Govt to spend RM 40 Billion in Subsidies this year.
"It is true for every US$1 increase in the price there is a net inflow"
CYBERJAYA, April 17 — Second Finance Minister Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop said today the government will spend RM40 billion in total subsidies this year.
"It will be more, the subsidy will be RM40 billion or higher," he said, with the fuel subsidy accounting for RM18 billion.
"The fuel subsidy that we take out from the budget and give to the (oil) companies and the people will be RM18 billion compared to RM7 billion or RM8 billion last year. That doesn't include Petronas (and) foregone tax," he told reporters after the symbolic handing over of keys to owners of Biz Avenue 1, NeoCyber in Cyberjaya.
On whether the current increase in oil prices benefit the country on balance, Nor Mohamed said: "It is true for every US$1 increase in the price there is a net inflow. It is certain that we will earn more in net terms, but that is only looking at the crude oil side.
"In the longer term, there is the effect of high oil prices on recession in other countries and this in turn has a negative effect on our exports. Although we are diversified, we still export to some developing countries. In the long run, it is not going to be very positive."
Therefore, he said, the government is looking at it on a longer term basis and "we wish that the prices will be more stable." — Bernama
Point to Ponder by Malaysia Blogger
(Malaysia Alternative Voices - The followings were only the personal opinion of the author of Malaysia Alternative Voices, reader are advised to use their own judgement and intelligent to analysis the following comment and notes highlighted)
To a lot of common people, the subsidies of RM 18 Billion is a lot of money but then
(1) Malaysia is an Oil Production Country
- meaning is the world Oil Price increases, Malaysia net income from the sales of oil will also increase. This is also acknowledged by Second Finance Minister Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop that "It is true for every US$1 increase in the price there is a net inflow"
(2) The subsidies from Govt to be enjoyed by the people (Rakyat) is only a small portion from Petronas profit or Taxes paid by Petronas to the Government of Malaysia
2007 March - Petronas Financial Report
Petronas Profit Before Tax = RM 76.3 Billion
Net Profit = RM 46.4 Billion
Therefore
Taxes alone from Petronas = RM 29.9 Billion
Refering to the following sources
http://www.petronas.com.my/internet/corp/centralrep2.nsf/f0d5fd0d9c25fbdd48256ae90025ee04/2b3caac313db597148256be60015256c/$FILE/Financial_highlights_FY2007.pdf
http://www.petronas.com.my/internet/corp/centralrep2.nsf/Src/WebDoc*Investor+Relations+Default/?Open
What do these means
The RM18 Billion of fuel subsidies is only 23.6% of Petronas Profit before Tax
or
The RM18 Billion of fuel subsidies is only 38.8% of Petronas Net Profit
Even if the Government claim that Petronas Profit does not belong to the Government, taxation paid by Petronas alone amount to RM 29.9 Billion which is much more that what Government is subsidising for the People (Rakyat)
So why the Government keep on saying that with Government Subsidy on fuel, the Country is going to go bankcrupt?
So why is the government saying there is not enough money for development if the government subsidies for fuel? It is only a small portion for the Tax received by the Government from only 1 companies in Malaysia.
If the WORLD FUEL PRICES INCREASE, petronas REVENUE will then INCREASE resulting HIGHER PROFIT for Petronas and HIGHER TAXES receiveable by the government. Thus isn't it reasonable that FUEL PRICES INCREASE, SUBSIDIES SHOULD INCREASE ?
The next BIG QUESTION?
WHY IS OUR PETROL PRICE KEEP ON INCREASING WHEN THE WORLD FUEL PRICE INCREASES???
Malaysia Blogger
Malaysia Alternative Voices
Friday, 18 April 2008
Thursday, 17 April 2008
Mahathir vs the judges (1988 Crisis - What Really Happened)
Mahathir versus the judges
THE 1988 Malaysian constitutional crisis began with a divisive Umno election the year before and ended with the suspension and the eventual removal of the Lord President of the Supreme Court, Tun Salleh Abas, from his seat.
The Supreme Court in the years leading up to 1988 had issued several rulings that irritated the government of then premier Mahathir Mohamad (left), who had narrowly won re-election as Umno president in the bitterly fought poll.
Among other things, a judge had declared Umno 'an unlawful society' in a case brought by disgruntled losing party members.
The last straw for Tun Dr Mahathir came when the Supreme Court ordered the release of prominent opposition leader Karpal Singh from detention under the Internal Security Act.
The premier submitted several constitutional amendments to Parliament, divesting the courts of the 'judicial power of the Federation' and giving them only such powers as Parliament might grant them. He also lambasted the judiciary for their interference.
Tun Salleh convened a meeting of all 20 judges from the Supreme and High Courts in Kuala Lumpur where they agreed not to publicly reply to Tun Dr Mahathir's criticisms. Instead, they wrote a confidential letter to the King and the Malay rulers, expressing their grievances.
