History / MUST READ / Pakatan Rakyat / Racism

Ideological weaknesses of DAP leadership

I found a few pages of brief analysis on list of ideological weaknesses of the DAP leadership recently. I thought I would share some of the points to the readers out there. It is an old document – written in 1995. Therefore, all of the events quoted and examples given were not up to date to the current political environment. Nevertheless, readers could appreciate the fact that history tends to repeat itself. Some with different actors with similar issues and some with same old actors but with different issues.

————————————————————–

1. “DAP-itis”: A Form of Political Sickness within DAP Leadership

Symptoms:

They preach democracy, human rights and freedom, greater liberalisation but within DAP its national leaders do not tolerate dissent, constructive criticisms and especially by Lim Kit Siang’s dictatorial rule as DAP Secretary General following Goh Hock Guan’s being ousted from the post. In Parliament, DAP national leaders “acted” and projected their public images as if they are loyal and principled “Malaysian leaders” who are impeccably honest, incorruptible, and a peolpe’s champion. Yet, DAP leaders suffer from “DAP-itis” during their overseas missions by bad mouthing Malaysia, conspired with left-wing union and labour organisations to disrupt congenial relationship between Malaysian government and local labour unions, threatening job positions (eg. GSP withdrawal, union strikes etc), spreading lies, rumours, and character assassinations in the name of human rights and freedom.

In 1966, former DAP secretary general C.V. Devan Nair set list if “do’s and don’t” for DAP:

a)  “A strictly non-racial approach to all social, economic, political and cultural problems of Malaysia.”

Comment: Today, it is habitual for DAP to exploit racially sensitive issues and with forked tongues. Playing one community against the other to gain political mileage.

b) “Acceptance of the Malaysian Constitution and loyalty to constitutional methods of political action.”

Comment: Today, DAP resorts to “foreign support” to exert international pressure in blackmailing our government to conform to DAP’s demands. DAP resorts to “protest rallies”, union strikes, disloyal methods of political actions at international forums and gatherings, often used for self vested purposes such as saving their own leaders from ISA detention.

c) “Honesty and incorruptibility in private life and public activities.”

Comment: Since Lim Kit Siang’s leadership, DAP leaders have unquestionably been involved in cooperative scandals, unaccountability in collecting public funds in the name of Bukit China, education and legal aid. There is completely no accountability after the funds had been collected, how it was spent, by who, and for what purpose? Receipts were not kept and one wonders any records were made and yet the DAP has the cheek to demand BN leaders to declare their personal assets while DAP national leaders openly fail in fulfilling the responsibility of public accountability in collection of public funds and refusing to set examples. And recently DAP leaders in the Trade Union were charged for misused of funds.

d) “No cheap slogan shouting, rabble rousing or playing to the gallery.”

Comment: Not only has the DAP leaders failed to comply the abovementioned, DAP members of parliament resort to abusing Parliamentary privileges by “behaving like schoolboys” such as name calling, walking out of parliamentary sessions in protest, slandering, launching personal vendetta against BN MPs, issuing personal challenges and staging “political gimmicks” during parliamentary sessions.

In 1978, DAP was known as the “Walkout Oppositon” for its blind attitude and constant walkouts in Parliament and State Assemblies so much so that staging walkouts was their way of representing the constituents. Since Lim Kit Siang took over the reigns of DAP leadership, a ‘new chaotic” dimension was added into the Malaysian Parliament with his lackadaisical fashions. The DAP should reform itself by not using the Parliamentary privileges to launch character assassinations and malicious lies before shouting for Parliamentary reforms, and start to act responsibly in its representation to the electorate. To cover its record of treating the Parliament like a coffeeshop, DAP hypocritically called for the BN government to reform parliamentary procedures. Yet electoral history has amply proven that DAP is more interested in winning electoral seats than representing them!

For decades, Kit Siang has been arrogantly boasting that DAP leaders have sacrificed their personal lives and freedom to speak out fearlessly for Malaysian democracy, yet when they are detained under the ISA for threatening national security, the DAP  sent telegrams and letters to all over the world to denounce the Malaysian government, and like “cry babies” moaned and groaned about their predicament, seeking world sympathies and pressure to seek their releases! DAP leaders’ personal behaviours are a great contradiction to their false public images as “heroes” and voters must explode this myth which the opposition has repeatedly projected to deceive the public at large!

