Tajuddin may get the stick

Malay Mail (28/11/08): Psychoanalysts say overreaction is a trait exhibited by children. But if you follow this argument, then you would be at a loss trying to explain the behaviour of our politicians, some of whom are, figuratively speaking, older than the hills.

When children misbehave or conduct themselves badly, adults advise or chide them to try to get them to mend their ways. Most grow out of their difficult years, but some of our politicians, unfortunately, may still be children trapped in adults’ bodies.

Whether he is one of them is subject to debate, but one thing is for sure: Datuk Tajuddin Abdul Rahman (BN-Pasir Salak) is ultra-stubborn.

Having earned many colourful nicknames, among them keturunan lanun (descendent of pirates), from his peers and foes alike, Tajuddin, who came under heavy fire for uttering the word "b******" in parliament recently, yet again showed his defiance to calls for gentlemanly conduct in the august house.

Repeatedly warned by speakers and deputy speakers in the past for his penchant for vulgarities and crude behaviour, the menacing parliamentarian yesterday remained true to form as he raised his voice, volleyed abuses interjected with sexual innuendos.

It was too much to bear, even among his Barisan Nasional colleagues, as both backbenchers and opposition rallied to keep such unparliamentary behaviour out of the House.

This prompted Deputy Speaker Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar to announce that a decision would be made against Tajuddin for uttering remarks deemed suggestive in nature to Dr Mujahid Yusof Rawa (Pas-Parit Buntar) in the Dewan Rakyat on Wednesday.

Noting that some MPs had gone overboard in using harsh language and unparliamentary words, Wan Junaidi said he would discuss with his colleague Datuk Ronald Kiandee, the Deputy Speaker in charge on Wednesday, and Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia before making a ruling.

"I was not in the House at that time. I did not watch the proceedings on the monitor and was not aware of what had happened. But I have been informed about it. And I feel sad that this has been done by an MP," Wan Junaidi said.

"However, I can’t make a decision in haste. I will discuss it with Kiandee. But, from the information I received, it was indeed disappointing that such words were used," he said, adding he would also check the Hansard.

Earlier, Fong Po Kuan (DAP-Batu Gajah) said that Tajuddin had used sexually offensive language against Dr Mujahid when he (Mujahid) was debating a motion tabled by Teo Nie Ching (DAP-Serdang).

"Pasir Salak has always been using harsh words. Yesterday (Wednesday), he insulted another race. And then, he used words which berbau lucah (have sexual connotations). How can we let him repeatedly tarnish the (reputation of) Parliament? Stern action must be taken against him," said Fong.

"Why does he continuously insult the Dewan and the MPs and gets away scot-free? Please make a decision to protect the good name of the Dewan."

Fong was supported by M. Kulasegaran (DAP-Ipoh Barat), who called for Tajuddin to be suspended from the Dewan under Article 26(1)(h) of the Standing Order.

He said if action was not taken against Tajuddin, the House would be practising double standards because when "Gobind Singh Deo (DAP-Puchong) used disrespectful words and he was thrown out," Kulasegaran said.

Chong Chieng Jen (DAP-Bandar Kuching) said he witnessed the incident on Wednesday and saw Kiandee "shaking his head in disgust".

"What Tajuddin did was humiliating."

Datuk Seri Wilfred Bumburing (BN-Tuaran), who supported the call, said BN MPs also viewed the matter seriously. As a long-term MP, he felt the MP must be of a "higher standard" and uphold their dignity.

The episode unfolded on Wednesday during a motion to dock RM10 from Education Minister Datuk Seri Hishamuddin Hussein’s salary when it turned into a shouting match with Tajuddin calling Kulasegaran "k*****".

Opposition MPs demanded Tajuddin immediately withdraw the derogatory term, with Azmin Ali (PKR-Gombak) protesting to Kiandee that Tajuddin was up to his offensive name-calling tricks again and deserved a strong telling off. Kiandee agreed and asked Tajuddin to withdraw his inflammatory word.

"I don’t want to. Why is he (Kulasegaran) allowed to say anything he wants? He is the one who’s kurang ajar (uncouth)," said the unfazed Tajuddin, which earned him a reprimand from Kiandee and a rebuke from Datuk Muhammad Aziz (BN-Sri Gading).

