Lip service won’t do, Anwar - K Pragalath

“The man Pakatan Rakyat wants to install as prime minister only talks and makes empty promises. He should fulfill his election pledges. He’s the Selangor economic advisor and should learn how to deliver instead of embarking on a road show.” - N. Gobalakrishnan

by K Pragalath at Free Malaysia Today

---

Former PKR strongman N Gobalakrishnan said that the party is doomed to failure because its leader Anwar Ibrahim was only good at paying lip service and not delivering on his promises.

“The man Pakatan Rakyat wants to install as prime minister only talks and makes empty promises. He should fulfill his election pledges.

“He’s the Selangor economic advisor and should learn how to deliver instead of embarking on a road show,” said Gobalakrishnan as he continued his barrage of criticism against the opposition leader and former boss.

Comparing Anwar to Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, the now independent MP for Padang Serai, said Anwar does not go down on the ground to listen to the people problems and resolve issues affecting them.

Gobalakrishnan said this is why party members and representatives are dissappointed and have left the left the party as they were made to feel like orphans.

“Why are only PKR leaders leaving the party unlike in PAS and DAP?” he asked.

“I’ll tell you why,” he said in a quick reply to his self-imposed question, “It is because the party does not listen its grassroots leaders.

“They are ignored and made to feel like orphans who have been abandoned. PKR has become a laughing stock in the country’s political landscape.”

Unlike the PKR leadership, Gobalakrishnan said PAS’ Kelantan Menteri Besar Nik Aziz Nik Mat had always emphasised on its state assemblypersons and MPs to take interest in the welfare its party members.

Based on his own experience, the 51-year-old first-term parliamentarian said that funds for his Padang Serai constituency were channelled to PAS.

“Anwar didn’t dare ask PAS for funds on my behalf, but he openly criticise Barisan Nasional for not disbursing it to opposition MPs ,” explained Gobalakrishnan.

Gobalakrishnan leaves the poison behind - KTemoc

Gobala wasn’t the first to exit PKR with animosity; he won’t be the last. So, will you anwaristas again blame those who leave, or will you open your eyes wide and recognize the Anwar-Azmin poison? It's time PKR members wake up from their mesmerized hypnotized hallucinations, and stop imagining your icon and his blue-eye boy are infallible.

by KTemoc at KTemoc Konsiders

---

So the virtually impossible has happened - Gobalakrishnan, once PKR’s chief bodek-er of Anwar, has resigned from PKR in disgust. Who would have ever predicted this prior to the recent party polls - a poll which had led many party stalwarts as well as notable and neutral socio-political observers to question the integrity of its process.

Silence from the party leaders, or their caught-with-pants-down inability to reply the challenges by the complainants have invited the inevitable destructive implosion.

And instead of pressuring the party leaders to be fully accountable, predictably, the moronic PKR fanatics lambasted Gobala as a snake, frog, UMNO-MIC mole, running dog and with various animal appellations. Will they do likewise to other complainants like Chegubard, Jonson Chong, Mustaffa Kamil as they did to Zaid Ibrahim, Gobala, Nallakaruppan, etc?

As I mentioned in my previous post The Poison within PKR - Part III:

Gobala might have hailed from MIC, supposedly a stigma that anwaristas have been hurling at him since he spoke out against Anwar Ibrahim. That’s the infantile stupidity of anwaristas. They seem to have forgotten that their very own icon and his blue-eye boy hailed from UMNO, and as another example, Chua Jui Meng was from MCA, etc.

Dismissing Anwar’s critics by pointing to their original political affiliations (Gobala from MIC, Zaid Ibrahim from UMNO, etc) while ignoring those of Anwar and Azmin (and Chua JM) is childish, double-standard, not objective, self deceiving, and can even eventually lead/escalate to accusing-stereotyping people like Gobala of being a “typical Indian”. Bet you that label has already been voiced within some groups in PKR.

and also

And haven’t party seniority and living the party's ‘trials & tribulations’ been the Azmin Ali camp’s arguments on why Azmin was far more deserving than Zaid Ibrahim of the post of party deputy president?

The blind double-standard hypocrites they are, their argument of ‘no to parachutist’ in the Azmin versus Zaid Ibrahim election tussle obviously doesn’t apply to the Gobala vs Surendran case.

Such double standard hypocrisy and Machiavellian manipulation to marginalize those members posing a threat to Azmin Ali have been the deadly ingredients which brew the poison with PKR.