2. DAP preaches political ideals but applies double standards within

In 1967, Lim Kit Siang preached democratic socialism to strive for a society and members equal opportunities for political, economic, social and cultural development. He condemned the Feudal society where men occupy ranks in life not because they perform any socially useful function but because of their births. Does DAP national line-up today reflects the very principles preached by Lim Kit Siang 28 years ago? Chen Man Hin and Lim Kit Siang are the DAP national Chairman and Secretary General respectively today as they were 28 years ago.

Malaysia since then has changed Prime Minister thrice and its cabinet line up many times over. DAP’s leadership history is littered with bitter expulsions and personal vendetta with recent cases of former DAP leaders Lee Lam Thye and Hu Sepang being forced out of political positions. Today, Lim Guan Eng, DAP Youth DAPSY Chief, by birth right as Kit Siang’s son, is being groomed by his father, has a tremendous bright future to lead the opposition DAP. DAP professes political ideals as a political weapon to attack others but never applies within because DAP does not believe in “practising what they professes”.

The public has been misled that DAP is the champion for democracy and democracy is within DAP but democracy has been dead within DAP for a long time. DAP rank and file have no “human rights” to dissent against the mistakes and misdeeds of their leaders though they might be “freed” to do so through expulsion. Former DAP National vice chairman Daing Ibrahim in 1978, quit the DAP, describing the party being run by a handful of dictators, who had arbitrarily expelled political opponents from within. He had exposed Kit Siang’s true colour and “DAP’s own brand of democracy”.

Malaysians have been taken for a ride for too long to believe that DAP is the champion of democracy and political freedom. It is time DAP should put its own house in order before shouting for democratisation, liberalisation and freedom of sorts! DAP crises in 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982 and 1990, had left a trial of desertions, defections and expulsions with open confessions of dictatorship and double standards of Kit Siang and his warlords. The record of sacked DAP top ranking leaders included staunched DAP leaders, DAP founder leaders and DAP leaders who had condemned the Alliance and BN governments. Lee Lam Thye and Hu Speang were only the latest additions and lineage to the long long list of former DAP leaders who finally woke up after a long, long political nightmare!

3. DAP: A record of self contradictions and selling out

The DAP, since its founding, has shouted for a ‘Malaysian Malaysia’ concept, not out of sincerity to the idea, but only as an election strategy and platform to capture votes. Till today, the DAP’s political concept merely exists in print and form. During the mid-1960s till up to the late 70s, DAP national leadership had to face widespread dissatisfactions and grievances among its supporters, that DAP never practised what it preached. Outside of its own homefront (DAP Party), its national leaders shouted the slogan of a Malaysian Malaysia. Within its frontiers, preferential treatment was given to DAP chinese leaders and supporters while ignoring the pleads of other communities within its rank and file. In 1978, DAP announcing its intention to absorb 20,000 malays into the party within 5 years, was looked upon as a political joke.

In actual fact, it was a “cover up” to hide the reality of many malays leaving the DAP in 1978. Today’s DAP remains a party that does not reflect the Malaysian Malaysia ideology, though at ground level, DAP leaders play a chauvinistic line to the tilt to deceive voters for their votes.

In 1969, former DAP national leader Lee Lam Thy strongly condemned the Alliance Government: (Quote Malay Mail 3rd April 1969): “The Alliance government is dictatorial by its ‘one voice policy’, undemocratic and unparliamentary in its practice of parliamentary democracy; intolerant of Opposition criticism; incompetent in its administration; wasteful in its expenditure; divisive in its nation building policies; shortsighted in its treatment of the people” (unquote). Little did Lee Lam Thye realised at that time that 21 years later, his criticisms and condemnations made against the Alliance were applicable to Kit Siang and his warlords. In 1990, Lam Thye quit DAP and wept openly, a disillusioned man. In 1983 and 1985, two disillusioned DAP leaders summed up the following comments on DAP before they quit the opposition Party:

a) Former DAP Youth leader (Perak): DAP lacks democracy, practices favouritism, double standards and opportunism. DAP leaders are dictatorial and hypocritical with passing weeks. They are the greatest political circus in Malaysia with threats, undemocratic restrictions, suspensions and expulsions. The DAP has lost its bearings and soul because it is being led by power crazy and autocratic individuals. A former DAP from Penang once summed up DAP leadership as “DAP has talked a lot about democracy but there is nothing in the party that is democratic at all.”

b) Former DAP State Treasurer (Melaka): (Quote) “The DAP’s activities are a danger to national unity and harmony among the different races in the country. The DAP should realise its mistakes as its efforts to harass the people and create disunity among them were totally rejected by the people.”

