Tan Lian Hoe attacked by BN colleague
Courtesy of Media Rakyat
Showing posts with label BN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BN. Show all posts
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Kota Belud MP said offered large sum to defect
The Edge Daily (14/5/08): Backbencher Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan (Kota Belud-BN) caused a stir in parliament yesterday when he alleged that he was offered a large sum of money to defect to the opposition camp.
“I’d like to ask the Speaker, is it not corruption for certain opposition leaders to offer goodies to members of parliament (MPs) to jump ship? I myself have received a call offering a large sum of money to jump ship. Is that not corruption?
“They also offered me a Cabinet position. Is that not corruption?” he said when debating the motion of thanks on the royal address in the Dewan Rakyat yesterday.
Abdul Rahman also claimed that bribery was pervasive during the contest against the late Tun Ghafar Baba for the position of Umno deputy president, where tons of money, projects and “pink forms” were used as “grease” to secure victory.
“We in Sabah still remember how delegates (to the Umno general assembly) can be bought and threatened. Thanks to the supreme leader of PKR (Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim) for introducing and turning money politics into a culture in Umno Sabah,” he said.
He also teased the Pakatan Rakyat on who would succeed Anwar if he became the next prime minister, claiming that his constituents were pressing him on the matter.
“Who will become the next prime minister after Anwar? The people want to know? Can Pakatan Rakyat continue to surprise and create history by appointing the first prime minister from among the Chinese and Indians — (for example) the honourable MPs from Ipoh Timur (Lim Kit Siang) or Bukit Gelugor (Karpal Singh) from the DAP. We will wait…” he said.
Abdul Rahman also questioned whether Pakatan would allow PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang to become prime minister.
“With his turban and robe ala Taliban, he is said to be unsuitable to hold the prime minister’s position as he can give the wrong image of Malaysia to foreign investors,” he said, adding that even non-Malays in Malaysia would be concerned if Hadi became either home or education minister.
He also asked whether PKR president and opposition Leader Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, whom he characterised as a puppet and warming the seat for Anwar, could become a prime minister.
Taking a swipe at Mohamed Azmin Ali (Gombak-PKR), Abdul Rahman said the PKR vice-president was so obsessed with his leader to the point of following Anwar’s style of clothing and speaking.
He ended his speech by saying Anwar was building an empire of nepotism and would appoint his daughter, Nurul Izzah (Lembah Pantai-PKR), to succeed him as prime minister.
“I’d like to ask the Speaker, is it not corruption for certain opposition leaders to offer goodies to members of parliament (MPs) to jump ship? I myself have received a call offering a large sum of money to jump ship. Is that not corruption?
“They also offered me a Cabinet position. Is that not corruption?” he said when debating the motion of thanks on the royal address in the Dewan Rakyat yesterday.
Abdul Rahman also claimed that bribery was pervasive during the contest against the late Tun Ghafar Baba for the position of Umno deputy president, where tons of money, projects and “pink forms” were used as “grease” to secure victory.
“We in Sabah still remember how delegates (to the Umno general assembly) can be bought and threatened. Thanks to the supreme leader of PKR (Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim) for introducing and turning money politics into a culture in Umno Sabah,” he said.
He also teased the Pakatan Rakyat on who would succeed Anwar if he became the next prime minister, claiming that his constituents were pressing him on the matter.
“Who will become the next prime minister after Anwar? The people want to know? Can Pakatan Rakyat continue to surprise and create history by appointing the first prime minister from among the Chinese and Indians — (for example) the honourable MPs from Ipoh Timur (Lim Kit Siang) or Bukit Gelugor (Karpal Singh) from the DAP. We will wait…” he said.
Abdul Rahman also questioned whether Pakatan would allow PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang to become prime minister.
“With his turban and robe ala Taliban, he is said to be unsuitable to hold the prime minister’s position as he can give the wrong image of Malaysia to foreign investors,” he said, adding that even non-Malays in Malaysia would be concerned if Hadi became either home or education minister.
He also asked whether PKR president and opposition Leader Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, whom he characterised as a puppet and warming the seat for Anwar, could become a prime minister.
Taking a swipe at Mohamed Azmin Ali (Gombak-PKR), Abdul Rahman said the PKR vice-president was so obsessed with his leader to the point of following Anwar’s style of clothing and speaking.
He ended his speech by saying Anwar was building an empire of nepotism and would appoint his daughter, Nurul Izzah (Lembah Pantai-PKR), to succeed him as prime minister.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Parliament to debate rice price hike
Malaysiakini (6/5/08): An opposition motion to debate the drastic price hike of rice will be heard by the Dewan Rakyat later this afternoon.
The house this morning allowed an application by Salahuddin Ayub (PAS-Kubang Kerian) to debate the motion for an hour at 4.30pm.
The debate comes at a time when the cost of rice, a staple food for the country's 27 million people, continues to surge. A popular brand shot up to RM29.39 for a 10 kilo bag this week from about RM20 in January.
(Full report)
The house this morning allowed an application by Salahuddin Ayub (PAS-Kubang Kerian) to debate the motion for an hour at 4.30pm.
The debate comes at a time when the cost of rice, a staple food for the country's 27 million people, continues to surge. A popular brand shot up to RM29.39 for a 10 kilo bag this week from about RM20 in January.
(Full report)
Uproar over 'faith-less' remark
Hamim Samuri told the House that only BN can develop the country
NST(13/5/08): A backbencher caused a stir when he labelled those who did not appreciate Barisan Nasional's contributions to the nation as being "tidak beriman" (faith-less).
Hamim Samuri (BN-Ledang) expressed confidence that BN was the only coalition that was able to develop the country.
"Only those without any faith will deny BN's work and contribution to the country," he said.
His statement caused an uproar with the Opposition, especially among the MPs from Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and Pas.
N. Gobalakrishnan (PKR-Padang Serai) called Hamim's statement an insult, while Roslan Shaharun (Pas-Bukit Gantang) called for the word "tidak beriman" to be retracted.
Salahuddin Ayub (Pas-Kubang Kerian) wondered whether such a statement heralded the return of the times when Umno and Pas accused each other of being infidels in the 1980s.
Mahfuz Omar (Pas-Pokok Sena) said Hamim's statement was not only an insult to the Opposition, but also to all rakyat who did not vote for BN in the March 8 general election.
"Such a statement should not be made at all. It is not right," he said.
Deputy speaker Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar had a hard time controlling the floor, despite repeatedly calling on the MPs to calm down.
"Yang Berhormat, no need to use such words," Wan Junaidi told Hamim, to which the latter agreed.
However, the MPs were dissatisfied and continued to call for the backbencher to retract his statement.
"I've already told him that there's no need to make any petua (tips). As members of the House, we cannot make any edicts," said Wan Junaidi in brushing aside the Opposition's protests and calling on Hamim to proceed with his speech.
Just as the uproar subsided, Hamim struck again when he claimed that DAP members had demolished a Malay warong (eatery) in Muar.
Chow Kon Yeow (DAP-Tanjong) interrupted and challenged Hamim to show evidence that his party members were involved.
Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) said Hamim should be referred to the Rights and Privileges Select Committee and called for a vote to be taken.
"Please make a decision and refer him to the committee," said Lim in calling on Wan Junaidi to refer Hamim to the committee.
A defiant Hamim said he stood by his claim, adding that he had facts to back up his statement.
Wan Junaidi put an end to the matter by declaring that Hamim did not need to be referred to the committee as he had been warned to speak based on facts.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Opposition disturbs Khairy's debate
Bernama (12/5/08): Realising that the opposition members in parliament were trying to disrupt his debate on the royal address, Rembau MP Khairy Jamaluddin refused to make way.
This riled up some of the lawmakers and the atmosphere got even more heated up when the government backbencher touched on the oil price increase and linked it to the political agenda of the opposition which he said had played on the issue to win votes in the March 8 general election.
Khairy was debating on the motion of thanks for the speech by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong at the opening of parliament's 12th session recently.
He also said that the Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) adviser (Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim) had lied to the people when he constantly boasted and reminded the people that when he was Finance Minister, there was no oil price hike.
"He forgot to inform that when he was Finance Minister, the world price for crude oil was only US$12 to US$26 a barrel. Now the price has exceeded US$120 a barrel. So what was so difficult during his time?"
Khairy said he refused to allow the other MPs to interrupt his speech because of the limited time given to speak.
This caused Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) and some of the other lawmakers to refer to Section 31 (b) of the parliament Standing Order on the right of parliamentarians to give clarification, 36(4) on using disrespectful language and 36(10) on using words that could arouse anger and racial tension.
Zulkifli Noordin (PKR-Kulim-Bandar Baharu) stood up and said: "If (you are) scared, then don't be an MP. Might as well as just switch on the tape (recorder)."
Khairy had earlier referred to the PKR abbreviation as Projek Khinzir Raksasa (Mammoth Pig Project) which prompted some of the lawmakers, including N. Gobalakrishnan (PKR-Padang Serai) and Saifuddin Nasution Ismail (PKR-Machang), to stand up to seek clarification.
Mahfuz Omar (Pas-Pokok Sena) then suggested that Khairy read his speech to Kemas kindergarten children if he did not wish to be interrupted before saying that PBN stood for Projek Babi Nasional (National Pig Project), drawing laughter in the House.
