How MCA Leaders Can End Impasse
K. K. Tan
THE current crisis in MCA is largely caused by personality clashes, sensitivities and egos. It is manifesting itself in the ugly power struggle, confusion, antagonism and disunity in the party. The party is also becoming the laughing stock of the Chinese community and other Malaysians. The problem has even shaken its Barisan Nasional partners, especially Umno, which is worried that a greatly weakened MCA will be a liability to the coalition.
Many of the sensational reports and articles on this crisis, especially over the Internet, are getting out of control and devoid of real substance. They focus on personality politics, play up one leader against another and make unsubstantiated allegations against some leaders. These writers are not doing justice to the case and are making the matter worse. Many MCA leaders are getting very suspicious and paranoid when they are already sensitive to criticisms.
Sensitivity to criticisms and being unduly reserved in expressing a view are common Asian cultural traits which political leaders must learn to overcome.
The temperature in MCA needs to be cooled down quickly instead of allowing the fire to be stoked further which would burn the "house" down.
Sure, every political party has its power struggles and divisions. But power struggles and differences must be based on principles, ideologies, ideas and the positions on the various issues facing the community and country.
The party leaders must learn to agree to disagree on issues, ideas and principles and they must learn to give their political opponents due respect. As politicians, they cannot afford to be too sensitive to criticisms and adverse to different viewpoints. Magnanimity is a strength and not a weakness of a good political leader.
Even if some leaders feel they have a duty to expose other leaders whom they believe to be corrupt or dishonest or have a selfish agenda, they must make their case objectively with facts and let the members and delegates be the judge. They should not insinuate against or malign their opponents based solely on hearsay. The leaders need to set an example by not being personal in their political struggle.
There is nothing wrong with seeking political power but what’s the purpose or basis of such power? What’s their game plan for the party for the political power that they are seeking or maintaining?
As current or aspiring leaders, they must openly state their stand and tell the members and the public what they are offering to the party. It cannot be "business as usual" or MCA may soon become extinct.
How are they going to transform and reform the party to win back the support of the Chinese community? How are they going to make MCA more relevant to the current and future generations?
They should know that MCA cannot continue being perceived to be a parochial, race-based party. The party must eventually open up to become more inclusive (multi-racial) in line with the broad aspirations of most Malaysians to achieve greater national unity and to collectively increase the economic wealth for all.
So while they are busy trying to win over the support of the Chinese community, they should not forget the non-Chinese as well as their vote and support can also determine the destiny of MCA.
What are the leaders’ political principles and ideas on how to transform the party? What is their stand on the various national issues? How can MCA be strong, effective and fair and at the same time, it is not perceived as being "threatening" to the other race-based parties in BN and the Opposition?
What do the leaders plan to do with the reported accumulated financial assets of over RM1.5 billion belonging to MCA? The party was not set up to be an investment company but a political party with clear objectives. The past leaders should be commended for investing the assets wisely to get maximum financial returns. But what is the plan of the current leaders to use at least some of these assets to get the best political returns for the party?
In short, what is their "business plan" to transform MCA into a respected, credible and effective organisation and how can MCA deal effectively with the various issues confronting the community and country? How can MCA work effectively with Umno and other parties to secure the best returns for the community it represents? This is where we can see the "true colours" of the leaders.
Half the present internal crisis can be solved if the leaders concerned focus on their stand on issues, political principles and plan for MCA. The leaders and their supporters must avoid personal bickering, character assassination and personality clashes, which do more harm than good to the party.
The MCA leaders must end the confusion, negative emotions and antagonism which are clouding the issues for their members and the public. Let their differences and the debate be based on principles, stand, ideas and plan. Let there be political maturity in handling such differences with greater mutual respect and recognition.
The common objectives of the party should form the basis of unity as the "bottom line" and the leaders must be reminded that whatever differences they may have, they must still work and stand together for the common good. They must not let the party which their forefathers have built up for over two generations to be so easily destroyed.
KK Tan is the CEO of a strategic think tank consultancy firm. He writes a monthly column, Beyond Race, for theSun. Comments: kktan22@hotmail.com
Source: theSun, October 20, 2009
Showing posts with label barisan nasional. Show all posts
Showing posts with label barisan nasional. Show all posts
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
MCA is Going to Collapse?
MCA Deputy President's Expulsion Likely To Trigger A Battle Royal in the Party
By: Eileen Ng
The MCA is being buffeted by strong waves.
And like the 2004 Boxing Day tidal wave that hit the region and was felt as far away as Sri Langka, this political tsunami - triggered by the sacking of deputy president Datuk Seri Chua Soi Lek - will have repercussions not only within the party, but in Barisan Nasional as well.
Already the decision to expel Dr Chua, a popular grassroots leader who made a political comeback in last year's party polls after he resigned from all posts at the height of his DVD sex scandal, has caused unhappiness among MCA members who feel the move is too harsh.
They had expected that he would be suspended for three years in a worst case scenario.
What can MCA and BN expect from this episode?
>> Expect the party to be split. Already the pro-Dr Chua and pro-Ong factions are lining up for a bruising fight with talk that several grassroots leaders will mount campaigns againts Ong.
Not to be outdone, Ong's supporters will be having nationwide roadshows and campaigns to defend the president and the party leadership.
>> Expect an extraordinary general meeting to be called. A campaign is under way to obtain the signatures of 800 central delegates to remove Ong and reinstate Dr Chua.
Dr Chua himself confirmed that he will endorse an EGM only if it is to save the party from sliding into oblivion.
It is said that Dr Chua has been meeting the party's central delegates in the country over the past few weeks to prepare for the EGM.
>> Expect Umno and other BN component parties to follow the development closely. Although publicly the BN leaders have said that it is an internal party matter, privately there is great concern among them that the infighting might further affect the coalition's standing and support in the eyes of the public.
>> Expect Pakatan Rakyat to capitalise on the strife in the MCA by stressing that the Chinese voters are better off with them than with a mono-ethnic party that is so busy with infighting that it has no time to serve them.
>> More importantly, expect the Chinese community, already cool towards the BN, to stay even further away from the MCA and the coalition.
Political analyst Ong Kian Meng predicts that the MCA and Umno could lose six more seats in the next general election if Chinese support continues to wane.
Can the political crisis in MCA be overcome? Will Dr Chua be able to make another comeback?
What are his next moves? The next few weeks might hold some answers.