The Lord President was subsequently hauled before a tribunal convened by the premier on the grounds of misconduct. Five judges of the Supreme Court who granted him a temporary order against the tribunal were also suspended.
The crisis ended with the sacking of Tun Salleh along with two of the five judges.
THE 1988 Malaysian constitutional crisis began with a divisive Umno election the year before and ended with the suspension and the eventual removal of the Lord President of the Supreme Court, Tun Salleh Abas, from his seat.
The Supreme Court in the years leading up to 1988 had issued several rulings that irritated the government of then premier Mahathir Mohamad (left), who had narrowly won re-election as Umno president in the bitterly fought poll.
Among other things, a judge had declared Umno 'an unlawful society' in a case brought by disgruntled losing party members.
The last straw for Tun Dr Mahathir came when the Supreme Court ordered the release of prominent opposition leader Karpal Singh from detention under the Internal Security Act.
The premier submitted several constitutional amendments to Parliament, divesting the courts of the 'judicial power of the Federation' and giving them only such powers as Parliament might grant them. He also lambasted the judiciary for their interference.
Tun Salleh convened a meeting of all 20 judges from the Supreme and High Courts in Kuala Lumpur where they agreed not to publicly reply to Tun Dr Mahathir's criticisms. Instead, they wrote a confidential letter to the King and the Malay rulers, expressing their grievances.
The Lord President was subsequently hauled before a tribunal convened by the premier on the grounds of misconduct. Five judges of the Supreme Court who granted him a temporary order against the tribunal were also suspended.
The crisis ended with the sacking of Tun Salleh along with two of the five judges.
Badawi : Judicial reforms today & Regret to sacked Judges
Abdullah to unveil judicial reforms today
Thursday, 17 April 2008 06:41am
Extracted from
The Straits Times, Singapore by Leslie Lopez, South-east Asia Correspondent
• Judicial Commission to appoint judges
• Greater independence for the judiciary
• Financial compensation to sacked judges
• Expression of regret by PM Abdullah
FIGHTING back stiff opposition from his own Cabinet and administration, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is set to unveil major reforms to the country's much-maligned judiciary.
The reforms will include the setting up of a Judicial Commission that will be responsible for the selection and the promotion of judges. It will also feature changes to the Federal Constitution that will restore greater independence to the judiciary, senior government officials and lawyers said.
The reform agenda, which will be announced at a special dinner hosted jointly by the government and the country's Bar Council tonight, will also see Datuk Seri Abdullah make an expression of regret over the 1988 judicial saga that led to the sacking of the country's top judge.
The government's effort to make amends to the jurists disgraced by the events in 1988 will also include some form of financial compensation, one senior government official involved in the judicial reform plan told The Straits Times on condition of anonymity.'
The amounts are being worked out,' he said without elaborating. Malaysia's once-robust judiciary was dealt a severe blow when it clashed with former premier Mahathir Mohamad in the late 1980s.
That face-off led to the suspension of six Supreme Court judges and the subsequent removal of three of them, including the head of the judiciary at the time, Tun Salleh Abas.
The sackings damaged the integrity of the judiciary, which came under fresh attack again 10 years later during the controversial corruption trials of former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim.
Shortly after taking office in November 2003, Datuk Seri Abdullah declared that he would push for reforms in the judiciary.
But those efforts were often stymied by his own Cabinet colleagues, who served under Tun Dr Mahathir and were not keen on reforms that could embarrass the former premier, senior government officials and lawyers say.
Even the Prime Minister's move to establish a Royal Commission late last year to investigate a damning video-recording that implicated a prominent lawyer allegedly attempting to broker the promotion of judges was privately criticised by senior members of his own ruling United Malays National Organisation Party.
But last month's stunning election results, which saw the ruling Barisan Nasional lose its two-thirds majority and control of five states, changed everything, close aides of Datuk Seri Abdullah say.
The Prime Minister signalled that judicial reform was his key priority when he appointed prominent lawyer Datuk Zaid Ibrahim to his new Cabinet to push his agenda.
Lawyers and government officials credit Datuk Zaid for convincing the government to bring closure to the controversial events in 1988 and to establish a more transparent system of selecting and promoting judges.
Under the current practice, the country's Chief Judge recommends candidates to the Prime Minister and in the case of senior judicial appointments, the Chief Judge's recommendation must by approved by the Conference of Rulers.
But Datuk Zaid had to fight hard during Cabinet meetings, say senior government officials. There is also some unease among senior judges over Datuk Seri Abdullah's efforts.
Still, lawyers say that tonight's event could boost his battered public standing.
Sources say that the Prime Minister insisted that the six judges who were disgraced by the events in 1988 be present at the dinner where he will deliver a short address titled Delivering Justice, Renewing Trust.
Government officials say that former chief judge Tun Salleh Abas, his three other colleagues in the Supreme Court at the time - Datuk George Seah, Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin and Tan Sri Wan Hamzah - have confirmed their attendance.
