You want everyone to consume a lot though, if you punish people for consuming, that's a negative for the country. The goal is to become a first world high income country.

RPK flawed in his reasoning regarding debates Imo. Polls have shown that debates can swing support from one side to the other plus debates can also clarify issues to people who are on the fence and people who may not know about what's happening, so you can "win". Debates are good I think, better than both sides attacking each other through various media and obviously better than violence.

Debates allow for discussion in a moderated rational manner, which is the key point, rather than people insulting each other over media etc.


Wut lol! darthboyzzee even you know this is totally ridiculous LoL.

This post has been edited by silic0sis: Aug 14 2017, 07:35 AM

What's ridiculous about it?

Opposition "dying" not because of mahathir's joining but because they keep doing retarded shit and being incompetent. None of the opposition like mahathir, but the country comes first! It is the only reason they accept mahathir now.

Opposition garners support from frustration, people who are frustrated at/with the situation, not hate (at least not racial). In the article quoted, RPK is likely referring to hate along racial lines, but it contradicts what he says prior, that chinese don't want violence which is true. If you don't want violence, you don't spread (racial) hate because that is counter to what you want to avoid, you don't want to split voters into a you versus me situation. RPK is contradicting himself in this sense.

Which part exactly do you agree with RPK on? That debates are useless or that opposition want to avoid violence but want to have violence?

Denial of what? I think opposition knows it's an uphill battle.

This post has been edited by silic0sis: Aug 14 2017, 08:30 AM

If he's talking about hate towards a political party, I think it's normal for a party to try highlight the flaws of it's opposition. What you're suggesting is that opposition can not criticise the ruling party, and the ruling part can't criticise the opposition, which doesn't make sense.

If you're frustrated, and you're frustrated with the way things are handled, then you should want things to be handled in more proper professional manner from both sides. One proper way is through debates rather than insults via media. You don't explain why you think debates are bad.

As a fence sitter, you shouldn't make your decision based on the macais.

He is a "different" mahathir because he doesn't wield the same amount of power now. Mahathir in the past could do whatever he wanted. Mahathir today can't do whatever he wants.

I don't think that is accurate with PH supporters. They don't like mahathir but are willing to use him if it leads to victory because right now the country is more important. Whether it's geniune or not doesn't matter that much and it's also not "feel good" because the reason behind then joining forces is obvious.

The main point being, country comes first and taking mahathir down (thus removing whatever influence/power he has left) is counter productive since that is the reason he was accepted in the first place despite all his known baggage. You think LKS and anwar themselves don't know they were put in prison for political purposes? Of course they know lol.

I don't support PH, definitely not PH fag. I've met a lot of PH senior members, don't think highly of them. I don't believe in supporting (being loyal to) political parties anyway, political parties may be good today, bad tomorrow and good again in the future. You should support them when they're good and discard them when they're bad, there is no reason at all to be "loyal" to a party as a citizen.
The reality is, was mahathir corrupt? most likely yes. Do PH people think he was corrupt? Yes. Did they accept him knowing he was corrupt while in UMNO? Yes.
If they know he was corrupt during his umno days and they accepted him despite that, makes no sense to question him about it now.
It's the same with Mahathir supporters who followed him from BN, who have to accept anwar and DAP.

There's no need for you to be afraid.
Is it possible that it might be internal? Yes, of course. Can't truly rule anything out yet. But, realistically, sabotage seems much more likely looking at the situation and circumstances. I think even you have to agree with that, so let's just agree that although it's possibly internal, the odds are higher that it is a sabotage.

Support 100%, no. I don't think anyone really supports 100%.

Everyone is using everyone. That's how it works. I'm sure Mahathir has his own agenda and I don't think that agenda is necessarily to "save" malaysia.
Mahathir may jump, it's just a risk they have to take. They want his power/influence/knowledge, etc, they have to take the risk.
I was just talking from opposition POV in that post.

To me, there are some huge problems with the country, the racism and racial divide to me is the #1 biggest problem.
Some corruption here and there is not that big a deal to me, in fact for people in business, it's what makes doing business in malaysia so easy, but it has to be done more subtly, at least the way mahathir did it, through cronies, the country still develops and grows, people still get wealthier. It's still done through cronies now, but the other way it's done is bad for the country because of the instant debt issue it creates which has an instant negative impact (versus the gradual, more tolerable) on citizens, the economy and growth.

