lee Wang Yen Says:

    Today at 18: 16.22 (21 seconds ago)
    When that happens, the question of whether to boycott does not arise at all.”

    Of course! When that happens the question of victory at the polls for DAP also does not arise at all.

  146. “I have never suggested that DAP should boycott.

    I’ve been urging DAP to quit PR to form a third coalition without UMNO and PAS.”

    Cambridge teaching you to split hairs again ? DAP quits PR, and therefore will no longer campaign for PAS in KT – this does not have the same effect as a boycott ?

    The boycott does not arise, but the end result is withdrawing support for PAS.

  147. undergrad2 says:
    ‘Of course! When that happens the question of victory at the polls for DAP also does not arise at all.’

    I don’t think Undergrad2 really understands what he writes. If by that statement he means that DAP has no chance of winning any seat if it quits PR, then the question of victory still arises in the following sense – question: ‘will DAP win any seat?’; answer: ‘No!’ So, why does he say that the question of victory at the polls for DAP does not arise? He is merely claiming that a particular answer will be guaranteed (the answer ‘no’) if DAP quits PR. But that does not mean that the question does not arise.

    EVEN IF the question does not arise when a particular answer is guaranteed, do we have good reason to think that the ‘no’ answer is guaranteed? In other words, do we have good reason to think that DAP has no chance of winning any seat if it quits PR? Of course not! The most we can say is that DAP MIGHT lose a lot of seats by quitting PR. But that does not mean that it has no chance of winning any seat. To suggest that it will have no chance of winning any seat if it quits PR is too incredible an exaggeration. So the ‘no’ answer is not guaranteed.

  152. Undergrad2 suggests that if DAP quits PR, the question of DAP’s victory to form the next federal government in coalition with other parties does not arise.

    Again, he doesn’t really understand what he writes.
    Since I’ve been suggesting that DAP forms a third coalition with parties committed to secular democracy, his comment in response to my suggestion should be interpreted in this light.

    If DAP quits PR and from PD, does it mean that DAP and its PD partners will not have any chance to wrest control of the federal government? If the answer is ‘No, it doesn’t’, the question still arises. If the answer is ‘Yes, it does,’ the question still arises.

    Perhaps he thinks that DAP and its PD partners will CERTAINLY have no chance to wrest control of the federal government if it quits PR. If he also thinks that a certain question does not arise if a particular answer is guaranteed, then his statement makes sense.

    However, there are two serious problems with the suggestion that if DAP quits PR, the question of DAP’s victory to form the next federal government in coalition with other parties does not arise.

    The first has to do with the suggestion that a certain question does not arise if a particular answer is guaranteed. The second problem has to do with the particular claim.

    1. A true solution to a mathematical puzzle is always guaranteed by logical necessity. But the fact that a particular answer is guaranteed does not mean that the question stated in that puzzle does not arise.

    2. There is no reason to think DAP will CERTAINLY fail to wrest control with its PD partners if it quits PR. He may think that DAP will most probably fail, but that’s a different story.

  154. Undergrad2’s shoulder analogy capitalises on a confusion between identity (‘sameness’) and compatibility or between incompatibility and difference (hence the focus on the shoulder with the same colour and shape).

    Working with a party that does not clash with our own party’s fundamental ideology does not mean that we can only work with a party that share the same ideology.

    A socialist democratic party may have some fundamental ideologies that are different from those of another party led by liberal and progressive Muslims. But as long as these different ideologies are fundamentally compatible, there is no problem in working as coalition partners.

    Even on pragmatic considerations, there is no reason to think that parties with fundamentally incompatible ideologies can work effectively in ruling a country as coalition partners.

  157. We know from the fact that under Pakatan Rakyat, all parties are working hand in hand, and as a respect to others party members, they do have an agreement to seek advice or consensus on topic related to the party;in this Hudud thingy, we knows PAS can not implement this without agreement from others party members. But what the heck! Hudud or not Hudud, if they really implement it, as a citizen, we can always vote them out in the next election, but if we choose the wrong party (in this case is BN), then we will continue to suffer corruption practices, racist remark, and all soft of things from this BN government… this is, obviously not what we want! Furthermore, we knows our DPM used to lead the rally in 1987 against others races, he was the one who even lift the swords and swear to kill others races who challenge the privilege of the Bumi (although he manage to escape the operasi Lalang!)…even though now he is making promises and promises to the Chinese, and Indian community in the media to tell how good he is to the Chinese and Indian Community, the question is, ‘can we trust him, still?\ I guess it is NOT for me. Lets forget about Hudud and really work on winning this election!!!!!

  158. You wish your assumptions would fit snugly into a universal equation. There are always assumptions to begin with and it is trite to have to point out the validity of the analysis would depend on the validity of those assumptions.

    Your assumption is that this new coalition would be filled by breakaway elements of the MCA and MIC. I challenge the validity of that assumption. Know why?? Among others and on this issue, Anwar is a pragmatist and not an idealist. He knows that to split Malay votes is not the way forward – at least for him. Talk of ideological differences and an ideological approach when the country is at a cross roads, for him is an exercise in futility.

    There is no pinhead solution here.

  159. If DAP were to break away from the coalition now, it would destroy the chance of any future electoral alliance between DAP and PKR. Through the process of attrition, and in the long run, new electoral alliances may form between yet to emerge political parties.

    But the opposition does not have the luxury of time.

  160. You were to busy labelling my proposal as ideological and have missed my repeated challenge: Are there are good reasons to think that, EVEN ON PRAGMATIC CONSIDERATIONS alone, that parties with fundamentally incompatible ideologies can work together effectively to rule a country?

    DAP’s departure from BA in 1999 (if I remember the year correctly) might not be completely motivated by ideology. The pragmatic infeasibility of working with PAS might have played a major role.

  162. Lee,

    Continue to live in a world of equations and logical reasoning and philosophical what-have-you but politics is not for you. You are like the economist who depends on long run assumptions to the exclusion of everything else.

    But in the long run, we will all be dead!

  163. I don’t think your economist analogy is correct. While I’m not sure whether an economist depends on long held assumptions to the exclusion of everything else, philosophers certainly do not. No, philosophers are ‘notorious’ for their fondness of questioning and challenging assumptions.

    I’ve been identifying and challenging assumptions here. For example, I challenged the claim that an opposition to Islamic state was equivalent to Islamophobia. I’ve just challenged your assumption that my proposal only had merits on ideological grounds. There are many other examples.

    Why think that those who do not examine their assumptions will fare better in evolution? Examination of long-held assumptions is an important factor that has contributed to the advancement of modern science.

  167. “Long run as opposed short run” reminds me of this rather blatant advertisement on the radio by some mutual fund association about investing for the long term – with short term not being important. Tell that to those who happen to need retirement funds right now, when global markets have dropped between 30 – 70 pct, and some funds have even stopped the right to redemptions.

    Anyway, I decline your offer to take over the baton in discussions with a theoretician. Let others talk theory with this neophyte.

  169. All I can do is to repeat my earlier post where I said that only two commentators – chengho and the president of the new third force Lee – have asked for the boycott of the KT by-election. President Lee then immediately said that he did not call for a boycott of the KT by-election, but that he did call for DAP to exit PR. How a person who can enter Cambridge cannot understand that the DAP exiting PR has the same consequence as boycotting the by-election is beyond me.

    However, let us humour him. Let us take his word that he never called for a boycott of the by-election. So that leaves chengho as the only person who has called for a boycott.

    End of discussion on the boycott, Kit ?

  170. If all it takes to win a game of chess is good mathematical skills, the Deep Blue would never have been defeated by Kasparov in 1996. Kasparov was defeated by a newer version of Deep Blue in 1997 but IBM cheated and had the computer dismantled soon after the ‘victory’.