Tajuddin withdrew the derogatory word he hurled at Kulasegaran but the peace was only momentary.

A short while later, while Azmin was following-up on the RM10 ringgit motion against Hishammuddin, Tajuddin sprang to his feet and interjected Azmin’s criticism as biol (stupid).

Azmin blurted out his annoyance: "This is too much. If it is only once or twice, it is forgivable, but everytime he opens his mouth, he has no respect for anyone."

After prompting Kiandee to order a withdrawal, Tajuddin retracted but showed no remorse.

"OK la, the good, smart... and interesting YB Gombak. I withdraw the word biol," he said.

The altercations overshadowed the sexual innuendoes he earlier uttered while Dr Mujahid was speaking.

This had not escaped Yong’s attention as she yesterday expressed her disgust with Tajuddin’s suggestive remarks.

"His actions have affected the name of Parliament. Before this, he had used abusive words and this had hurt the people's sentiment. Are you going to allow him to repeatedly abuse the sanctity of Parliament?" she asked.

During the entire speech by Dr Mujahid, Tajuddin kept interrupting to be allowed to interject, uttering remarks like masuk, tak masuk lagi, tak bagi masuk, main tepi saja, bila nak keluar air dia!

And Dr Mujahid, innocently kept saying tunggulah, nantilah and sabar lah, belum lagi.

Some 'isms' to brighten up the day

Malay Mail (25/6/08): Proceedings in the House yesterday were mostly overshadowed by what was happening outside at the lobby or, rather, what was not happening (see accompanying analysis), but Members were unfazed at Question Time since the cameras were rolling anyway.

Khairy Jamaluddin (BNRembau), fresh from his scrape the day before, rose on a question of corruption to rail against the Selangor government.

“Lord Acton said power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” he began. “My question is: What is the result of the Anti-Corruption Agency’s (ACA) investigation into the corruption scandal involving the Selangor Menteri Besar? “Is this good governance? And what makes matters worse is the fact that the officer being investigated was suspended for two months yesterday, and has since resigned because he has no faith in the Menteri Besar.” Amidst thumping on the government benches, the words “ECM Libra” and “Avenue Capital ” issued from somewhere in the vicinity of Datuk Ibrahim Ali (Ind-Pasir Mas) and rang throughout the House.

(In 2005, Khairy was involved in a controversial merger of financial houses ECM Libra Capital Bhd and Avenue Capital Resources Bhd a government- linked company - but was cleared of any wrongdoing by the Public Accounts Committee on Aug 10 last year. On Aug 12, Khairy disposed of his interest in ECM Libra, but his name is still frequently mentioned in connection with that issue.) Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim (PKR-Bandar Tun Razak) was present in the House yesterday but responded to Khairy’s attack with a shrug, probably for the better since he has proven himself barely capable of stuttering his speeches in the House.

Khairy then had to give way to Datuk Seri Mohd Nazri Aziz (BN-Padang Rengas) who provided a perfunctory answer on behalf of the Prime Minister that proved to be of no account.

Things livened up considerably, however, when Khalid Abd Samad (Pas-Shah Alam) rose on a point of order after Question Time ended.

Referring to his speech the previous day, in which Khalid said Petronas was being subsidised by the people, the first term parliamentarian reported that he had since been censured by Information Minister Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek (BNKemaman).

“The minister says that I made a traitorous statement.

In my speech yesterday (debating his brother’s motion on the price increases) it appears that my proposals were interpreted as an attempt to betray our national interests and to hand over our natural resources to foreign oil companies.

“This is a ‘tipuisme’ and ‘keliruisme’ (‘cheatism’ and ‘confusionism’).

‘Isms’ championed by the Barisan Nasional,” he declared, ridiculing the pseudo-intellectual habit of adding “isms” to every other word.

Barisan members, to their credit, began shouting wildly and matters went swiftly out of control despite Deputy Speaker Datuk Wan Junaidi Tuanku Ja’afar’s impassioned speech, just moments before, for better Parliamentary standards.

Once order resumed, the House settled to debate various sleep-inducing Bills (the most interesting one, dealing with revisions to judicial pensions, was postponed).