In 1972, hundreds of DAP members quit DAP partly attributed by disillusionments and sackings carried out by Lim Kit Siang. Popular former DAP national leaders to quit DAP included Lee Lam Thye and Hu Sepang during the 1990s. On August 3rd 1971, an entire DAP committee of the Melaka branch resigned en bloc. In 1972, the former deputy publicity secretary Encik Ainnol Jammal (DAP KL Branch quit DAP citing DAP as a chauvinistic party run by a dictator. In the same year,  DAP Rocket adopted a chauvinistic approach by publishing an MCA official wearing a songkok and captioned it “the fighter ans saviour of chinese culture and education”.

Minister of National Unity the late Tun Sambathan chided DA for stooping to such a low form to score political points. In 1986, DAP carried out the chauvinistic and dirty tactic by concocting printed photographs of an MCA candidate wearing songkok and mass distributed to voters during the general elections. Since Lim Kit Siang took over the reigns of DAP leadership, the DAP is infamous for whipping up communal feelings and character assassinations for its selfish political ends.

In 1971, V. David (currently DAP national leader) who was with Gerakan had a verbal clash with former DAP leader Goh Hock Guan on the Selangor State Assembly meeting. V. David accused the DAP of playing “cowboy politics” and power crazy. Today, the same V. David is a DAP national leader who perpetuates the cowboy politics and supports “power crazy” DAP policies.

On 22nd April 1974, 102 DAP members from 5 branches in Selangor, resigned en bloc citing Kit Siang’s “dictatorial ways” as the chief reason for their resignations. (Quote): “In our investigations, we (former DAP supporters) found that Kit Siang was trying to keep power to himself by getting rid of people who did not agree with him. The DAP Constitution was changed to allow Kit Siang to assume more personal power and to mould the DAP according to his will” (unquote).

It is evident that Lim Kit Siang calls for greater liberalisation and democratisation today is hypocritical move when the DAP ideals which he personally refuses to practice and apply within his own political homefront. Voters must wake up to DAP’s hypocrisy and double standards which Lim Kit Siang steadfastly upholds for the past 28 years of his dictatorial rule . To ensure that the DAP Youth perpetuates this Hitler’s doctrine, he puts his son and future DAP successor, Lim Guan Eng to indoctrinate the younger DAP members and pro-DAP youth movements with anti-government and anti-establishment policies of the opposition.

——————————————– to be continued.

20 thoughts on “Ideological weaknesses of DAP leadership

    • DAP has ideology? They don’t seem to have one. How can there be an ideology when they name themselves Democratic Action Party but is not democratic in so many ways since their formation over 40 years ago.

      How can they be democratic when they flog the so-called Malaysian Malaysia slogan, wanting equality but not acknowledging the Special Position of the Malays and the Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak. That Special Position which the British Colonial Secretary told the British Parliament when debating the Malaya Independence Bill in 1956 “has been there since day one.” That which the British since Queen Victoria recognized, and they dealt with the Malay Rulers and their representatives when wanting to set up trading posts in Penang and Singapore.

      That Special Position which was enshrined in the Constitution, in connection with the citizenship right for non-Malays, both of which became regarded as the Social Contract. The Constitution that was debated and accepted in a democratic manner by the representatives of the people in Parliament in 1957 and became the highest set of laws in the country. The Constitution that was again discussed at the formation of Malaysia in 1963, with modifications to suit the interests of Sabah and Sarawak.

      As their name says “Democratic”, why the hell did DAP fellows raise the sensitive issues that led to the race riots of 1969? If they have an ideology and genuinely believe in the name they put to their party, they would have accepted all the provisions written in the Constitution that was approved by Parliament. Those that have been included in the Sedition Act should not and must not be raised any more.

      I think they are merely a Cina Bukit party. Comprising largely of the kind descended from the Chinese of southern China described by the British Professor in a comment in the post preceding this one. Crude, uncouth, undemocratic like the father Lim Kit Siang. Biadap like the son Lim Guan Eng, said by no less than the then DAP Vice Chairman Tunku Aziz, a well respected man himself. Where DAP got ideology like that? It’s just anarchistic, whack-left-right-and-centre one. Anything Establishment is bad, anything with Malay dominance is unacceptable – despite their desperate attempts to lure in unwanted Malays these days. They are desperate to whitewash (or is it brownwash?) their image of being an anti-Malay and anti-Islam party.