  171. I told you guys before the last tsunami GE2008 that I am a DAP supporter & also PKR but not a PAS supporter. On Pakatan Rakyat, I support 2 out of 3 parties. But if PAS & UMNO contest, I will vote UMNO although I dislike it, or I make undi rosak.

    PAS plays down its Islamic ideologies just to gain support, but you see sooner or later they will live it up again. So on this Hudud thing, I told you guys in this blog before & I got scolded not to vote PAS.

    From what I read in the comments down here, I don’t see staunch DAP supporters, but mostly PR supporters who even supports PAS hudud agenda!!!

    For me I support our beloved Chairman, Karpal Singh. And I believe YB Kit Siang & Guan Eng & all other DAP YBs have the same idea as Karpal. I am a staunch DAP supporter here – but not a PR supporter -get my point?

  172. YB Kit,

    Pakatan Rakyat is a electoral coalition. It is a just a collection of parties that do not compete independently in an election (against each other) but as a united front against the incumbent coalition.

    The rationale for forming such an electoral coalition is grounded on the basic rationale that the coalition is beneficial to maximise chances of defeating incumbent coalition (BN), and that had there been no coalition, neither of the three parties running alone, nor even two of the three coalescing, without the third, would have any chance.

    The preceding rationale is the fundamental prerequsite of the formation and subsistence of the coalition.

    It is of course ideal if the component parties are, at the same time, ideologically compatible, ie if as what Lee Wang Yen says, DAP breaks off and there are other moderate parties to join to meet the above prerequisite. However if there are no foreseeable prospects of other parties joining, why does one do? Breakaway when alone or even two of the three coalescing, without the third, would provide no chance?

    Unless there is a good chance, this cannot be.

    So you carry on in a coalition of ideologically incompatible parties. On pure logical grounds, Ong Tee Kiat (OTK)’s accusation – that the DAP supports Hudud/Islamic state by reason of support for PAS KT by election candidate – can be rebutted by the fact that the prerequisite of the coalition is as stated above, and not ideological compatibility, and you have shown that by publicly distancing DAP from Husam’s statement on Hudud, which should suffice.

  173. OTK’s point that DAP’s support of PAS candidate in KT is equivalent to support of Hudud/Islamic State is strictly non sequitur ie an inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises, the premises being the fundamental prerequisite for formation/sustenance of an electoral coalition, and not ideological compatibility of its component parties, which is not prerequsite…..

    Based on fundamental prerequisite for formation/sustenance of an electoral coalition, DAP will be duty bound to support the PAS candidate even if PAS’s professed ideology is diametrically opposed to DAP’s. This does not imply or necessarily translate to DAP supporting PAS’s implementation of Hudud/Islamic state when an electoral coalition wins an election and becomes a ruling coalition. An electoral coalition operates on a different prerequsite and objective from that of a ruling cioalition sharing power : don’t mix the two up.

    This is the way to rebut him (OKT) : but whether ordinary rakyat/voters in KT will see it same way, is another question. To them you & DAP are perceived supporting Hudud/Islamic state especially after Husam’s reiteration of Hudud, which is PAS’ s fault in raising what to me is unnecessary & contrary to PR’s common objectives excluding it. It will be put to you squarely, yes you are duty bound to support candidates of ideologicaly different coalition partners/parties ’ candidates provided only the ideologicaly different coalition partners/parties honour th e common manifesto but what they evince an intent to breach it by introducing Hudud not agreed in the manifesto? Are you going to condone it and in that process encourage more future breaches? That will be difficult for the DAP to answer, which is why I have sympathy for the view that if and when PAS (or any other component party) breaches the common understanding, the other parties of the coalition not at fault should be seen to take some form of forceful action to ensure that the breach is not viewed lackadasically by the party in breach, so encouraged by lack of action as to repeat the offence with impunity in undermine of the credibility of the entire coalition.

  174. It has to be clarified that what I have stated in preceding posts is soley from the coalition’s point of view – to wrest power via constitutionally mandated ballot box on the assumption that in politics the first objective is power, the second only to be seen exercising it with proper governance, acountability, equitable fairness an democracy.

    From rakyat’s point of view it is at all times a reversal : proper governance, acountability, equitable fairness an democracy come first. It is country’s welfare first, not just power from evicting incumbent.

    However they are entitled to think that an election coalition that wins will also become a government coalition bringing into government th eir disparate ideologies as spoils of victory.

    So if they perceive that this electoral coalition presents a perfect opportunity and platform for PAS to make significant advances of its theocratic agenda as evinced by tolerance by the other two co alition partners of PAS’s repeated breaches of the common understanding/manifesto of PR, to the extent that it will likely become a reality upon electoral victory by PR coalition with PAS i n dominat position – and if further if they think that a moribund, racist or corrupt incumbent government is actually a lesser evil than the Islamic theocratic state – then, they will support the incumbent government.

    If however they think:

    · A Islamic theocratic state is still better than a corrupt incumbent government; or

    · Even if they don’t think so that a theocratic state is better, and for so long that they further think PAS cannot so easily form an Islamic theocratic state when PR secures electoral victory because of demograpics, internal opposition from its coalition partners and also external resistance from BN’s parties (in a Parliamentary Opposition then ), NGOs and civil society,

    then they will tend to be blase about PAS challenges and will support PR in spite of PAS.

    I hope this clarifies some of the issues in contention.

  175. “D” wants to find a soulmate and get married then. There are only two men available, i.e. “K” and “U”. “D” finds that “U” is not an honest man and “U” has already been committed with other girl called “C”. Therefore “D” approaches “K” but only finds that “K” is also currently having a courtship with “A”, whom “D” hates the most because of A’s stubborness in upholding the religious fundamentals, which “D” thinks would destroy her secular life if being implemented universally and mandatory.

    A match-maker by the name of Dr. Lee Wang Yen out of a sudden comes to “D” and tells “D” that “D” should breakoff with “K” because K’s courtship with “A” would eventually lead to a marriage between “K” and “A”. Then “D” will then be left with the sole choice of becoming the kept woman of “K” if “D” doesn’t breakoff with “K” now. The match-maker really keeps everybody wonder whom he would recommend to be the new soulmate of “D”.

    However, the match-maker attempts to keep it a puzzle and keeps telling people that “D” has to breakoff with “K” first before a young handsome man can be brought to meet up with “D”.

    So, Godfather, let me ask you this question: Do you want to trust the match-maker?

  176. It seem rather odd to me that this fella who call himself Lee Wang Yen and who seem to be able to write somewhat really believe that the way to go is for DAP to leave the coalition all together because of idealogical incompatibility with PAS. What type of warp thinking is this. It is almost as warp as that Mamak who at this very moment still thinks that he has done Malaysia a great favour. If he continues harping on like this with his twisted logic I suggest he gets his head check. Could he be a mole from MCA here to sow discord and confusion here.

  177. Do you guys really think with a 40% non-Muslim population, Malaysia might be able to one day turn itself into an Islamic state whatever that may mean??

    The best it could do is to introduce more core Islamic values into the country’s administration. You already have a list of do’s and don’ts i.e. Islamic values which intrude into our private and personal lives.

    Do you really think there will one day be an Islamic crimiinal procedure code which will be applied to non-Muslims? We already have a double tracked system of justice – one which applies to Muslims and the other to non-Muslims based on the English common law. That is confusing enough for one-half of the population.

    The constitutional position of Islam in the constitution is already well protected. If there is a need to introduce more protection, then let’s have it.

    What in practical terms does an Islamic state mean or could mean to the rest of the country?? We should just end this academic discussion on what an Islamic state could mean to non_Muslim Malaysians because it has no practical implications and is just a distraction. Let PAS leaders say whatever they feel. It is just their way of appealing to the religious conservatives of their base.

