I Have Cometh Early to a CONCLUSION: He Is an UMNO Plant!
Desi will sleep over this tonight (Actually its's now 12.38AM, so the remainder of last niht for accuracy suckkers, hear!:(and when I start blasting in the early dawn (provided I don't over-SLEEP which is now a national pastime, you didn't know?), I would not be reined in by anyone, except one. Miss Patience, eh?
NST Online » Frontpage
2008/09/26
DAP official opposes crossovers
Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim believes in the democratic process.
KUALA LUMPUR: It is unethical to don the mantle of government other than through the ballot box, says DAP vice-chairman Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim.
In disagreeing with the idea of forming a government by asking politicians to switch sides, he said: "This is really a matter not so much of politics but really to do more with ethics in politics.
"There is no law to stop people from crossing over from one party to another and this has happened in Sabah where opposition members crossed over to Barisan Nasional.
"Still, this does not really give it any legitimacy just because it has happened before.
"I totally disagree with it. The only way you can really achieve legitimacy to govern is through the ballot box. As I have said before, there is a time and place for it.
"The time is the next general election and the place is the polling station," he told the New Straits Times.
"Corruption is not just about money changing hands. If you bend the existing system, you are corrupting it.
"The point I am making is that the people who voted for you have certain expectations from you and the party you represent to protect the interest of the voters," he said.
Tunku Aziz also warned that when one put ethics on the back burner instead of in the driver's seat, problems would happen.
"Once we start putting ethics in the driving seat, we will see some improvement in the way we run our national affairs."
DESIDERATA @1.00PM:
After a heavy brunch, I don't feel as angry as last night when I first read about the johnny being played up by the NST, ah, his haven for years/decades (?) past until just a few weeks ago++++. Four (Seiloh!) crosses which I will come back to later, fear not though it sounds ominous. "Not as angry" was because according to the adage "A hungry man is an angry man", I still feel angry but not as angry as before as the hunger pangs could be assuaged by manna for a price of RM5, but this johnny better not raise the champagne glasses yet as Desi's offering gin&tonic but arSENic-laced wine, be carefool.I do that to selected johnnies only.
For some background, let me tell this johnny I had carried DAP membership card in the early days, going back more than two decades (Yes, I am that young!:) when Lee Lam Thye held forth the Bukit Bintang parliament seat with pride, and me as a "backroom" boy culd walk with his head high. Yes, over some 10 years when the good MP (with the current MP for Cheras, TAN KOK WAI, as specail aide) paid for my party membership fees (because I don't recall paying any!), to enable me to take part in TWO PARTY CONGRESSES -- one in PJ and the other wan in Furong:) -- I can claim to know a little of DAP politics MORE THAN THIS JOHNNY-COME-VERY_LATELY for every definitive statemeent I make about DAP today; and I'll rebut your views para by para (THAT HONOUR ONY WENT TO TWO WRITERS THUS FAR: one Paddy-or-Cili-Schubert sumthin' and wan Dr Chandra-nos-all-MusquitoAfar sumthin'2...)
From the Q n A that the NST played up -- to obviously run down PKR's MP for Permatang Pauh Anwar Ibrahim's negotiating the problematic roadmap to Putrajaya thus far to take over diplomatically and legitimately from Pak Lah -- are extracts (johnny's in italics, thus) I would try to add my cilipadinesscomments in BOLD&italics:
**************************************
TUNKU ABDUL AZIZ: Politicians must put Malaysia first'
NST speaks to Tunku Abdul Aziz on his views on politics and politicians and the crossover plan.
Q: What is your view of the crossover plan?
A: If you justify crossing over on the grounds that you will still continue to perform your duties, that justification really has no ethical foundation. As Abraham Lincoln once said: "Whatever is morally wrong cannot be politically right."
So the basis on which you are crossing over is in itself unethical. I am totally against such a practice because that is tantamount to abandoning democratic principles which we have all fought for.
In the fight for independence, for example, we were driven by dreams of political freedom and dreams of democratic practices and principles. And I despair when I think that politics has come to this because at the end of the day, whatever we do, particularly in the political arena, is in the area of public service. What MPs and state assemblymen are supposed to do is to perform public duties in the public interest.
Q: If the purported mass crossover happens, what are the reasons behind it?
