Wednesday, November 04, 2015

Pua to Pandikar: Phew, Thanks mate!

"If you dare to challenge others, then you should be brave enough to accept a challenge." - Zahid Hamidi, DPM, on asking Pua to be brave and debate Arul, The Star, 2 Nov

No thanks to the Dewan Rakyat Speaker's untimely intervention, Tony Pua has finally got out of the hole he'd dug for himself. But make no mistake, there's mud and crap on the DAP man's face, alright. All the silly bravado h e r e will not wash away the fact that Pua was clearly rattled the minute the straight-talking 1MDB boss Arul Kanda had flashed that trademark smile of his and accepted Pua's stupid challenge to a public debate. Arul even agreed to drop an earlier condition (that Pua quits his position in Public Accounts Committee, citing"conflict of interests", as the PAC is still investigating 1MDB) as added incentive for Pua to follow through on his own dare.  
Why and how Pandikar Amin, the Speaker, came in when he did is something to boggle the mind but only the relieved Pua - and perhaps some of his red-faced fans - would have seen it as face-saving and, therefore, divine.   
p.s. The next time Pua challenges anyone to a debate, I'll say two things: Pandikar and pund*klah
 
By the way, this is not the first time Pandikar wanted to quit. Read h e r e and h e r e

11 comments:

RD. said...

"Pundeklah" ????

Dato Rocky dah pandai mencarut macam Najib ke?

Just kidding.

Anonymous said...

Quitting mind will always have a quitting mind....mater of time, the quit will take place.

Hantu Gigi Jarang said...

Between Pendekar and the debate, I'd go for the debate, anytime.. Waiting for PAC to complete the investigation is like waiting for the Messiah to come and save the world..

Anonymous said...

Don't understand your logic. Pandikar is saving Tony Pua? How so? Pandikar is from BN. It is BN's interests not to see Arul and 1MDB getting exposed for public to see during the debate. The public wants a disclosure. That was what Tony Pua intended to do. So since Pandkiar did what he did, the conclusion from the public = Pandikar is doing Arul a favour.
Must be quite deluded to think otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Kalau Pandikar nak retired biaq pi lah dia retire....bukan nya susah pun nak cari pengganti. It will be better if the PeeMmm yang retired though.....The debate should go on....unless it is unconstitutional.....

Anonymous said...


"...the straight-talking 1MDB boss Arul Kanda had flashed that trademark smile of his..."

I love your overt homoerotic love for this baldy.

But baldy already know this would happen....

AbGJaS said...

Apa yg saya nampak, Pandikar dijadikan banteng terakhir utk menghalang debat ni daripada berlaku.

Hidup Najib! said...

The speaker is the last defence post for najib...looking at the propose questions by Phua only God knows what have they done to the country

Anonymous said...

The showOff and chickened out Tony has found his savior in Pandikar, so the debate is off. Arul said as a respect for the Speaker, he will not debate. When you think that is the end of the story...
LKS and the PH new spokeperson, Pudin still bitting the war drum. A Tony's substitute will be named tomorrow....
Some one commented, "Fizi ? Hi hi " Another of the Pakatan uncountable dramas...

Nenek Kampung

Anonymous said...

The CEO has been openly speaking to the media.
Spt yg Pendekkar katakan, the smiling CEO kene excuse himself from the PAC session kerana sudah bercakap di media while the case is still undergoing investigation by PAC .
Wow, Dia punye smile aft every Q enough to answer all the riddles. Teringat cerita Buttman, Ada Joker, Enigma, Riddlesr, n Penguin. Semua CEO.
Another joker said I M NOT A CROOK. The rest was his own story.

Mustapha Ong said...

A Speaker should not take side in whatever issues that are being raised in Parliament. The position of a Speaker is by appointment and not by parliamentary election. The PM recommends the appointment and gets the consent from the Agong. It is not by consensus of majority votes in parliament! However, the Speaker can make a ruling as to what issues are debatable in parliament and what issues cannot be debated.