Save Malaysia from further embarassment

A couple of days ago...or was it yesterday, our DPM remarked that US should look at their Guatanamo Bay first before criticising BN govt use of ISA. To me, after reading the rebuke by the DPM to US, i got this uneasy feeling that it was a big mistake. I would have prefered the DPM to give the US the middle finger or even show them the keris rather than tell them to look at Guatanamo Bay first among other things and for the US not becoming like the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.

What now after DPM made this rebuke? What concessions will we have to make? What price are we going to pay for the international community to overlook BN's indiscretion?

For one Malaysia would lose its voice regarding world matters. Malaysia would risk being called a hypocrite or be embarrased by being hit back with our own statement * look at your ISA first before you comment on our xxxxxx. * if Malaysia were to make a stand against some other country's unjust policy.
For example :
IF Israel were to detain some palestinians without trial, WHEN Malaysia were to give a protest statement, Israel MAY reply that Malaysia should look at ISA first instead of Palestine.

OR risk being labeled a hypocrite if they were to urge Myanmar to free Aung San Suu Kyi.

On our domestic side, would the govt give immunity to criminal who detain people illegally such as kidnappers? Would the kidnappers argue that the govt should look at ISA first before prosecuting them?


I would like to think that the above would not happen but political precedents seems to support the above scenario.

Now let us remember Zakaria's Palace. I remember that in order for BN to save Zakaria's Palace, they have to forego prosecuting hundreds of thousands(as stated by Toyo) of similiar and thus, illegal buildings.

Who would have guessed a simple reactionary rebuke would have such embarasing concequences? But by blogging the problem, i would also offer a solution...

Here's my two cents worth on how to avoid further embarassments....

The DPM should go and sit down with his counterpart from US, Israel, UK and Myanmar and get them to agree not to mention ISA. Then the DPM would agree to not to mention Guatanamo Bay, Palestine, Diana, Aung San Syu Kyi.

THEN, if the US were to whack Iran or Israel were to whack Syria or UK were to discriminate against muslim or Myanmar were to kill journalists, Malaysia could still make some noise and PRETEND to be righteous.

Of course you all may also agree to have a clause for mutual support if, say, when one of you make a statement while giving a left eye wink to the camera or, say, having a keyword like "security". Meaning like when say, Israel were to whack Syria, the statement by Israel if it contains the key word "security" then you may not voice your objections. But if the keyword was not in the statement, then you may wave the keris. In this way, you would look good most of the time( unfortunately not all the time) and you would not invite an embargo by pissing at the superpowers, all in all, basically a win win situation.

On second thought scrap the idea of the eye wink. You may not have a problem but your boss with his habitual beauty sleep problem may give your friends all the wrong impressions.

For the sake of clarity, or if you do not understand the above, i will give you the following example :

Say, if GW Bush were to say in a statement that Osama bombed WTC, your reaction should be, if the keyword was "Osama", you should jump out and say that you agree with him 100%.

But if GW Bush says in the statement like Operation endurin freedom to catch terrorist, you may pretend to, if the keyword was "Osama"(and no mention of Osama anywhere in the statement), kick up a fuss on them waging a war on another country for no reason etc. etc.