A: I think the reasons are simply to gain an instant change of government and whether the process is legitimate or otherwise isn't really the point.
We have to consider: is this really how we want to portray the practice of politics in our own country. Of course, I regard this as assuming the mantle of government through the back door.
Q: What are the possible backlash effects of crossovers to Pakatan Rakyat and DAP in the long run, if any?
A: Well, if all cross over then the BN government will be out in the cold, which is an obvious scenario. But if this happens, I will not be a party to this, because my position is very clear: I will not support it; I will not go along.
Q: In this respect, are you going to be the voice of reason in Pakatan Rakyat?
A: I will certainly be the dissenting voice on this particular issue in Pakatan Rakyat.
Q: With existing uncertainties in the country's politics, more and more people are getting tired by the yet-to-be fulfilled promises that Pakatan Rakyat will form the government. What is your view?
A: I agree that there's a climate of uncertainty in the country, not only on the political front but now on the economic front as well. On the economic issue, we are very much affected by what is going on in the American financial system. But whatever it is, this uncertainty must be resolved quickly because it is not doing the country any good at all.
The perception internationally is that this country is becoming ungovernable. That is the impression created overseas, and this is unhealthy. Politicians on both sides of the political divide must put Malaysia first.
I'd like to see every political party adopt this model: that we must direct all our energies towards improving the political climate in this country.
Q: What are the main sentiments of DAP leaders and its members regarding the crossovers?
A: The DAP is not a monolithic organisation as it is made up of a lot of members. And, in the nature of things, there will be different views on this. From what I have seen and heard, there are a lot of people, across the whole spectrum, who feel crossing over is not a long-term solution. Sustainability is important and we should not go for short-term gains because they will not make the impact that we hope for in order to bring about change to the lives of the people.
Q: Since you have joined DAP and been appointed as the party's vice-chairman, are you still able to voice frank views about matters related to Pakatan Rakyat, including the crossovers?
A: My colleagues in DAP have always known me as an independent person. I am my own man and the fact that I have now joined a political party will not change my views on public ethics and morality. These are non-negotiable as far as I am concerned.
Q: In your past columns in the New Straits Times, you have been quite critical and vocal about political leaders, including Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's theatrical acts. With current developments, what is your stand on this?
A: I stand by every word that I have written in my column. So those views remain intact. I joined DAP because it is a very democratic party. One of the principles of democracy is freedom of speech. Dissenting views are part and parcel of that process.
Q: Have you been asked by your colleagues to tone down?
A: No, no, no. They have been very open. I have been watching them for a very long time. Over the years, they have changed. They are not as strident and doctrinaire as they used to be. They are trying very hard to become a truly multiracial party. If there were more Malays in DAP, there would be a much better understanding of what DAP is all about.
The Malays view DAP as being shrouded in some mystery. It is seen as a chauvinistic Chinese party quarrelling over ridiculous issues like the wearing of songkok. This is one side of the DAP psychology, but they are mainly concerned with substantive national issues. We should not write them off as another lot of rabble-rousing political misfits.
_____________________________________
DESI: This "crossover" question has been well debated in blogosphere, and post-joining DAP recently, Johnny is rehashing cliched views against the BN members pf Parliament crossing over to Pakatan Rakyat, including this socalled "moral thics" premise. I seek my ER' indulgence if I refer you to patiently re-read a key article well-enunciated by Sdr William Leong, MP for Selayang, on the topic of "crossovers" plus extracts of another referring to the ISA as I soon leave for KL to take part in the Vigil at Dataran Merdeka at 7pm tonight to show solidarity with RPK and other 60+ detainees suffering under the oppressive ISA ("I URGE MY FELLOW READERS TO COME OVER/CROSS OVER IF YOU LIKE!") ", copied from cpiasia.net's as they are relevant to my dissection today":
___________________________________________
Article 1:
Commentary on Morality of Defection of MPs
Media Monitor
Written by William Leong Jee Keen
Sunday, 14 September 2008 07:44
By William Leong Jee Keen, MP for Selayang
The Morality of Members of Parliament Crossing the Floor
Response to Bar Council and Others
The Bar Council, Harris Ibrahim and Sean Ang are reported in the New Straits Times on September 10, 2008 to have said that Members of Parliament crossing the floor to join another party is legal but immoral. It is therefore necessary to draw the attention of the public to several fundamental principles with regard to the issue on the morality of MPs crossing the floor. Crossing the floor to sit as a member of parliament in another political party is nothing new in parliamentary democracies. It has been described as the height of treachery. It has also been praised as the stuff which parliamentarian heroes are made of. The great Sir Winston Churchill is perhaps the most famous parliamentarian to cross the floor and switch allegiance on more than one occasion. There is no dispute that crossing the floor for money or personal gain is both immoral and a betrayal of the voters’ trust. However, when the MP crosses not for personal gain but in the interest and welfare of his constituents then he should be commended.