Deputy Dewan Rakyat Speaker Datuk Ronald Kiandee appealed for calm and said that Khairy did not go against the Standing Order and could continue with the debate.
This riled up some of the lawmakers and the atmosphere got even more heated up when the government backbencher touched on the oil price increase and linked it to the political agenda of the opposition which he said had played on the issue to win votes in the March 8 general election.
Khairy was debating on the motion of thanks for the speech by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong at the opening of parliament's 12th session recently.
He also said that the Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) adviser (Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim) had lied to the people when he constantly boasted and reminded the people that when he was Finance Minister, there was no oil price hike.
"He forgot to inform that when he was Finance Minister, the world price for crude oil was only US$12 to US$26 a barrel. Now the price has exceeded US$120 a barrel. So what was so difficult during his time?"
Khairy said he refused to allow the other MPs to interrupt his speech because of the limited time given to speak.
This caused Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) and some of the other lawmakers to refer to Section 31 (b) of the parliament Standing Order on the right of parliamentarians to give clarification, 36(4) on using disrespectful language and 36(10) on using words that could arouse anger and racial tension.
Zulkifli Noordin (PKR-Kulim-Bandar Baharu) stood up and said: "If (you are) scared, then don't be an MP. Might as well as just switch on the tape (recorder)."
Khairy had earlier referred to the PKR abbreviation as Projek Khinzir Raksasa (Mammoth Pig Project) which prompted some of the lawmakers, including N. Gobalakrishnan (PKR-Padang Serai) and Saifuddin Nasution Ismail (PKR-Machang), to stand up to seek clarification.
Mahfuz Omar (Pas-Pokok Sena) then suggested that Khairy read his speech to Kemas kindergarten children if he did not wish to be interrupted before saying that PBN stood for Projek Babi Nasional (National Pig Project), drawing laughter in the House.
Deputy Dewan Rakyat Speaker Datuk Ronald Kiandee appealed for calm and said that Khairy did not go against the Standing Order and could continue with the debate.
Is KJ the young and the restless ‘Prince of Darkness’?
NST (12/5/08): At the prime age of 32, Khairy Jamaludin has somewhat effortlessly elevated himself as perhaps the most maligned political operative-turned-elected representative in the Malaysian political orbit, more so in its riotous blogosphere, next to the dominating presence of a certain ex-Prime Minister and a certain ex-Deputy Prime Minister. Placing his name in the same stratosphere as Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim for this dispatch is also certain to attract a dense level of malignancy.
No matter. Khairy is always a good news item, even if the news adds a little more notoriety for him. He is finger-licking good copy for political commentaries, star character in the sensationalistic stories of Raja Petra Kamarudin’s ‘Khairy Chronicles’ for a mix of hair-raising parables and seeming truth, fodder for gossip at all levels of society, punching bag for the Pakatan Rakyat in their crowd-pleasing ceramahs and more recently, zesty prey for opposition MPs to grind razor-sharp axes for the chop in their Dewan Rakyat debates and rejoinders.
Endlessly battered and scapegoated, he’s still a bothersome presence for many of his critics and he is, amazingly, still in one piece, more energised than before. His ascendancy to MP for Rembau is not long and not arduous, though he weathered a national onslaught that befell the sturdiest of Barisan stalwarts in the March 8 polls. He also scored huge political merit points when Malaysiakini apologised to him for misreporting that there was a recount against him during counting for the Rembau parliamentary seat on polling night.
Khairy is a dream “babe magnet” for all forms of political discourse and the man seems to be absorbing the fire arrows with a singular, “come-and-get-me” youthful temerity. He is blamed – fairly or unfairly, rightfully or wrongfully – for all that is wrong with this country, from cronyism, interference in the conception and running of Government policies due to his filial proximity to the PM, blanket dominance of major mega Government contracts.
But if the pejoratives are believable, is Khairy the new “Prince of Darkness”, the boy who may soon be king? Not if the raucous crowd of political bloodhounds dogged in their collective efforts to bring him down, or at least, cut him down a notch or two, can help it. Yet, he is not without charm, persuasive powers and sophistication (not to mention a dapper in a stylish suit), a slick marketer capable of presenting a well-structured sales pitch and a self-advertiser of his own untrammelled talent for timing and opportunity. Within meteoric parameters, he rose to power as Umno Youth deputy chief and won a deputy presidency in the Football Association of Malaysia in October last year, all within four years.
The timing and opportunity to unleash his aspirations, vision and ambition arrived when he stood up to deliver his maiden Dewan Rakyat speech in support of the royal address. And what an explosive, not-safe-at-any-altitude speech it was – cogent, forceful and constructive on pressing social, economic and political issues of the day, when he was not rudely interjected by rival MPs. And yet, he was mockingly and derisively contemptuous of rival MPs, Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) in particular, and scathing in his attacks against Anwar Ibrahim and Pakatan Rakyat. In a sense, Khairy was releasing months, if not years, of frustration of being unable to freely respond to all attacks for fear of political reprisals.
Khairy, while supporting the PM’s move to set up the Judiciary Appointments Commission which he believed would not erode the Prime Minister’s prerogative or the monarchy’s sanctity to give consent to new judges, called for commission representatives to be also filled by ex-judges and legal intellects of “knowledge, experience and integrity.” But his more urgent call was for the commission to have indictment powers, more so to release the burden of backlog piling up at the Attorney-General’s chambers.
He supported withdrawal of red tape conundrum to license the print media but his proposal that bloggers be given the same professional training as mainstream media journalists would likely raise heckles among the more boisterous bloggers while suggesting that if the media can agree to emulate a neutral Media Complaints Commission to check slander and defamation, and agree to self-imposed ethics, fairness and responsibility, the tough printing presses act can go the way of the dodo. By this time, he also deflected three interjections, refusing to give way to rival MPs to seek clarification.
Excitement and incitement brewed after Khairy articulated the need to reform national subsidies for a truer target and while he was elaborating on the oil/petrol price crises, he launch the first of his well-prepared attacks against Anwar Ibrahim, accusing the ex-Finance Minister of conveniently forgetting that during his eight-year Cabinet tenure of zero petrol price hike, oil was a lowly US$16-26 a barrel, unlike the current prices that have surpassed US$120 a barrel.
“What was so difficult about his era? Oil prices were extremely low,” Khairy thundered. “Don’t be self-congratulatory when you are actually fooling the people…the Government’s handling of the oil prices now to be the lowest among Asean nations is far more praiseworthy. This is not even opening the story of the PKR adviser’s absolute failure to check the 1997 financial crisis!”
You can sense the blood boiling at the PKR end of the House and still Khairy won’t budge from his refusal to allow a single clarification to his attacks. Emboldened by the momentum of his speech, Khairy kicked in the booster rockets. As he outlined efforts to contain the food crisis and offered some pointers on reducing the burden of production, he pointed out that chicken and pork were the only food production that were a 100 per cent self-sufficient, so much so that a certain State Government had made pig rearing a priority project that he handily coined as “Projek Khinzir Raksasa” (Mammoth Pig Project), alluding to the PKR acronym and the fact that the word ’khinzir’ to replace ‘babi’ was Anwar’s doing when he was DPM. Here’s the irony: for his entire rebuke against Anwar, Khairy reminded veterans in the august hall of a 1970s Anwar Ibrahim at the peak of his fire breathing grandiloquence, doused somewhat when he joined the Government in 1982.
The ruckus that followed was predictable but the intensity wasn’t. A dozen indignant PKR, DAP and Pas Mps sprang up like multiple jack-in-the-boxes, demanding clarification but only Zulkifli Noordin (PKR-Kulim Bandar Baru) was given the floor for his point of order, demanding that Khairy withdraw the acronym under Standing Orders 36 (4) as words that were improperly uttered.
Khairy steadfastly defended his ground while under the virulent attacks of rival backbenchers, refusing to give way when a slew of DAP, PKR and Pas MPs demanded clarification on his attacks. Sensing that Khairy was never giving way, other rival MPs used an alternative tact to deter Khairy by invoking various point of orders: that Khairy was reading (BN backbenchers shouted back that even the Opposition leader read while debating), MPs had the right to seek clarification (the Speaker stated that KJ had the right not to give way), uttering words that cause pain (it wasn’t clear what the Speaker ruled but the this triggered titters from Barisan backbenchers who shouted back that Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) uttered far more worse improper words).
Lim took the liberty of elaborating his point of order by an off-tangent demonstration – a newspaper report that Datuk Seri Dr Lim Keng Yaik had spoken improperly and misbehaved. You should have heard the pure cacophony of clashing human voices that erupted – Khairy and BN backbenchers shouting at Lim to stand down while the DAP adviser continued droning while opposition backbenchers launched collective shouts and screams, including a high-pitch vent by Fong Po Kuan (DAP-Batu Gajah) that summarised the verbal orgy.
While the verbal free-for-all hurtled towards a free fall, Khairy literally played to the gallery: he turned to the public gallery directly behind him filled with secondary school students of the Malacca High School, smirking at the confusion and mockingly pointed with his hand to the rival MPs side as if he was saying: “See…this is the kind of MPs you have for the Opposition.”