  181. Finally, Jeffrey is getting somewhere !

    “If however they think:

    · A Islamic theocratic state is still better than a corrupt incumbent government; or

    · Even if they don’t think so that a theocratic state is better, and for so long that they further think PAS cannot so easily form an Islamic theocratic state when PR secures electoral victory because of demograpics, internal opposition from its coalition partners and also external resistance from BN’s parties (in a Parliamentary Opposition then ), NGOs and civil society,

    then they will tend to be blase about PAS challenges and will support PR in spite of PAS. ”

    I put to you that this, on a cumulative basis, is what the majority thinks. This is why PR can win, and PR can rule as an alternative to BN.

  182. Dare to say, PAS cannot implement Hudud within the next 25 years, simple? How can they ever get 2/3 of parliament to support this? (surely not before 1 Jan 2034), after that ?? I dont know, probably I will be reunited with my ancestor before that.

  183. “Since I’ve been suggesting that DAP forms a third coalition with parties committed to secular democracy” – Lee Wang Yen

    Ok now this is either silly or naive i don’t know which. Do you see any other parties in Malaysia committed to secular democracy willing to join DAP to form a third coalition?

    PKR has always stood with PAS. It’s not going to abandon PAS that is capable of winning the states of Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan and Terrengganu. The only parties that might join DAP are minor or washed out parties like Gerakan, PPP or SAPP. Such a third coalition has absolutely zero chance of winning the elections. Unless Mr. Lee is so naive he thinks PKR might be willing to abandon PAS for DAP?

  184. ” Unless Mr. Lee is so naive he thinks PKR might be willing to abandon PAS for DAP?”

    He is obviously naive – a neophyte at politics. Implicit in this view is that DAP can go alone and gain control of the federal government without Malay support because it has to.

  185. If PAS close shop, UMNO will get support of almost all the Malay, then UMNO don’t need MCA, MIC n so on, they will then surely be much, much more extremist, racist etc. Do the non Muslim / non Malay want this to happen??
    Never vote for corrupted / extremist / racist party.

  190. “I put to you that this, on a cumulative basis, is what the majority thinks. This is why PR can win, and PR can rule as an alternative to BN.” – Godfather (Yesterday at 23: 11.54)
    Let see the validity of that “put”:

    1. “What the majority thinks?” It is certainly what you or perhaps the majority of some of the more vociferous commenters in this thread think or would like to think. I do not know whether that is what the majority of readers/visitors here (many of whom have not left their comments) think, much less the majority of what rakyat/voters think.

    2. “This is why PR can win, and PR can rule as an alternative to BN” – this depends on what the majority of what rakyat/voters think per 1. and other factors ie whether PR could deliver or can still hold together and not be torn by open dissension by next election on the assumption that BN cannot re-invent;

    3. Even if the majority think either (a) Islamic theocratic state is still better than a corrupt incumbent government; or (b) PAS cannot so easily achieve its end agenda of an Islamic state (whether solely through PR coalition platform or using the opposition platform leap unto the BN platform), it does not necessarily mean that majority is definitely right in its assessment.

  191. Jeffrey says:

    ‘The rationale for forming such an electoral coalition is grounded on the basic rationale that the coalition is beneficial to maximise chances of defeating incumbent coalition (BN), and that had there been no coalition, neither of the three parties running alone, nor even two of the three coalescing, without the third, would have any chance.

    The preceding rationale is the fundamental prerequsite of the formation and subsistence of the coalition.’

    On the basis of this fundamental prerequisite, Jeffrey then argues that

    ‘So you carry on in a coalition of ideologically incompatible parties. On pure logical grounds, Ong Tee Kiat (OTK)’s accusation – that the DAP supports Hudud/Islamic state by reason of support for PAS KT by election candidate – can be rebutted by the fact that the prerequisite of the coalition is as stated above, and not ideological compatibility, and you have shown that by publicly distancing DAP from Husam’s statement on Hudud, which should suffice.’

    Jeffrey’s contention that OTK’s accusation can be rebutted may be right if the prerequisite he refers to is the sole prerequisite of forming a coalition.

    However, there are other prerequisites that cast aspersions to that contention.

    One key prerequisite of forming a coalition that works on an explicit programme of replacing the current government is to show the electorate that the coalition is ready to govern when it takes over. If PR’s objective were to merely win a few more seats and did not aim at taking over the government, this consideration would be irrelevant. However, since PR’s current objective is clearly to take over the government, this consideration becomes a key prerequisite. Many voters will think that a coalition with parties that adhere to fundamentally incompatible ideologies cannot work effectively in ruling a country.

  192. Why should DAP pull out from PR? Because the principle of equal partnership adhered to in PR will lead to DAP’s compromise on the issue of PAS’ islamic agenda.

    This can be avoided if there is no equal partnership in PR. But I don’t think DAP wants to get into such a situation.

    Forming a coalition with parties sharing fundamentally compatible ideologies will ensure equal partnership without compromise on issues of fundamental importance.

    I provided a more detailed argument for this point in several previous threads.

  193. Jeffrey argues that we must distinguish between an electoral coalition and a ruling coalition.

    I see that distinction. But that distinction is not really crucial to the issue here since PR is not a ruling coalition. What’s crucial is whether there is any distinction between an electoral coalition aiming to win more seats and an electoral coalition aiming to unseat the current government when it comes to the need for having compatible ideologies.

    While having compatible ideologies may not be a prerequisite for an electoral coalition aiming just to win more seats, it is a prerequisite for one aiming to unseat the government, since such a coalition need to show the electorate that they are ready to govern when given the mandate. Voters may judge that they are not ready to govern if they think that this coalition does not have compatible ideologies.

  194. Jeffrey talks a lot about an electoral coalition in his last few posts. But what’s crucial is ‘an electoral coalition aiming to be a ruling coalition’.

    For ‘an electoral coalition aiming to be a ruling coalition’, having compatible ideologies is not merely an ideological issue. It is also crucially relevant to the pragmatic question of whether that coalition can rule effectively. The very viability of that electoral coalition as a ruling coalition is at stake. IF voters judge that a particular electoral coalition with the explicit aim of becoming a ruling coalition is not viable as a ruling coalition, they won’t support it on pragmatic grounds.

  195. There is a “theoretical”distinction between an electoral coalition and a ruling coalition.

    Lee Wang Yen says, “if voters judge that a particular electoral coalition with the explicit aim of becoming a ruling coalition is not viable as a ruling coalition, they won’t support it on pragmatic grounds.”

    I do not disagree with what he says – from the voters’ view point. This is in fact what I earlier said in my second posting Yesterday at 22: 09.38, 3rd para. Begining with “whether ordinary rakyat/voters in KT will see it same way, is another question…”

    I pointed out the distinction because (1) to acknowledge that distinction is necessary for Kit Siang to rebut Ong Tee Kiat and (2) it is a real consideration from the PR coalition’s raison de etre, objective and point of view of winning power as distinguished from rakyat/voters’ priority. This is already clarified in my 3rd posting Yesterday at 22: 11.55 in which I said, “it has to be clarified that what I have stated in preceding posts is soley from the coalition’s point of view – to wrest power etc ……From rakyat’s point of view it is at all times a reversal…”

  197. All politicians should enlist in a class for ‘logical thinking’ because they don’t understand what they are thinking and saying! Let the master of philosophy and logical thinking lead the way to a happy and prosperous Malaysia!

    Politicians and future leaders must understand what they are thinking and saying before they could hope others could uderstand what they are saying and thinking.

  198. However lets look at the question : whether the distinction between an electoral and aruling coalition is “real” or crucial enough on realistic grounds to stand. This is really what Lee Wang Yen questions.

    The answer to that (arguing on pragmatic grounds) is (frankly) not a straight forward one of yes or no.