Source: New Straits Times, August 28, 2009
See also: Malaysian Scandals Blog
Sponsor Link
Why Blog? The Purpose of Blogging
By: Eileen Ng
The MCA is being buffeted by strong waves.
And like the 2004 Boxing Day tidal wave that hit the region and was felt as far away as Sri Langka, this political tsunami - triggered by the sacking of deputy president Datuk Seri Chua Soi Lek - will have repercussions not only within the party, but in Barisan Nasional as well.
Already the decision to expel Dr Chua, a popular grassroots leader who made a political comeback in last year's party polls after he resigned from all posts at the height of his DVD sex scandal, has caused unhappiness among MCA members who feel the move is too harsh.
They had expected that he would be suspended for three years in a worst case scenario.
What can MCA and BN expect from this episode?
>> Expect the party to be split. Already the pro-Dr Chua and pro-Ong factions are lining up for a bruising fight with talk that several grassroots leaders will mount campaigns againts Ong.
Not to be outdone, Ong's supporters will be having nationwide roadshows and campaigns to defend the president and the party leadership.
>> Expect an extraordinary general meeting to be called. A campaign is under way to obtain the signatures of 800 central delegates to remove Ong and reinstate Dr Chua.
Dr Chua himself confirmed that he will endorse an EGM only if it is to save the party from sliding into oblivion.
It is said that Dr Chua has been meeting the party's central delegates in the country over the past few weeks to prepare for the EGM.
>> Expect Umno and other BN component parties to follow the development closely. Although publicly the BN leaders have said that it is an internal party matter, privately there is great concern among them that the infighting might further affect the coalition's standing and support in the eyes of the public.
>> Expect Pakatan Rakyat to capitalise on the strife in the MCA by stressing that the Chinese voters are better off with them than with a mono-ethnic party that is so busy with infighting that it has no time to serve them.
>> More importantly, expect the Chinese community, already cool towards the BN, to stay even further away from the MCA and the coalition.
Political analyst Ong Kian Meng predicts that the MCA and Umno could lose six more seats in the next general election if Chinese support continues to wane.
Can the political crisis in MCA be overcome? Will Dr Chua be able to make another comeback?
What are his next moves? The next few weeks might hold some answers.
Source: New Straits Times, August 28, 2009
See also: Malaysian Scandals Blog
Sponsor Link
Why Blog? The Purpose of Blogging
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Agriculture Minister Tells to Avoid Opposition Functions
It is an interesting news in the NST on 22/7/09 which tittled: "Noh tells ministry officials to avoid opposition functions".
Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Minister Datuk Noh Omar has directed his ministry officials to stay away from functions and meetings by state governments in opposition-held states.
The Minister said it was pointless for officials to attend since the "opposition government" do not fund any state programmes or activities. This directive takes place with immediate effect.
He said "it's all a waste of time. What is the point of attending the meeting only to listen to the opposition giving out instructions but not funds? We need funds for any development or to carry out activities."
As a Malaysian citizen, I would like to raise a few questions:
(1) Is it a fair statement made by a Federal Government minister? Is it a political statement or a federal goverment policy?
(2) What is the different between 'Barisan Nasional Government' and 'Opposition Government' where people (rakyat) have the right to choose the government?
(3) If a state government does not have the fund, do we need to change the laws and constitution in order for a state has a right to collect state taxes as it has been practiced in developed countries such as United States.
Sponsor Link
Proven Ways to Make Money on the Internet
Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Minister Datuk Noh Omar has directed his ministry officials to stay away from functions and meetings by state governments in opposition-held states.
The Minister said it was pointless for officials to attend since the "opposition government" do not fund any state programmes or activities. This directive takes place with immediate effect.
He said "it's all a waste of time. What is the point of attending the meeting only to listen to the opposition giving out instructions but not funds? We need funds for any development or to carry out activities."
As a Malaysian citizen, I would like to raise a few questions:
(1) Is it a fair statement made by a Federal Government minister? Is it a political statement or a federal goverment policy?
(2) What is the different between 'Barisan Nasional Government' and 'Opposition Government' where people (rakyat) have the right to choose the government?
(3) If a state government does not have the fund, do we need to change the laws and constitution in order for a state has a right to collect state taxes as it has been practiced in developed countries such as United States.
Sponsor Link
Proven Ways to Make Money on the Internet
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Malaysian Politics: Barisan Nasional
One Year On, The BN Still Has No Answer
In last year’s general election on March 8, voter support for the Barisan Nasional dropped to an all-time low. The party won just 49% of the popular votes in the peninsula and lost five key states to the Opposition.
Twelve months down the road, a chastised BN still seems unsure about what to do to recover its ground.
This is not what is supposed to happen. The natural response to defeat should be shock and denial, followed by acceptance, reconstruction, and, hopefully, recovery. But the BN appears bogged down at stage one.
Take the case of Umno. Rebuilding of the party should have begun with the admission of failure and the taking of responsibility. But nobody has accepted responsibility for the party’s disastrous outing in the election. Instead, the party has been engaging in a series of actions to fudge the issue and explain away the need for anyone to take responsibility.
This is inconsistent with Umno’s professed maturity and has done it no good. By placing the future of individuals over that of the party, it shows how lopsided its sense of priorities has become.
Can we trust Umno to get its act together soon? We have to wait till March 26, it seems, when Datuk Seri Najib Razak takes over from Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badai as party president. So far, Najib has made the right noisesabout the need for change. But change is something you do, not something you talk about. So what he does and who he appoints to help him in government will be closely watched.
How have the other major component parties of the BN responded to their election debacle?
The MCA had gone to the 2008 polls with a battered standing. It had spent the previous two years in factional infighting, and the party leader’s claim to leadership was based mainly on the fact that he was head of the faction that won.
Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting also had limited political nous. He could not decide whether the MCA was a social or a political organization. He failed to articulate clear political goals for the party and the community. His campaign platform highlighted the party’s welfare activities instead of emphasizing the political role the party had to play in government by providing checks and balances.
To his credit, Ka Ting accepted responsibility for the party’s poor performance and did not contest the subsequent party election.
Datuk Ong Tee Keat is now party president. He, too, has promised change, but is in danger of allowing his rhetoric to cloud his message. He needs to spell out in practical terms what he means.
Gerakan is in a more difficult position. It was wiped out in Penang, the state it had dominated for many years and where its leader, Tan Sri Koh Tsu Khoon was chief minister. Nationwide, the party has managed to retain only a token presence : two parliamentary seats and three state seats.