In between the vocal vents, verbal wrestling and trash talk, out came this epithet from N. Gobalakrishnan (PKR-Padang Serai): “Babi negara!” and in unison, Khairy and a dozen BN backbenchers jumped, shouting: “Who is babi negara? Say it! Say it!”
When the Speaker managed to douse the fire breathers who threatened to inflamed proceedings, Khairy found a little bit of peace to continue with his speech, slamming Lim Kit Siang’s personal attacks he endured last week (“richest unemployed man in the world”), lambasting Pas’ fear of DAP, fear of raising the Islamic state struggle and fear of chiding Karpal when the latter questioned the powers of the Sultan of Perak in the state’s state religious director’s transfer fiasco, inferring that the Pakatan Rakyat acronym of PR actually stood for “public relations” where policy-making by opposition parties were PR stunts.
But KJ hit sonic boom when he lashed out the following: “Although you sleep in one bed, one mattress, one pillow but you dream differently! There are some who dream of flying carpets, some who dream of flying rockets and some who dream of flying pigs!” Eight indignant opposition MPs stood up like marionettes strung up by a puppeteer but Khairy insisted that no one gets a chance to seek clarification. “Get your clarification on your own time. My time is precious,” he barked back.
With time running out and sensing that the agitated rival MPs will not allow him a landmine-free passage to conclude his seven-page speech, Khairy abruptly ended his speech one page less by debunking Pakatan Rakyat’s boast that they were better administrators than the previous Barisan State Governments, especially belittling the Selangor Government’s exclusive allocation of RM500,000 only to PR assemblymen after demanding that the Federal Government spread allocation justly to all elected reps.
“Is that fair? You don’t walk the talk,” Khairy contended. “This is just two months of ruling and you have cleverly lied and manipulated. If the Kuala Krai MP claim that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, the Pakatan Rakyat’s action proves that even a little power corrupts very quickly….”
No matter. Khairy is always a good news item, even if the news adds a little more notoriety for him. He is finger-licking good copy for political commentaries, star character in the sensationalistic stories of Raja Petra Kamarudin’s ‘Khairy Chronicles’ for a mix of hair-raising parables and seeming truth, fodder for gossip at all levels of society, punching bag for the Pakatan Rakyat in their crowd-pleasing ceramahs and more recently, zesty prey for opposition MPs to grind razor-sharp axes for the chop in their Dewan Rakyat debates and rejoinders.
Endlessly battered and scapegoated, he’s still a bothersome presence for many of his critics and he is, amazingly, still in one piece, more energised than before. His ascendancy to MP for Rembau is not long and not arduous, though he weathered a national onslaught that befell the sturdiest of Barisan stalwarts in the March 8 polls. He also scored huge political merit points when Malaysiakini apologised to him for misreporting that there was a recount against him during counting for the Rembau parliamentary seat on polling night.
Khairy is a dream “babe magnet” for all forms of political discourse and the man seems to be absorbing the fire arrows with a singular, “come-and-get-me” youthful temerity. He is blamed – fairly or unfairly, rightfully or wrongfully – for all that is wrong with this country, from cronyism, interference in the conception and running of Government policies due to his filial proximity to the PM, blanket dominance of major mega Government contracts.
But if the pejoratives are believable, is Khairy the new “Prince of Darkness”, the boy who may soon be king? Not if the raucous crowd of political bloodhounds dogged in their collective efforts to bring him down, or at least, cut him down a notch or two, can help it. Yet, he is not without charm, persuasive powers and sophistication (not to mention a dapper in a stylish suit), a slick marketer capable of presenting a well-structured sales pitch and a self-advertiser of his own untrammelled talent for timing and opportunity. Within meteoric parameters, he rose to power as Umno Youth deputy chief and won a deputy presidency in the Football Association of Malaysia in October last year, all within four years.
The timing and opportunity to unleash his aspirations, vision and ambition arrived when he stood up to deliver his maiden Dewan Rakyat speech in support of the royal address. And what an explosive, not-safe-at-any-altitude speech it was – cogent, forceful and constructive on pressing social, economic and political issues of the day, when he was not rudely interjected by rival MPs. And yet, he was mockingly and derisively contemptuous of rival MPs, Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) in particular, and scathing in his attacks against Anwar Ibrahim and Pakatan Rakyat. In a sense, Khairy was releasing months, if not years, of frustration of being unable to freely respond to all attacks for fear of political reprisals.
Khairy, while supporting the PM’s move to set up the Judiciary Appointments Commission which he believed would not erode the Prime Minister’s prerogative or the monarchy’s sanctity to give consent to new judges, called for commission representatives to be also filled by ex-judges and legal intellects of “knowledge, experience and integrity.” But his more urgent call was for the commission to have indictment powers, more so to release the burden of backlog piling up at the Attorney-General’s chambers.
He supported withdrawal of red tape conundrum to license the print media but his proposal that bloggers be given the same professional training as mainstream media journalists would likely raise heckles among the more boisterous bloggers while suggesting that if the media can agree to emulate a neutral Media Complaints Commission to check slander and defamation, and agree to self-imposed ethics, fairness and responsibility, the tough printing presses act can go the way of the dodo. By this time, he also deflected three interjections, refusing to give way to rival MPs to seek clarification.
Excitement and incitement brewed after Khairy articulated the need to reform national subsidies for a truer target and while he was elaborating on the oil/petrol price crises, he launch the first of his well-prepared attacks against Anwar Ibrahim, accusing the ex-Finance Minister of conveniently forgetting that during his eight-year Cabinet tenure of zero petrol price hike, oil was a lowly US$16-26 a barrel, unlike the current prices that have surpassed US$120 a barrel.
“What was so difficult about his era? Oil prices were extremely low,” Khairy thundered. “Don’t be self-congratulatory when you are actually fooling the people…the Government’s handling of the oil prices now to be the lowest among Asean nations is far more praiseworthy. This is not even opening the story of the PKR adviser’s absolute failure to check the 1997 financial crisis!”
You can sense the blood boiling at the PKR end of the House and still Khairy won’t budge from his refusal to allow a single clarification to his attacks. Emboldened by the momentum of his speech, Khairy kicked in the booster rockets. As he outlined efforts to contain the food crisis and offered some pointers on reducing the burden of production, he pointed out that chicken and pork were the only food production that were a 100 per cent self-sufficient, so much so that a certain State Government had made pig rearing a priority project that he handily coined as “Projek Khinzir Raksasa” (Mammoth Pig Project), alluding to the PKR acronym and the fact that the word ’khinzir’ to replace ‘babi’ was Anwar’s doing when he was DPM. Here’s the irony: for his entire rebuke against Anwar, Khairy reminded veterans in the august hall of a 1970s Anwar Ibrahim at the peak of his fire breathing grandiloquence, doused somewhat when he joined the Government in 1982.
The ruckus that followed was predictable but the intensity wasn’t. A dozen indignant PKR, DAP and Pas Mps sprang up like multiple jack-in-the-boxes, demanding clarification but only Zulkifli Noordin (PKR-Kulim Bandar Baru) was given the floor for his point of order, demanding that Khairy withdraw the acronym under Standing Orders 36 (4) as words that were improperly uttered.
Khairy steadfastly defended his ground while under the virulent attacks of rival backbenchers, refusing to give way when a slew of DAP, PKR and Pas MPs demanded clarification on his attacks. Sensing that Khairy was never giving way, other rival MPs used an alternative tact to deter Khairy by invoking various point of orders: that Khairy was reading (BN backbenchers shouted back that even the Opposition leader read while debating), MPs had the right to seek clarification (the Speaker stated that KJ had the right not to give way), uttering words that cause pain (it wasn’t clear what the Speaker ruled but the this triggered titters from Barisan backbenchers who shouted back that Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) uttered far more worse improper words).
Lim took the liberty of elaborating his point of order by an off-tangent demonstration – a newspaper report that Datuk Seri Dr Lim Keng Yaik had spoken improperly and misbehaved. You should have heard the pure cacophony of clashing human voices that erupted – Khairy and BN backbenchers shouting at Lim to stand down while the DAP adviser continued droning while opposition backbenchers launched collective shouts and screams, including a high-pitch vent by Fong Po Kuan (DAP-Batu Gajah) that summarised the verbal orgy.
While the verbal free-for-all hurtled towards a free fall, Khairy literally played to the gallery: he turned to the public gallery directly behind him filled with secondary school students of the Malacca High School, smirking at the confusion and mockingly pointed with his hand to the rival MPs side as if he was saying: “See…this is the kind of MPs you have for the Opposition.”
In between the vocal vents, verbal wrestling and trash talk, out came this epithet from N. Gobalakrishnan (PKR-Padang Serai): “Babi negara!” and in unison, Khairy and a dozen BN backbenchers jumped, shouting: “Who is babi negara? Say it! Say it!”
When the Speaker managed to douse the fire breathers who threatened to inflamed proceedings, Khairy found a little bit of peace to continue with his speech, slamming Lim Kit Siang’s personal attacks he endured last week (“richest unemployed man in the world”), lambasting Pas’ fear of DAP, fear of raising the Islamic state struggle and fear of chiding Karpal when the latter questioned the powers of the Sultan of Perak in the state’s state religious director’s transfer fiasco, inferring that the Pakatan Rakyat acronym of PR actually stood for “public relations” where policy-making by opposition parties were PR stunts.