Just double-standard fanatics, blind to their own follies, without the ability to think independently.

I believe it has been Anwar’s blind devotion for and non-negotiable support of Azmin Ali that have fermented the poison within PKR which will eventually kill the party off like Roundup does for lallangs.

Yes, perhaps Gobala may not be an intellectual, as some snobs in PKR suggested and thus better out of the party, but how many intellectuals does PKR have? Is Azmin Ali an intellectual? wakakaka! In reality he is nothing more than a pretty boy, a relative lightweight in the intellect department. His only strength in PKR is that Anwar Ibrahim backs him up 101% - nothing else.

Gobala was a loyal PKR member and an erstwhile staunch supporter of Anwar Ibrahim. The reason for him leaving PKR with such anger is no different to that of Nallakaruppan, where Anwar and the party had done him grave injustices. For Gobala, they were a mix, namely, the questionable party polling process and the refusal or inability of the party leaders to answer the challenges of the complainants, the deliberate snubbing of him in favour of Surendran (showing PKR's double standard where Surendran is okay as a parachutist but not so for Zaid Ibrahim), the outrageous 45-page show-cause letter with a demand to respond within an unreasonable 7 days, etc. Any reasonable man would have been driven off by such rot.

Gobala wasn’t the first to exit PKR with animosity; he won’t be the last. So, will you anwaristas again blame those who leave, or will you open your eyes wide and recognize the Anwar-Azmin poison? It's time PKR members wake up from their mesmerized hypnotized hallucinations, and stop imagining your icon and his blue-eye boy are infallible.



KTEMOC

PKR & Gobala - Muniandy Vengaiah

More than one month ago, I wrote to express my disgust with the way PKR handled dissent from its own members. Looking at the way it is handling the criticisms from one of its own MPs, YB N. Gobalakrishnan, it seems that in PKR any internal dissent is automatically considered an act of treachery.

Its former deputy president, Dr Syed Husin Ali, has made many accusations about these dissenters. He has labelled them as sampah sarap or rubbish, ‘frogs’ planning to leave the party and posing as heroes in attacking the party leadership merely to extract the highest bid from BN.

I regret very much that Dr Syed Husin has chosen to make those accusations which are baseless, very deplorable and self-defeating.

The effect is to scare members from criticising the party leadership. What is the point of having ‘one member, one vote’ to encourage democratic participation of members when participation in the form of honest and legitimate criticisms are condemned as treacherous by the party?

In defence of Gobala and in reply to those who attacked him for airing openly his grouses, many times in private he had expressed his dissatisfaction to the party leadership, only to find out later that his complaints had fallen on deaf years. And when in frustration he brings everything out in the open, he is accused of being disloyal to the party. What is this, PKR?

Some party leaders like to claim the party has come out of the internal elections stronger than before. Is it really? Why can’t the party be more matured in managing criticisms from its members if it is really stronger than before? To me, the recent party elections have only proven that PKR is unfit to issue any kind of criticism to the Elections Commission about the way that body administers the nation’s elections.

Gobala’s main concerns are over the Sivan Temple in Bukit Gasing and the welfare of the Coalfield Estates workers. As an elected people’s representative, he feels that it is his duty to speak out on those issues. And yet the party chooses to vilify him for speaking out.

His other complaints about the many flaws in the party elections and how the party’s de facto leader seems to favour the current deputy president before, during and after the elections are meant to open up the eyes of the membership to shortcomings within the party. Is it taboo to criticise the de facto leader? If so, is it because he is a ‘God-given’ leader, as claimed by the party president?

Gobala also brought up the question of Mr Surendran’s membership and it took the party a long time to announce that he has always been a member of the Lembah Pantai cabang. Really? Was his name in the electoral roll of members qualified to vote during the party elections?

It is suspected that a party letter had been forged to sack a certain party member and stop him from contesting the deputy president post during the recent elections. I therefore have suspicion that Surendran’s name could have just been inserted into the membership register simply to deny Gobala’s claim. PKR is a party that believes in solving problems expeditiously, it seems.

Many senior members have left the party after being disenchanted with the attitude and stance of the top leadership. Right now, in the way the party handles internal dissent and criticisms, there is a big question mark whether PKR is the Reformasi party that it claims to be.



MUNIANDY VENGAIAH