The political space the Gerakan has tried to occupy has now ben taken over by the DAP and PKR. Its prospects for recovery are limited, and will be considerably diminished if the Pakatan government in Penang is able to maintain the level of public support it enjoys.
So is the Gerakan a viable political proposition anymore? Some members think not, and have left for more neutral ground or joined the Opposition. The party has so far avoided confronting the issue, but it continues to ignore it at its own peril, for that is the surest way to political irrelevance.
The MIC is the smallest of the founding members of the Barisan Nasional and is relied on to secure the Indian vote. Support for the party, however, has probably never been lower.
The reasons are many, and they include having a president who treats the party like his own; the rise of alternative social-political activist groups like Hindraf which have outflanked the MIC in the espousal of Indian community causes; and the growing success of opposition parties like the DAP and Parti Keadilan Rakyat in winning Indian political support.
Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu has carved out a role for himself in the MIC that has no equivalent in any other BN party. He runs the party in a tight-fisted style and brooks no opposition. In the 2008 election, his was the loudest boast, a dare to take on one and all in his parliamentary constituency of Sungai Siput. But he was soundly beaten by a political unknown, but has not become any humbler.
What is the party’s future? Can it win back the Indian vote? Samy Vellu’s supporters say he is indispensable to MIC’s recovery. His critics, on the other hand, say nothing will change without a change of leadership. At the party elections next month, the former view is likely to prevail. The biggest sigh of relief then will probably be heard in Opposition parties, where many view Samy Vellu as one of the main reasons they are winning support from the Indian community.
BN’s recovery will take time but is not assured. “If you can’t strengthen your own position, try at least to weaken your enemy’s.” That’s not a quotation from Sun Tzu’s Art of War, but it well describes what the Barisan Nasional is doing Perak these days: harass the Pakatan Rakyat and prevent it from settling down and showing what it can do in government.
No one knows how the political impasse in Perak is going to pan out, but the BN is obviously hoping to come out on top and rule the state. But even if it fails to do so, it will have done enough to keep the Pakatan Rakyat off-balance and on the defensive.
But BN strategists should not feel so smug. They may win a battle and yet lose the war. The dispute in Perak is the battle, and the next general election is the war. What matters is winning back enough voter support to achieve victory at the polls in three or four years’ time.
It is a fair guess that right now popular support for the BN and the Pakatan Rakyat has not changed much over the last 12 months. In the general election, Pakatan won 51% of the votes in the peninsula and the BN won 49%. The results of two recent by-elections, at Permatang Pauh and Kuala Terengganu, have confirmed that this division of support has remained fairly constant.
By-elections are a particularly stringent test for the Pakatan because it has to contend with the massive firepower of the BN concentrated in a small locality. In both by-elections, the Pakatan was able to hold the line. This confirmed the solidity of its support.
Two more by-elections will be held soon in the peninsula on April 7, at Bukit Selambau in Kedah and Bukit Gantang in Perak. If the Pakatan can successfully defend both seats, it will further confirm that the election outcome of March 8 last year was no flash in the pan, and that the popular support the Opposition enjoys is not easily disassembled.
So the BN’s task of winning back voter support is not easy one. Is there winning formula? And will there be enough time to work through it so that it will have an impact in the next general election?
The BN’s problem is that it has lost the trust of a large section of the community. They do not believe the BN will do the right thing by them. After enduring years of neglect, arrogance, abuse of power, corruption, cronyism and discrimination, they finally said “No” at the ballot box.
How can the BN re-build trust? There is no magic here. The formula is simple: honesty, equity, respect and justice. Question is, can these be delivered? And can it be done in sufficient measure to make an impact in the next general election?
The responsibility to deliver will be Najib’s. He won’t find it easy. The rot that has set in is deep-seated and endemic and it will take a strong and determined leader to unwind the system.
Najib can start with Umno. If Umno can demonstrate resolution and move away from the culture of patronage and entitlement that is plaguing it, if it can re-capture some of the high ideals and broad-mindedness of its early years, then there may be some reason to think that change is in the air.
In last year’s general election on March 8, voter support for the Barisan Nasional dropped to an all-time low. The party won just 49% of the popular votes in the peninsula and lost five key states to the Opposition.
Twelve months down the road, a chastised BN still seems unsure about what to do to recover its ground.
This is not what is supposed to happen. The natural response to defeat should be shock and denial, followed by acceptance, reconstruction, and, hopefully, recovery. But the BN appears bogged down at stage one.
Take the case of Umno. Rebuilding of the party should have begun with the admission of failure and the taking of responsibility. But nobody has accepted responsibility for the party’s disastrous outing in the election. Instead, the party has been engaging in a series of actions to fudge the issue and explain away the need for anyone to take responsibility.
This is inconsistent with Umno’s professed maturity and has done it no good. By placing the future of individuals over that of the party, it shows how lopsided its sense of priorities has become.
Can we trust Umno to get its act together soon? We have to wait till March 26, it seems, when Datuk Seri Najib Razak takes over from Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badai as party president. So far, Najib has made the right noisesabout the need for change. But change is something you do, not something you talk about. So what he does and who he appoints to help him in government will be closely watched.
How have the other major component parties of the BN responded to their election debacle?
The MCA had gone to the 2008 polls with a battered standing. It had spent the previous two years in factional infighting, and the party leader’s claim to leadership was based mainly on the fact that he was head of the faction that won.
Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting also had limited political nous. He could not decide whether the MCA was a social or a political organization. He failed to articulate clear political goals for the party and the community. His campaign platform highlighted the party’s welfare activities instead of emphasizing the political role the party had to play in government by providing checks and balances.
To his credit, Ka Ting accepted responsibility for the party’s poor performance and did not contest the subsequent party election.
Datuk Ong Tee Keat is now party president. He, too, has promised change, but is in danger of allowing his rhetoric to cloud his message. He needs to spell out in practical terms what he means.
Gerakan is in a more difficult position. It was wiped out in Penang, the state it had dominated for many years and where its leader, Tan Sri Koh Tsu Khoon was chief minister. Nationwide, the party has managed to retain only a token presence : two parliamentary seats and three state seats.
The political space the Gerakan has tried to occupy has now ben taken over by the DAP and PKR. Its prospects for recovery are limited, and will be considerably diminished if the Pakatan government in Penang is able to maintain the level of public support it enjoys.
So is the Gerakan a viable political proposition anymore? Some members think not, and have left for more neutral ground or joined the Opposition. The party has so far avoided confronting the issue, but it continues to ignore it at its own peril, for that is the surest way to political irrelevance.