But KJ hit sonic boom when he lashed out the following: “Although you sleep in one bed, one mattress, one pillow but you dream differently! There are some who dream of flying carpets, some who dream of flying rockets and some who dream of flying pigs!” Eight indignant opposition MPs stood up like marionettes strung up by a puppeteer but Khairy insisted that no one gets a chance to seek clarification. “Get your clarification on your own time. My time is precious,” he barked back.
With time running out and sensing that the agitated rival MPs will not allow him a landmine-free passage to conclude his seven-page speech, Khairy abruptly ended his speech one page less by debunking Pakatan Rakyat’s boast that they were better administrators than the previous Barisan State Governments, especially belittling the Selangor Government’s exclusive allocation of RM500,000 only to PR assemblymen after demanding that the Federal Government spread allocation justly to all elected reps.
“Is that fair? You don’t walk the talk,” Khairy contended. “This is just two months of ruling and you have cleverly lied and manipulated. If the Kuala Krai MP claim that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, the Pakatan Rakyat’s action proves that even a little power corrupts very quickly….”
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Ku Li: Umno is here to stay
The Star (11/5/08): Umno veteran Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, who has been busy rallying the party’s grassroots for change, shares his views on a range of issues, including Malay supremacy, the NEP and the future of Umno and Barisan Nasional.
Q: Umno will mark its 62nd anniversary today. As a party veteran, one who challenged and narrowly lost the presidency, set up a rival party but later returned to the fold, how would you describe the crisis facing Umno now?
A: If you call it a crisis, this is one of monumental significance not just to Umno members and to the Malays but to the country. I cannot foresee the country without Umno. The Malays, for what they are worth, good or bad, only know Umno and its allies – the other component parties, whether in the Alliance old or Barisan Nasional. I cannot imagine how the Malays will behave or react without Umno on the scene.
I know people in some circles greeted the results of the March 8 election results with euphoria, saying the victory of the Opposition showed maturity in the thinking of the people. Maybe so, but I like to take a different interpretation.
I think the losses incurred by the coalition, and Umno in particular, were because people were disgusted with their leaders and what had been happening in the Government under the rule of Barisan Nasional and Umno.
It would have been different if Umno didn’t behave like that. Even if people had opted to go the multi-racial make-up of the PKR, for instance, probably they might have won some seats. But not to the extent of what they are enjoying now. That’s my view.
I want to correct the bit in your question about Umno celebrating its 62nd anniversary. Actually we are not. We are only celebrating the 20th anniversary of Umno Baru. The Umno that was founded in 1946 by Datuk Onn Jaafar and the freedom fighters in 1946 was declared unlawful by the High Court in 1988. That gave birth to Umno Baru, which is there today and will celebrate its 20th anniversary.
Q: With all the disgust against it, is there hope for Umno? Can the party reinvent to meet demands for equality, accountability and transparency, given its patronage and gravy train culture?
A: As I said earlier, I cannot imagine people continuing without Umno. The party has been on the scene for a long time. The LDP of Japan went through that. The Congress Party of India too went through the process when the people rejected it.
But I think it is a different thing here, in this country. Like most people say, here it’s the politics of race. It is not completely ideological-based parties that you live with. As such, I don’t know where the Malays are going to scuttle or run to, if Umno is defeated wholly in the next general election. I think people will still support Umno, maybe not to the degree that they used to support but they will return when Umno changes its ways.
But I am not talking about the need for a complete re-engineering of Umno or of the party re-inventing itself. Umno has to behave, that’s all. If it behaves and runs this country fairly and justly, it will get back the support it used to get.
What was wrong with Umno-led rule from 1955 to 1959, before we gained independence? And what do you think of the rule from 1957 to 1969, and from 1971 or 1972 until now? Was it all bad? I don’t think so. Except, of late, you see excesses; you see abuses by Umno leaders who were also getting very arrogant. This is the perception that people have.
And that is why they decided to debunk Umno and Barisan. After all, why should they vote for people whom they don’t even know? Who is PKR? It is a party that is relatively new and came into the fray in a big way in this election. Previously, they only fielded two or three candidates, in Kelantan and Penang, with no showing. But they did so because people were so disgusted and angry with Umno leaders. That’s why they opted for anything.
Some people said I should not have disbanded my old party Semangat 46 under Gagasan Rakyat, which I think would have done much better than PKR or whatever. So you see, if Umno wants to come back, I don’t think it needs to re-invent itself.
Q: You have been rallying the grassroots for change but only a few have held EGMs. Are you still optimistic about a groundswell and getting the nominations needed to contest the presidency?
A: There is a groundswell against the leadership because of the bad election results for the party in power. But there is no groundswell for whoever wants to challenge or change the leadership. I don’t feel it yet. But there are people who are anxious to see a change in the leadership of the party and possibly the Government.
I am going around not purely to canvass for posts and change in the Government but I want to get people at the grassroots level to discuss the effects or the outcome of the election results.
If they could hold extraordinary general meetings, then they could effect changes to the constitution. We have to give back power to members to elect office bearers at branch, division and supreme council levels and also to select candidates for general elections.
Q: Do you expect more divisions to hold EGMs’?
A: I don’t know. If conducted in a fair and free atmosphere, with no threats from any quarters or harassment from any one, possibly there will be more. But even those who have come to me saying they want to hold one have decided to back off, maybe because they were threatened, or bought over. Only a few have held it in spite of the big numbers who came to see me. Maybe they will do it later, I don’t know.
Q:What’s the biggest motivation for you to do this now?
A: Firstly, we have suffered huge losses. I mean, we have lost four states and we have lost the two-thirds majority over no big issues, really, except that people were disgusted with the way the leadership had performed. We need to have a change, if not in the persons or personalities, but in the way they do things.
People look at Umno as being “very racial” now, whereas it has never been racial from day one. It has always been caring, considerate, looking after the interests of others. Umno has also always been accused by PAS and other opponent parties of being too soft and compromising on lots of issues. But Umno wanted peace and stability. That is the actual hallmark of Umno’s brand of struggle and because of that, we have achieved progress. What’s important is to ensure that everybody can come together.
Q: On the question of ketuanan Melayu that is premised upon the social contract agreed to by the nation’s founding fathers, Malays agreed to citizenship for non-Malays in exchange for recognition of their special rights. Should non-Malays born after Merdeka still be bound by this? Do they not have equal standing with Malays by virtue of being citizens?
A: Actually, it is a fallacious way of looking at the term because the concept of ketuanan Melayu is more historical than anything else. As Tunku Abdul Rahman used to tell all of us then, this is Malay land. The Malays are from this country, not from any other, unlike the Chinese or the Indians who are from elsewhere.
But since then they have become loyal citizens of the country and those who are born here are automatically citizens having equal rights as the Malays. But because the Malays were the original people of the land, they have these special rights and special privileges. These were not negotiated; they were already there in the 1948 Federation of Malaya agreement before independence.
When the British negotiated with the Malay Rulers and Umno to do away with the Malayan Union proposal, form the Federation of Malaya and introduce a new constitution, these special rights were entrenched in it. Similarly, the position of Islam, the position of the Rulers and all the other things were carried forward into the constitution.
It was never intended to impose the views of the Malays over the rest. The Malays are not dominant. Even though we won 53 seats in Parliament in 1953 with the majority of 38 Malay MPs, we never exercised that. And after that, even when we had two-thirds in a series of elections, we never imposed our will on others. But the problem is that the term is being bandied about loosely.
Secondly, it is being seen that the Malays are arrogantly abusing their positions in government. Generally, not all leaders but some leaders and this gives rise to the impression that Malays want to dominate. But I have not seen the leaders of Umno, all the prime ministers from the time of Tunku right down to (Datuk Seri) Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, trying to show that they are dominant or domineering over the rest. Have you seen it?
Q. But after the elections, haven’t there been more groups clamouring for reinstatement of ketuanan Melayu?
A: Yes lah, because the Opposition has won big and whoever wins will talk big. But Abdullah, after winning big in 2004, he talked of the big mandate but then did not flex his muscles and penalise anybody.
As for MCA vice-president Datuk Ong Tee Keat who came out with a statement that ketuanan Melayu should be dropped, he is fighting for MCA leadership. It happens lah. But you will hear more from the Umno side when we come closer to the date of the Umno election in December.
Q: There is a lot of debate on the issue in the alternative media, on websites and blogs. Based on what is being expressed about ketuanan rakyat, has the concept of ketuanan Melayu become outdated?
A: I think so. But in effect, it isn’t true. People are comparing it to a slave and master situation. Is there such a thing? If there are servants and slaves at all, it’s between the lowly paid and their masters. But who is lowly paid? The Malays, Indians and to a certain extent, some Chinese, isn’t it? It’s not like what was in America’s South in the old days of slavery. It’s just gross exaggeration and it’s not healthy, you know.
Ketuanan rakyat is a new phrase coined by (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim, taking advantage of the feelings against ketuanan Melayu. He is very quick at that.
Q: Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has warned of conflict if there’s a change in the Government with the crossing over of Barisan. He says Malays are making demands in response to demands made by others and some are talking about going back to feudalism. What are your views on this?