At lunch, however, MPs became disconcerted by the lack of media attention given to them outside the chamber. A delegation of Kuala Lumpur MPs trotted up to the Media Centre, only to discover that the Press boycott included them as well.

Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Dr Ng Yen Yen (BN-Raub) also sent her staff to the Press room to determine why no one was interested in her, and the Information Ministry was forced to postpone the launch of its website “to a date yet to be determined”. (U En-Ng )

Lobby ban leads to boycott

Malay Mail (25/6/08): Lobby correspondents were yesterday appalled by Parliamentary officials’ decision to bar journalists from the lobby, which has been for decades one of the chief points of contact between the Third and Fourth Estates.

The move comes on the heels of an order, issued on June 20, to limit Press representation to five each per agency.

Citing concerns about “chaos ”, Deputy Speaker Datuk Wan Junaidi Tuanku Ja’afar told an outraged Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) that the decision to remove the Press from the lobby was reached by a consensus of himself, Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia and Deputy Speaker Ronald Kiandee.

“I visited the House of Commons (in London) and never once witnessed the same kind of chaos there,” he said, “and likewise (there was no disorder) when I attended Congress in the United States, the Western Australian Parliament in Perth, and the Federal Australian Parliament in Canberra." The government backbench thumped their support, and several MPs, notably Datuk Lilah Yassin (BN-Jempol) and Datuk Dr Mohd Shahrom Osman (BN-Lipis) shouted for Lim to sit down and not waste the House’s time with what they apparently considered to be a trivial matter.

Within minutes, however, the Barisan backbench provided journalists in the chamber a startling display of Parliamentary conduct when mayhem broke out during a point of order raised by Khalid Abdul Samad (Pas-Shah Alam).

Datuk Tajuddin Abdul Rahman (BN-Pasir Salak), responding to jibes from N. Gobalakrishnan (PKR-Padang Serai), shouted repeatedly at the latter to “go drink toddy” - a remark that in the last sitting occasioned some humour, but today had decidedly confrontational overtones.

Wan Junaidi was unable to impose within the House the order he would have liked to see outside in the lobby, and MPs spent considerable time hurling insults at each other in a display of decorum very far from the idea of a “first-world parliament” that has lately been bandied about.

Given the lobby ban, the Press ordered a general boycott of all corridor reportage -- such as lobby correspondence had become -- and victims of the voluntary action included Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and other ministers, as well as opposition MPs.

Clearly, no one expected an immediate retaliation from the parliamentary correspondents: Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohd Nazri Aziz described himself as a mere intermediary in the matter between parliamentary authorities and journalists.

Some MPs, however, would have none of it. A few minutes before the House reconvened after lunch, 15 members of the Barisan Backbenchers Club, led by Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin (BN-Kinabatangan), removed the cordon around the lobby.

Bung Mokhar’s reasoning was thus: Parliamentary administrative authorities had not informed backbenchers of the Press restrictions, and the Sabah MP said he saw no reason now to inform the same authorities of the barrier’s removal.

As a matter of principle, however, the Press still refused to cross the now imaginary boundary. Besides, an official decision from the authorities was still wanting.

Minutes later in the House, Pandikar Amin got himself into a long and heated argument with Karpal Singh (DAPBukit Gelugor), Fong Po Kuan (DAP-Batu Gajah) and others who sought an explanation for the controversy.

Ignoring the issue of the cordon, Pandikar Amin claimed that media agencies were not instructed to limit their representation in Parliament, and that letters had been sent to editors merely to seek their views on the matter.

He also cited security issues and the difficulty security staff apparently had in establishing the identity of journalists in spite of mandatory identification tags issued by the Information Department, and strict procedures on entering the building.

These reasons may have satisfied Members in the House, who subsided back into a dry debate of a Bill to amend the Labuan Offshore Financial Services Authority Act.

The question of principle, however, remained: Parliamentary authorities had cited a desire to impose “first-world parliamentary standards” that required an end to the “chaos” of reporters asking difficult questions of Ministers and parliamentarians.

This concern is both misguided as well as inimical to the democratic practices of the same first-world parliament we are trying so desperately to achieve and, if the conduct of MPs in debate yesterday morning was any measure, standards of conduct ought first to be observed within the House, rather than in the lobby.