The two other Supreme Court jurists - the late Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman and the late Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader - will be represented by their families, the government officials say.
Bar Council sources say that opposition leader Datin Seri Wan Azizah Wan Ibrahim, who is Datuk Seri Anwar's wife, and Mr Lim Kit Siang of the Democratic Action Party, will also attend tonight's event.'
We hope this will bring closure to the 1988 judicial crisis,' said a senior government official involved in the judicial reform plan.
But to some Malaysians it may not be enough.'
An apology or expression of regret would be sweeping everything that happened 20 years ago under the carpet,' said Datuk V. C. George, a former Court of Appeal jurist. 'We need an investigation into the events of 1988 and to expose the conspiracy and its conspirators.'
TIME TO SHOW LEADERSHIP'
There are more important things than private peeves and settling scores. Neither the brewing crisis over soaring food prices nor other major issues are going to wait for Umno to put its own house in order. Now is the time for the grand old party to move on, do the things its leaders have promised and show that it still has what it takes to lead the nation.'MALAYSIA'S NEW STRAITS TIMES in a front-page editorial yesterday
Thursday, 17 April 2008 06:41am
Extracted from
The Straits Times, Singapore by Leslie Lopez, South-east Asia Correspondent
• Judicial Commission to appoint judges
• Greater independence for the judiciary
• Financial compensation to sacked judges
• Expression of regret by PM Abdullah
FIGHTING back stiff opposition from his own Cabinet and administration, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is set to unveil major reforms to the country's much-maligned judiciary.
The reforms will include the setting up of a Judicial Commission that will be responsible for the selection and the promotion of judges. It will also feature changes to the Federal Constitution that will restore greater independence to the judiciary, senior government officials and lawyers said.
The reform agenda, which will be announced at a special dinner hosted jointly by the government and the country's Bar Council tonight, will also see Datuk Seri Abdullah make an expression of regret over the 1988 judicial saga that led to the sacking of the country's top judge.
The government's effort to make amends to the jurists disgraced by the events in 1988 will also include some form of financial compensation, one senior government official involved in the judicial reform plan told The Straits Times on condition of anonymity.'
The amounts are being worked out,' he said without elaborating. Malaysia's once-robust judiciary was dealt a severe blow when it clashed with former premier Mahathir Mohamad in the late 1980s.
That face-off led to the suspension of six Supreme Court judges and the subsequent removal of three of them, including the head of the judiciary at the time, Tun Salleh Abas.
The sackings damaged the integrity of the judiciary, which came under fresh attack again 10 years later during the controversial corruption trials of former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim.
Shortly after taking office in November 2003, Datuk Seri Abdullah declared that he would push for reforms in the judiciary.
But those efforts were often stymied by his own Cabinet colleagues, who served under Tun Dr Mahathir and were not keen on reforms that could embarrass the former premier, senior government officials and lawyers say.
Even the Prime Minister's move to establish a Royal Commission late last year to investigate a damning video-recording that implicated a prominent lawyer allegedly attempting to broker the promotion of judges was privately criticised by senior members of his own ruling United Malays National Organisation Party.
But last month's stunning election results, which saw the ruling Barisan Nasional lose its two-thirds majority and control of five states, changed everything, close aides of Datuk Seri Abdullah say.
The Prime Minister signalled that judicial reform was his key priority when he appointed prominent lawyer Datuk Zaid Ibrahim to his new Cabinet to push his agenda.
Lawyers and government officials credit Datuk Zaid for convincing the government to bring closure to the controversial events in 1988 and to establish a more transparent system of selecting and promoting judges.
Under the current practice, the country's Chief Judge recommends candidates to the Prime Minister and in the case of senior judicial appointments, the Chief Judge's recommendation must by approved by the Conference of Rulers.
But Datuk Zaid had to fight hard during Cabinet meetings, say senior government officials. There is also some unease among senior judges over Datuk Seri Abdullah's efforts.
Still, lawyers say that tonight's event could boost his battered public standing.
Sources say that the Prime Minister insisted that the six judges who were disgraced by the events in 1988 be present at the dinner where he will deliver a short address titled Delivering Justice, Renewing Trust.
Government officials say that former chief judge Tun Salleh Abas, his three other colleagues in the Supreme Court at the time - Datuk George Seah, Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin and Tan Sri Wan Hamzah - have confirmed their attendance.
The two other Supreme Court jurists - the late Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman and the late Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader - will be represented by their families, the government officials say.
Bar Council sources say that opposition leader Datin Seri Wan Azizah Wan Ibrahim, who is Datuk Seri Anwar's wife, and Mr Lim Kit Siang of the Democratic Action Party, will also attend tonight's event.'
We hope this will bring closure to the 1988 judicial crisis,' said a senior government official involved in the judicial reform plan.