A: Like I said, just now, Ong came out with a statement that ketuanan Melayu should be dropped. Fair enough. But there are also lots of demands from the Malays, as Dr M has expressed. Take the recent congress in Johor Baru. They refused to invite politicians but got together about 200 Malays associations and NGOs. They have demanded that the Malay rulership be restored with its traditional powers. In other words, depriving the elected representatives of some of their powers and to go back to the Rulers. I think that’s not on, because we have democracy now.
Except for matters like restoration of immunity for the Rulers, we have to look at that. Not the Rulers per se, but the institution. After all, our diplomats and officials who work in foreign lands are given immunity. This immunity originates from the immunity of the sovereignty. It’s an age-old custom and practice but that’s just a small area to be re-examined. Overall, I think the preoccupation with ketuanan Melayu is just a reaction to the election results.
Q. Are the Rulers exercising their powers more noticeably or being more vocal now?
A: I don’t think so. Raja Nazrin (Perak Regent Raja Dr Nazrin Shah) has been speaking out but all the things he has been saying echo the words of the Bar Council, like independence of the judiciary, and other groups. He rightly re-emphasised and re-stated things that are in the Constitution. Of course, it also reflects the feelings of the people who are not happy with the Government and the way the judiciary was behaving. So, this gets into the press and catches the eye of those people who are not happy with the Government. That’s about all.
About the appointment of Mentris Besar of Terengganu and Perlis, it was the inaction of the leadership or slowness that prompted the Rulers to appoint MBs who were not candidates of the party. The actions were seen as Rulers taking the initiative before the political leaders. But I think the Rulers were pressured to act within their constitutional powers. I don’t think it is seen as Rulers taking powers into their hands. It’s just coincidental that we had these bad election results and all these things relating to the Rulers and therefore it is seen as you have described it.
As for the case of Tengku Faris’ (Kelantan’s Tengku Mahkota Tengku Mohammad Faris Petra Sultan Ismail Petra) speech, the statement was taken out of context. I have seen the whole speech and it was a repeat of what is in the Constitution.
Q: How is your current relationship with Dr M? Based on what he has been saying, it seems both of you share the same sentiments.
A: Good. As for sharing the same sentiments, maybe we are, but not absolutely.
Q: In one interview before the elections, you were asked whether Malaysia was ready to move away from the New Economic Policy. You said it was going to be there for another 50 years or more. Have you changed your views?
A: No. I still feel the NEP is a good policy but it should not have been implemented the way it was and caused a lot of problems and created misunderstanding among the various races. It was not intended to be like that nor was it formulated that way. It ended up favouring a select group of people in a particular community.
The NEP was devised during the Second Malaysia Plan to bring everybody together, to give opportunities to those who never had opportunities and to lift up everybody, irrespective of Malays, Indians or Chinese or others, out of poverty. It was a good programme, I thought. Unfortunately, some people took advantage and abused their positions. And these excesses have given rise to a lot of grievances and doubts about the policy itself.
Q: If you do get the nominations, win the presidency and get to become Prime Minister, what would be your priority?
A: The first and most important is unity: To bring about unity in all aspects of government policy, programmes and even to the NGOs and the political institutions. That is the priority concern and should be the primary concern of everybody. The education system must be re-looked into exhaustively, in that it is geared towards this end. This is because the future depends on the unity of the nation. Without it you cannot have stability, peace and progress. Underpinning that is, of course, education. It is also important that the knowledge acquired is kept abreast with changes, so that we can rise to the occasion and compete with likeminded people elsewhere in the world. We should not be left behind.
Secondly, you have to kill corruption, which is cancerous. You have to go to town with it. I am impressed with the model in Hong Kong. I don’t know what the Government has in mind but the agency in Hong Kong works. It should also work here with some modifications. Whatever it is, wiping out corruption is of prime consideration because unless and until we can kill it, you cannot progress.
You cannot expect costs to come down – cost of living, cost of doing business and everything. We really have to fight this tooth and nail. Similarly, within Umno, we have to stop all this nonsense about giving of contracts, permits and “pocket money”. All these must be brought down without exception.
Q: There are still many repressive laws and people are demanding that these be done away with. What is your view on laws like the Printing Presses and Publications Act, Universities and University Colleges Act, Official Secrets Act and the Internal Security Act?
A: All ought to be reviewed. Some ought to be repealed. UCCA should be repealed. The OSA must be reviewed. Some features are important but not the draconian measures. The Printing Presses and Publications Act has no place. It has to go. The Police Act should also be re-looked. As for the ISA, it must be re-looked. I don’t think we can do away with that, I must say honestly, because even democratic countries like the US have laws with the same features that we have in the ISA. Even Britain has new laws to fight terrorism. I think we can remove all the features that appear to be rather draconian and make sure that individual rights are protected sufficiently. Ensure that it is palatable for the Government to use but never to use it for political purposes.
Q: The perception out there is the ISA is always used for political persecution.
A: That’s what they say. Even Umno chaps have been arrested. (Datuk) Zahid Hamidi was detained, along with many other people, including Anwar. So anyway, we have to re-look that.
Q: For much of the latter part of your political career, your supporters say you have been a victim of media blackouts, unfair coverage and spin. Do you think political parties should own newspapers?
A: I’m glad you realise it. I think (the ownership of newspapers by political parties) this is a historical development. Utusan Melayu was formed by people from Singapore. When we were gaining independence, Umno needed a voice in the papers to project its image and to appeal to the people to support its movement against the Malayan Union.
That is how Utusan Melayu slowly came under the influence of Umno. Later, Tunku with the help of some friends bought into Utusan Melayu as a vehicle to influence the thinking of the people. When I was asked to buy the Straits Times, we couldn’t do so because some of the operations were in Singapore, which was not under our jurisdiction at that time. I had to negotiate with the OCBC group and eventually bought the interest in Malaysia.
The paper split into the Straits Times in Singapore and the New Straits Times in Malaysia. We took over and paid cash for it. We did not want to own it completely so we listed the shares. But because of these historical developments, Umno had to own some of the shares. Eventually, when Umno was declared unlawful, the shares went to the Public Trustee and then sold to a public company. Umno has a very small percentage in the newspaper now.
Even Utusan Malaysia has gone public. Control is through the Government, not through the ownership of equity. MCA used to own Tong Bao, Nanyang Siang Pau and The Star. Now they still own The Star. But slowly all these things will go. What I would like to see is for anybody who wants to own a newspaper to be able to do so. Whether they survive or not, it is up to them. But before we can allow that, we must ensure that the laws of defamation and libel are strengthened and penalties must be very serious, so that people don’t go to town with their newspapers.
Q: How would you rate Pakatan Rakyat’s chances of taking over the government through crossovers? Do you share Dr Mahathir’s view of taking the threat seriously?
A: I do. We should not take it lightly because unlike Umno members in the peninsula, those in Sabah have only been members since 1990 or just before that. Umno is relatively new there. And also people in Sabah have been jumping parties – from Usno to Berjaya to Umno and so many other parties. The whole lot of them have been jumping here, there and everywhere. I’m not saying that they don’t have principles or they have a stand on certain given ideals. But I think their heart is not in the party struggle. Because of the racial politics here, we are closer to the party struggle than those in Sabah.
They were brought in to help in order to help Dr Mahathir then to make sure they could thwart me and Semangat 46 in the number of seats in Parliament. Anyway, we shouldn’t take the threat lightly for it is serious. And I do hope the leadership will really look into this and confide in the MPs and state assemblymen and those from the component parties and look into their problems. Otherwise you may find that there is no Barisan Nasional except for Umno. You should look after them.
I think they are very unhappy. The election results have shocked and disgraced them. Apart from that, they are losing confidence in the future. If they think that the future is not so bright for them why should they remain? I think the leadership today cannot give them sufficient comfort to ensure that the future is all right. But I think that the future will be all right, if we can bolster their confidence. I think it all depends on the leadership. But the leadership today is embroiled in so many things, it is not helping (M Veera Pandiyan).
Q: Umno will mark its 62nd anniversary today. As a party veteran, one who challenged and narrowly lost the presidency, set up a rival party but later returned to the fold, how would you describe the crisis facing Umno now?
A: If you call it a crisis, this is one of monumental significance not just to Umno members and to the Malays but to the country. I cannot foresee the country without Umno. The Malays, for what they are worth, good or bad, only know Umno and its allies – the other component parties, whether in the Alliance old or Barisan Nasional. I cannot imagine how the Malays will behave or react without Umno on the scene.
I know people in some circles greeted the results of the March 8 election results with euphoria, saying the victory of the Opposition showed maturity in the thinking of the people. Maybe so, but I like to take a different interpretation.
I think the losses incurred by the coalition, and Umno in particular, were because people were disgusted with their leaders and what had been happening in the Government under the rule of Barisan Nasional and Umno.
It would have been different if Umno didn’t behave like that. Even if people had opted to go the multi-racial make-up of the PKR, for instance, probably they might have won some seats. But not to the extent of what they are enjoying now. That’s my view.
I want to correct the bit in your question about Umno celebrating its 62nd anniversary. Actually we are not. We are only celebrating the 20th anniversary of Umno Baru. The Umno that was founded in 1946 by Datuk Onn Jaafar and the freedom fighters in 1946 was declared unlawful by the High Court in 1988. That gave birth to Umno Baru, which is there today and will celebrate its 20th anniversary.