Parliamentary reportage exists not merely to repeat the carefully vetted official statements of our leaders, but also to evaluate and comment on their views in the interest of the public; that much should be obvious to even the least politically astute.

Access to elected representatives for this purpose is a fundamental necessity to any informed democracy, and while news agencies can certainly request statements from Ministries and the offices of other politicians, access to public information, and the opinions of government and opposition leaders, is a fundamental duty, as well as the basic right, of every journalist. (U En Ng)

Barisan MPs get wake-up call

Malay Mail (29/5/08): The first rumblings of a two-party parliamentary democracy were heard in the House yesterday when the MPs, sitting as a committee, divided unexpectedly during a vote on the debate on the Supplementary Supply Bill.

Made complacent perhaps by its long possession of the majority, the government had undoubtedly expected voting to proceed in the fashion of a rubber stamp — and indeed, members had been voting orally without much ado for most of the morning.

Also, noses on both sides were still bloody from the controversy of the previous day, and they were worn down badly by the spate of late-night sittings caused by the over-indulgence in speeches, which left little time for the Bills.

With no Question Time, the morning was, in a word, dull. Both sides were in a state of heavy-lidded lethargy, save for the immaculately groomed and annoyingly alert Pas frontbench, which seemed intent on pursuing all its questions from the perspective of forensic accounting — laudable, but for the most part rather dull.

After a few procedural votes, however, it became clear that the opposition voices were drowning out the government. The various chairmen (as the Speaker and his deputies are called during committee sittings) seemed content all the same, and went about their business without much thought.

“More voices agree,” chairman Datuk Ronald Kiandee (the Deputy Speaker) said each t ime. The voi ces seemed evenly matched, however, and members on both sides laughed at what they considered a fine lark.

Tian Chua (PKR-Batu), however , was awake enough to realise that a Supplementary Supply Bill was a serious enough matter (“Supply” being synonymous with “Budget”) and rose to call for a division by which members’ votes are registered individually.

Should the opposition have defeated the Bill, or even a part of it, the government would have been prevented from funding whatever branch of the civil service that needed the money — and at least one Commonwealth government, the Labour government of Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, was dismissed in this way in 1975.

Sadly, Tian Chua’s colleagues either didn’t understand what he was playing at, or they were too new to Parliament; and in the ensuing half-hearted booing from the government backbench, the activist MP sat down again.

By this time, however, opposition Chief Whip Azmin Ali (PKR-Gombak) sensed something amiss, and finally presented a properly formed motion to divide. Finding the necessary support of 15 members, the chairman complied.

The bell rang. Government MPs lounging about outside came bounding in like rabbits.

Others waddled. Most were confused. Red faced and flustered, MCA ministers Datuk Liow Tiong Lai (BN-Bentong) and Datuk Ng Yen Yen (BN-Raub) were the first to be jeered at for arriving late.

Unfortunately, worse was to follow. Counting was well under way when the prime minister rushed into the House. He was outdone by his deputy some long minutes later — apparently after the count — and there was a great deal of whooping from the other side, prompting inane calls of “phantom votes” from Datuk Shamsul Anwar Nasarah (BN-Lenggeng).

In the event, the government won with 92 votes versus 60 against (there was one abstention, that of Datuk Ibrahim Ali, Ind- Pasir Mas, who probably felt that the division wasn’t important enough to warrant his attention).

While government MPs thumped their tables in triumph, the day’s lesson will remain etched in their memories for some time to come. The government Chief Whip, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak (BN-Pekan), himself not the best example of discipline, may now have to implement the three-line system to compel members’ attendance.

Or, if his duties prevent him, he should perhaps consider ceding that authority to Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz (BN-Padang Renggas) who, as de facto minister of Parliament, is a much better enforcer of party discipline.

Oratorial slugfest in the House

Malay Mail (28/5/08): Some senior members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association attended Question Time yesterday, and were, as a result, treated to a display of oratorical fisticuffs that threw the House into complete mayhem.

Nasir Zakaria (Pas-Padang Terap) got things moving with a question to Deputy Higher Education Minister Datuk Idris Harun (BN-Tangga Batu) about why a certain university vice-chancellor’s contract had been reduced to six months from three years.