    In a sense, Lee Wang Yen’s questioning is entirely legitimate. If my distinction (between electoral coalition and ruling coalition) were intended to imply that an ideologically divided electoral coalition can easily, on electoral victory, make the transition to an effective ruling coalition, then that is wrong. Ideologicaly differences cannot disappear overnight : indeed they are likelier exacerbated in victory when sharing power (the ultimate objective) becomes imminent or realised. This is especially so when the parties to PR coalition are only 3, arguably of equal power and voters pull. They may squabble and fall apart.

    But one may ask (also on pragmatic grounds) will above scenario definitely happen?

    As at now Anwar cannot get a single BN (non-UMNO) party to cross because they follow who they think is winner. The moment they sense PR would win or PR has already won, do you think they won’t join PR ruling coalition with alacrity diluting, as I said in the past, PAS’s influence and dominance necessary for it to assert its theological agenda within the ruling coalition?

    As has been pointed out, we h ave a constitution (not in line with PAS’s ideology), NGOs, Civil Society, PKR & DAP as well as whatever left of BN in the opposition then : is it so easy for PAS to assert/realise its ag enda in light of existing realities of Malaysia’s demographics?

    Again we return here to possibilities versus probabilities which Lee Wang Yen has highlighted in the past. Is it so probable that PAS will get its objective?

    This has to be balanced against three reality check:

    1. taking experience of other opposition electoral coalition elsewhere how many of these have ideological compatible parties? (Here one is permitted to lok at “degrees” of incompatibility. We cannot refute that PAS’s ideological difference with the other two is as wide as between North and South poles);

    2. if DAP were to break off now who would join it in the PD? It is chicken and egg: they join when DAP evince chance to win. They don’t join so easily to h elp DAP break off from PAS to win. Otherwise they would, on Anwar’s overtures, have already joined PR by now!

    3. the other consequence of 2., is that the prospect of change of BN immediately recedes, all gains on March 8th will be wiped out, and it i s not easy to t hink that this is the better way forward for the country. If PR is allowed to win by staying together, then at least there is a chance for the dangers of PAS’s theocratic state to be mitigated by dilution as I said earlier.

  199. Concerns about PAS are real in one other sense, that (1) using PR platform, it wins sufficient seats and strengthen sufficient to cause UMNO to invite it and join up/share power in the process of which PAS’s ideology or some parts of it will be advanced.

    These concerns may be greater than PAS being able to assert its ideology within Pakatan Rakyat coalition (2) unless the other two coalition partners (PKR & DAP) repeatedly allow it to get away with flagrant breaches of common manifesto, assert its dominance as MCA and MIC allow UMNO to do so in BN.

    (1) and (2) are real concerns.

  201. “What the majority thinks?” It is certainly what you or perhaps the majority of some of the more vociferous commenters in this thread think or would like to think. I do not know whether that is what the majority of readers/visitors here (many of whom have not left their comments) think, much less the majority of what rakyat/voters think. said Jeffrey QC

    Permatang Pauh wasn’t a majority ? Penang, Selangor, Perak, Kedah, Wilayah, Kelantan – did the majority in these states think likewise ?

    Even in this thread – how sure are you that “many of whom have not left their comments” are those who think the opposite of the majority who have left their comments ?

    The silent majority thinks like Lee Wang Yen ? If so, there should be no problems in creating a third force, his so-called PD. The reality is that PD will be a still-born, booted into oblivion even before it can cry “wolf”.

  202. I do not dispute the claim that there is a distinction between an electoral coalition and a ruling coalition.

    My point is simply that this distinction is not really relevant to the rebuttal of OTK’s suggestion.

    Jeffrey says:
    ‘OTK’s point that DAP’s support of PAS candidate in KT is equivalent to support of Hudud/Islamic State is strictly non sequitur ie an inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises, the premises being the fundamental prerequisite for formation/sustenance of an electoral coalition, and not ideological compatibility of its component parties, which is not prerequsite…..’

    OTK or his supporters may say this to Jeffrey, ‘Well, you’re of course right that an electoral coalition that merely aims to win more seats does not require ideological compatibility of its component parties. And you’re of course right that we should not require that DAP must have ideologies compatible with those of PAS ON THE GROUNDS that PR is a ruling coalition, for PR is clearly not the ruling coalition. But that PR is not a ruling coalition and that voters should therefore not expect DAP and PAS to have compatible ideologies ON THESE IRREVELANT GROUNDS (irrelevant because PR is not a ruling coalition) does not mean that voters should not expect them to have compatible ideologies ON OTHER RELEVANT GROUNDS. The grounds that are clearly relevant to PR are these: An electoral coalition aiming to become the ruling coalition has to show the electorate that they are ready to govern, and to do this the coalition must at least have compatible ideologies among its component parties. Given that PR expressly aims to become a ruling coalition by taking over the federal government, and given that PR is already a ruling coalition in several state governments, voters are well justified to expect its component parties to share compatible ideologies.’

    The above argument is phrased in terms of Jeffrey’s original formulation. However, I don’t think that DAP’s co-operation with a party that has ideologies that are fundamentally incompatible with those of DAP indicates its endorsement and adoption of those ideologies (e.g. PAS’ Islamic State). If OTK suggests this in his challenge, then this suggestion is clearly unreasonable. The most he can accuse DAP of is being unprincipled and in being an unwitting catalyst in the promotion of PAS’s agenda, not that DAP endorses PAS’s agenda.

  205. The relative probabilities of one scenario occuring versus other alternative scenario occuring are of course a crucial consideration in deciding which action to take. But that is not the sole consideration. The other consideration is the gains or losses incurred when one scenario occurs.

  206. Jeffrey says:
    ‘…indeed they are likelier exacerbated in victory when sharing power (the ultimate objective) becomes imminent or realised. This is especially so when the parties to PR coalition are only 3, arguably of equal power and voters pull. They may squabble and fall apart.

    But one may ask (also on pragmatic grounds) will above scenario definitely happen?’

    I don’t think we should ask whether it will definitely happen. Asking whether it is likely to happen should suffice. In non-mathematical contexts, we rarely need definite certainty. However, it seems that the more appropriate question to ask is the following (if we are assessing the relative merits of staying on in PR and forming PD): Is it more likely for DAP to achieve its purpose of co-ruling the country without compromising its fundamental ideologies if it stays on in PR in its current form than if it gets into a coalition with parties that share fundamentally compatible ideologies?

    Both options have rather low probabilities. And I don’t think I’m well placed to judge whether one is more likely than the other. However, the consideration of the risk of being an unwitting catalyst to PAS Islamic agenda incurred in the former has led to my preference for the latter. Of course, this is based on the assessment that PAS fundamentalist Islamic agenda are very dangerous, much worse than UMNO’s corruption and racism.

  207. At the end of a speech in 2003, Lim Kit Siang concludes that ‘ it is most regrettable that the PAS Islamic State document has confirmed that the Political Islam of PAS is incompatible with democracy, pluralism, human rights, women’s rights, cultural diversity and modernity.’

  208. Undergrad2, I admire your stamina! Jeffrey is clearly a very intelligent fellow. Have you noticed the curiously automatic flavour of Lee Wang Yen’s responses? The strangely insulated-from-human-experience attitude? It is my belief that Jeffrey is, among other things, an expert programmer who has cobbled together an assistant from ELIZA and the Dada Engine (see elsewhere.org/pomo), probably written in Prolog, or one of those programming languages of the computationally gifted, and has merely to type:
    argue(“Jeffrey”, TRUE, “guilt is a technicality”);
    or
    argue(“undergrad2”, FALSE, “life is like this”);
    and then he sits back and watches you wear your fingertips out.

  209. The debate was sparked off by whether DAP ought to stay on in PR in its current form or forms or gets into a coalition with parties that share fundamentally compatible ideologies.