Q: With all the disgust against it, is there hope for Umno? Can the party reinvent to meet demands for equality, accountability and transparency, given its patronage and gravy train culture?
A: As I said earlier, I cannot imagine people continuing without Umno. The party has been on the scene for a long time. The LDP of Japan went through that. The Congress Party of India too went through the process when the people rejected it.
But I think it is a different thing here, in this country. Like most people say, here it’s the politics of race. It is not completely ideological-based parties that you live with. As such, I don’t know where the Malays are going to scuttle or run to, if Umno is defeated wholly in the next general election. I think people will still support Umno, maybe not to the degree that they used to support but they will return when Umno changes its ways.
But I am not talking about the need for a complete re-engineering of Umno or of the party re-inventing itself. Umno has to behave, that’s all. If it behaves and runs this country fairly and justly, it will get back the support it used to get.
What was wrong with Umno-led rule from 1955 to 1959, before we gained independence? And what do you think of the rule from 1957 to 1969, and from 1971 or 1972 until now? Was it all bad? I don’t think so. Except, of late, you see excesses; you see abuses by Umno leaders who were also getting very arrogant. This is the perception that people have.
And that is why they decided to debunk Umno and Barisan. After all, why should they vote for people whom they don’t even know? Who is PKR? It is a party that is relatively new and came into the fray in a big way in this election. Previously, they only fielded two or three candidates, in Kelantan and Penang, with no showing. But they did so because people were so disgusted and angry with Umno leaders. That’s why they opted for anything.
Some people said I should not have disbanded my old party Semangat 46 under Gagasan Rakyat, which I think would have done much better than PKR or whatever. So you see, if Umno wants to come back, I don’t think it needs to re-invent itself.
Q: You have been rallying the grassroots for change but only a few have held EGMs. Are you still optimistic about a groundswell and getting the nominations needed to contest the presidency?
A: There is a groundswell against the leadership because of the bad election results for the party in power. But there is no groundswell for whoever wants to challenge or change the leadership. I don’t feel it yet. But there are people who are anxious to see a change in the leadership of the party and possibly the Government.
I am going around not purely to canvass for posts and change in the Government but I want to get people at the grassroots level to discuss the effects or the outcome of the election results.
If they could hold extraordinary general meetings, then they could effect changes to the constitution. We have to give back power to members to elect office bearers at branch, division and supreme council levels and also to select candidates for general elections.
Q: Do you expect more divisions to hold EGMs’?
A: I don’t know. If conducted in a fair and free atmosphere, with no threats from any quarters or harassment from any one, possibly there will be more. But even those who have come to me saying they want to hold one have decided to back off, maybe because they were threatened, or bought over. Only a few have held it in spite of the big numbers who came to see me. Maybe they will do it later, I don’t know.
Q:What’s the biggest motivation for you to do this now?
A: Firstly, we have suffered huge losses. I mean, we have lost four states and we have lost the two-thirds majority over no big issues, really, except that people were disgusted with the way the leadership had performed. We need to have a change, if not in the persons or personalities, but in the way they do things.
People look at Umno as being “very racial” now, whereas it has never been racial from day one. It has always been caring, considerate, looking after the interests of others. Umno has also always been accused by PAS and other opponent parties of being too soft and compromising on lots of issues. But Umno wanted peace and stability. That is the actual hallmark of Umno’s brand of struggle and because of that, we have achieved progress. What’s important is to ensure that everybody can come together.
Q: On the question of ketuanan Melayu that is premised upon the social contract agreed to by the nation’s founding fathers, Malays agreed to citizenship for non-Malays in exchange for recognition of their special rights. Should non-Malays born after Merdeka still be bound by this? Do they not have equal standing with Malays by virtue of being citizens?
A: Actually, it is a fallacious way of looking at the term because the concept of ketuanan Melayu is more historical than anything else. As Tunku Abdul Rahman used to tell all of us then, this is Malay land. The Malays are from this country, not from any other, unlike the Chinese or the Indians who are from elsewhere.
But since then they have become loyal citizens of the country and those who are born here are automatically citizens having equal rights as the Malays. But because the Malays were the original people of the land, they have these special rights and special privileges. These were not negotiated; they were already there in the 1948 Federation of Malaya agreement before independence.
When the British negotiated with the Malay Rulers and Umno to do away with the Malayan Union proposal, form the Federation of Malaya and introduce a new constitution, these special rights were entrenched in it. Similarly, the position of Islam, the position of the Rulers and all the other things were carried forward into the constitution.
It was never intended to impose the views of the Malays over the rest. The Malays are not dominant. Even though we won 53 seats in Parliament in 1953 with the majority of 38 Malay MPs, we never exercised that. And after that, even when we had two-thirds in a series of elections, we never imposed our will on others. But the problem is that the term is being bandied about loosely.
Secondly, it is being seen that the Malays are arrogantly abusing their positions in government. Generally, not all leaders but some leaders and this gives rise to the impression that Malays want to dominate. But I have not seen the leaders of Umno, all the prime ministers from the time of Tunku right down to (Datuk Seri) Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, trying to show that they are dominant or domineering over the rest. Have you seen it?
Q. But after the elections, haven’t there been more groups clamouring for reinstatement of ketuanan Melayu?
A: Yes lah, because the Opposition has won big and whoever wins will talk big. But Abdullah, after winning big in 2004, he talked of the big mandate but then did not flex his muscles and penalise anybody.
As for MCA vice-president Datuk Ong Tee Keat who came out with a statement that ketuanan Melayu should be dropped, he is fighting for MCA leadership. It happens lah. But you will hear more from the Umno side when we come closer to the date of the Umno election in December.
Q: There is a lot of debate on the issue in the alternative media, on websites and blogs. Based on what is being expressed about ketuanan rakyat, has the concept of ketuanan Melayu become outdated?
A: I think so. But in effect, it isn’t true. People are comparing it to a slave and master situation. Is there such a thing? If there are servants and slaves at all, it’s between the lowly paid and their masters. But who is lowly paid? The Malays, Indians and to a certain extent, some Chinese, isn’t it? It’s not like what was in America’s South in the old days of slavery. It’s just gross exaggeration and it’s not healthy, you know.
Ketuanan rakyat is a new phrase coined by (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim, taking advantage of the feelings against ketuanan Melayu. He is very quick at that.
Q: Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has warned of conflict if there’s a change in the Government with the crossing over of Barisan. He says Malays are making demands in response to demands made by others and some are talking about going back to feudalism. What are your views on this?
A: Like I said, just now, Ong came out with a statement that ketuanan Melayu should be dropped. Fair enough. But there are also lots of demands from the Malays, as Dr M has expressed. Take the recent congress in Johor Baru. They refused to invite politicians but got together about 200 Malays associations and NGOs. They have demanded that the Malay rulership be restored with its traditional powers. In other words, depriving the elected representatives of some of their powers and to go back to the Rulers. I think that’s not on, because we have democracy now.
Except for matters like restoration of immunity for the Rulers, we have to look at that. Not the Rulers per se, but the institution. After all, our diplomats and officials who work in foreign lands are given immunity. This immunity originates from the immunity of the sovereignty. It’s an age-old custom and practice but that’s just a small area to be re-examined. Overall, I think the preoccupation with ketuanan Melayu is just a reaction to the election results.
Q. Are the Rulers exercising their powers more noticeably or being more vocal now?
A: I don’t think so. Raja Nazrin (Perak Regent Raja Dr Nazrin Shah) has been speaking out but all the things he has been saying echo the words of the Bar Council, like independence of the judiciary, and other groups. He rightly re-emphasised and re-stated things that are in the Constitution. Of course, it also reflects the feelings of the people who are not happy with the Government and the way the judiciary was behaving. So, this gets into the press and catches the eye of those people who are not happy with the Government. That’s about all.
About the appointment of Mentris Besar of Terengganu and Perlis, it was the inaction of the leadership or slowness that prompted the Rulers to appoint MBs who were not candidates of the party. The actions were seen as Rulers taking the initiative before the political leaders. But I think the Rulers were pressured to act within their constitutional powers. I don’t think it is seen as Rulers taking powers into their hands. It’s just coincidental that we had these bad election results and all these things relating to the Rulers and therefore it is seen as you have described it.
As for the case of Tengku Faris’ (Kelantan’s Tengku Mahkota Tengku Mohammad Faris Petra Sultan Ismail Petra) speech, the statement was taken out of context. I have seen the whole speech and it was a repeat of what is in the Constitution.
Q: How is your current relationship with Dr M? Based on what he has been saying, it seems both of you share the same sentiments.
A: Good. As for sharing the same sentiments, maybe we are, but not absolutely.
Q: In one interview before the elections, you were asked whether Malaysia was ready to move away from the New Economic Policy. You said it was going to be there for another 50 years or more. Have you changed your views?
A: No. I still feel the NEP is a good policy but it should not have been implemented the way it was and caused a lot of problems and created misunderstanding among the various races. It was not intended to be like that nor was it formulated that way. It ended up favouring a select group of people in a particular community.