      Like

      • So true and it makes me wonder, our forefathers agreed to social contract. Nowadays the chinese ask for Perkara 153 to be revisited and plenty more asked for it to be removed.

        I could not agree more! Let’s delete the whole clause and by doingso, we too must taken out Perkara 12-18 regarding citizenship. The chinese got what they want, ie no more special position for malays and Malays only want back their freely given rights and stripping away the rights making all chinese naturalization voided and nulled. That is fair and square, a win-win situation. Note to myself: no national referendum to listen to what majority want before Tunku gave away such a precious asset was not done, therefore we may not know whether the majority of malays supported such action.

        The gruesome of malays today not because we have chinese among our midst, but we have chinese who want to get rid of us in our own house that we happily (which i still have doubt) let them share with us.

        If the malays have been united, we could easily make government and make the constitution stricter that is, all malaysian should be able to converse and read in national language fluently. BUT how many chinese who still cant properly speak in national language, yet asking for the equal rights? (constitution clearly says naturalization during merdeka was for those who can speak malay)

        As far as i can see, GE13 will be Malays vs Chinese.

        Like

        • Good to hear your voice from out there in Balearic Islands, Spain, Ed. Hope to hear more from you and others in many parts of the world on issues and problems facing Malaysia.

          If you are referring to Tengku A Rahman giving away Singapore, I want to say I have always maintained that it was a very stupid thing, in fact a traitorous act he did, giving away the the strategic island to Lee Kuan Yew FOC. In history, countries went to war to protect and defend their sovereignty and territorial integrity. Tengku gave it away out of anger against Lee Kuan Yew and the “Separation Agreement” was regarded as “kicking out Singapore”. Yet a later leader sent the Army to Kelantan and declared Emergency Rule when politicians there tried to be funny. Our History books must show those facts to make sure that no others do the same.

          The DAP caused the race riots of 1969. That is stated in the book “13 May 1969 A Tragedy written by The National Operations Council” which can be googled. They have been exploiting each and everything they can find in pursuit of their objective. Practically all their leaders have the same objective although many left the party over the years because of differences in methods of achieving that objective. They must no be allowed to achieve their objective because they are racist and chauvinistic. Hope you’ll be able to vote come GE13 and that it’ll be one vote against DAP.

          Like

          • Hello Anon, thanks for the warm welcome🙂

            I was actually, referring to pre-merdeka referendum about giving away citizenship to British Subject (the chinese and indians in straits settlements) and to Chinese nationals in confederated and unconfederated malay states. But, the choice of giving away such priceless was decided only among few and the rest of malays have been too kind, and accepted without question asked – malays must never question the leaders. Such a wrong mentality! Oppss…

            But pointing about Singapore is also a matter of debate. Countries would go for war for a small piece of land, take Gibraltar. Just 2 square km and barren with only rocks, but having on and off of diplomatic between Spain and UK. Falklands Islands, we saw recent diplomatic entanglement between UK and Argentina. Yet, we let go a strategic island and post away for free AND not stopping there, we gave Singapore international route when Malaysia Singapore Airlines was broken into two, while MAS only took domestic. Then we gave them Post Saving Bank, while we keep Pos Malaysia. So many losses on Malaysian parts.

            People may react differently, but we have to voice out the malays gruesome as well. So far we only heard chinese demands, no demand at all from the malays despite the chinese harping new demands. Malays fall into the trap of ‘bertahan’, we should be in the part of demanding/negotiating for more! Afterall, we were the one who lose the most!

            Like

        • As I had always thought, questioning the Special Position of the Malays and the Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak would invite counter-questioning the citizenship right of the non-Malays.

          Now Ed says if they want to revisit Article 153 on the Special Position, abolish all them Articles 12-18 regarding citizenship of the non-Malays.

          Moral of the story: it does not pay to question the Special Position under Article 153.