    So it boils down which of the following views are likelier (in terms of balance of probabilities):

    1. risk of DAP “being an unwitting catalyst to (advance) PAS Islamic agenda” (that DAP itself ideologically opposes) via PR platform on the premise/value judgment that the “ Islamic agenda is very dangerous, much worse than UMNO’s corruption and racism”;

    2. the imperative of UMNO’s corruption and racism being ended notwithstanding risk of (1) above, the risk being mitigated by:-

    (a) likely dilution of PAS’s influence when PR turns from electoral coalition to ruling coalition with other parties not ideologically opposed to DAP or similarly ideologically opposed to PAS then joining the victorious PR coalition;

    (b) other factors like our constitution being presently not in line with PAS’s ideology, the likelier position of NGOs, Civil Society, PKR & DAP, other parties then joining PR in victory as well as whatever left of BN in the opposition then opposing PAS’s atempts to establish the Islamic state in a PR’ victory – and also demographic realities of the country with 40-45% non muslims not to mention many moderate muslims against it. The question to be asked is also whether PAS can force this issue even if it were the more dominant in the PR ruling coalition because if PKR/DAP or others defect/leave, the ruling coalition will also fall,

    which have to be balanced against:

    (c) if DAP leaves now, the whole enterprise of forming an alternative govt in replacement of the existing will collapse, and all gains on 8th March 08 would be reversed;

    (d) even if PR is not victorious in next GE, in its present form it poses an imminent threat to BN, keeps it on its toes and exert pressure for it to re-invent, whether or not one views that were possible;

    (e) though it is ideal for parties within coalition to be compatible or ast least not that incompatible as PAS/DAP alliance, and that it is entirely valid to surmise that their ideological asymmetry is likely to impede forming smoothly a federal government, the fact, if you look around, most political coalitions on opposition side are likely not that ideologically aligned/ symmetrical: they come togther because on their own they could not realise the objective of winning and sharing power, and for the sake of that end of winning and sharing power they have to compromise when they reach that point, the extent of compromise depending a myriad of circumstances and relative bargaining positions then.

    Conclusion: So if one believes in (1) above vote for BN or abstain…..according to conscience. If one believes in (2) then, vote for PR or any of its component parties.Is there any other option?

  210. “This is a by-election. In by-elections voting tends to favor the opposition – since Trengganu is under PR, that means BN.”

    Undergrad2, where have you been ? Trengganu under PR ? You must be having visions. But I like your logic that by-elections tend to favour the opposition. Others will then ask you for empirical evidence of such a statement.

  212. “At the end of a speech in 2003, Lim Kit Siang concludes that ‘ it is most regrettable that the PAS Islamic State document has confirmed that the Political Islam of PAS is incompatible with democracy, pluralism, human rights, women’s rights, cultural diversity and modernity.’”

    Professor Lee, are you calling Kit a hypocrite ? OK, OK, you didn’t call him so, but are you insinuating that Kit is a hypocrite ? Are you supporting Ong Tee Keat and the MCA in this by-election ? Yes or No would suffice.

  213. “I have never suggested that DAP should boycott.

    I’ve been urging DAP to quit PR to form a third coalition without UMNO and PAS. When that happens, the question of whether to boycott does not arise at all.” (Dr. Lee Wang Yen)

    Dr. Lee,

    Did your Probabilistic Mathematical Calculations really tell you that DAP would have a high probability at high confidence level to win the Parliamentary Elections if DAP had decided to leave PR and to form a third coalition which you called PD?

    Did you really take the following political realities into consideration when you established your basic assumption for discussing on whether DAP should leave PR and form PD?
    Political realities in Malaysia:
    1) There might not be an “Exclusive Or” situation between PR and PD during the nomination of an electoral candidate during the Parliamentary Election. Both PR and PD might nominate their respective candidate in the election and thus creating the vote division effect on PR and PD. PR and PD might eliminate one another in the voting process.
    2) The leadership quality, as perceived by the electorate, in relation to the existing PR with DAP as an equal partner might be given a much higher score by the electorate than the leadership quality of the suggested PD without PKR and PAS.

    If Dr. Lee has already make an assumption that “there will be equal chance of winning for both PR with DAP as equal partner and PD without PKR and PAS” without taking into the consideration of the above political realities, then the assumption thus made would be faulty. If the assumption was faulty, then noone would be able to claim that his argument would be valid.

    Noone could have drawn a true/correct conclusion from an invalid argument based on a faulty assumption.

  215. Onlooker Politics,

    Did you really read my post before commenting?

    I say in a post at 09:16.06 that both options have rather low probabilities.

    Positive expected utilities do not depend on one option having a high probability

  216. Onlooker Politics says:

    ‘If Dr. Lee has already make an assumption that “there will be equal chance of winning for both PR with DAP as equal partner and PD without PKR and PAS” without taking into the consideration of the above political realities, then the assumption thus made would be faulty. If the assumption was faulty, then noone would be able to claim that his argument would be valid.

    Noone could have drawn a true/correct conclusion from an invalid argument based on a faulty assumption.’

    This statement is highly problematic. The following are the problems:
    1. An argument with faulty/false premises can be deductively valid. Deductive validity depends on the argument form, not on the truth of its premises. A valid argument with faulty assumption is an unsound argument. So, if you just want to say that my argument has a faulty assumption, just say that my argument is unsound. If you want to claim that my argument is both invalid and unsound, you must first make sure that I’m giving a deductive argument (since all inductive arguments are deductively invalid), and then show that that deductive argument is invalid, and then show that at least one of the assumptions is false. Since you’ve only been trying to argue that my argument is unsound in the sense of relying on a false assumption, you should just stick with that claim.
    2. I say ‘you’ve only been TRYING to argue that my argument is unsound’, because I’m not really sure what you want to claim. Do you really want to claim that I have made a faulty assumption that “there will be equal chance of winning for both PR with DAP as equal partner and PD without PKR and PAS”? I’m not sure. Your use of the word ‘if’ in your claim that ‘If Dr. Lee has already made the assumption…’ seems to show that you’re not sure if I really make that assumption. But if you’re not sure whether I’m guilty of making that faulty assumption, why is there a need for you to preach about the importance of not having faulty assumptions in one’s argument? Unless you think that I’m really guilty of making that assumption, that preaching is totally irrelevant.
    3. Now, do I make that so-called faulty assumption that “there will be equal chance of winning for both PR with DAP as equal partner and PD without PKR and PAS”? There’s actually no need for you to guess, and thus no need for you to use the word ‘if’, since the answer to this question should be obvious if you really read my post carefully (if at all) before commenting. I say in a post at 09.16.06 that:

    ‘Both options have rather low probabilities. And I don’t think I’m well placed to judge whether one is more likely than the other.’

    So where do you get the idea that there is a possibility that I’ve been making the assumption that “there will be equal chance of winning for both PR with DAP as equal partner and PD without PKR and PAS”? Please note also that my ‘options’ are not exactly the same as the options mentioned in the so-called faulty assumption you say I have have a possibility of making.

  217. Have I ever suggested that DAP should form a coalition without PAS AND PKR?

    I’ve been suggesting that DAP should form a coalition without PAS and UMNO. ‘Without PKR’ is not part of my suggestion. I’ve even suggested that DAP should persuade Anwar’s to lead PD.

    Of course, you may want to claim that it’s unlikely for PKR to ditch PAS for DAP. That’s another story. By the way, I’m not sure about the truth of this claim. Those who make this claim have to give us some reasons.

  218. “Positive expected utilities do not depend on one option having a high probability.” (Dr. Lee Wang Yen)

    Dr. Lee,
    Can you please elaborate further on what kind of Positive Expected Utilities can DAP stand to gain from each and every alternative option recommended by you?

    I do not see the positive expected utilities arising from any option which you have hypothesized here if both options offer low probabilities for DAP to achieve its purpose of co-ruling the country with other party or parties without compromising its fundamental ideologies.

