Shock of my life when I woke up this morning and told that I am target of attacks on Facebook for betraying the people, DAP and PR in wanting to form coalition government with BN
I got into Petaling Jaya at about 3 am this morning after the phenomenon of “ocean of black” both from the capacity and roaring crowd at the thank-voters DAP Ipoh ceramah at Chin Woo Hall and the equally-matched crowd, both in numbers and commitment to vision for a new Malaysia, outside Chin Woo last night.
But I woke up after a few hours of sleep to the shock of my life, as I was told that I have been the target of attacks on the social media, particularly facebook, for betraying the people, DAP and Pakatan Rakyat in wanting to form a coalition government with Barisan Nasional.
Because of prolonged lack of sleep, both during the 15-day 13GE election campaign as well as the four hectic days after Sunday’s Polling Day, it took me awhile to fully grasp what was happening – as I had done nothing in the past four days since outcome of the 13GE results to justify any notion that I had betrayed the people, DAP and PR in wanting to form a coalition government with Barisan Nasional.
This morning, hard-core DAP loyalists were first the target of attacks because of newspaper headlines quoting me as saying as if I had agreed with the idea of forming a coalition government with BN – of wanting to replace MCA in BN! As one DAP loyalists described his experience on fb, viz:
This is completely untrue, as whether at the press conference at DAP Hqrs yesterday afternoon or at the DAP ceramah in Ipoh last night, I totally rejected the idea of DAP joining the Barisan Nasional to replace MCA – as I made it very clear that the DAP never intended to replace MCA in Barisan Nasional as our objectives since our formation 47 years ago has always been to fight for the rights and interests of all Malaysians, whether Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans or Ibans and never just for the Chinese.
DAP leaders have sacrificed in the past 47 years, dragged to court, detained under the Internal Security Act, gone to jail not just for the Chinese but for the rights and interests of all Malaysians – and it is just unthinkable for anyone to think that all this record of half-a-century championing the rights of all Malaysians regardless of race is to be completely wiped out, with the DAP fighting only to replace MCA in the BN!
I notice the response on fb expressing surprise that there could be such misperceptions, quoting what I had said at the Ipoh ceramah last night, dismissing in toto any idea of DAP joining BN to replace MCA!
There was the second suggestion of Pakatan Rakyat forming a coalition government with Barisan Nasional – where I said that the response will have to come from the Pakatan Rakyat leadership council.
But my personal view is that it is only when Barisan Nasional is prepared to endorse the Pakatan Rakyat Common Policy Framework and the PR 13GE manifesto, to eradicate corruption, abuses of power, all forms of injustices and exploitation, that there is basis for consideration of such a proposition of a BN-PR coalition government.
At the Ipoh rally, I specifically asked the crowd whether they would agree with my approach, and the answer was a thunderous “yes”.
I have a video recording of my speech in Ipoh. It has been uploaded on my blog and fb.
How then could there be the widespread misperception on the social media that I support the DAP joining BN coalition government to replace MCA?
Apparently, the fault lies in the newspaper headlines in the Chinese press, mixing the two separate issues: firstly, whether DAP will join BN to replace MCA; and secondly, the separate proposal of a BN-PR coalition government.
The Sin Chew front page headline for instance gives readers who read the first headline and not even the secondary headline or the news report the impression that I support the idea of DAP joining BN to replace MCA.
The first Sin Chew headline reads: “Lim Kit Siang: Can have coalition government with BN”.
The secondary headline reads: “Condition: Accept PR’s election manifesto”.
This should be a precious lesson to Sin Chew and all headline sub-editors that they have to be very careful to ensure that their primary headline do not give rise to false conclusions and misperceptions as they cannot assume that readers will read the contents or even the secondary headline.
In this particular instance, to avoid misunderstanding, both headlines should be primary headlines and not separated into primary headline (in red) and secondary headline (in black).