‘If he joins PKR, there will be the initial euphoria but once that euphoria fades, he will be seen as just another politician only.

On Zaid needs Pakatan, Pakatan needs Zaid

Yuvan: I do not quite agree with the writer's opinion that Zaid Ibrahim should join PKR.

I am of the view that the country today badly needs some apolitical leaders of strong stature and maturity who would be able to voice their opinion and views without fear or favour.

Although Zaid Ibrahim was an Umno politician and was a minister in the federal government, he is seen today as someone who can speak his mind freely and people are willing to listen to him.

If he joins PKR, there will be the initial euphoria but once that euphoria fades, he will be seen as just another politician only.

It is important for people like Zaid Ibrahim to act as `compliance personnel' so that they can play an effective and serious role in checkmating unfair practices and any breach of law committed by politicians and government leaders from both the ruling and opposition parties.

These people will be looked upon with a lot of respect and regard by the public as they can express their views and opinions freely without having to represent or `speak on behalf' of any political party or political group.

The fact that Zaid Ibrahim was in politics does not necessarily mean that he should become a full-fledged politician again to serve the nation. He should remain apolitical.

On Karpal charged with sedition

P Ramakrishnan: Is there a pattern in the way the opposition is being targeted? Is this going to be the new strategy to contain the opposition? Malaysians are genuinely perturbed by the new trend that has emerged.

First, Gobind was suspended from Parliament and then Karpal was charged with sedition What was Karpal's crime? As a very eminent senior criminal lawyer, he stated what the law said.

In commenting on the Perak state crisis, he referred to the relevant laws in existence and pointed out the implications and consequences of those laws.

He may be right, he may be wrong in his interpretation. But the man is entitled to his views.

Karpal did not use harsh words to disparage His Royal Highness. He did not demean the royal personage of the Sultan of Perak.

He was not rude or crude in speaking his mind. He simply stated what recourse there was under the law. That was all.

The thousands of Perakians who took to the streets on the day Zambry was sworn in as menteri besar of Perak did not do so because of what Karpal said.

They did what they did on their own from their own sense of justice.

But who are the people who twisted Karpal's views and misrepresented his stand? These are the people who lodged police reports against Karpal.

It is these people who had acted in a seditious manner to agitate others and cause disaffection among a small number of people for their own political agenda.

It is important that we separate fact from fiction. It is important that truth must prevail and lies must be buried for good. ( The writer is president, Aliran )

On S'gor govt not serious about asset declaration

Peter Yew: Let's not get overboard with this! We should judge politicians by their service rather than by their assets, which there are ways to investigate if they had obtained them by fraudulent means.

Politicians are humans too and displaying their assets online or otherwise is akin to parading naked before a witness stand.

I laud the PR state government for even trying. Honestly I don't care if Khalid Ibrahim earns RM100,000 a month or even more if he is doing a good job as MB of the state.

Shame on BN government for just talking about it but never got to revealing the assets although they insist their PR counterparts comply. Talk about double standards!

Let's get on with getting the job done than fighting over such petty issues.

Ong: Many people, including myself appear to be of the opinion that the way the assets were declared was unsatisfactory and amounts to a joke.

All of us have a right to express our disappointment and unhappiness with this half-hearted declaration of assets.

However people like former BN Selangor exco Tang See Hang and other BN members have lost their right to complain or pass judgement.

This because when they were in power, they never subscribed to the practice of publicly declaring their assets.

At present I do not hear any one of them telling the current BN ministers in central government and current exco members in BN-controlled states to publicly declare their assets.

If Tang See Hang is serious and sincere in his criticism of the PR Selangor government's way of declaring their assets, then I suggest that even though he is no longer an exco member, he should show the present PR government the proper way to declare their assets.

This by offering to declare his and his immediate family members' assets starting from the day before he became an exco member until the day he ceased to become an exco member.

In fact it will be even better if he declares his assets until a period, of say, a year or two after he ceased to be an exco member.

The reason for this is that for a long time, I have noticed that for many ex-BN (especially ex-MCA) ministers and exco members, exceptional wealth seems to surface after they have either retired or resigned from their former posts.

If Tang See Hang can do that then I will believe that his criticism of the Selangor government is sincere and, to use his own words, not ‘a political gimmick'.

On Should race-based parties go?

Milton Yap: Tun Dr Mahathir said that we will continue to have race- based parties. But, he did not explain why.

My view is a simple one. As long as one race has special privileges and rights, there will be a basis and need for race-based parties.

The reason for the existence of race-based parties is to fight and protect the special interests, rights and privileges of such a certain group.

There is the ratio decidendi (if I have used the right word), the basis for such parties to exist and the fight for special interest becomes their lifeblood.

Only when every one is equal will race-based parties go away. That is when there is no need or basis for people to join together.

Political parties exist to strive and struggle for their members or a group of people.

You can say that they are the champion stakeholders. You have the MCA fighting for Chinese rights.

And you have Umno protect what they call ‘threats' to the special rights and privileges of the Malays.

And then you have the MIC fighting in the corner of the Indians and so on.

We have come 50 years since 1957. We have one language. Chinese like Lim Guan Eng have strong oratorical skills in Malay.

I speak Malay like a Malay, studied micro-economics and macroeconomics in Malay.

So there is no question of fighting for language. And, then there is religion, which has become the bone of contention. So, is PAS fighting for religion or race? This I am not so clear about.

PAS seems to have, in recent days, voiced their support for Malay rights. In that sense, they are a race-based party.

We will not have race-based parties when everyone is equal, when each race strides out confidently, not hiding behind privileges.

On Sujatha's inquest: Doctor says it's suicide

TT: The doctor is working in HTAR in Klang but he doesn't realise the traffic conditions in Klang?

Ask anybody staying in Klang and they will tell you its a nightmare crossing the Klang Bridge (via Federal Highway) or the Banting interchange (via Kesas) to reach HTAR.

At worst, it would have taken only 20 minutes to reach KLGH but in similar traffic conditions, it would've taken one-and-a-half hours to reach Klang's HTAR.

As a doctor, why take chances on a life or death situation?