  219. Thanks, Jeffrey, for spelling those considerations. I think this is a good way of discussing the issue.

    However, these are some problems.

    Firstly, I don’t think that the issue boils down to the relative probabilities of your (1) and (2). These relative probabilities may play a major role. But the issue does not boil down to them. This is because in decision theory, the expected utility (overall gains and losses or benefits and costs) of a particular action depends not just on the probability of a certain scenario and the probabilities of alternative scenarios ocurring when one takes that action. They also depend on the utility value (the gains/benefits and losses/risks) of taking that action for each of the scenario. (Before someone charges me of talking about ideologies at the expense of pragmatism, please note that the evaluation of expected values in decision theory is precisely a pragmatic approach)

    Secondly, I don’t think that the alternative scenarios to be compared are your (1) and (2).

    Firstly, your (1) and (2) are not strictly scenarios at all, as they include risks, which should be a factor considered in utility values rather than the alternative scenarios. This makes evaluation of expected values I suggested earlier more difficult. But this is not really a very significant objection as we can try to reformulate it to make evaluation of expected values easier.

    Secondly, your formulations of (1) and (2) make me wonder how one should make the comparison. (1) is the risk incurred by DAP if it stays on in PR. (2) is the need to end UMNO’s racism and corruption. I wonder how one should compare a risk with a need. Perhaps what you mean is this: (1) is the need to leave PR (‘the need’ is suggested by the risk of staying on in PR); (2) is the need to end UMNO’s racism and corruption. This reformulation of (1) makes it easier to compare (1) and (2). I shall operate on this reformulated version of (2) henceforth.

    However, even if we reformulate (1) in the above way, there is still a problem. In evaluating expected values, we have to evaluate the probabilities of mutually exclusive alternative scenarios. But (1) and (2) are not mutually exclusive: the need (or the fulfilment of the need) to leave PR is compatible with the need (of the fulfilment of the need) to end UMNO’s racism and corruption.

    Of course, you might rightly or wrongly think that the fulfilment of the need to leave PR makes the fulfilment of the need to end UMNO’s racism and corruption less likely. But that is another issue. Even if you’re right about this, it does not mean that (1) and (2) are mutually exclusive. Mutual exclusivity requires logical incompatibility.

    Thus, we should formulate at least two alternatives that are mutually exclusive (of course, there could be other alternatives). I suggest the following alternatives (which I do not claim to be exhaustive):
    A – A non-BN coalition which includes PAS governs Malaysia.
    B – A non-BN coalition which does not include PAS governs Malaysia

    We have to then
    1) assess the relative probabilities of A and B occuring
    2) assess the utilities (i.e. gains and losses) of the action of DAP’s staying on in PR given scenario A and given scenario B
    3) assess the utilities of the action of DAP’s leaving PR and forming PD given
    scenario A and given scenario B.
    4) use (1)-(3) in the evaluation of the expected values of the action of DAP’s staying on in PR and the action of DAP’s forming PD.
    If one proposes a new alternative, we can apply the same steps to expected values.

    Having pointed out the structural problems in your considerations, I shall discuss some of the problems of your considerations taken on your own terms in a subsequent post.

  220. “I’ve been suggesting that DAP should form a coalition without PAS and UMNO. ‘Without PKR’ is not part of my suggestion. I’ve even suggested that DAP should persuade Anwar to lead PD.” (Dr. Lee Wang Yen)

    Dr. Lee,

    Thank you very much! You have finally spoken up on my behalf the most ideal situation of having a coalition with PKR by DAP excluding PAS and UMNO. I think this most ideal situation is also what most DAP supporters dream for all along these years.

    Let’s pray that the most ideal situation will happen to DAP in the near future after Kuala Terengganu by-election!

  221. expected value is a function of the probabilities of a set of mutually exclusive alternative scenarios and the utility value of each of these alternative scenarios.

    Thus, a scenario that has a low probability of ocurring may have a high utility value. Of course, whether it has positive expected value is another story.

    Suppose I buy a lottery ticket. The probability that the ticket is the winning ticket is 0.1. The cost of the ticket is $10. The prize money for a winning ticket is $1000.
    The expected value of buying the ticket is this:
    E(v)=P(Winning)x(utility value of the winning ticket)+P(losing)x(utility value of the losing ticket)
    E(v) = 0.1x(1000-10)+0.9x(-10)

    Note that while the probability of the scenario of winning is low (0.1), its utility value is high (1000-10=990)

  222. Below are my responses to Jeffrey’s specific considerations:

    JF: (a) likely dilution of PAS’s influence when PR turns from electoral coalition to ruling coalition with other parties not ideologically opposed to DAP or similarly ideologically opposed to PAS then joining the victorious PR coalition;’

    WY: PAS may block this dilution by contending that Malay Muslims should dominate PR. There have been news about the negotiation between Anwar and PAS leaders on the issue of the number of Malay Muslims in the list of potential BN defectors.

    (b) other factors like our constitution being presently not in line with PAS’s ideology, the likelier position of NGOs, Civil Society, PKR & DAP, other parties then joining PR in victory as well as whatever left of BN in the opposition then opposing PAS’s atempts to establish the Islamic state in a PR’ victory – and also demographic realities of the country with 40-45% non muslims not to mention many moderate muslims against it. The question to be asked is also whether PAS can force this issue even if it were the more dominant in the PR ruling coalition because if PKR/DAP or others defect/leave, the ruling coalition will also fall,

    WY: I agree with you on this count

    JF: (c) if DAP leaves now, the whole enterprise of forming an alternative govt in replacement of the existing will collapse, and all gains on 8th March 08 would be reversed;

    WY: the gains on 8th March will be reversed if PR cannot function effectively in its five states and as a federal opposition due to bickerings on fundamentally incompatible ideologies. Besides, PD might reduce the number of BN MPs if MPs from MCA, MIC, SUPP, SAPP, GERAKAN, etc. join PD.

    JF: (d) even if PR is not victorious in next GE, in its present form it poses an imminent threat to BN, keeps it on its toes and exert pressure for it to re-invent, whether or not one views that were possible;

    WY: but why can’t PD pose a threat to BN? Furthermore, this assumes that PR in its current form can rule effectively in its five states and thus presents itself as a strong opposition threatening to unseat BN. But the fundamentally incompatible ideologies among PR members may impede this. We are already seeing this.

    JF: (e) though it is ideal for parties within coalition to be compatible or ast least not that incompatible as PAS/DAP alliance, and that it is entirely valid to surmise that their ideological asymmetry is likely to impede forming smoothly a federal government, the fact, if you look around, most political coalitions on opposition side are likely not that ideologically aligned/ symmetrical: they come togther because on their own they could not realise the objective of winning and sharing power, and for the sake of that end of winning and sharing power they have to compromise when they reach that point, the extent of compromise depending a myriad of circumstances and relative bargaining positions then.
    WY: Yes, we should compromise. But members in a coalition aspring to govern a country should not be so ideologically incompatible that it requires its members to compromise some fundamental ideologies. Since PAS’s political Islam is deemed as incompatible with democracy, women rights, cultural diversity, human rights, being PAS’s equal partner would entail making at least some compromises on these things.

  223. Dr. Lee Wang Yen,

    Thank you. I see what you mean now.

    Even though the probabilities are low for both hypothesized options in order for DAP to achieve its purpose of co-ruling the country with other party or parties without compromising its fundamental ideologies, the positive expected utilities which can be derived from any one option will be high.

    If DAP is given the mandate along with other equal partners to form the Federal Government, it will surely be a very happy situation almost similar to the happiest situation whereby Karpal Singh or Lim Guan Eng has striken the No. 1 prize-winning lottery such as Lotto in Carlifornia or ToTo in Malaysia.

    Therefore, it is worth-betting on putting in all effort in order to defeat Barisan Nasional in each and every battle encountered by DAP in the by-election or the general election. Even though the stake of the effort may be high, the positive expected return may also be high.