          Like

        • “naturalization during merdeka was for those who can speak malay”

          Originally, should be “…..for those who can write, read and speak malay”. But the Tunku led Malay government were tolerant and kind enough to waive the “write, read” clause and allowed the “speak” clause only. This lead to the about 1 million “pendatang” subsequently being accepted as Malayan citizen by merely uttering in broken malay such as “nama saya ah kit siang” or “saya ah lim guan suka makan bubur” at the registration gate.

          Otherwise, ah kit siang and family would be holding red ic till now! Can curse, cry, scream and cheat but cannot vote!

          Like

  1. Dear Jebat,
    do folks from DAP read your stuff?
    They really need to read this for themselves.
    If you go about online, whether in blog, facebook or comments written in any online article, you can see how delusional they are.
    preaching all those malaysian first crap when they themselves do not want to talk about sekolah satu sistem.
    right now, they have the time of their life blaming everyone but them of not being malaysian enough.
    so, somehow, jebat, tell those DAP folks to look in the mirror first before accusing other people of not being so-malaysian.

    Like

    • I am sure at least a couple read this blog or else I won’t have so many interesting comments from them!🙂 Thank you.

      Like

  2. DAP picked up the Malaysian Malaysia slogan when the Singapore party PAP and Lee Kuan Yew buggered out of Malaysia in 1965. That slogan was aimed at weakening Malay dominance and promoting the Chinese presence. If there is such a thing as DAP ideology, weakening Malay dominance is DAP ideology. That’s why DAP has long been known as anti-Malay.

    Lim Kit Siang, who was in PAP with LKY, formed DAP after Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia and aped almost everything LKY did in Singapore since then. LKY having almost absolute power – the populace was cowered into subservience by drastic measures including being summoned to bankruptcy, until at one time there were only 2 Opposition party members in Parliament – brought in Chinese to the island until there are 72% of them now. Alas, LKS cannot bring in Chinese foreigners to this country. But LKS and his son Lim Guan Eng probably intend to bring Chinese to Penang island and make it 72% Chinese too, via their housing policy.

    So many have spoken about DAP housing policy catering only to the Chinese in Penang and from the mainland – high priced housing means only Chinese can afford to buy houses on the island. The Malays and the Indians have left to look for low cost houses on the mainland. That strategy the DAP learnt also from PAP and LKY who broke up the Malay communities in Singapore, neutralized their ability to actively participate in group actions dispersing them all over the island through the Singapore housing development policies. In Penang, LGE just make the Malays and Indians leave the island through his housing policy. He wants to make Penang another Singapore. Watch out, folks.

    Yes, there have been differences among the DAP leadership. For over 40 years they could not get to rule any state on their own steam except for one solitary term and now rule Penang in coalition with PKR and PAS. They realized the anti-Malay and anti-Islam image the slogan Malaysian Malaysia have brought them. They thought of changing that to Middle Malaysia but the rakyat showed them the Middle Finger and that idea died out.

    They tried to change the anti-Malay and anti-Islam image by bringing Malays into the party. Like Union leaders Zainal Rampak and Ahmad Noor of Cuepacs some time back. Zainal became a Senator and Ahmad Noor stood as DAP candidate for MP. They could not stand DAP leadership and bolted out. Then ex-Bank Negara Adviser Tunku Aziz joined, was appointed a Vice President and made a Senator. He also could not stand DAP leadership and bolted out in disgust, calling Lim Guang Eng “biadap”.

    Yes, Lim Kit Siang’s calls for greater liberalisation and democratisation today is hypocritical. He and his son Lim Guan Eng have been known by the label “Cakap tak serupa bikin”.

    Like

    • Tunku Aziz said he joined DAP wanting to fight the ills that existed in BN and he saw DAP sticking to principle then. Frankly I don’t know what principle he was talking about when DAP supported Chinese schools, going against Article 152 of the Constitution, and raised issues concerning the Special Position of the Malays and the Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak, going against Article 153 of the Constitution and the Sedition Act.

      Now does anyone see any principle in Arif Sabri and Arpan Alias joining DAP? Some say they have been promised seats to contest at PRU13, they themselves claim joining for nothing. Maybe joined DAP just to spite and wallop UMNO for ignoring them for so long. Would they also not leave DAP if not given seats or after first-hand experience in dealing with “biadap” Lim Guan Eng etc?

      Like

    • The Star says the scarcity of land on Penang island had caused property prices to soar. No, it’s not true. Lim Guan Eng had about 100 acres of State land in Bayan Mutiara but he simply sold it to a property developer for RM1.07 billion, claiming it to be by open tender but the developer in their statement to the KL Stock Exchange mentioned about negotiations, making people ask whether any hanky panky and huge commissions were involved.