The Arguments for Immorality
The argument that crossing is immoral is that the MP was elected on his erstwhile political party’s ticket and that is amounts to a fraud on his voters. This argument is founded on two assumptions. The first is that the MP’s seat belongs to the political party. The second is that the MP was voted in based on his party’s platform and policies. The assumptions are wrong and the argument has failed to take into consideration several objectives and purposes of certain fundamental principles of a parliamentary constitutional system. Upon a proper understanding of these fundamental principles it will be seen that far from being immoral, the ability for MPs to cross the floor is not only moral but part of the democratic process.
The Electoral System and the Power of the 222
The argument that the voters have elected the MP on the party’s ticket and that the seat belongs to the party and not the MP arises from a confusion over the nature of the electoral systems in use. There are two major electoral systems in the world’s democracies:
The first is the constituency-based electoral system. By this system, voters in each local area or constituency elect an individual candidate. The person who wins the majority of votes in each constituency becomes a member of parliament. The party with the majority of MPs forms the government. In this system, the individual MP and not the party holds the seat. This means the MP can cross the floor and still keep his seat
The second is the proportional representation system. By this system, the electorate in a large area, for example, a province or a country votes for political parties. The political party chooses the people who will become MPs. Each party is allocated a number of seats proportional to the number of votes it receives in the election. In this system, the seat belongs to the party and the MP who crosses the floor cannot keep his seat.
The electoral system used in Malaysia is the constituency-based system. Therefore the argument that the MP has stolen his party’s seat when he crosses the floor is not supported upon a proper understanding of the constituency based electoral system. The constituency based system provides for individuals and not political parties to be the candidates for elction to the Dewan Rakyat. This is shown by independents, persons who do not belong to any political party, to contest. The candidate is elected not only on the policies and political ideology but also his personal character and capability. The policies and manifesto of the individual candidate will substantially be similar with the policies of other candidates from his party but there will also be differences according to the specific needs of the constituency and the candidate’s own capabilities. The party ticket is therefore a grouping of individual candidates professing to hold similar policies and ideology. However, the constituents are voting for the individual candidate based on his policies, his personal capabilities and personal commitment.
The party ticket argument also fails to give effect to the provisions of Article 43(1) and 43(4) of the Federal Constitution. Article 43(1) provides that the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong is to appoint the Prime Minister who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Dewan Rakyat. Article 43(4) provides that the Prime Minister is to tender the resignation of his cabinet if he ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Dewan Rakyat. The effect of our electoral system and the operation of these two articles is that the constituents have given the power to the majority of the 222 members of parliament to decide who, from amongst them, is to be the Prime Minister. The tenure of the 222 and their power is fixed. It continues until the next general election. The tenure of the Prime Minister, however, is not fixed and not immutable. It is subject to the Prime Minister continuing to enjoy the confidence of the majority of the 222 throughout the term of the Parliament. By its very nature the confidence enjoyed by the Prime Minister is capable of being lost and changed. This can be due to many factors including where the Prime Minister is unwilling or unable or inept in performing his duties or has failed to properly implement policies or no longer enjoys the confidence of the people or if there is a shift of public opinion as to the desirability of keeping him in office. The power to remove the Prime Minister in practice includes and requires the members of parliament crossing the floor. It is this ability to cross the floor that ensures that only a capable Prime Minister can hope to see the end of the Parliamentary term. The failure for the MP to act is that he will be unlikely to be re-elected by his constituents at the next General Election. It is thus the MP’s moral duty to cross the floor if necessary to ensure that an inept Prime Minister do not remain in office.