The NEP was devised during the Second Malaysia Plan to bring everybody together, to give opportunities to those who never had opportunities and to lift up everybody, irrespective of Malays, Indians or Chinese or others, out of poverty. It was a good programme, I thought. Unfortunately, some people took advantage and abused their positions. And these excesses have given rise to a lot of grievances and doubts about the policy itself.
Q: If you do get the nominations, win the presidency and get to become Prime Minister, what would be your priority?
A: The first and most important is unity: To bring about unity in all aspects of government policy, programmes and even to the NGOs and the political institutions. That is the priority concern and should be the primary concern of everybody. The education system must be re-looked into exhaustively, in that it is geared towards this end. This is because the future depends on the unity of the nation. Without it you cannot have stability, peace and progress. Underpinning that is, of course, education. It is also important that the knowledge acquired is kept abreast with changes, so that we can rise to the occasion and compete with likeminded people elsewhere in the world. We should not be left behind.
Secondly, you have to kill corruption, which is cancerous. You have to go to town with it. I am impressed with the model in Hong Kong. I don’t know what the Government has in mind but the agency in Hong Kong works. It should also work here with some modifications. Whatever it is, wiping out corruption is of prime consideration because unless and until we can kill it, you cannot progress.
You cannot expect costs to come down – cost of living, cost of doing business and everything. We really have to fight this tooth and nail. Similarly, within Umno, we have to stop all this nonsense about giving of contracts, permits and “pocket money”. All these must be brought down without exception.
Q: There are still many repressive laws and people are demanding that these be done away with. What is your view on laws like the Printing Presses and Publications Act, Universities and University Colleges Act, Official Secrets Act and the Internal Security Act?
A: All ought to be reviewed. Some ought to be repealed. UCCA should be repealed. The OSA must be reviewed. Some features are important but not the draconian measures. The Printing Presses and Publications Act has no place. It has to go. The Police Act should also be re-looked. As for the ISA, it must be re-looked. I don’t think we can do away with that, I must say honestly, because even democratic countries like the US have laws with the same features that we have in the ISA. Even Britain has new laws to fight terrorism. I think we can remove all the features that appear to be rather draconian and make sure that individual rights are protected sufficiently. Ensure that it is palatable for the Government to use but never to use it for political purposes.
Q: The perception out there is the ISA is always used for political persecution.
A: That’s what they say. Even Umno chaps have been arrested. (Datuk) Zahid Hamidi was detained, along with many other people, including Anwar. So anyway, we have to re-look that.
Q: For much of the latter part of your political career, your supporters say you have been a victim of media blackouts, unfair coverage and spin. Do you think political parties should own newspapers?
A: I’m glad you realise it. I think (the ownership of newspapers by political parties) this is a historical development. Utusan Melayu was formed by people from Singapore. When we were gaining independence, Umno needed a voice in the papers to project its image and to appeal to the people to support its movement against the Malayan Union.
That is how Utusan Melayu slowly came under the influence of Umno. Later, Tunku with the help of some friends bought into Utusan Melayu as a vehicle to influence the thinking of the people. When I was asked to buy the Straits Times, we couldn’t do so because some of the operations were in Singapore, which was not under our jurisdiction at that time. I had to negotiate with the OCBC group and eventually bought the interest in Malaysia.
The paper split into the Straits Times in Singapore and the New Straits Times in Malaysia. We took over and paid cash for it. We did not want to own it completely so we listed the shares. But because of these historical developments, Umno had to own some of the shares. Eventually, when Umno was declared unlawful, the shares went to the Public Trustee and then sold to a public company. Umno has a very small percentage in the newspaper now.
Even Utusan Malaysia has gone public. Control is through the Government, not through the ownership of equity. MCA used to own Tong Bao, Nanyang Siang Pau and The Star. Now they still own The Star. But slowly all these things will go. What I would like to see is for anybody who wants to own a newspaper to be able to do so. Whether they survive or not, it is up to them. But before we can allow that, we must ensure that the laws of defamation and libel are strengthened and penalties must be very serious, so that people don’t go to town with their newspapers.
Q: How would you rate Pakatan Rakyat’s chances of taking over the government through crossovers? Do you share Dr Mahathir’s view of taking the threat seriously?
A: I do. We should not take it lightly because unlike Umno members in the peninsula, those in Sabah have only been members since 1990 or just before that. Umno is relatively new there. And also people in Sabah have been jumping parties – from Usno to Berjaya to Umno and so many other parties. The whole lot of them have been jumping here, there and everywhere. I’m not saying that they don’t have principles or they have a stand on certain given ideals. But I think their heart is not in the party struggle. Because of the racial politics here, we are closer to the party struggle than those in Sabah.
They were brought in to help in order to help Dr Mahathir then to make sure they could thwart me and Semangat 46 in the number of seats in Parliament. Anyway, we shouldn’t take the threat lightly for it is serious. And I do hope the leadership will really look into this and confide in the MPs and state assemblymen and those from the component parties and look into their problems. Otherwise you may find that there is no Barisan Nasional except for Umno. You should look after them.
I think they are very unhappy. The election results have shocked and disgraced them. Apart from that, they are losing confidence in the future. If they think that the future is not so bright for them why should they remain? I think the leadership today cannot give them sufficient comfort to ensure that the future is all right. But I think that the future will be all right, if we can bolster their confidence. I think it all depends on the leadership. But the leadership today is embroiled in so many things, it is not helping (M Veera Pandiyan).
How will Anwar play his cards?
As the leader of Pakatan Rakyat, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has been described as ‘Prime Minister-in-waiting’, but does he really have the numbers to form the government or is he just playing mind games?
The Star (11/5/08): Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was all smiles when he accompanied his wife Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail to the opening of Parliament recently.
It was quite a reversal of role for the former deputy prime minister because he was there as the spouse of the new Opposition Leader.
It was also his first time in Parliament since his fall from power and he was not quite sure what to expect. Dr Wan Azizah was her demure self but Anwar looked a trifle nervous as he held onto his wife's hand.
They are the power couple of Pakatan Rakyat (PR) but given the way the media swarmed around him, there was no mistaking who the star was. Anwar was probably at his most ideal body weight in years, and he looked good in a dark suit and violet tie even though his songkok was slightly tilted.
Some of his Chinese friends joke that his fengshui has changed for the better since he moved out of Damansara Heights to live a simpler life in Segambut in the suburbs of Kuala Lumpur.
The Economist has referred to him as “Prime Minister in waiting” and Time Magazine named him as among the 100 most influential people in the world.
Anwar is back in the political spotlight amid claims that PR will form the government before the year is out.
Talk of crossovers from the Barisan Nasional to PR has been swirling since the March 8 elections.
On Wednesday, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad added grist to the mill when he said that Anwar's threat of taking over should be taken seriously and that he was a force to be reckoned with.
It was a stunning admission that led PKR Youth chief Shamsul Iskandar to quip: “I'm in agreement with Tun Mahathir for the first time in 10 years.”
But it is possible that both Dr Mahathir and Anwar are playing mind-games. They are both such consummate political animals, always a step ahead of the rest and with that innate instinct to seize the political moment. And both have that rare X-factor.
Sources close to Dr Mahathir say the former is using Anwar as the bogeyman to scare Umno members into expediting a leadership transition in their party.
As for Anwar, the endless discussions about his being Prime Minister-in-waiting has burnished his image beyond expectations. Even if he does not make it, he will remain a pivotal political figure.
But still, questions abound about Anwar's claim to forming the government. What and where are the numbers? And if he has the numbers, what are they waiting for? When is he going to contest the by-election that he has been talking so much about?
The PR needs only 30 more seats to secure a simple majority in Parliament.
But there are priorities to be sorted out before Anwar can really lay claim to Putrajaya.
First, he needs more than a simple majority. A government formed on crossovers is unstable enough, what more with only a slim majority.
Second, the Malay composition in the takeover government has to reflect the national scenario if he does not wish to add to the instability. The bulk of crossovers will have to comprise Umno MPs.
Third is the question of having to face a snap general election if he does manage to pull off a coup. Would his coalition be able to face the voters for a fresh and legitimate mandate?
Question of ethics
Finally, there is the question of ethics and principle. The PR had promised a better and cleaner government, a new politics as they call it. Taking Putrajaya by the back door is not new politics. In fact, it would be the very sort of old politics they have been so critical of.
The scenario, as such, is a bit more complicated than just people crossing the floor in Parliament.
Some claim he has secured commitment from barely half of the 30 he needs, while others say he has up to 50 names on the list.
The assumption so far is that he has his eye on Sabah and Sarawak MPs but, said former PKR Youth chief Ezam Mohd Noor, his main target is Umno MPs from the peninsula.
“The Malay and Muslim factor is very crucial for him,” said Ezam.
The response in Sabah is said to be quite encouraging but he has limited clout in Sarawak.
At the Sarawak Legislative Assembly this week, PKR's lone assemblyman Dominique Ng announced that there were more than 10 MPs in Sabah who are ready to cross over but “in the case of Sarawak, he was not at liberty to tell as yet.”
The Barisan-dominated House was not amused and erupted in jeers and shouts of, “Never!”
“Give us more credit than that. What makes you think that they won't be coming in one kapal (as a party)?” said PKR Youth exco member Khairul Anuar Ahmad Zainudin.