Idris evaded the question with a long exposition on university rankings and an appeal to what he called the “Time Highway, err, no.

The Time Higher Education Supplement.” His incessant dissembling put Nasir in a frenzy, and the normally taciturn Nasir rose to interrupt.

For reasons best known to himself, Idris then chose to respond with something sounding like “okka”, which most in the House (including Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia) could not make out with any certainty.

Not so N. Gobalakrishnan (PKR-Padang Serai), who rose with M. Kulasegaran (DAPIpoh Barat) to demand an immediate retraction. Idris, however, maintained that the word was “okkarengge”, the Tamil expression for “kindly be seated”.

Gobalakrishnan maintained it was something else entirely — a gutter vulgarity, in fact — and responded with fury.

The usual harpy-screeching then erupted on both sides, prompting Pandikar Amin’s acid remark that there were three minutes left of the live telecast.

But Gobalakrishnan’s rage had reached boiling-point by then, rendering him deaf and blind to the noble efforts of Opposition frontbencher Datuk Abdul Halim Abdul Rahman (Pas-Pengkalan Chepa) to rescue the proceedings.

The impetuous blunderer would not be dissuaded from his ill-advised personal crusade to bring justice to the House. Faced with an increasing number of government backbenchers rising to meet his ranting, and inspired perhaps by a prepubescent yearning for attention, the first-term MP left his seat and walked up to Pandikar to whisper in his ear.

Tramping up with swaying arms, he failed to see his leader Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail (PKR-Permatang Pauh) waving frantically at him to abandon his Perry Mason theatrics, and an outraged Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin (BN-Kinabatangan)- for once with Parliamentary rule of order on his side - rose to demand Gobalakrishnan’s immediate suspension from the House.

“An incident such as this has never occurred here,” he declared.

“And this is not a House of ruffians. I ask that my honourable friends support me.” The entire Government bench rose immediately amidst some high-pitched hooting, and order was reimposed only when PKR Chief Whip Mohd Azmin Ali (PKRGombak) restored a measure of dignity to his party by obliging his junior to apologise.

Gobalakrishnan duly complied, admitting to being unaware of the rules of the House. Later in the lobby, however, he maintained that he saw nothing reprehensible about his conduct, and that Pandikar Amin and he enjoyed the relationship of a “father and son”.

With the end of that episode, members generally lost whatever fire they had. Bung Mokhtar, in an uncharacteristic demonstration of environmentalist speechifying, rose during the debate on the Supplementary Supply Bill to champion the cause of recycling.

Things returned to “normal” briefly late in the day when Datuk Tajuddin Abdul Rahman (BN-Pasir Salak) launched a surprise attack on de facto Law Minister Senator Datuk Mohd Zaid Ibrahim, who named him last Saturday as among the government MPs who openly disagreed with the Prime Minister.

Tajuddin said he had been a Barisan supporter for over three decades, and accused Zaid in turn of going on a holiday abroad during the recent general elections.

He then spoilt the effect he was having by saying: “I would have told him this in the morning when he was here, but then he would have replied, wouldn’t he? Ha-ha.” (U-En Ng)

Bumbling minister riles them

Malay Mail (27/5/08): Questions must be asked about the competence of Deputy Health Minister Datuk Dr Latiff Ahmad ( BN-Mersing) during Question Time, even if he has had to face up alone and unaided to an increasingly hostile Opposition in the absence of his Minister.

Last week the diminutive bumbler was charged with being unprofessional for failing utterly to provide an adequate response to the shortage of medical specialists in the country.

Yesterday, with what can only be described as reckless ineptitude, he managed single-handedly to offend the entire medical profession in half a sentence.

Replying to a question from Dr Mohd Hayati Osman (Pas -Pendang) , Latiff observed that doctors had a “licence to heal, and a licence to kill”. Members immediately pounced on the utterly unnecessary pronouncement, sensing that it served no purpose other than to drag Latiff further into disrepute.

Dr Mohd Hatta Ramli (Pas-Kuala Krai) and Dr Lo’ Lo’ Mohd Ghazali (Pas- Titiwangsa), both medical doctors, rose to demand a retraction, but Latiff refused, thinking perhaps that he needed to demonstrate the strength of his convictions to his colleagues.

