His opening paragraph is a dead giveaway of abject partisanship, and for all that he posits, thereafter can be no objectivity.
Firstly, saying being surprised "that even intelligent people are questioning whether Pakatan Rakyat is ready to govern at federal level" is both insulting and disingenuous. What he is subtly saying is intelligent people would not raise such a question or only idiots will.
Secondly, he admits only reading from an online news website meaning he was not there. How can he then justify that the "full implications may not have been comprehensively conveyed" and "they seem skeptical"?
In court appeals, it is common for the higher court to support the lower court judges decision on the credibility or honesty of witness/es by their demeanour and expressions and rarely disturbs that decision on account of the judge being physically present.
Since Mr Kee was not there he is in no position to surmise as such or even suggest such at the very least.
He then goes on a public relation exercise to explain why "the question of whether Pakatan is ready to be the federal government is an unfair one."
A simple rebuttal for all that Mr Kee has to say comes from an ex-DAP and a very high ranking member of the DAP at that, DAP vice-president Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim.
Tengku Abdul Aziz said, "(Penang) progressed in the last four years, it was developed because it had a history of more than 200 years and not because of Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng"
Tengku Abdul Aziz was being kind, to the opposition and his ex-party especially.
What every political commenter cannot deny, in the history of Malaya and Malaysia, the British left us with an efficient system of administration.
When Malaya (and Malaysia) gained independence, for Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers, it would not have had so much of a problem administering the country and state.
What Tengku Abdul Aziz could have said is Penang had progressed by the efforts of the previous BN administrations.
The same rationale can be applied to Selangor and or every other state any party takes over in Malaysia.
It is common sense that any governing administration could do better or worse than the previous one.
Mr Kee for whatever reason singles out Andrew Khoo (remember Mr Kee was not there) and I will address the following quotes,
He also says, “Although (Pakatan) have a common policy in (their) Buku Jingga… (the) inability or reluctance of Pakatan to form a shadow Cabinet … has meant they are unable to articulate what their policy is going to be.”Mr Kee is comparing apples with oranges.
I can’t agree with that. The fact that there is already a policy is a plus point; the articulation will come if and when Pakatan takes office. I don’t think Pakatan needs to name its ministers first in order to articulate this policy. When Najib named his Cabinet, we didn’t know what his policies would be. As time went on, he came up with 1Malaysia and the transformation programmes. Later on, he opted for populist policies aimed mainly at winning the general election. Where do policy and personnel figure in this?
What Barisan Nasional has and Pakatan Rakyat does not - convention.
Since independence Prime Ministers of Malaysia has always been from UMNO. Whether one agrees or disagrees, by a social contract between the 3 major races, the interests of Malays would always be a priority in any policy there onwards. The 2 other major races, represented by the MCA and MIC, by all their members in the cabinet and by convention of TRUE consensus in the interests of other races, will support any policy initiated by the Prime Minister.
But Pakatan Rakyat is a heterogeneous, politically diverse and loose coalition held together, only by some book or frequently quarreled "common" policy, arrived out of the fortuitous event of 2008, for political expedience.
By convention, a deputy prime minister always succeed the prime minister. By convention, the deputy president of UMNO will always be the next prime minister should the incumbent prime minister leaves office. By convention, all the other component members of the BN accepts this progression.
Malaysian's have always accepted this convention.
That is one of the major reasons asking for a shadow cabinet. A pertinent post, that of deputy prime minister.
Pakatan Rakyat may have a "book" and much quarreled "common" policy but they do not have convention.
Who is actually the leader of Islamist PAS? Hadi or Nik Aziz? Anwar Ibrahim is not an elected leader of his party. Well and good Lim Guan Eng is secretary general of the Chinese DAP, being appointed by it's CEC. But who is actually it's leader? Guan Eng or chairman Karpal Singh? Or is it Lim Kit Siang? What is Lim Guan Eng without Lim Kit Siang?
Taking the above into genuine consideration, can Mr Kee suggest any single nominee for this important post of deputy prime minister, even if convention is set aside and his argument regarding policies is accepted?
If for some reason prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, as everyone is expected to accept if the Pakatan Rakyat should chance upon Putrajaya, leaves office, can Mr Kee in all honesty say that same someone will be accepted by the PR coalition and more importantly, the nation?
And, and, knowing full well a new prime minister is not only likely to change policies, he will also have the prerogative and most often than not, shuffle the cabinet.
Take it from there.
No need for Mr Kee to speculate that the main stream medium or even the alternative will react, holler, hound, condemn, protest etc etc the inappropriateness of Pakatan Rakyat cabinet posts, he tries hard to articulate.
On one hand, opposition apologists say that the electorate and society as a whole are now more mature, more discerning and able to make decisions. On the other, apologists like Mr Kee says main stream media can influence the very same electorate and society.
Opposition supporters brag about the alternative media being instrumental in their success, so why refuse naming a shadow cabinet when the same alternative media would be able to support and justify the cabinet?
By main stream media, Mr Kee refers to the government leaning, or owned to make him happy, English media or hard hitting Malay media.
Can Mr Kee say it includes the Chinese main stream print media, by which the Chinese community is a must have and informed, in his argument?
Indeed, these apologists carefully chose words and statements they need to make, depending on the platform and audience they address, lest they be branded racists.
You know and I know what this means, thus, no need for elaboration.
So, in answer to Mr Kee Thuan Chye's question, should Pakatan reveal it's shadow cabinet?
The answer is an emphatic yes. But they won't because they cannot.