This post has been edited by silic0sis: Aug 14 2017, 05:15 PM

I think they sincerely want to defeat BN. Not necessarily desperate, but opposition is definitely the underdogs here. It's like a football team, and mahathir and his followers are top players and free agents, makes sense to take them lol.
I don't think there is necessarily "no principle". They probably have agreed to a set of ideas and principles. People with different goals and ideas can come together to work on what they agree on.
Yeah the devil part is probably accurate to some extent.

Yeah, it's like hiring a top hacker who previously hacked your servers to stop a new breed of hackers trying to hack your servers.

You said you were afraid, so I was just telling you not to be afraid lol, obviously in jest. What makes you think you're not being cheated by the current guys though, they're all from the same party. My opinion is that almost everyone at the high levels in both parties are probably corrupted to some extent, some maybe more than others. I think switching parties occasionally reduces the amount of corruption, because it reduces the amount of time they're in power, which reduces the amount of power they wield which reduces the extent to which they can be corrupt.

This post has been edited by silic0sis: Aug 14 2017, 05:33 PM

What do you mean by sincere? I think they want to defeat BN because then they are in position of power. Whether they want to do that for the sake of the citizens of for themselves or for a mix of both is seperate, but I think they sincerely want to be in position of power.

Current people in power also about corruption and cronyism though, and I think opposition will have some degree of that too. I think it's harder to avoid in malaysian political system because of the governance and political structure. But back to the principle point that you were making, the idea that, although not spoken, but is understood, is that mahathir was prolly corrupt, they know it but principally they can take him and not allow him to continue to be corrupt, the past is the past, past is important but future is more important.

In the hacker scenario, it's more akin to hiring that hacker but that hacker has stage 4 cancer. Mahathir won't be around for that much longer plus you don't know what they have or have not agreed on. They probably have some agreements and understanding. Personally I think mahathir wants to protect and secure his people (his cronys, children, etc), I don't think he wants to build an empire like he did before. 1 is iffy but tolerable the other is a problem.

Same as in still has his wits and intellect sure, but mahathir back then had power, mahathir today doesn't, at least not to the same extent.

This post has been edited by silic0sis: Aug 14 2017, 06:29 PM

Yeah I agree singapore was better managed, thus grew at a much faster rate then malaysia. It's not as simple as saying mahathir "devalued" our currency though, to have a better understanding, the exchange comparison should be made with the USD in mind as well, which tells a better story of our country's growth, recession and situation. Comparing with singapore alone doesn't say much, the reality is singapore grew and progressed at a much faster rate than malaysia and their growth is remarkable by any standard, to see their "story" you can compare SGD vs USD.

I don't think old times were great, but they were tolerable because at least the country was growing. In hindsight, you are right though, we definitely should have voted BN out a long time ago. Mahathir's NEP, protectionism, cronyism, corruption, manipulation of the system has fked us. The current regime is able to do what they do with such ease because of mahathir. At least we agree that BN has been bad, but people back then were too afraid to take chances and they're only willing to take a chance now, when they're starting to hurt, when it's already almost too late.
I don't disagree with cutting subsidies or implementation of GST system, only maybe that it should have been done more gradually. I don't agree with welfare that US has for example but I don't think welfare should be removed suddenly, it should be more gradual because things like this greatly affects the markets and therefore growth and economy.

Your suggestion regarding racism might work if there was a proper marketplace of ideas and proper free speech, which doesn't exist in malaysia with our current political climate/situation. It's made more difficult by policies that are racist by nature and racist propogranda. The marketplace of ideas you are talking about requires government to stay out of race politics and allow social discourse and the equilibrium you're talking about to happen naturally.

I see that you're taking some arguments from the (US) conservative playbook which is great, but you have to keep in mind, the core idea behind conservativism is small government and individual freedoms, both of which are based on their constitution, ie. The government's role is clearly stated within the constitution, individual rights are clearly stated within the constitution. Small government is about reducing government power and influence over it's citizens, reducing government influence over individual beliefs, ideas and rights (necessary for a marketplace of ideas to exist), reducing government influence over the marketplace (free market). In Malaysia, neither party believes in this style of governance.

This post has been edited by silic0sis: Aug 14 2017, 11:30 PM