These convictions swiftly turned to the dumb refusal of a rabbit mesmerised by the headlights of an oncoming lorry, and the Opposition made a big deal of running the honourable gentleman over. In the sudden eruption of points of order, Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia provided Latiff an exit: Promise not to repeat it, and be done.

Latiff, however, was at the moment inspired by a distant Muse unknown to the rest of us, and chose to prevaricate. “I intended no malice,” he said, to a wave of boos and reminders of the Hippocratic Oath.

Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) then raised his rule book for the coup de grâce: Retract the remark, or be sent down for 10 days, or, alternatively, face the wrath of the Committee of Privileges.

Still the Deputy Minister tried with increasing desperation to wriggle out of the unexpected trap of his own making. At length, the verbose Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad (Pas-Kuala Selangor) obtained the floor and nearly upset his bench’s momentum with a rambling account about his teaching days in the field of pharmacology.

Pandikar Amin, realising from bitter experience that Dzulkifli’s point lay somewhere in the distant and unforeseeable future, cut the matter short by forcing Latiff’s retraction.

Finally the Deputy Minister relented, by which time the House had spent 30 minutes debating this urgent matter of obvious national importance.

Later in the day, the House debated a procedural Bill from the Finance Ministry that sought, amongst others, to place the Uni t y and National Integration Department (in the Prime Minister’s Department ) within the Culture, Arts and Heritage Ministry.

This prompted a long series of speeches from both sides about both unity and heritage, and two government backbenchers (Dr Mohd Puad Zarkashi, BN-Batu Pahat, and Hamim Samuri, BN-Ledang) rose to condemn Malaysia’s performance in its dispute with Singapore over Pulau Batu Putih as an outright loss and a demonstration of our failure to protect our heritage.

Luckily for Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Utama Dr Rais Yatim (BN-Jelebu), he was absent during the debate and entered the House just as the matter was being put to vote.

(Proceeding s in the House, incidentally, are broadcast on televisions in the Lobby.) Also in the same debate, Datuk Tajuddin Abdul Rahman (BN-Pasir Salak) raised eyebrows on both sides with an impassioned speech about national unity.

The fiery nationalist defended the idea that Malaysians of all races are, as a rule, much closer to each other than politicians are prepared to say.

“We all have friends of other races,” he said, annoyed that he had to state the patently obvious.

“Even in my place, my children have Chinese friends and they sleep over all the time. Is there a problem? No. It’s only politicians who make an issue of it.” The House was stunned, and Tajuddin gracefully resumed his seat. (U-En Ng)

Party behind Pak Lah

Malay Mail (26/5/08):It was well past midnight at the 39th floor of the Umno headquarters on Thursday when top party leaders held a four-hour emergency meeting to discuss the sudden resignation by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad as Umno member and his call to Umno and BN members to resign and bring down the government.

While some Umno leaders were in a sombre mood, Umno president and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was relaxed and jovial. He deftly left it to his deputy Datuk Seri Najib Razak to handle the announcement, saying since the issues discussed involved him it was better Najib spoke.

During the seven-minute Press conference, Abdullah sat calm and relaxed. Taken together, it was hardly the picture of a man in deep trouble, whose government was tottering on the brink as political analysts were saying.

In fact, he was like a man with a heavy burden taken off his shoulders.

The debate behind closed doors had gone mostly his way. Although Umno leaders worried over the implications of Dr Mahathir’s dramatic resignation on the Umno grassroots, they were also worked up over the quandary their former leader had left them in.

“We had no problem standing firm behind Abdullah because doing what (Tun Dr) Mahathir is asking is sheer nonsense,” said a Supreme Council member. “It will plunge the country into chaos.

“We don’t accept his logic of how Umno and BN can remain strong against a united opposition by us resigning and becoming independent. It doesn’t masuk akal (make any sense).” The Supreme Council which accepted Dr Mahathir’s resignation decided it only ambil maklum, or takes note, of the resignation and hoped one day he would rejoin Umno.

Significantly the Supreme Council did not decide to woo Dr Mahathir back or set up a special committee to debate his reasons to quit as it had done when then deputy president Datuk (now Tun) Musa Hitam resigned in 1986.