But to some Malaysians it may not be enough.'
An apology or expression of regret would be sweeping everything that happened 20 years ago under the carpet,' said Datuk V. C. George, a former Court of Appeal jurist. 'We need an investigation into the events of 1988 and to expose the conspiracy and its conspirators.'
TIME TO SHOW LEADERSHIP'
There are more important things than private peeves and settling scores. Neither the brewing crisis over soaring food prices nor other major issues are going to wait for Umno to put its own house in order. Now is the time for the grand old party to move on, do the things its leaders have promised and show that it still has what it takes to lead the nation.'MALAYSIA'S NEW STRAITS TIMES in a front-page editorial yesterday
Dr Mahathir : on Rulers and politicians
Dr Mahathir speaks up on Rulers and politicians
March 27, 2008 By Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
PETALING JAYA (March 27, 2008): A Concerned Malaysian has expressed his worry over the role being played by Sultans in the appointment of the Mentri Besar.
His Royal Highnesses have clearly refused to take the advice of the Chief Minister i.e. the Prime Minister.
Instead, they have chosen on their own a member of the state legislature to head the Government.We hear a lot of opinions on the propriety of the action by the Sultan. Some say he has the right to do this while others point out that as a constitutional ruler, he could not do this.
The Constitution says that the Ruler or Head of State must choose the elected member who enjoys the support of the majority of members in the legislative body to be the Prime Minister or the Mentri Besar. Subject to this provision, the Ruler it is who chooses and appoints the Prime Minister or Mentri Besar.
The Prime Minister, as Prime Minister, has no role in the choice of the State Mentri Besar or Ketua Menteri. His naming of candidate who should be the Mentri Besar is purely a party matter. Obviously, if the State is captured by the Opposition Party, he cannot name the candidate.
However, if the Ruler chooses someone who does not enjoy majority support, he could be deposed at a sitting of the legislative body through a vote of "no confidence".
After that, another member can be appointed by the Ruler to take his place. But if for some reason, there is no other candidate or the candidate with majority support is considered unsuitable by the Ruler, a new Government cannot be formed. The Ruler may then dissolve the legislative body and a new election may be held.
This new election may lead to the same impasse. The Ruler may not like the member with majority support.However, it should be noted that this kind of thing had never happened during the premiership of the four previous Prime Ministers. Concerned Malaysians should wonder why.
Is it just that the particular Ruler is being difficult, unwilling to accept the principles of democracy, wanting to return to feudalism and the absolute authority of the monarch?I do not think so. There must be a reason why the Ruler refuses to accept the candidate named by the party. But the Ruler chooses not to reveal the reasons and indulge in public debates. He merely expresses his displeasure by refusing to do what normally the Rulers would do.
Concerned Malaysians must ask what has the particular candidate done which is so wrong that it incurs the displeasure of the Ruler.
There are lots of talks in the town. Terengganu is blessed with petroleum deposits. It should get 5% of the total earning from oil production. The Federal Government; fearing the previous PAS government might use this money wrongly had withheld payment.But when the Barisan Nasional (BN) regained Terengganu the money, now called "Wang Ehsan", was lavishly spent by the Federal Government on Terengganu. It is not a small sum. Over these years "Wang Ehsan" totalled several billion.
We know that since the BN regained Terengganu in 2004, all kinds of projects have been developed in Terengganu. This includes The Monsoon Cup, luxury housing for sale to foreigners, Crystal Mosque and theme park, university, etc. Some of these projects are very good but many are totally unnecessary and wasteful.
But what the Terengganu people are saying is that all these mega projects costing billions of Ringgit have been contracted out to people outside Terengganu. Terengganu contractors got practically nothing.
But additionally, they say the contracts all went to one person and they are suspicious that behind this person are members of the first family.The rumours also say that the previous Mentri Besar was responsible for these things happening and of course, they think that he might have benefited financially.
The rumours went on to say that the Prime Minister might have influenced the Mentri Besar into doing wrong things. These are all rumours. It will be quite impossible to prove anything as the perpetrators are skilled in hiding themselves.
This is not good for a Government keen to abolish corruption and be transparent. To clear its name, an investigation should be made.
But the public is leery of investigations by Government agencies and departments. Even Royal Commissions are not highly regarded. The people believe, not true of course, that the Government has been interfering with the work of the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA), the Police and the Attorney General (A-G)'s Chambers. The say this is borne out by the results of investigations by these agencies.
When a Deputy Minister was accused of accepting money for the release of a detainee, the A-G said there was no case because the detainee said he did not give any money to the Deputy Minister. It is so easy. If you have a case involving someone, all the enforcement agencies need to do is to ask him whether he was involved. If he says "no", then there is no case.
For some reason, judges are finding that people accused of murder are not guilty because of insufficient evidence by the police. Yet people who are totally not involved in a case, who were not accused of any misdeeds and who did not appear in court at all and been given a hearing are found guilty and publicly condemned.