The MIC is the smallest of the founding members of the Barisan Nasional and is relied on to secure the Indian vote. Support for the party, however, has probably never been lower.
The reasons are many, and they include having a president who treats the party like his own; the rise of alternative social-political activist groups like Hindraf which have outflanked the MIC in the espousal of Indian community causes; and the growing success of opposition parties like the DAP and Parti Keadilan Rakyat in winning Indian political support.
Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu has carved out a role for himself in the MIC that has no equivalent in any other BN party. He runs the party in a tight-fisted style and brooks no opposition. In the 2008 election, his was the loudest boast, a dare to take on one and all in his parliamentary constituency of Sungai Siput. But he was soundly beaten by a political unknown, but has not become any humbler.
What is the party’s future? Can it win back the Indian vote? Samy Vellu’s supporters say he is indispensable to MIC’s recovery. His critics, on the other hand, say nothing will change without a change of leadership. At the party elections next month, the former view is likely to prevail. The biggest sigh of relief then will probably be heard in Opposition parties, where many view Samy Vellu as one of the main reasons they are winning support from the Indian community.
BN’s recovery will take time but is not assured. “If you can’t strengthen your own position, try at least to weaken your enemy’s.” That’s not a quotation from Sun Tzu’s Art of War, but it well describes what the Barisan Nasional is doing Perak these days: harass the Pakatan Rakyat and prevent it from settling down and showing what it can do in government.
No one knows how the political impasse in Perak is going to pan out, but the BN is obviously hoping to come out on top and rule the state. But even if it fails to do so, it will have done enough to keep the Pakatan Rakyat off-balance and on the defensive.
But BN strategists should not feel so smug. They may win a battle and yet lose the war. The dispute in Perak is the battle, and the next general election is the war. What matters is winning back enough voter support to achieve victory at the polls in three or four years’ time.
It is a fair guess that right now popular support for the BN and the Pakatan Rakyat has not changed much over the last 12 months. In the general election, Pakatan won 51% of the votes in the peninsula and the BN won 49%. The results of two recent by-elections, at Permatang Pauh and Kuala Terengganu, have confirmed that this division of support has remained fairly constant.
By-elections are a particularly stringent test for the Pakatan because it has to contend with the massive firepower of the BN concentrated in a small locality. In both by-elections, the Pakatan was able to hold the line. This confirmed the solidity of its support.
Two more by-elections will be held soon in the peninsula on April 7, at Bukit Selambau in Kedah and Bukit Gantang in Perak. If the Pakatan can successfully defend both seats, it will further confirm that the election outcome of March 8 last year was no flash in the pan, and that the popular support the Opposition enjoys is not easily disassembled.
So the BN’s task of winning back voter support is not easy one. Is there winning formula? And will there be enough time to work through it so that it will have an impact in the next general election?
The BN’s problem is that it has lost the trust of a large section of the community. They do not believe the BN will do the right thing by them. After enduring years of neglect, arrogance, abuse of power, corruption, cronyism and discrimination, they finally said “No” at the ballot box.
How can the BN re-build trust? There is no magic here. The formula is simple: honesty, equity, respect and justice. Question is, can these be delivered? And can it be done in sufficient measure to make an impact in the next general election?
The responsibility to deliver will be Najib’s. He won’t find it easy. The rot that has set in is deep-seated and endemic and it will take a strong and determined leader to unwind the system.
Najib can start with Umno. If Umno can demonstrate resolution and move away from the culture of patronage and entitlement that is plaguing it, if it can re-capture some of the high ideals and broad-mindedness of its early years, then there may be some reason to think that change is in the air.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
A Victory for Voters
A Victory for Voters
Tan Siok Choo
In the recently ended 12th general election, the biggest winner was the voters of Malaysia. Opposition parties’ concern about their inability to reach voters during the 13-day campaign period proved groundless. Sufficient numbers of Malaysians across the country heard the opposition parties’ call for change and voted decisively.
That voters in this country were able to cast their ballots freely and peacefully underscored the success of this country’s electoral process. And although the outcome in Penang, Kedah, Selangor and Perak was an unpleasant surprise for the Barisan Nasional (BN), the verdict of the people was accepted by the ruling coalition.
Several trends were notable in this general election. That the opposition parties collectively wrested control of Kedah, Penang, Perak and Selangor is unprecedented and reflects a major reversal in voter preference. In the past, voters tended to mark their ballots for BN at state level and for the opposition in parliamentary seats.
This time round, financial improprieties and abuses of power at local councils like Ampang, Petaling Jaya and Subang Jaya may have prompted voters to decide good governance should begin at municipalities because decisions at that level and in state houses have a far bigger impact on their everyday lives than those handed down in Putrajaya.
A case in point is BN candidate Roselinda Abd Jamil’s electoral failure. Perceived as a proxy for her father-in-law – the incumbent Port Klang state assemblyman, Datuk Zakaria Md Deros of "Istana Zakaria" fame – she was decisively rejected in favour of Keadilan’s Badrul Hisham Abdullah.
That Keadilan candidate Edward Lee succeeded in wresting PJ Selatan underscores the goodwill and name recognition he reaped by leading the campaign against the Gasing Hill development project as well as his attempts to ensure greater transparency in PJ.
Another notable feature was widespread disaffection among all ethnic groups with BN, particularly in Peninsular Malaysia’s west coast states. Although a detailed analysis has to be made to determine the reasons for the loss, a strong possibility is broad-based unhappiness over rising costs of living, an issue that impacted all ethnic groups. This suggests the growing primacy of bread and butter issues over insular ethnic drum-beating stuff.
Another possibility is public perception that the pace of stamping out corruption has slowed down. Admittedly, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has shortened significantly the time needed to obtain passports, ICs and driving licences, a development that should reduce opportunities for graft going forward.
To eradicate this misguided public perception, on-going high profile corruption cases and trials involving notable personalities must be prosecuted with greater vigour and legal competence. Instead of looking for scapegoats for electoral reverses, the BN should step up the pace of reform.
Furthermore, the BN may have been ill-served by the excessive self-censorship exercised by major print newspapers. If the watchdog is encouraged not to bark at intruders, how will a house owner know a thief has penetrated the coop and is on the brink of stealing his chickens?
Although the future seems promising, Keadilan, the DAP and PAS face several potential potholes. Despite their disparate political platforms, all three parties must demonstrate their ability to work together in governing Kedah, Penang, Perak and Selangor. Failure to do so will probably stymie their prospects of further electoral gains, particularly at state level.