Only Najib appears to hold out saying he will meet Dr Mahathir to discuss the resignation. For all intents and purposes, it appears Dr Mahathir’s resignation is final unless Umno sees dramatic upheavals, which seem unlikely.

Umno has a tradition of closing ranks behind leaders leaving in anger as in the case of Umno founder Datuk Onn Jaafar in 1951. Likewise Dr Mahathir’s departure will help Abdullah consolidate his position, purge the party of Mahathir loyalists and begin the long process to get Umno back on its feet. The party is preparing an Umno Rejuvenation Plan and a special meeting of the Supreme Council will be held to finalise details of the plan whose success or failure will make or break the party.

Dr Mahathir, however, remains a key player in Umno and the political stage. The increasingly racial overtones of his campaign are worrying many Malaysians who wonder how far he would go to exploit Malay fears of their political future.

Abdullah also has to contend with Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah trying to get to the political centre stage from the sidelines.

A more direct threat is the stratagems of senior vice-president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin who has come to a crossroad in his career.

With the Abdullah-Najib team set to be re-elected in December, Muhyiddin either goes for broke challenging either one of the incumbents or defends his vice-president’s post, a very unattractive proposition.

Either way the risks are very high but his increasingly hostile attitude towards Abdullah indicates he is preparing for high risk play.

On the outside, Abdullah has to grapple with the dangers from the Prime Minister-in-waiting Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim whose fre- quent claims to “have the numbers” to topple the government is unsettling.

Many in the DAP are opposed to Anwar’s moves to buy over BN parliamentarians, seeing it as immoral and unethical. Neither is Pas happy with it, seeing the whole exercise as “useless and entirely un-Islamic”.

Nevertheless, greed is a significant factor in politics and if skillfully exploited can produce results.

Abdullah, therefore, has a tough job ahead — keep Umno united, neutralise Dr Mahathir, head-off Razaleigh’s challenge, save the government from Anwar and carry out reforms, not to mention keeping food and fuel prices down.

Abdullah has one prized asset going for him —the power of incumbency, the power to stay in power. (Baradan Kuppusamy)

The new face of Pas

Malay Mail (14/5/08): Khalid Abdul Samad (Pas-Shah Alam) demonstrated to an agitated House yesterday that an intelligent, humane and cosmopolitan renaissance is now bearing fruit in the once hardline pro-Islamist party.

In his maiden speech deba t ing the mot ion of thanks on the Royal Address, the urbane opposition member launched an eloquent and devastating attack on the Barisan Nasional. He demolished in a few sentences what many on the government benches had worked hard to establish.

The other side seethed, and their discontent soon spilled over into outraged jeering. Datuk Tajuddin Abdul Rahman (BN-Pasir Salak), fast developing a disagreeable reputation for rudeness, attempted several times to interrupt with his usual method of growling closely into the microphone.

This came to nothing, however, for the Umno stalwart failed to remember being hobbled by Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia, who after lunch forbade interruptions in order to save time.

Tajuddin’s final defeat came in an example of supr eme bad t iming: Just as he ended his last growl above the Speaker’s objections, Khalid (who had carried on with his speech) reached his line: “Sayonara, Umno,” and delivered it with an impish wave that reduced Tajuddin to a sputtering mess.

Worse, however, was to come. Members went wild (or apoplectic, in the government’s case) when Khalid held up his frontbench colleague Lim Guan Eng (DAP-Bagan, and also chief minister of Penang), as a fine example of Islamic leadership.

“The chief mini s ter has repeatedly stated his intention to imitate the pattern of government of (the eighth-century Umayyad Cal iph) Umar Abdul Aziz, and I wish to say ‘shame on you’ to Umno for having failed, despite your Islam Hadhari rhetoric, to manifest the requisite leadership required of you by the Muslim community.

“I can only pray that this awareness shown by the chief minister will be emulated by all those within Umno.” The government had no answer to that, and the opposition was in an uproar of cheers. Indeed, if the BN does not act swiftly to check this new onslaught, Pas will swiftly render communal politics irrelevant in this country — putting an effective end to claims of championing sectarian interests that have fuelled our politics for the past half-century.