The MPs Duty and Good Conscience
The argument that the MP betrays his voters by joining another party glosses over basic principles governing an MP’s duties and his need to exercise independent judgement. The word “democracy” comes from the Greek word “demokratia” which means “government by the people”. The MP is elected to be the voice of his constituents and not to be the voice and handmaid of his political bosses. The MP and his constituents are the conscience of the Executive. The Honourable K. Rozzoli, Speaker of the NSW Legislative Assembly has described this as follows:
“A democratically elected Parliament is the only true voice of the people and accountability to the people it serves is the basic plank of a democratic system, however, no matter what forms of statutory accountability we bring to bear, true accountability lies in the conscience of both the people and their representatives.”
The Honourable Speaker also explained that an MP’s duties owed to his constituents prevail over that to his political party:
“The primary duty of a member is to his constituents who live within the electorate…The second duty is to help people outside the electorate… The third duty is to the Parliament, both to the institution itself and to the general dignity and process of the Parliament… The duty which exists to one’s political party is, I believe, not a duty. It is something we assume as an extra curricular activity.”
The paramount duty of the MP is therefore to act in the interest and welfare of his constituents and the next in the order of priority is to the Parliament. The Parliament, is the second pillar of government. It is one of the three institutions in the concept of the separation of powers of the government. It is to act as a check and balance to executive power. The Parliament is the avenue, through the principle of parliamentary privilege, by which the people may explore alternatives to the Executive’s proposals, to expose a wrong or an injustice. The people vote their parliamentarians to guard their liberties and to query the activities of the Executive and its servants. It is in the ability of the Parliament to challenge the Executive that provides the real restrain to an overzealous or unwise use of authority. The Parliament is therefore not created to be “a rubber stamp” of the Executive. The parliamentarians have a duty to be independent minded and are not put there by the people to be “yes men” for their party bosses. The British had more than a hundred years ago derided members of parliament who followed party orders without questions. William Schwenk Gilbert in “Iolanthe” lamented:
“When in that House MP’s divide
If they ‘ve a brain and cerebellum too
They ‘ve got to leave their brains outside
And vote just as their leaders tell ‘em to”
In more mature democracies, it is not unusual for members of the House of Commons to cross the floor or those members who generally support the Government to speak and vote against the Government. It is not unusual for members of the US House of Representatives or Senate to sit on either side of the House in a division. It is because of this that a democrat like Joe Liberman can follow his conscience to endorse a Republican John McCain as presidential candidate. It is because of this that a President Nixon can be impeached for Watergate. The problem in Malaysia is that no BN MP has in 51 years crossed the floor of our Dewan Rakyat. The Government controlled media had ensured that any vote against the ruling party or even a dissenting voice is labeled as an act of treachery. The idea of BN MPs crossing has therefore been quickly castigated as immoral without examining whether good conscience demands that the MP cross the floor resolutely according to the needs of his constituents’ interest or to remain in sterile stupor according to the dictates of his party bosses. The Watergates of Malaysia shall until then be destined to remain unearthed, unheard and unseen unless and until those elected to be the voice of their constituents find the courage to act according to their conscience. For so long as members of parliament from the ruling party conduct themselves as the proverbial three monkeys of “hearing no evil, seeing no evil and speaking no evil” about their party bosses, then the independence of Parliament does not exist. There is no check and balance by the Parliament of the Executive and only a “rubber stamp”. The political tsunami that swept away the shackles to an independent judiciary must now also free the legislature from its bondage.
Constitutional Convention and Expression of Public Morality
The ability for members of parliament to cross the floor is the expression of public morality and not of immorality. Article 43(4) of the Malaysian Federal Constitution provides that the Prime Minister is to resign his cabinet upon ceasing to command the confidence of the majority in the Dewan Rakyat. Our Constitution is modeled on the British Westminster Constitution. It is a collection of constitutional conventions and customs. It is the outcome of centuries of constitutional evolution. It has distilled and crystallized the essence of the expression of public values and public morality. The convention to provide members of parliament with the ability to cross the floor and thereby bring about the removal of a government is thus an expression of public morality.
The ability to allow MPs to cross the floor recognizes that there may be a significant shift in public opinion that does not require fresh elections but needs to be reflected in the Parliament. The ruling party may be unable or unwilling to implement policies promised to the electorate. This can then be given expression through the MPs crossing the floor. It is this ability that curtails the power of party bosses and makes for a more vibrant political atmosphere. It provides for greater democracy and greater sensitivity to public opinion during the Parliamentary term otherwise it inculcates the Executive to become an authoritarian regime relying in the knowledge that it does not have to account to the people for the next five years.