Opposition parties should be mindful of past history. After the May 1969 general election, when BN’s predecessor, the Alliance, lost Penang and was stalemated in Selangor and Perak, the three-party ruling coalition was expanded to include the Sarawak Alliance and the Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP) and later Penang-based Gerakan and the Ipoh-based People’s Progressive Party (PPP).
Will a similar expansion take place this time round?
Another pointer for Opposition parties is the experience of Taiwan. In March 2000, President Chen Shui-bian of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) succeeded in ending the then corruption-ridden Kuomintang’s political stranglehold on power in the island. With the DPP engulfed in corruption charges involving Chen’s wife and son-in-law, the Kuomintang looks set to regain power in presidential elections on March 22 this year.
What this suggests is the Keadilan, DAP and PAS have been given a golden opportunity to make inroads in BN’s political dominance. If they squander this opportunity and fail to live up to voter expectations, like Taiwan’s DPP, they are likely to be punished in the next general election.
Opinions in this article are the personal views of this writer and should not be attributed to any institution she is associated with. She can be contacted at schoo@noordinsopiee.com. Comments: feedback@thesundaily.com
Source: TheSun, Mon, 10 Mar 2008
How to Become Professional Blogger
Tan Siok Choo
In the recently ended 12th general election, the biggest winner was the voters of Malaysia. Opposition parties’ concern about their inability to reach voters during the 13-day campaign period proved groundless. Sufficient numbers of Malaysians across the country heard the opposition parties’ call for change and voted decisively.
That voters in this country were able to cast their ballots freely and peacefully underscored the success of this country’s electoral process. And although the outcome in Penang, Kedah, Selangor and Perak was an unpleasant surprise for the Barisan Nasional (BN), the verdict of the people was accepted by the ruling coalition.
Several trends were notable in this general election. That the opposition parties collectively wrested control of Kedah, Penang, Perak and Selangor is unprecedented and reflects a major reversal in voter preference. In the past, voters tended to mark their ballots for BN at state level and for the opposition in parliamentary seats.
This time round, financial improprieties and abuses of power at local councils like Ampang, Petaling Jaya and Subang Jaya may have prompted voters to decide good governance should begin at municipalities because decisions at that level and in state houses have a far bigger impact on their everyday lives than those handed down in Putrajaya.
A case in point is BN candidate Roselinda Abd Jamil’s electoral failure. Perceived as a proxy for her father-in-law – the incumbent Port Klang state assemblyman, Datuk Zakaria Md Deros of "Istana Zakaria" fame – she was decisively rejected in favour of Keadilan’s Badrul Hisham Abdullah.
That Keadilan candidate Edward Lee succeeded in wresting PJ Selatan underscores the goodwill and name recognition he reaped by leading the campaign against the Gasing Hill development project as well as his attempts to ensure greater transparency in PJ.
Another notable feature was widespread disaffection among all ethnic groups with BN, particularly in Peninsular Malaysia’s west coast states. Although a detailed analysis has to be made to determine the reasons for the loss, a strong possibility is broad-based unhappiness over rising costs of living, an issue that impacted all ethnic groups. This suggests the growing primacy of bread and butter issues over insular ethnic drum-beating stuff.
Another possibility is public perception that the pace of stamping out corruption has slowed down. Admittedly, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has shortened significantly the time needed to obtain passports, ICs and driving licences, a development that should reduce opportunities for graft going forward.
To eradicate this misguided public perception, on-going high profile corruption cases and trials involving notable personalities must be prosecuted with greater vigour and legal competence. Instead of looking for scapegoats for electoral reverses, the BN should step up the pace of reform.
Furthermore, the BN may have been ill-served by the excessive self-censorship exercised by major print newspapers. If the watchdog is encouraged not to bark at intruders, how will a house owner know a thief has penetrated the coop and is on the brink of stealing his chickens?
Although the future seems promising, Keadilan, the DAP and PAS face several potential potholes. Despite their disparate political platforms, all three parties must demonstrate their ability to work together in governing Kedah, Penang, Perak and Selangor. Failure to do so will probably stymie their prospects of further electoral gains, particularly at state level.
Opposition parties should be mindful of past history. After the May 1969 general election, when BN’s predecessor, the Alliance, lost Penang and was stalemated in Selangor and Perak, the three-party ruling coalition was expanded to include the Sarawak Alliance and the Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP) and later Penang-based Gerakan and the Ipoh-based People’s Progressive Party (PPP).
Will a similar expansion take place this time round?
Another pointer for Opposition parties is the experience of Taiwan. In March 2000, President Chen Shui-bian of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) succeeded in ending the then corruption-ridden Kuomintang’s political stranglehold on power in the island. With the DPP engulfed in corruption charges involving Chen’s wife and son-in-law, the Kuomintang looks set to regain power in presidential elections on March 22 this year.
What this suggests is the Keadilan, DAP and PAS have been given a golden opportunity to make inroads in BN’s political dominance. If they squander this opportunity and fail to live up to voter expectations, like Taiwan’s DPP, they are likely to be punished in the next general election.
Opinions in this article are the personal views of this writer and should not be attributed to any institution she is associated with. She can be contacted at schoo@noordinsopiee.com. Comments: feedback@thesundaily.com
Source: TheSun, Mon, 10 Mar 2008
How to Become Professional Blogger
SWOT Test for BN
SWOT Test for BN
Tan Siok Choo
ANALYSING Barisan Nasional’s (BN) strengths and weaknesses as well as identifying the opportunities and threats (the SWOT test) it could encounter after suffering significant reverses in the recent polls suggests going forward, this country’s political landscape may be defined by what the ruling coalition does or fails to do.
One of BN’s major strengths is its claim to be the only political party able to safeguard the interests of all ethnic groups. Until recently, BN was successful in positioning itself as a bulwark against Chinese chauvinists and against Muslims calling for the application of Shariah law for all Malaysians. It is this fear factor that enabled the ruling coalition to perpetuate its political dominance.
Unfortunately for BN, its claim was undermined by the success of Keadilan, PAS and DAP in persuading the electorate their collective offer of multi-ethnic protection was superior. For example, Keadilan’s proposed Malaysian Economic Agenda is based on need rather than ethnicity.
This non-racial approach appealed to many urban voters. As several analysts have noted, for the first time, large numbers of Chinese and Indian voters cast their ballots for PAS candidates while Malay voters returned the favour for those on the DAP slate.