The public cannot be blamed for not having faith in Government agencies doing investigations. The public cannot be blamed for suspecting cover-ups by the Government or worse still the Government may be using these enforcement agencies to threaten people.
To clear its good name, the Government should get credible foreign agencies to do the investigation. Of course, they must be given full access to the documents etc.
Now my detractors are going to say I did worse things when I was Prime Minister. Well, if that is so, let us have the foreign agencies investigate me also. I am aware that people are looking into possible misdeeds by me during my 22 years so as to threaten me and ask me to shut up. So far they have not found anything.
Not only have I not taken anything that was not due to me while I was Prime Minister but I have given back to the Government and the people everything that I had received as gifts during my tenure of office.
The Government had offered me land in Kedah and Langkawi and I had refused to accept. I have a 5-acre plot in Putrajaya which I paid for even though the Government was offering it to me free.Unless there is a frame-up, I think there should be nothing to pin on me. Even other accusations against me, including the dismissal of judges, were not my doing and I do not feel obliged to apologise. Ask the Tribunal to apologise.
The person asking that the Government should apologise for what happened to Tun Salleh Abbas may have forgotten that as President of the Muslim Lawyers Association, he fully supported the action that was taken. He castigated the Bar Council for condemning Tun Hamid Omar over the dismissal of judges. Now he wants to be more correct than correct. I wonder why.
March 27, 2008 By Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
PETALING JAYA (March 27, 2008): A Concerned Malaysian has expressed his worry over the role being played by Sultans in the appointment of the Mentri Besar.
His Royal Highnesses have clearly refused to take the advice of the Chief Minister i.e. the Prime Minister.
Instead, they have chosen on their own a member of the state legislature to head the Government.We hear a lot of opinions on the propriety of the action by the Sultan. Some say he has the right to do this while others point out that as a constitutional ruler, he could not do this.
The Constitution says that the Ruler or Head of State must choose the elected member who enjoys the support of the majority of members in the legislative body to be the Prime Minister or the Mentri Besar. Subject to this provision, the Ruler it is who chooses and appoints the Prime Minister or Mentri Besar.
The Prime Minister, as Prime Minister, has no role in the choice of the State Mentri Besar or Ketua Menteri. His naming of candidate who should be the Mentri Besar is purely a party matter. Obviously, if the State is captured by the Opposition Party, he cannot name the candidate.
However, if the Ruler chooses someone who does not enjoy majority support, he could be deposed at a sitting of the legislative body through a vote of "no confidence".
After that, another member can be appointed by the Ruler to take his place. But if for some reason, there is no other candidate or the candidate with majority support is considered unsuitable by the Ruler, a new Government cannot be formed. The Ruler may then dissolve the legislative body and a new election may be held.
This new election may lead to the same impasse. The Ruler may not like the member with majority support.However, it should be noted that this kind of thing had never happened during the premiership of the four previous Prime Ministers. Concerned Malaysians should wonder why.
Is it just that the particular Ruler is being difficult, unwilling to accept the principles of democracy, wanting to return to feudalism and the absolute authority of the monarch?I do not think so. There must be a reason why the Ruler refuses to accept the candidate named by the party. But the Ruler chooses not to reveal the reasons and indulge in public debates. He merely expresses his displeasure by refusing to do what normally the Rulers would do.
Concerned Malaysians must ask what has the particular candidate done which is so wrong that it incurs the displeasure of the Ruler.
There are lots of talks in the town. Terengganu is blessed with petroleum deposits. It should get 5% of the total earning from oil production. The Federal Government; fearing the previous PAS government might use this money wrongly had withheld payment.But when the Barisan Nasional (BN) regained Terengganu the money, now called "Wang Ehsan", was lavishly spent by the Federal Government on Terengganu. It is not a small sum. Over these years "Wang Ehsan" totalled several billion.
We know that since the BN regained Terengganu in 2004, all kinds of projects have been developed in Terengganu. This includes The Monsoon Cup, luxury housing for sale to foreigners, Crystal Mosque and theme park, university, etc. Some of these projects are very good but many are totally unnecessary and wasteful.
But what the Terengganu people are saying is that all these mega projects costing billions of Ringgit have been contracted out to people outside Terengganu. Terengganu contractors got practically nothing.
But additionally, they say the contracts all went to one person and they are suspicious that behind this person are members of the first family.The rumours also say that the previous Mentri Besar was responsible for these things happening and of course, they think that he might have benefited financially.
The rumours went on to say that the Prime Minister might have influenced the Mentri Besar into doing wrong things. These are all rumours. It will be quite impossible to prove anything as the perpetrators are skilled in hiding themselves.
This is not good for a Government keen to abolish corruption and be transparent. To clear its name, an investigation should be made.