The improper use of the ISA, the Sedition Act, the requirement of police permit to prevent the people from exercising its right of free speech and freedom of assembly and the abuse of power to shut dissent must not have to wait for general elections every five years. It is the duty of the 222 to ensure that the Executive power remains in check. It has become even more imperative that the BN MPs be able to vote according to their conscience. Yesterday, 12th September 2008, Raja Petra Kamaruddin, Selangor State Exco member and Member of Parliament for Seputeh, Ms Theresa Kok and the reporter from Sin Chew Daily News, Ms Tan Hoon Cheng who published the Ahmad Ismail speech have been detained under the ISA. Now is the time to act, the nation cannot wait for five years.
The Tectonic Shift after 308
Since the March 8 General Elections, the Barisan Nasional leaders have shown they are unwilling, unable or indifferent in addressing the challenges facing the nation. Despite, the global shortage of food and the increasing price of essential food products, the Barisan National leadership has refused to dismantle the monopoly given to Bernas in the privatization of the distribution of imported rice. With the global economic slowdown and rising inflation and the US going into stagflation, the BN leadership increased petrol prices by a massive and unprecedented increase of 70 sen causing inflation to jump to 8% per annum. It then did a flip flop by reducing the petrol price to 15 sen but this is too little too late to stop the galloping inflation led loose by the irresponsible increase. The property sector and the construction industry have come to a standstill due to the substantial increase in the price of building and construction materials. The SMIs are crying for help as the sudden jump in operation costs in electricity, petrol and transport costs threaten to put them out of business. Violent crime continues unabated after the General Elections. Murders, rape and robberies haunt the people every day. This indifferent and inept performance has led to a shift in public opinion of tectonic proportions after the March 8 General Elections. The Barisan Nasional leadership has failed. They have shown to be unworthy of commanding confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament. Good conscience demands the BN MPs who still wish to hold true to the duty to their constituents have an obligation to cross the floor. It will be immoral for them not to.
Conclusion
The ability of the Members of Parliament to cross the floor and by doing so bring about a change in the government is part and parcel of the democratic process. It is a form of check and balance. It ensures that the sitting government must continuously be sensitive to the needs and opinion of the people or risk being removed before expiry of its term. The famous words that a democracy is said to be a “government of the people by the people and for the people” must include the right of the people to remove the government when it no longer represents the people. When Members of Parliament cross the floor acting according to the dictates of the people and not the dictate of the party bosses, they are acting morally and not immorally.
William Leong Jee Keen
13th September 2008
Article 2:
EXTRACTS ONLY :wrt the Internal Secrity Act, followed by my comments and key question to DAP vice-chairman-cum-johnny...--DESI
Abdullah Badawi: Wading Back from the Rubicon
Media Monitor
Written by William Leong Jee Keen
Monday, 22 September 2008 06:42
By William Leong, MP for Selayang
September 20, 2008
In ancient Rome, the legions of centurions were for the protection of Rome and thus were required to be encamped beyond the shores of the river Rubicon. Caesar in leading his legions to cross the Rubicon used the legions not for Rome but for his personal goal and changed Rome from a republic to a tyranny, an act finally punished by his assassination. Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in using the ISA, not for the protection of Malaysia but for protecting his waning administration after having crossed the Rubicon last week. Once crossed, Prime Minister Badawi has to bear the consequences of his conduct and releasing the detainees after 18 hours or after one week is not going to change the effect of his act. One cannot wade back when the Rubicon is crossed.
According to all religious tradition, once it is established beyond doubt that a particular ruler is a tyrant or a particular regime is tyrannical, it forfeits the moral right to govern and the people acquire the right to resist and to find the means to protect themselves from injustice and oppression. In other words a tyrannical regime has no moral legitimacy. It may be the de facto government and it may even be recognized by other governments and therefore be de jure or legal government. But if it is a tyrannical regime, it is from a moral point of view an illegitimate government.
At what point does a government become a tyrannical regime?