  224. For those who are interested in the pragmatic considerations of whether to stay on in PR or to form PD, they should consider the process of evaluating expected values outlined above.

    If the probabilities of A and B do not differ much (though both are low), then the crucial considerations will be the gains/benefits and losses/risks of the action of staying on in PR and those of the action of forming PD.

    I’ve a vague impression that this consideration favours forming PD. However, I must admit that I have not considered the detailed arguments. Given that I’ve already spent far too much time here, I leave the development of the detailed arguments to others.

  225. Wang yen, it is interesting you brought up the decision theory, I can’t remember much of it off the cuff except some set of analytical techniques of different degrees of formality designed to help a decision maker canvass & choose amongst options based on benefit/utility vs cost as against availability of substitutes (which one can use to prescribe options for DAP or/ as well as decide on a choice of marriage partner between the available! :)

    Probably DAP HQ should have a paper on such a thing but we guys just say what’s on our mind in a blog like this than to really work on a decision grid regarding what we suggest. Thanks, anyway for the re-formulation, I’d respond if I have the reason or time (later).

  228. Mr. Lee is suggesting we should target something of very low probability as it is more ideal. Interesting argument but pointless as we are talking about probabilities that are too far in the future. In politics (and real life), totally unpredictable things could happen creating whole new possibilities in an instant.

    Arguing that DAP has a better chance of creating a more ideal situation via PD in the future and should therefore leave PAS now is putting the eggs before the basket.

    Using the same argument i could then propose that it is as equally possible that if DAP remains, PAS can eventually be convinced to give up it’s Islamic state. So Mr. Lee, which probability then should we consider to be of ‘higher utility’? A or B?

    We could go on and on about all manner of ‘ideal’ fanciful probabilities. But fact is, people make decisions (and plan) depending on what is most likely to occur. We then determine among these probabilities based on what is most desirable yet likely.We then implement actions to drive events towards the most desirable outcome.

  229. Given a price money of $1000 in the real world, the actual probablity of winning (as determined by the organisers) would most certainly be at least 0.01. In other words, for every 100 tickets i sell i would make $1000 but would then have to pay $1000 to the winner (since there will be 1 winner for every 100 tickets i sell).

    Therefore the Utility value is actually
    = 0.01 (1000-10) + 0.99 (-10)
    = 9.9 – 9.9
    = 0

    That means, when i take your calculations to the ‘real world’ the actual utility value is zero! In fact in the real world, the actual probablities will be far worse (organisers need to make a profit man) and therefore the utility value would actually end up as negative!

    That’s why mama always told me never to gamble as i would surely lose.

    Now please go ahead and calculate the utility value for the probability of success by a third coalition that did not consist of PAS or UMNO and tell me what’s the final value. While of great value, the probability of success is so remote that the final utility value would actually be negative a.k.a. Not worth it.

  230. undergrad2: without writers and readers
    Thanks undergrad2! You’re also a great thinklet and discussorator. I miss limkamput too – he makes some good points when you’re not yanking his chain and driving him crazy.

    Jeffrey: DAP HQ should have a paper
    No need! Not for me, at any rate, I have fully mastered the bathroom hose now.

    Jeffrey – or anybody else who comments here – DAP have a fairly complete and functional, if not very interactive, website for their organisation – how much of an organisation is there? A DAP HQ paper? Do they have the idle manpower to spare? I use ‘man’ in the all-inclusive Homo sapiens sapiens sense, naturally. It was curiosity in DAP’s organisation that made me attend their local ceramahs here – and my attendance that makes me doubt they have any spare manpower at all. There were small things (not academic papers!) that could easily have been done better if they’d had an idle eye or hand to spare.

    Is there even a tropical island with a mansion that has a swimming pool which slides back to reveal the DAP rocket? Exactly how impressive is DAP HQ?

    Just curious, that’s all.

  232. Hello, the game is over. let’s go back to work:

    “Menurut Ketua Penerangan KeADILan, Tian Chua, kehadiran pimpinan KeADILan dan DAP hari ini menunjukan kerjasama yang erat bagi membantu kemenangan Pas di kerusi berkenaan.

    “Boleh dilihat penamaan calon hari, kesemua pimimpin tertinggi KeADILan dan DAP yang hadir hari ini menunjukan komitmen untuk memastikan kemenangan besar Pas di Kuala Terengganu,” katanya ketika dihubungi hari ini.

    Pada penamaan calon hari ini, Timbalan Presiden KeADILan Syed Husin Ali hadir hari ini mengetuai kepimpinan KeADILan yang memberi sokongan.

    Diantara pemimpin KeADILan yang turut sertai perarakan dan pehimpunan di Pusat Penamaan Calon di Stadium Negeri, Kuala Terengganu ialah, Naib Presiden Azmin Ali dan Mustafa Kamil Ayob, Menteri Besar Selangor Abdul Khalid Ibrahim, Ketua Angkatan Muda KeADILan Shamsul Iskandar dan Ketua Wanita Zuraida Kamaruddin.

    DAP pula diketuai oleh pemimpin utama parti itu, Lim Kit Siang serta turut kelihatan Exco Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, Teresa Kok dan beberapa pimpinan utama parti berkenaan.

    Dengan kehadiran ini, menurut Tian, beliau berkeyakinan bahawa Pas akan memenangi kawasan ini dengan majoriti yang besar.

    —-

    It’s fun, you know, having realising that we are working together as a team – despite the ideological differences! Hudud or no hudud, See you all in KT! Good luck!

  233. To Katdog,

    1. Have I claimed that I’m giving a description of what a real world lottery is? Why in the world should I give such a description? There is such a thing called ‘a simplified example to illustrate some point’.
    2. If you read my post in context, you’ll find that the point of the illustration is not that an alternative with a low probability can yield positive expected value (i.e. positive E(V)). The example is to illustrate that an alternative with a low probability can nevertheless have high utility value (note that this does not refer to E(V). In this case, the utility value for the scenario of getting a winning ticket is 1000-10). Since the example is devised to merely illustrate this point, other details are irrelevant. Even if the expected value (E(v)) of buying the ticket is negative, it is irrelevant to the point I am illustrating to Onlooker Politics. Do you notice that I say in that post that ‘Thus, a scenario that has a low probability of ocurring may have a high utility value. Of course, whether it has positive expected value is another story.’ I have highlighted the point of illustration explicitly.

  234. Assume a lottery ticket is bought. Dr. Lee Wang Yen estimated the probability that the ticket is the winning ticket is 0.1 or 10%, whereas katdog estimated the probability that the ticket is the winning ticket is 0.01 or 1%.

    Based on Dr. Lee’s estimation of 10% probability of winning, the expected value of the lottery ticket is 90. Based on katdog’s estimation of 1% probability of winning, the expected value of the lottery ticket is zero.

    No matter how, the utility value of the lottery ticket for both events of probabilities remains the same, i.e. (1000-10)=990.

    katdog could have been given the full discretion to disagree with Dr. Lee on the likelihood of success in getting DAP to achieve its purpose of co-ruling the country with other party or parties without compromising its fundamental ideologies. However, katdog shall not be able to change the utility value of the lottery ticket since the cost of the lottery ticket in both cases remains the same, i.e. $10, and the prize money for a winning ticket remains at $1,000.

    No doubt, the utility value of getting DAP to achieve its purpose of co-ruling the country with other party or parties without compromising its fundamental ideologies is perceived to be high. Even though katdog has obtained an expected value of zero for the lottery ticket because it is estimated that the probability of winning is only 1%, we may still find that the lottery ticket is worth-buying in view of the high utility value that may be obtained from the lottery in the event of winning.