Another of BN’s strengths is its track record of winning power at federal level, thus ensuring its ability to dispense federal largesse and facilitate development. Although this may have attracted voters in less affluent states, for those living in Penang, Perak, Selangor and Kuala Lumpur, this "carrot" had passed its "sell by" date.
BN’s major weakness, however, is many of its members joined the coalition, not because of a commitment to common values but by the prospect of sharing power. But if BN’s political invincibility has been dented – whether temporarily or irrevocably remains to be seen – will its members stay together?
Prior to 1971, top leaders in Umno, MCA and MIC – members of the then Alliance – shared the same vision and a strong personal bond; a bond forged during tough negotiations in the months before Independence over special rights for the Malays as well as more liberal citizenship requirements for non-Malays.
In the 1969 elections, when the Alliance lost its two thirds-majority, ceded control of Penang and was stalemated in Perak and Selangor, it co-opted opposition parties like the Gerakan, PPP and PAS into an enlarged coalition, a move that side-stepped the need to deal with root causes of voter disaffection.
Today, can the BN utilise the same enlargement tactic to offset its electoral losses? More important, can BN afford to ignore the rising chorus of complaints by supporters of Gerakan, MCA, MIC and PPP that being members of the ruling coalition caused these parties’ near annihilation in the recent polls?
It is tempting to argue the opposition parties’ success signals Malaysians are ready to abandon the comfort of race-based political parties. This assumption may be premature.
For voters in urban areas, the dominant sentiment appeared to be an urge to teach the arrogant BN a lesson. This suggests the election was an indictment against the ruling coalition rather than an endorsement for opposition parties.
Furthermore, the 322,461 spoilt votes and 72,058 unreturned ballots suggests some constituencies were lost by BN, rather than won by opposition parties. And in nine parliamentary seats, these spoilt votes and unreturned ballots could have changed the outcome.
Since opposition supporters were strongly motivated to ensure victory for their candidates, they were unlikely to have deliberately wasted their votes. It is reasonable, therefore, to assume most of the spoilt votes and unreturned ballots were the work of BN supporters.
There were 14 parliamentary seats where the number of spoilt votes exceeded the winners’ majority. And in another seat – Hulu Langat in Selangor – the spoilt votes plus unreturned ballots outnumbered PAS’ majority.
Of these 15 parliamentary seats, six were won by BN while Keadilan, PAS and DAP collectively secured nine. But for the spoilt votes and unreturned ballots, BN could have secured 179 parliamentary seats and retained its two-thirds majority.
While the challenges the BN faces are apparent, the results of the recent polls also offer a unique opportunity.
Going forward, Keadilan, DAP and PAS will have to deal with the same conflicting pressures that Umno, MCA and MIC continually grapple with. For example, DAP can no longer try and outbid the MCA and Gerakan for support among the Chinese community without jeopardising Malay support for Keadilan and PAS.
Similarly, Umno should benefit significantly from Keadilan and PAS’ commitment to a non-racial approach on issues, a move that should reduce competitive pressure for Malay support.
Furthermore, DAP (with its call for a Malaysian Malaysia), and PAS (with its commitment to establishing an Islamic state), are an ideological mismatch. Together with Keadilan, all three are currently united by the prospect of sharing power. Whether the pragmatism displayed by DAP and PAS will continue to prevail over ideological purity is an open question.
In short, the results of the 12th general election have thrown up a near perfect symmetry – the challenges the opposition parties now face provide an opportunity the ruling coalition must seize if it hopes to remain politically relevant.
Opinions expressed in this article are the personal views of the writer and should not be attributed to any organisation she is connected with. She can be contacted at schoo@noordinsopiee.com. Comments: feedback@thesundaily.com
Source:
The Sun, Mon, 31 Mar 2008
Tan Siok Choo
ANALYSING Barisan Nasional’s (BN) strengths and weaknesses as well as identifying the opportunities and threats (the SWOT test) it could encounter after suffering significant reverses in the recent polls suggests going forward, this country’s political landscape may be defined by what the ruling coalition does or fails to do.
One of BN’s major strengths is its claim to be the only political party able to safeguard the interests of all ethnic groups. Until recently, BN was successful in positioning itself as a bulwark against Chinese chauvinists and against Muslims calling for the application of Shariah law for all Malaysians. It is this fear factor that enabled the ruling coalition to perpetuate its political dominance.
Unfortunately for BN, its claim was undermined by the success of Keadilan, PAS and DAP in persuading the electorate their collective offer of multi-ethnic protection was superior. For example, Keadilan’s proposed Malaysian Economic Agenda is based on need rather than ethnicity.
This non-racial approach appealed to many urban voters. As several analysts have noted, for the first time, large numbers of Chinese and Indian voters cast their ballots for PAS candidates while Malay voters returned the favour for those on the DAP slate.
Another of BN’s strengths is its track record of winning power at federal level, thus ensuring its ability to dispense federal largesse and facilitate development. Although this may have attracted voters in less affluent states, for those living in Penang, Perak, Selangor and Kuala Lumpur, this "carrot" had passed its "sell by" date.
BN’s major weakness, however, is many of its members joined the coalition, not because of a commitment to common values but by the prospect of sharing power. But if BN’s political invincibility has been dented – whether temporarily or irrevocably remains to be seen – will its members stay together?
Prior to 1971, top leaders in Umno, MCA and MIC – members of the then Alliance – shared the same vision and a strong personal bond; a bond forged during tough negotiations in the months before Independence over special rights for the Malays as well as more liberal citizenship requirements for non-Malays.
In the 1969 elections, when the Alliance lost its two thirds-majority, ceded control of Penang and was stalemated in Perak and Selangor, it co-opted opposition parties like the Gerakan, PPP and PAS into an enlarged coalition, a move that side-stepped the need to deal with root causes of voter disaffection.
Today, can the BN utilise the same enlargement tactic to offset its electoral losses? More important, can BN afford to ignore the rising chorus of complaints by supporters of Gerakan, MCA, MIC and PPP that being members of the ruling coalition caused these parties’ near annihilation in the recent polls?
It is tempting to argue the opposition parties’ success signals Malaysians are ready to abandon the comfort of race-based political parties. This assumption may be premature.
For voters in urban areas, the dominant sentiment appeared to be an urge to teach the arrogant BN a lesson. This suggests the election was an indictment against the ruling coalition rather than an endorsement for opposition parties.
Furthermore, the 322,461 spoilt votes and 72,058 unreturned ballots suggests some constituencies were lost by BN, rather than won by opposition parties. And in nine parliamentary seats, these spoilt votes and unreturned ballots could have changed the outcome.