But the public is leery of investigations by Government agencies and departments. Even Royal Commissions are not highly regarded. The people believe, not true of course, that the Government has been interfering with the work of the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA), the Police and the Attorney General (A-G)'s Chambers. The say this is borne out by the results of investigations by these agencies.
When a Deputy Minister was accused of accepting money for the release of a detainee, the A-G said there was no case because the detainee said he did not give any money to the Deputy Minister. It is so easy. If you have a case involving someone, all the enforcement agencies need to do is to ask him whether he was involved. If he says "no", then there is no case.
For some reason, judges are finding that people accused of murder are not guilty because of insufficient evidence by the police. Yet people who are totally not involved in a case, who were not accused of any misdeeds and who did not appear in court at all and been given a hearing are found guilty and publicly condemned.
The public cannot be blamed for not having faith in Government agencies doing investigations. The public cannot be blamed for suspecting cover-ups by the Government or worse still the Government may be using these enforcement agencies to threaten people.
To clear its good name, the Government should get credible foreign agencies to do the investigation. Of course, they must be given full access to the documents etc.
Now my detractors are going to say I did worse things when I was Prime Minister. Well, if that is so, let us have the foreign agencies investigate me also. I am aware that people are looking into possible misdeeds by me during my 22 years so as to threaten me and ask me to shut up. So far they have not found anything.
Not only have I not taken anything that was not due to me while I was Prime Minister but I have given back to the Government and the people everything that I had received as gifts during my tenure of office.
The Government had offered me land in Kedah and Langkawi and I had refused to accept. I have a 5-acre plot in Putrajaya which I paid for even though the Government was offering it to me free.Unless there is a frame-up, I think there should be nothing to pin on me. Even other accusations against me, including the dismissal of judges, were not my doing and I do not feel obliged to apologise. Ask the Tribunal to apologise.
The person asking that the Government should apologise for what happened to Tun Salleh Abbas may have forgotten that as President of the Muslim Lawyers Association, he fully supported the action that was taken. He castigated the Bar Council for condemning Tun Hamid Omar over the dismissal of judges. Now he wants to be more correct than correct. I wonder why.
Chua Soi Lek on verge of open challenge for MCA top job
Chua Soi Lek on verge of open challenge for MCA top job
Calls party chief Ong Ka Ting to say sorry for polls debacle and step down
Extracted from
The Malaysia Insider
http://69.64.71.184/mni/chua-soi-lek-on-verge-of-open-challenge-for-mca-top-job.html
By Leslie Lau
KUALA LUMPUR, April 16 — Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek has called for Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting to resign as MCA president because of the party’s poor performance in last month’s general elections.
The former Health Minister’s latest remarks come amid heightened pressure on Datuk Seri Ong as the second biggest party in the Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition prepares for crucial party polls later this year.
“The only honourable thing for him to do is apologise to the party and then resign,” he told The Malaysian Insider.
Dr Chua’s political career appeared to have come to an ignominious end after a secretly-filmed video recording of him having sex with a “personal friend” was leaked out to the public last December.
He was forced to resign as minister and as MCA vice-president.
Amid swirling speculation, Datuk Seri Ong denied last week that he was responsible for the secret recording against his political rival in the party.
Dr Chua was said to be planning to mount a challenge for the top party job until the sex scandal put paid to such ambitions.
But the MCA’s poor performance in the elections have now given a fillip to Dr Chua and other party leaders opposed to Datuk Seri Ong.
“Yes I am thinking about whether or not to challenge him,” said Dr Chua. “But an old man like me thinks very slowly.”
Besides Dr Chua, another former MCA leader from Johor is also planning a tilt at the presidency. Datuk Seri Chua Jui Meng announced this week that he was planning another assault on the top party post after a previous failed attempt.
Just like its senior partner Umno, the MCA is going through intense soul searching, and will see epic tussles for control of the party. Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, the firebrand maverick party vice-president, is said to be considering a run for the deputy presidency. Wee Ka Siong is also expected to face off with Ling Hee Leong, the son of former Party president Tun Ling Liong Sik, for the Youth chief’s job.
But the most intriguing challenge must be from the 61-year old Dr Chua, the man who was written off before the elections and consigned to the scrapheap by his party.
Dr Chua told The Malaysian Insider that he was now reassessing the situation and would probably stop giving any more interviews, which in the past week he had used skilfully to put the pressure on his party president.
“My president is not a simple man to deal with,” he said. “The more you talk the more you expose yourself.”
He then quipped that for now he would “sleep in the daytime and move only at night.”
The MCA is certainly set for turbulent times ahead.
Calls party chief Ong Ka Ting to say sorry for polls debacle and step down
Extracted from
The Malaysia Insider
http://69.64.71.184/mni/chua-soi-lek-on-verge-of-open-challenge-for-mca-top-job.html
By Leslie Lau
KUALA LUMPUR, April 16 — Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek has called for Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting to resign as MCA president because of the party’s poor performance in last month’s general elections.