A tyrant is some one who exercises authority without respect for its function of supplying the conditions for a normative order. In the philosopher John Locke’s view, “Wherever the power that is put in any hands for the government of the people and the preservation of their properties is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the arbitrary irregular commands of those that have it, there it presently becomes a tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many… Wherever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another’s harm.” The traditional Latin definition of a tyrant is “hostis boni communis” - an enemy of the common good.
:
:
:
The justification for having the Internal Security Act ceased long ago. The need to protect the country from the communist insurgency ended with the laying down of arms by Chin Peng. The ISA has been used to detain opposition members. The use of the ISA is not only against the three detained but also against all of the people. It is to warn the people that this administration will not tolerate dissent. The ISA is the tool used in the politics of fear. It is not used for the common good but to preserve the position of the few. When the ISA was again invoked last week, there were some voices of dissent from cabinet ministers but only one minister, Dato Zaid Ibrahim showed that he means what he said and does what he means. The rest once again proved that what they do is far from what they say. Each of them and more so by the inelegant silence of the rest shows that all of them that remains in Badawi’s administration have also lost their moral authority to
govern. They have mortgaged their souls for power.
A tyrannical regime cannot continue to rule for very long without becoming more and more violent. As the majority of the people begin to demand their rights and to put pressure on the tyrant, so will the tyrant resort more and more to desperate, cruel, gross and ruthless forms of tyranny and repression. The reign of a tyrant always ends up as a reign of terror. It is inevitable because from the start, the tyrant is an enemy of the common good. It will use repressive measures, detentions, bans, prohibitions, propaganda, states of emergency and other tyrannical and desperate methods. Hamilton writes “In all ages the favourite and most formidable instruments of tyranny is unwarranted searches and seizures, the arrest and punishment of men without trial”. A regime that is in principle the enemy of the people cannot suddenly begin to rule in the interest of all the people. It can only be replaced by another government, one that will govern in the interest
of all the people.
William Leong Jee Keen
20th September 2008
***********************************************
DESIDERATA continues:
My statements:
DAP leader Lim Kit Siang had also supported the ISA at one time, in the early days when the party was pretty tied to the PAP apron strings, and international socialist forums had taken him to task on the stand. Why do you think it led to difference of opnion with the more principled DAP stalwarts like Fan Yew Teng and others who soon had no choice but forced to follow the "EXIT" sign.
To the johnny, I ask:
Where were you then? You are of the same peer group in terms of AGE, so there is no excuse for you not to be preaching such high ETHICS that finally led to your leading a high moraly ground that was the head of TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL.
And on the present ISA detentions, do you mean to say that the VIGIL PLANNED BY THE PEOPLE'S PARLIAMENT AT DATARAN MERDEKA AT 7.00PM TODAY (Saturday, Yes!) and other civil society groups should not "ethically" proceed because the gathering had not received the BN's directed police permit? Because the johnny and his ilk want to spend hours discussing about legitimate dissent at a time of national distress?
Has he even heard the MESSAGES OF CHANGE sent out by the Voters/Rakyat on March 8, 2008 and August 26?
OR have this johnny and newfound DAP cronies not heard of Mahatma Gandhi's and Martin Luther King's civil disobdedience movements?
Perhaps, I shall this royal johnny come lately to visit zorro-zorro-unmasked.blogspot.com for some lessons on CivilDisobedience101?
Some other INTIAL QUESTINS I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS TO THIS UMNO-PLANT SUSPECT-JOHNNY:
1. Where were you when DS Anwar Ibrahim was charged in court for Sodomy and Corrupt charges ten years ago?
Where were you when 10,000s Malaysians marched during BERSIH folllowed by Hindraf supporters before March 8, 2008 -- earning bread-and-butter writing PR sheets/s..t for New Straits Times and singing Pak Lah's looney tunes and no time to speak up on ETHICAL ISSUES like abuse of poowers and government corruption?
Where were you, Johnny, when madcap Zakaria Mad Deros built a small house costing RM7mil? Where were you when Port Klang Free Zone RM4.6 bialout debacle caught media lime light. LOST YOUR VOICE IZZIT?
I shall rest my case for now, and come back to "rebut" his high-profile interview exclusive to the NST when I have the time to spare for this johnny, right! If not today, tomorrow then as I will wave my creative Sunday's rumination on desiderata.english to entertain more johnnies who appreciate Desi's writHings, masochistics among them and their ilk!:(
No comments:
Post a Comment