Since opposition supporters were strongly motivated to ensure victory for their candidates, they were unlikely to have deliberately wasted their votes. It is reasonable, therefore, to assume most of the spoilt votes and unreturned ballots were the work of BN supporters.
There were 14 parliamentary seats where the number of spoilt votes exceeded the winners’ majority. And in another seat – Hulu Langat in Selangor – the spoilt votes plus unreturned ballots outnumbered PAS’ majority.
Of these 15 parliamentary seats, six were won by BN while Keadilan, PAS and DAP collectively secured nine. But for the spoilt votes and unreturned ballots, BN could have secured 179 parliamentary seats and retained its two-thirds majority.
While the challenges the BN faces are apparent, the results of the recent polls also offer a unique opportunity.
Going forward, Keadilan, DAP and PAS will have to deal with the same conflicting pressures that Umno, MCA and MIC continually grapple with. For example, DAP can no longer try and outbid the MCA and Gerakan for support among the Chinese community without jeopardising Malay support for Keadilan and PAS.
Similarly, Umno should benefit significantly from Keadilan and PAS’ commitment to a non-racial approach on issues, a move that should reduce competitive pressure for Malay support.
Furthermore, DAP (with its call for a Malaysian Malaysia), and PAS (with its commitment to establishing an Islamic state), are an ideological mismatch. Together with Keadilan, all three are currently united by the prospect of sharing power. Whether the pragmatism displayed by DAP and PAS will continue to prevail over ideological purity is an open question.
In short, the results of the 12th general election have thrown up a near perfect symmetry – the challenges the opposition parties now face provide an opportunity the ruling coalition must seize if it hopes to remain politically relevant.
Opinions expressed in this article are the personal views of the writer and should not be attributed to any organisation she is connected with. She can be contacted at schoo@noordinsopiee.com. Comments: feedback@thesundaily.com
Source:
The Sun, Mon, 31 Mar 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Role of Ruler in Picking Menteris Besar
Role of Rulers in Picking Menteris Besar
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad
A Concerned Malaysian has expressed his worry over the role being played by Sultans in the appointment of the Mentri Besar.
His Royal Highnesses have clearly refused to take the advice of the Chief Minister i.e. the Prime Minister. Instead, they have chosen on their own a member of the state legislature to head the Government.
We hear a lot of opinions on the propriety of the action by the Sultan. Some say he has the right to do this while others point out that as a constitutional ruler, he could not do this.
The Constitution says that the Ruler or Head of State must choose the elected member who enjoys the support of the majority of members in the legislative body to be the Prime Minister or the Mentri Besar. Subject to this provision, the Ruler it is who chooses and appoints the Prime Minister or Mentri Besar.
The Prime Minister, as Prime Minister, has no role in the choice of the State Mentri Besar or Ketua Menteri. His naming of candidate who should be the Mentri Besar is purely a party matter. Obviously, if the State is captured by the Opposition Party, he cannot name the candidate.
However, if the Ruler chooses someone who does not enjoy majority support, he could be deposed at a sitting of the legislative body through a vote of "no confidence".
After that, another member can be appointed by the Ruler to take his place. But if for some reason, there is no other candidate or the candidate with majority support is considered unsuitable by the Ruler, a new Government cannot be formed. The Ruler may then dissolve the legislative body and a new election may be held.
This new election may lead to the same impasse. The Ruler may not like the member with majority support. However, it should be noted that this kind of thing had never happened during the premiership of the four previous Prime Ministers. Concerned Malaysians should wonder why.
Is it just that the particular Ruler is being difficult, unwilling to accept the principles of democracy, wanting to return to feudalism and the absolute authority of the monarch?
I do not think so. There must be a reason why the Ruler refuses to accept the candidate named by the party. But the Ruler chooses not to reveal the reasons and indulge in public debates. He merely expresses his displeasure by refusing to do what normally the Rulers would do.
Concerned Malaysians must ask what has the particular candidate done which is so wrong that it incurs the displeasure of the Ruler.
There are lots of talks in the town. Terengganu is blessed with petroleum deposits. It should get 5% of the total earning from oil production. The Federal Government; fearing the previous PAS government might use this money wrongly had withheld payment.
But when the Barisan Nasional (BN) regained Terengganu the money, now called "Wang Ehsan", was lavishly spent by the Federal Government on Terengganu. It is not a small sum. Over these years "Wang Ehsan" totalled several billion.
We know that since the BN regained Terengganu in 2004, all kinds of projects have been developed in Terengganu. This includes The Monsoon Cup, luxury housing for sale to foreigners, Crystal Mosque and theme park, university, etc. Some of these projects are very good but many are totally unnecessary and wasteful.
But what the Terengganu people are saying is that all these mega projects costing billions of Ringgit have been contracted out to people outside Terengganu. Terengganu contractors got practically nothing.
But additionally, they say the contracts all went to one person and they are suspicious that behind this person are members of the first family.The rumours also say that the previous Mentri Besar was responsible for these things happening and of course, they think that he might have benefited financially.
The rumours went on to say that the Prime Minister might have influenced the Mentri Besar into doing wrong things. These are all rumours. It will be quite impossible to prove anything as the perpetrators are skilled in hiding themselves.
This is not good for a Government keen to abolish corruption and be transparent. To clear its name, an investigation should be made.
But the public is leery of investigations by Government agencies and departments. Even Royal Commissions are not highly regarded. The people believe, not true of course, that the Government has been interfering with the work of the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA), the Police and the Attorney General (A-G)'s Chambers. The say this is borne out by the results of investigations by these agencies.
When a Deputy Minister was accused of accepting money for the release of a detainee, the A-G said there was no case because the detainee said he did not give any money to the Deputy Minister. It is so easy. If you have a case involving someone, all the enforcement agencies need to do is to ask him whether he was involved. If he says "no", then there is no case.
For some reason, judges are finding that people accused of murder are not guilty because of insufficient evidence by the police. Yet people who are totally not involved in a case, who were not accused of any misdeeds and who did not appear in court at all and been given a hearing are found guilty and publicly condemned.
The public cannot be blamed for not having faith in Government agencies doing investigations. The public cannot be blamed for suspecting cover-ups by the Government or worse still the Government may be using these enforcement agencies to threaten people.
To clear its good name, the Government should get credible foreign agencies to do the investigation. Of course, they must be given full access to the documents etc.