    Even though Dr. Lee could be wrong in giving an over-optimistic estimation of 10% probability of winning, that would not have changed the utility value, i.e. 990, of the lottery ticket. Therefore, katdog will have to revise his proof in the event that he wishes to convince people on the non-viability of forming PD as suggested by Dr. Lee. Even though the probability of success by DAP in enticing PKR to join PD may be low, the existence of chance for success is always there. katdog may be able to prove that it is not worth-trying for DAP to leave PR and form PD by showing to us that the cost of getting the success in forming PD is overly high and therefore no economic value can be found in it which renders any worthwhile consideration of trying it.

    However, in reality DAP may have to risk the chances of losing the political power to form state government in Perak and Selangor in the event that DAP really tries to leave PR and form PD.

  235. Katdog says:
    ‘Now please go ahead and calculate the utility value for the probability of success by a third coalition that did not consist of PAS or UMNO and tell me what’s the final value. While of great value, the probability of success is so remote that the final utility value would actually be negative a.k.a. Not worth it.’

    If you read my response to Jeffrey in which I outline the method of evaluating the expected values of the action of DAP’s staying on in PR and the action of DAP’s forming PD given scenario A and B, you’ll find that what matters is not the absolute values of these expected values. What matters is the relative expected values of the action of DAP’s staying on in PR on A and B and the action of DAP’s forming PD on A and B. Even if both are negative, my contention that it’s better on pragmatic grounds for DAP to form PD than to stay on in PR could still stand. This happens when the negative expected value of the action of DAP staying on in PR given A and B is smaller than the negative expected value of the action of DAP forming PD given A and B (for example, if the former is -10 and the latter -5).

    Of course, I wish to emphasise the ‘even if’. There is no reason to think that these expected values will certainly or most likely be negative in the case of A and B. Of course, Katdog is right that most real-world actions of buying lottery tickets have negative expected values. This is because a typical real-world lottery ticket has a very low probability of being a winning ticket and thus also a very high probability of being a losing ticket. For example:

    E(V) = P(winning ticket)x(Utility value of winning)+P(losing)x(Utility value of losing)
    E(V) = 0.001x(1000-10)+0.999(-10)
    =0.99-9.99=-9 (negative value)

    This is because in cases of lottery, the utility value of buying the losing ticket is always negative. But the utility value of B in my proposal is not necessarily negative. Whether it is negative depends on, for example, whether the action of staying on in PR given B (and for that matter, given A, and other alternative scenarios) incurs more risks than benefits.

    In any case, I should emphasise that the lottery example is meant only to be an illustration of one particular point (and I have already specified the intended point of illustration. I think Katdog and Onlooker Politics have read too much into that example.

  236. Jeffrey: DAP HQ should have a paper
    No need! Not for me, at any rate, I have fully mastered the bathroom hose now.” OrangRojak

    I see you found comfort in Malaysia’s squatting toilets which are a pain in the ass of foreign visitors. Some Malaysians insist on squatting even on benches in Hyde Park! If there is one art Malaysians have mastered, it is the art of squatting.

  237. My original non-real-world example of lottery ticket was only meant to illustrate to Onlooker Politics that it is possible to have a scenario with low probability while the utility value of an action given that scenario is high. That example wasn’t even meant to illustrate my outline of the evaluation of expected values of the action of DAP’s staying on in PR and of the action of DAP’s forming PD given A and B, which I suggest in a post in response to Jeffrey’s considerations. The problem happens when Katdog uses the lottery example for the latter. This led to his mistaken suggestion that the expected values of the latter (i.e. those that has to do with A and B) must be or most probably are negative. I’ve already explained in my last post why this is not the case.

  238. “Is there even a tropical island with a mansion that has a swimming pool which slides back to reveal the DAP rocket.” OrangRojak

    Once Mahathir poked fun at the DAP and compared it to the Rockettes – picture long legged girls in Broadway, Manhattan kicking their legs into the air in unison. Would love to see Lim Kit Siang doing those high kicks!

  240. What is the controversy about? PAS has already declared clearly that, if ever implemented, Hudud would only be applicable to the Muslims. The Malays and other Muslims have more reasons to worry. Why are the non-Muslims, including MCA, making a big issue out of this? Why should DAP boycott the KT election? As the self proclaimed \protector\ of the Chinese, MCA would do better service by trying to persuade UMNO to cease calling Malaysia an Islamic State and to take a more liberal attitude in regard to the Christian Herald issue.

  243. “This is because in cases of lottery, the utility value of buying the losing ticket is always negative. But the utility value of B in my proposal is not necessarily negative.” (Dr. Lee Wang Yen)

    Dr. Lee,

    Could there be a typographical error in the above sentences? I guess you actually meant that the sentences should be phrased as follow:
    “This is because in cases of lottery, the estimated utility value of buying the losing ticket is always negative. But the estimated utility value of B in my proposal is not necessarily negative.”

    In your evaluation on the acceptability of either one of the hypothesized options, I believe it will be good if you are able to take the certainty equivalent value of each option into consideration during your decision making process. The power and privilege to form the state government in Perak and Selangor are the certainty equivalent value which is now being enjoyed by DAP. What certainty equivalent value can you expect to derive for DAP if DAP has to leave PR and form PD?

    Definition:
    Certainty Equivalent is the amount an agent would rather walk away with rather than gamble at winning some increased amount at a given probability. Studies show in the $1000 coin toss that most people would rather walk away with $400. Thus $400 is the certainty equivalent of a lottery consisting of a $1000 pay off at 50% odds.

  244. Well, we have seen a whole lot of statistics being thrown in by Lee Wang Yen, Jefferey , Undergrad 2 and onlooker politics in their discussions. This should be left in the realms of the academics and has no place in Malaysian politics.

    Whether DAP should leave the coalition PR and form PD is not dependent on the the probability result but rather the people’s mind in which the population is not homogenous but rather made up of Malays , Chinese , Indians , Kadazan-dusun etc.

    Politics is a different ball game altogether and Uncle Kit is seasoned enough to comprehend the whole equation.

    Because of the coalition, the PR could form the state govt’s in Perak, Penang, Kedah and Selangor in the last GE. DAP by itself will never dreamt of being in the govt in Selangor, Perak and Penang and more so with a CM in Penang.

    Lee Wang Yen’s hypothetical assumption of DAP forming a PD without PAS is just to throw a wedge among the component parties in PR. You have to understand that without PAS, there will be no alternative govts in the PR states unless you want BN to continue ruling.

    BN had ruled with arrogance by putting an ex non-UMNO CM to public disgrace with the tearing of his picture and stomping on it ;issuing threats when losing an argument like getting the non-Malay pendatangs to go back to China and India ;threats of another 513 , massive corruption and non-transparent contracts ; does not care for your liberties and packing the controlled media with lies and deceit ; does not care to follow what had been agreed in the Education Act and crying for abolishment of mother tongue etc etc etc.

    The above had been going on for 51 years and yet there are some among you who still want to pepetuate with BN govt. rule. Unless you were one of the small benficaries of the UMNOputras or MCAputras policy.

    What is so bad about hudud law implementation after all. It is expressedly for the Muslim community only and will not affect the non-Muslims as defined in the Federal Constitution. Why are we scaring the non-Muslims ? Have PAS govt ever chopped off a thief’s hand ?

    In fact PAS govt had issued land for non-Muslim places of worship in Kelantan.

  246. To Onlooker Politics,
    There are different terms for ‘utility values’. Some statistics textbooks refer to it as ‘values’. Philosophical literature usually uses the term ‘utility’. Thus, I have chosen the term ‘utility values’. I haven’t seen ‘estimated utility’ or ‘estimated values’ or ‘estimated utility values’ in mathematical and philosophical literature. But some books may use these terms. Given the variety of terms used in mathematical and philosphical literature, it doesn’t really matter which term we choose to use, so long as it is one of these widely used terms.

Leave a Reply