      LGE could have got the Penang Development Corporation develop the land, build a good number of low cost units. The PDC has had a traditional role as a state government housing developer, like the Selangor State Development Corporation has been for Selangor. Now even what LGE calls “affordable homes” cannot be afforded by the Malays and the Indians.

      Imagine, condominium units in Batu Ferringhi, Tanjung Bungah and Gurney Drive which front the sea are being sold at astronomical prices, in some cases beginning with RM2mil for a 1,000 sq ft unit. Prices of houses have rocketed from about RM500,000 in 2007 to approximately RM800,000 today. How many Malays and Indians can afford to buy these?

      Like

  3. Is UMNO, MCA, GERAKAN or MIC any better or even PAS or PKR for that matter. The political scene is in a mess, can anybody point to me one single politician that does not have any skeleton in their closet. Malaysia needs a political revolution, it needs MAJOR cleaning up and a change definitely bring Malaysia a step closer to achieving real democracy.

    Like

    • What “political revolution” are you talking about and what “real democracy” do you mean, james?

      If you mean revolution of the communist kind by armed struggle, you’d be hauled in under the ISA replacement in no time. Note that the communists in Russia and China have also abandoned communism, so damn busy adopting capitalism for some time already. China would not have become NO. 2 world economy if they had not adopted capitalism.

      If you mean revolution Egypt style by mass rallies and riots, no way. Conditions there simply cannot be compared to Malaysia. They had no general elections for 30 years under Hosni Mubarak who ruled under Emergency laws. The same for Libya which was ruled by Muammar Ghadafi also under Emergency laws without elections for 41 years. Malaysia has had elections every 4 years or so. Anyway, Bersih 3.0 had only 25,000 (three zeroes) participants, it turned into a riot and the leaders are charged in court, the rioters arrested and brought to court, a number are being hunted.

      If you refer to Anwar’s democracy, that’s backside democracy. His own party PKR did not practise democracy in its election of party leaders and former Minister Zaid Ibrahim cabut lari out of the party in disgust over the handling of the party election that resulted in his loyal lieutenant Azmin Ali becoming Deputy President and PKR known as a family party – Anwar as boss, wife Azizah as President, daughter Nurul as Vice President.

      Lim Kit Siang has spoken for Communist Terrorist Leader Chin Peng to be allowed back into the country. Is he thinking about revolution that Chin Peng had wanted to foster in this country before being dumped into the Betong Salient in south Thailand?

      Like

    • Dear James,

      What MAJOR cleaning up would it be? Take from computer analogy: if any file is bad or corrupt or infested with virus, antivirus would suggest to DELETE them.

      I doubt any country in this world practising ‘real democracy’ – what is that? USA despite championing democracy, but has been using their military muscle to overthrow or support coup d’etat which would in any practise against any democracy spirit. Europe, Muslims are becoming target and marginalised – using their democracy, despite claiming to have the world class human rights laws.

      But against, doesnt democracy about ‘majority voice’ – and during GE12, majority said BN. If GE12, ‘the Malay’ make their mind again to be once more majority, i think Najib govt should stop appealing for Chinese votes. Not saying, that rotten some make every fruits bad, despite giving out so many handouts, the Chinese still not supporting BN. If the chinese have the choice, the govt should make it choice. Listen to the majority that voted them!

      Like

      • I would like to correct this:

        In Europe, democracy was used against ones belief and ethnicity. Muslim is the largest target and Asians (normally from Pakistan and India) as well as Arabs were mostly stripped search if not long questioning process. If borders were not tough enough, the social discrimination can be assessed from the communal services and municipality bureaucracy.

        Like

    • You mean to say that ALL politicians have skeletons in their closet? Any evidence?

      Major cleaning up via Bersih is polluting the political mindset – that brand of “democracy” justifies violent means. Like the wise folks say, “if it aint broke, why mend it?”

      Like

      • I noticed that james did not mentioned DAP, intentionally? That is so prejudice! Taking the cue from what he was trying to convey, that one is out of that frame and treated like a santos. Hmmm….

        Like

  4. Pingback: Is there anything in this country that makes DAPsters happy? « Helen Ang

Astound us with your intelligence!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s