Now my detractors are going to say I did worse things when I was Prime Minister. Well, if that is so, let us have the foreign agencies investigate me also. I am aware that people are looking into possible misdeeds by me during my 22 years so as to threaten me and ask me to shut up. So far they have not found anything.
Not only have I not taken anything that was not due to me while I was Prime Minister but I have given back to the Government and the people everything that I had received as gifts during my tenure of office.
The Government had offered me land in Kedah and Langkawi and I had refused to accept. I have a 5-acre plot in Putrajaya which I paid for even though the Government was offering it to me free.
Unless there is a frame-up, I think there should be nothing to pin on me. Even other accusations against me, including the dismissal of judges, were not my doing and I do not feel obliged to apologise. Ask the Tribunal to apologise.
The person asking that the Government should apologise for what happened to Tun Salleh Abbas may have forgotten that as President of the Muslim Lawyers Association, he fully supported the action that was taken. He castigated the Bar Council for condemning Tun Hamid Omar over the dismissal of judges. Now he wants to be more correct than correct. I wonder why.
Source: The Sun, March 28,2008
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad
A Concerned Malaysian has expressed his worry over the role being played by Sultans in the appointment of the Mentri Besar.
His Royal Highnesses have clearly refused to take the advice of the Chief Minister i.e. the Prime Minister. Instead, they have chosen on their own a member of the state legislature to head the Government.
We hear a lot of opinions on the propriety of the action by the Sultan. Some say he has the right to do this while others point out that as a constitutional ruler, he could not do this.
The Constitution says that the Ruler or Head of State must choose the elected member who enjoys the support of the majority of members in the legislative body to be the Prime Minister or the Mentri Besar. Subject to this provision, the Ruler it is who chooses and appoints the Prime Minister or Mentri Besar.
The Prime Minister, as Prime Minister, has no role in the choice of the State Mentri Besar or Ketua Menteri. His naming of candidate who should be the Mentri Besar is purely a party matter. Obviously, if the State is captured by the Opposition Party, he cannot name the candidate.
However, if the Ruler chooses someone who does not enjoy majority support, he could be deposed at a sitting of the legislative body through a vote of "no confidence".
After that, another member can be appointed by the Ruler to take his place. But if for some reason, there is no other candidate or the candidate with majority support is considered unsuitable by the Ruler, a new Government cannot be formed. The Ruler may then dissolve the legislative body and a new election may be held.
This new election may lead to the same impasse. The Ruler may not like the member with majority support. However, it should be noted that this kind of thing had never happened during the premiership of the four previous Prime Ministers. Concerned Malaysians should wonder why.
Is it just that the particular Ruler is being difficult, unwilling to accept the principles of democracy, wanting to return to feudalism and the absolute authority of the monarch?
I do not think so. There must be a reason why the Ruler refuses to accept the candidate named by the party. But the Ruler chooses not to reveal the reasons and indulge in public debates. He merely expresses his displeasure by refusing to do what normally the Rulers would do.
Concerned Malaysians must ask what has the particular candidate done which is so wrong that it incurs the displeasure of the Ruler.
There are lots of talks in the town. Terengganu is blessed with petroleum deposits. It should get 5% of the total earning from oil production. The Federal Government; fearing the previous PAS government might use this money wrongly had withheld payment.
But when the Barisan Nasional (BN) regained Terengganu the money, now called "Wang Ehsan", was lavishly spent by the Federal Government on Terengganu. It is not a small sum. Over these years "Wang Ehsan" totalled several billion.
We know that since the BN regained Terengganu in 2004, all kinds of projects have been developed in Terengganu. This includes The Monsoon Cup, luxury housing for sale to foreigners, Crystal Mosque and theme park, university, etc. Some of these projects are very good but many are totally unnecessary and wasteful.
But what the Terengganu people are saying is that all these mega projects costing billions of Ringgit have been contracted out to people outside Terengganu. Terengganu contractors got practically nothing.
But additionally, they say the contracts all went to one person and they are suspicious that behind this person are members of the first family.The rumours also say that the previous Mentri Besar was responsible for these things happening and of course, they think that he might have benefited financially.
The rumours went on to say that the Prime Minister might have influenced the Mentri Besar into doing wrong things. These are all rumours. It will be quite impossible to prove anything as the perpetrators are skilled in hiding themselves.
This is not good for a Government keen to abolish corruption and be transparent. To clear its name, an investigation should be made.
But the public is leery of investigations by Government agencies and departments. Even Royal Commissions are not highly regarded. The people believe, not true of course, that the Government has been interfering with the work of the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA), the Police and the Attorney General (A-G)'s Chambers. The say this is borne out by the results of investigations by these agencies.
When a Deputy Minister was accused of accepting money for the release of a detainee, the A-G said there was no case because the detainee said he did not give any money to the Deputy Minister. It is so easy. If you have a case involving someone, all the enforcement agencies need to do is to ask him whether he was involved. If he says "no", then there is no case.
For some reason, judges are finding that people accused of murder are not guilty because of insufficient evidence by the police. Yet people who are totally not involved in a case, who were not accused of any misdeeds and who did not appear in court at all and been given a hearing are found guilty and publicly condemned.
The public cannot be blamed for not having faith in Government agencies doing investigations. The public cannot be blamed for suspecting cover-ups by the Government or worse still the Government may be using these enforcement agencies to threaten people.
To clear its good name, the Government should get credible foreign agencies to do the investigation. Of course, they must be given full access to the documents etc.
Now my detractors are going to say I did worse things when I was Prime Minister. Well, if that is so, let us have the foreign agencies investigate me also. I am aware that people are looking into possible misdeeds by me during my 22 years so as to threaten me and ask me to shut up. So far they have not found anything.
Not only have I not taken anything that was not due to me while I was Prime Minister but I have given back to the Government and the people everything that I had received as gifts during my tenure of office.
The Government had offered me land in Kedah and Langkawi and I had refused to accept. I have a 5-acre plot in Putrajaya which I paid for even though the Government was offering it to me free.
Unless there is a frame-up, I think there should be nothing to pin on me. Even other accusations against me, including the dismissal of judges, were not my doing and I do not feel obliged to apologise. Ask the Tribunal to apologise.
The person asking that the Government should apologise for what happened to Tun Salleh Abbas may have forgotten that as President of the Muslim Lawyers Association, he fully supported the action that was taken. He castigated the Bar Council for condemning Tun Hamid Omar over the dismissal of judges. Now he wants to be more correct than correct. I wonder why.
Source: The Sun, March 28,2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)