The former Health Minister’s latest remarks come amid heightened pressure on Datuk Seri Ong as the second biggest party in the Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition prepares for crucial party polls later this year.
“The only honourable thing for him to do is apologise to the party and then resign,” he told The Malaysian Insider.
Dr Chua’s political career appeared to have come to an ignominious end after a secretly-filmed video recording of him having sex with a “personal friend” was leaked out to the public last December.
He was forced to resign as minister and as MCA vice-president.
Amid swirling speculation, Datuk Seri Ong denied last week that he was responsible for the secret recording against his political rival in the party.
Dr Chua was said to be planning to mount a challenge for the top party job until the sex scandal put paid to such ambitions.
But the MCA’s poor performance in the elections have now given a fillip to Dr Chua and other party leaders opposed to Datuk Seri Ong.
“Yes I am thinking about whether or not to challenge him,” said Dr Chua. “But an old man like me thinks very slowly.”
Besides Dr Chua, another former MCA leader from Johor is also planning a tilt at the presidency. Datuk Seri Chua Jui Meng announced this week that he was planning another assault on the top party post after a previous failed attempt.
Just like its senior partner Umno, the MCA is going through intense soul searching, and will see epic tussles for control of the party. Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, the firebrand maverick party vice-president, is said to be considering a run for the deputy presidency. Wee Ka Siong is also expected to face off with Ling Hee Leong, the son of former Party president Tun Ling Liong Sik, for the Youth chief’s job.
But the most intriguing challenge must be from the 61-year old Dr Chua, the man who was written off before the elections and consigned to the scrapheap by his party.
Dr Chua told The Malaysian Insider that he was now reassessing the situation and would probably stop giving any more interviews, which in the past week he had used skilfully to put the pressure on his party president.
“My president is not a simple man to deal with,” he said. “The more you talk the more you expose yourself.”
He then quipped that for now he would “sleep in the daytime and move only at night.”
The MCA is certainly set for turbulent times ahead.
Next steps for Pakatan Rakyat (Part 1)
Next steps for Pakatan Rakyat Part 1 of 3
- Reason for People Unhappiness
- What need to be done
- An opinion written to Malaysiakini by Derek Law
DEREK LAW is a chartered accountant and retired banker. His ultimate dream is for politics in Malaysia to rise above religion and race. Congratulation to the DAP, PKR and PAS (Pakatan Rakyat, PR) on their success in the 12th general election.
(Note : The article was extracted from
I hope that the leadership acknowledges that a number of seats were won by a slim majority. It is crucial that the BR works four times as hard as they did, as the Barisan Nasional (BN) will work twice as hard to win back the minds and hearts of the people.
Reasons for the People Unhappiness
The unhappiness of the people is rooted in the rising cost of living, rising corruption, rising crime rate, the New Economic Policy, and creeping Islamisation.
For PR to repeat its success in the next general election or to even perform better, it must tackle these as well as countless other issues. The first three would be easier to tackle as it affects all Malaysians whereas the last two may be deemed sensitive.
However, with consensus, changes can be made to benefit all segments of society.
Rising cost of living
Many Malaysians have been hit by the rising cost of living since 2004. The prices of petrol, water and electricity - three basis necessities - have risen significantly and with a domino effect, prices of various goods and services have followed suit.
The PR leadership must introduce various initiatives that will address the rising cost of living instead of publishing impressive GDP growth rates that have no meaning for the average citizen.
Reduce charges imposed by state/local council
PR state governments could address some of the issues by reducing some charges imposed by state governments (and local councils) such as quit rent, assessment and parking charges. The Kedah government must be applauded for announcing a 30 percent reduction in quit rent and assessment rates.
However, PR state governments should ensure that revenue collection is sufficient for sustainable development and emergency purposes, or they would have to run to the BN-led federal government for aid.
Reduce cost of doing business
The PR state governments could reduce the cost of doing business. Many traders and small businessmen have complained about the high cost of doing business, in the form of ‘under the table’ paid to the local council. As the new administrators, it is vital that the PR eradicates corrupt practices in local councils. It is said that ‘when there is too much discretion, corruption will follow’. For the PR to eradicate corrupt practice, clear rules must be laid out.
Take for example, alfresco dining and whether this should be allowed. In my opinion, this has become part of the Malaysian culture and would be very difficult to ban. What local councils need to do is regulate it to make it safer; at the same time, this would add revenue to the state coffers.
The same goes for illegal hawkers/petty traders. The solution is proper regulation and not constant harassment and collection of duit kopi. The government must give opportunities to the average citizen to earn an honest living. Illegal hawkers and petty traders should be licensed and regulated to ensure proper hygiene and safety; at the same time, they will contribute to state revenue. Suitable venues with adequate facilities and reasonable rental rates should be provided, so that hawkers and petty traders can operate in peace and customers can shop in comfort.
