Imagine this. Dato Nazri Aziz says UMNO is CLEAN. UMNO is PURE. Imagine further, Nazri Aziz says:- ( Sakmongkol adapts this story from Carl Sagan)
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose sakmongkol makes such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. Sakmongkol leads you to his garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," Sakmongkol replies, waving vaguely. "Sak neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," Sak says, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. Sakmongkol counters every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove sakmongkol’s contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that sakmongkol’s dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate sakmongkol’s hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless...
Nazri Aziz does not define the term PURE and CLEAN. Pure as regards what? Clean in terms of what? What are the particular aspects you want us to test and disprove? Just don’t ask Sakmongkol to discuss String Theory.