The Vote of Confidence. Much Ado about Nothing.

1. Was the confidence voting a gimmick and a prelude to a dictatorship?

2. As a rule any party with a questionable majority support of MPs, ought to subject itself to a vote of confidence.

3. Stronger reasons to do one if the government in question is composed of a coalition of parties. The support of these ought to be verified in parliament.

4. Hence, primarily, doing one isn't just a response of being challenged by a sceptical joe. More important, it's an action to affirm and validate a government's claim that it has the confidence of a majority of the MPs.

5. Therefore, (in our case) ignore the grumblings and grouses of a petulant mahiadin. The stronger and more important reason is to validate and to affirm majority support.

6. Doing a vote of confidence and ascertaining support in a physical presence is a surer way of validating support than reliance of SDs.

7. Our government is based on the support of the electorate and a manifestation of that support through the physical demonstration of it by MPs in parliament. Parliament is the appropriate venue to validate that support.

8. Our government must never be founded on the tenderizing of SDs. The fact that the king called each MP to ascertain his or her support, showed an implicit lack of 100% confidence in just a piece of paper.

9. It follows, therefore, a party leader relying on SDs only, ignores the wishes of the people and is arguably less trustworthy himself.

10. We didn't see a vote of confidence done by both mahiadin and Ismail sabri. I would be forgiven then into believing the 2 governments were the biggest scams done to Malaysians.

11. It's a moral imperative then to do a vote of confidence and not just a response to the challenge done by petulant mahiadin.
In politics, we are guided by both legal and moral principles. It's gimmicky only in saying it's a response to the challenge by sourpuss mahiadin.

12. Isn't it laughable to hear people saying the vote of confidence is a gimmick, not necessary, and we don't want to durhaka to the king and saying the submissive ampun tuanku?AFTER the MOA being signed by the Anwar government?

13. Why didn't these charlatans acknowledge that all this while, right from the beginning, Anwar had majority support and that the MOA is superfluous?

14. Instead, they want to belabour and caused stress to everyone by asking a vote of confidence. And when their plan backfired, say disingenuously it's a gimmick, not necessary and don't want to durhaka to the king?

15. It's just verbal semantics and like the uncivilized bung mokhtar said, FU.

16. Let's not overgeneralize the MOA as being a prelude to a dictatorship. I think that's a rushed and rash statement.

17. I think the statement saying it's a dictatorship was first made by mas ermiyatie and then parroted in parliament by Hamzah zainuddin. All the components to a dictatorship are not there, but they insisted on treating the MoA as a pivotal component. They are inviting us to believe that. That's an invitation we shall stoutly refuse.

18. In any case, would you want to establish a dictatorship by publicising the step you are taking? You would do everything by fiat.

19. Does the signing of SDs snuff out the freedom by MPs to say what their conscience dictate? The MOA have the same effects.

20. Rather than saying the MOA signifies lack of support, I would rather say it's just a step taken to fortify support. Just as much as an SD is.

21. If the MOA is regarded as odious, objectionable and unsavoury, the SDs must be similarly regarded

22. Now, the tales told by ermiyatie and Hamzah are really Macbethian in spirit. It's a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

23. Ermiyatie and Hamzah are not idiots, but their tales are idiotic.