Anwar’s DAP and PAS partners have maintained an awkward silence throughout all this.
DAP is caught between their desire of federal power and their stand against party hopping.
PAS is even more compromised. Its government in Kelantan had hung on by a thread after the 2004 polls and it had been righteous about Umno trying to lure its assemblymen. It cannot now come out to encourage Barisan MPs to cross to PR.
The younger PAS politicians have no qualms about entering Putrajaya via the back door but the older ones are concerned about what it would mean for their Islamic agenda. They are also uneasy about working with DAP leaders like Karpal Singh and some are still rather unsure about Anwar.
Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad, PAS MP for Kuala Selangor, is all for a PR government but admits that when he looks across to the Barisan bench in Parliament, “there are not many faces that look like they will join us.”
There are only 77 Barisan backbenchers and more than half of them would have to cross the floor for PR to become the ruling coalition.
Said a senior PAS leader: “I'm not trying to pour cold water on Anwar's ambitions but it's not easy to get that kind of numbers. People want to cross to a party in power, not an Opposition aspiring to power.”
But several East Malaysian MPs stirred excitement in Parliament on Wednesday when they spoke about being treated like “stepchildren” by the Barisan leadership.
Liew: There will be a domino effect once the crossovers start
One of them was no less than Datuk Anifah Aman, a former deputy minister and younger brother of Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Musa Aman.
“You cannot take what they say lightly. They are genuinely unhappy,” said DAP strategist Liew Chin Tong.
According to PAS secretary-general Datuk Kamaruddin Jaffar whose friendship with Anwar goes back to their Abim (Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia, a Muslim youth group) days, the latter has the numbers to form the government.
“I have no details but the number ranges from 30 to the low 40s. He wants a fair spread of politicians from Sabah, Sarawak and the peninsula and they will join out of genuine desire to help Pakatan Rakyat form the government and not for money or posts. And I see it happening sometime in the middle of the year,” he said.
And contrary to the general expectation that the crossovers will take place after Anwar contests a by-election, Kamaruddin said it is likely that Anwar will only go into a by-election once the crossovers take place.
Anwar is interested in no less than the very top post and, that way, he will not end up as just another opposition MP if the crossovers fall through.
Anwar has set Sept 16, the date when Malaysia was born, as the day the new government may be formed.
Reliable sources said 17 Barisan MPs will jump soon.
“I believe in the domino theory. If it happens, it will happen en bloc and there will be a flood,” said Liew.
It is a prospect that is very possible to some and totally unthinkable to others.Power couple and media frenzy: Anwar is back in the political spotlight amid claims that Pakatan Rakyat will form the government before the year is out (Joceline Tan).
The Star (11/5/08): Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was all smiles when he accompanied his wife Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail to the opening of Parliament recently.
It was quite a reversal of role for the former deputy prime minister because he was there as the spouse of the new Opposition Leader.
It was also his first time in Parliament since his fall from power and he was not quite sure what to expect. Dr Wan Azizah was her demure self but Anwar looked a trifle nervous as he held onto his wife's hand.
Power couple and media frenzy: Anwar is back in the political spotlight amid claims that Pakatan Rakyat will form the government before the year is out.
They are the power couple of Pakatan Rakyat (PR) but given the way the media swarmed around him, there was no mistaking who the star was. Anwar was probably at his most ideal body weight in years, and he looked good in a dark suit and violet tie even though his songkok was slightly tilted.
Some of his Chinese friends joke that his fengshui has changed for the better since he moved out of Damansara Heights to live a simpler life in Segambut in the suburbs of Kuala Lumpur.
The Economist has referred to him as “Prime Minister in waiting” and Time Magazine named him as among the 100 most influential people in the world.
Anwar is back in the political spotlight amid claims that PR will form the government before the year is out.
Talk of crossovers from the Barisan Nasional to PR has been swirling since the March 8 elections.
On Wednesday, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad added grist to the mill when he said that Anwar's threat of taking over should be taken seriously and that he was a force to be reckoned with.
It was a stunning admission that led PKR Youth chief Shamsul Iskandar to quip: “I'm in agreement with Tun Mahathir for the first time in 10 years.”
Khairul: Crossovers may be in the form of an entire party
But it is possible that both Dr Mahathir and Anwar are playing mind-games. They are both such consummate political animals, always a step ahead of the rest and with that innate instinct to seize the political moment. And both have that rare X-factor.
Sources close to Dr Mahathir say the former is using Anwar as the bogeyman to scare Umno members into expediting a leadership transition in their party.
As for Anwar, the endless discussions about his being Prime Minister-in-waiting has burnished his image beyond expectations. Even if he does not make it, he will remain a pivotal political figure.
But still, questions abound about Anwar's claim to forming the government. What and where are the numbers? And if he has the numbers, what are they waiting for? When is he going to contest the by-election that he has been talking so much about?
The PR needs only 30 more seats to secure a simple majority in Parliament.
But there are priorities to be sorted out before Anwar can really lay claim to Putrajaya.
First, he needs more than a simple majority. A government formed on crossovers is unstable enough, what more with only a slim majority.
Second, the Malay composition in the takeover government has to reflect the national scenario if he does not wish to add to the instability. The bulk of crossovers will have to comprise Umno MPs.
Third is the question of having to face a snap general election if he does manage to pull off a coup. Would his coalition be able to face the voters for a fresh and legitimate mandate?
Question of ethics
Finally, there is the question of ethics and principle. The PR had promised a better and cleaner government, a new politics as they call it. Taking Putrajaya by the back door is not new politics. In fact, it would be the very sort of old politics they have been so critical of.
The scenario, as such, is a bit more complicated than just people crossing the floor in Parliament.
Anifah: Sabah treated like stepchild of Barisan Nasional
Some claim he has secured commitment from barely half of the 30 he needs, while others say he has up to 50 names on the list.
The assumption so far is that he has his eye on Sabah and Sarawak MPs but, said former PKR Youth chief Ezam Mohd Noor, his main target is Umno MPs from the peninsula.
“The Malay and Muslim factor is very crucial for him,” said Ezam.
The response in Sabah is said to be quite encouraging but he has limited clout in Sarawak.
At the Sarawak Legislative Assembly this week, PKR's lone assemblyman Dominique Ng announced that there were more than 10 MPs in Sabah who are ready to cross over but “in the case of Sarawak, he was not at liberty to tell as yet.”
The Barisan-dominated House was not amused and erupted in jeers and shouts of, “Never!”
“Give us more credit than that. What makes you think that they won't be coming in one kapal (as a party)?” said PKR Youth exco member Khairul Anuar Ahmad Zainudin.
Anwar’s DAP and PAS partners have maintained an awkward silence throughout all this.
DAP is caught between their desire of federal power and their stand against party hopping.
PAS is even more compromised. Its government in Kelantan had hung on by a thread after the 2004 polls and it had been righteous about Umno trying to lure its assemblymen. It cannot now come out to encourage Barisan MPs to cross to PR.
The younger PAS politicians have no qualms about entering Putrajaya via the back door but the older ones are concerned about what it would mean for their Islamic agenda. They are also uneasy about working with DAP leaders like Karpal Singh and some are still rather unsure about Anwar.
Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad, PAS MP for Kuala Selangor, is all for a PR government but admits that when he looks across to the Barisan bench in Parliament, “there are not many faces that look like they will join us.”
There are only 77 Barisan backbenchers and more than half of them would have to cross the floor for PR to become the ruling coalition.
Said a senior PAS leader: “I'm not trying to pour cold water on Anwar's ambitions but it's not easy to get that kind of numbers. People want to cross to a party in power, not an Opposition aspiring to power.”
But several East Malaysian MPs stirred excitement in Parliament on Wednesday when they spoke about being treated like “stepchildren” by the Barisan leadership.
Liew: There will be a domino effect once the crossovers start
One of them was no less than Datuk Anifah Aman, a former deputy minister and younger brother of Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Musa Aman.
“You cannot take what they say lightly. They are genuinely unhappy,” said DAP strategist Liew Chin Tong.
According to PAS secretary-general Datuk Kamaruddin Jaffar whose friendship with Anwar goes back to their Abim (Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia, a Muslim youth group) days, the latter has the numbers to form the government.
“I have no details but the number ranges from 30 to the low 40s. He wants a fair spread of politicians from Sabah, Sarawak and the peninsula and they will join out of genuine desire to help Pakatan Rakyat form the government and not for money or posts. And I see it happening sometime in the middle of the year,” he said.
And contrary to the general expectation that the crossovers will take place after Anwar contests a by-election, Kamaruddin said it is likely that Anwar will only go into a by-election once the crossovers take place.
Anwar is interested in no less than the very top post and, that way, he will not end up as just another opposition MP if the crossovers fall through.
Anwar has set Sept 16, the date when Malaysia was born, as the day the new government may be formed.
Reliable sources said 17 Barisan MPs will jump soon.
“I believe in the domino theory. If it happens, it will happen en bloc and there will be a flood,” said Liew.
It is a prospect that is very possible to some and totally unthinkable to others.Power couple and media frenzy: Anwar is back in the political spotlight amid claims that Pakatan Rakyat will form the government before the year is out (Joceline Tan).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