It was a fitting remembrance of the May 13 tragedy.

Khalid is, of course, the brother of Domestic Trade and Consumer Af fairs Minister Datuk Shahrir Samad. Yesterday, he was preceded on the floor by another member of an illustrious political family.

T he maiden speech of Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir (BN-Jerlun) was, however, on par with boiled cabbage. Why he chose this moment to entertain members with a seemingly interminable ramble about foreign direct investment in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos is anyone's guess, and MPs soon lost interest.

PKR frontbenchers were intent on their laptops.

Salahuddin Ayub (Pas- Kubang Kerian) used the lul l in proceedings to show off a new book to his friends along the row, and then scooted off to the back where a lonely Ibrahim Ali (Ind-Pasir Mas) seemed to want company. Even opposition frontbencher Chong Eng (DAP-Bukit Mertajam) fell asleep.

Mukhriz’s speech, and its delivery, will inevitably be compared with that of his arch-rival Khairy Jamaluddin (BN-Rembau) who was savaged by the opposition on Monday.

While Khairy may have lost some points, he could in no way have been said to have reduced the House to a state of blank-eyed catatonia. (U En Ng)

A precedent for converts

Malay Mail (9/5/08): Only last week both BN and Pas members of Parliament had argued that once you enter Islam there is no turning back, not just for born Muslims, but also for converts.

But a landmark decision in Penang yesterday by the Syariah High Court put paid to the once-in-no exit argument by allowing a Muslim convert, Siti Fatimah Tan Abdullah, to return to Buddhism and be her former self, Tan Ean Hung.

Tan, 39, had filed an application to renounce Islam at the court in May 2006, saying she converted to Islam in July 1998 to marry Iranian Ferdoun Ashanian in 1999.

Unfortunately, the marriage did not work out and Ferdoun left her a few months later.

“I stopped practising Islam thereafter,” she said in her affidavit.

She also had no knowledge of Ferdoun’s whereabouts.

The court accepted her argument that she had reverted to being Tan Ean Hung and practised Buddhism and prayed to deities like Tua Pek Kong, Kuan Yin and Thi Kong soon after Ferdoun left her.

While many converts in a similar predicament see the decision as one solution to their “neither here nor there” plight, others are cautious saying the remedy for them is not through the Syariah court but with the civil courts upholding the constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Generally, however, the decision sets a precedent that could ease the fears of non-Muslims that Islam erodes their secular rights.

“This a landmark decision and gives relief to Tan,” said lawyer A. Sivanesan, who is handling the case of S.

Kaliammah, the wife who fought the Federal Territory Islamic Department for custody of the body of her husband, Everest climber M.

Moorthy, and lost.

“However, non-Muslims should not be complacent with this decision.

“The real remedy for them is for the civil court to bravely uphold constitutional guarantees,” said Sivanesan, who is now a Perak State Exco member.

“If the Syariah High Court can make a decision based on facts, why is the civil court just washing their hands off the issue?” Human rights lawyer Haris Ibrahim, who has handled many cases involving religious conversions and battles for custody of children and properties, is also cautious, saying the decision is not a guarantee in law.

“The guarantee is Article 11 (1) of the Constitution,” Harris said, citing the article that says every citizen has a right to profess and practise his religion.

“Non-Muslims should not rejoice because it is legally untenable for them to seek redress through the Syariah courts which is specific for Muslims only,” he said.

The Federal Court, called upon to defend Article 11 (1) in the Lina Joy case last year where a Muslim woman had converted to Christianity and wanted the conversion recognised, had rejected her appeal, ruling a Muslim cannot leave the faith.

A rising number of disputes about religious conversions have sparked anxiety among non-Muslims and it was one issue that persuaded many non-Malays to vote opposition in the March 8 general election.

Ironically the election also saw non-Malays for the first time backing Pas, an avowedly Muslim party, ensuring the party won handsomely.

Currently non-Muslims, especially Indians, are joining en masse the party’s Indian clubs that are sprouting up across the country.

The non-Muslims’ close proximity with Islam through Pas, a party they had once feared, is expected to influence their view of Islam and help inter-ethnic rapprochement and even problem-free conversions, over time. (Baradan Kuppusamy)