With reduction of cost in doing business, the savings can eventually be passed to consumers, thus reducing some of the rising costs.
Reduce charges imposed by utility companies
To reduce the cost of utilities such as electricity and water, PR should apply pressure on the federal government. The 2007 Annual Report of Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) reveals that in 2003, it made a profit before tax (PBT) of RM1,648.5 million. In 2007, this increased to a whopping RM4,765.9 million - by 289 percent, or an average of 57.8 percent year-on-year.
However, TNB still claims that it desperately needs to increase the tariff-rate in order to survive. Excessive profit-taking by GLCs is obscene when it is at the expense of the people. The tariff agreement with TNB should be renegotiated downwards.
TNB pays dividends to its shareholders, which includes the government but what about the people, who are its biggest stakeholder? It should give an annual rebate, equivalent to say 1 month’s electricity bill, to both consumers and corporations.
Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim has said that the state government intends to renegotiate the water agreement signed earlier with Puncak Niaga Holdings Bhd and to declassify the document from the ambit of the Official Secrets Act 1972. This is a welcome move.
Puncak Niaga’s 2006 Annual Report reveals that it made PBT of RM180.11 million in 2002 and RM367.28 million in 2006; or an increase of 203.9 percent or 40.8 percent year-on-year.
Increase revenue through training programmes
The PR must provide training programmes to increase the knowledge and skills of the people. Khalid has announced a special programme for youths with a “guaranteed minimum salary” upon graduation. This should be extended to other groups badly hit by rising costs, such as single mothers and retirees. It would help reduce the country’s dependence on foreign labour.
Increase revenue through Foreign Direct Investment
Penang and Selangor enjoy the lion’s share of FDI in Malaysia. PR should ensure that FDI is retained and news sources are attracted into its states. Investors should be encouraged to employ locals - in this respect, Khalid’s proposal to impose a levy on foreign workers could be seen as investor-unfriendly or discriminatory. Incentives should be provided to investors to hire locals. These could be in the form of lower quit rent and assessment rates.
Revamp management
John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton (1834–1902) said “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men".
The PR must revamp the way their states are managed and allow civil servants to serve. When the latter see the wisdom of the new policies, they will give their full cooperation.
These governments will be able to review all past contracts and report any wrongdoing to the relevant authorities. They must obtain sound legal advice before rescinding contracts or they may be exposed to payment of compensation, as the ‘crooked bridge’ fiasco in Johor amply illustrates.
Changes are also needed in the way local councils are managed, including making financial statements public for inspection. This will ensure greater accountability and end the days of ‘sports club donations’.
The process of awarding contracts or the practice of introducing ridiculous rules should be reviewed as well. For instance, a certain local council wants pest-control companies registered on its ‘panel’. There are already laws regulating such companies, so why create additional rules?
Local councils must give adequate notice and take into consideration the concerns of affected residents before approving projects that are likely to cause controversy - such as designating areas for a cemetery or incinerator or hillside projects.
The above article is extracted from
Malaysiakini
http://malaysiakini.com/opinions/81319
as Part 1 of 3
- Reason for People Unhappiness
- What need to be done
- An opinion written to Malaysiakini by Derek Law
DEREK LAW is a chartered accountant and retired banker. His ultimate dream is for politics in Malaysia to rise above religion and race. Congratulation to the DAP, PKR and PAS (Pakatan Rakyat, PR) on their success in the 12th general election.
(Note : The article was extracted from
I hope that the leadership acknowledges that a number of seats were won by a slim majority. It is crucial that the BR works four times as hard as they did, as the Barisan Nasional (BN) will work twice as hard to win back the minds and hearts of the people.
Reasons for the People Unhappiness
The unhappiness of the people is rooted in the rising cost of living, rising corruption, rising crime rate, the New Economic Policy, and creeping Islamisation.
For PR to repeat its success in the next general election or to even perform better, it must tackle these as well as countless other issues. The first three would be easier to tackle as it affects all Malaysians whereas the last two may be deemed sensitive.
However, with consensus, changes can be made to benefit all segments of society.
Rising cost of living
Many Malaysians have been hit by the rising cost of living since 2004. The prices of petrol, water and electricity - three basis necessities - have risen significantly and with a domino effect, prices of various goods and services have followed suit.
The PR leadership must introduce various initiatives that will address the rising cost of living instead of publishing impressive GDP growth rates that have no meaning for the average citizen.
Reduce charges imposed by state/local council
PR state governments could address some of the issues by reducing some charges imposed by state governments (and local councils) such as quit rent, assessment and parking charges. The Kedah government must be applauded for announcing a 30 percent reduction in quit rent and assessment rates.
However, PR state governments should ensure that revenue collection is sufficient for sustainable development and emergency purposes, or they would have to run to the BN-led federal government for aid.
Reduce cost of doing business
The PR state governments could reduce the cost of doing business. Many traders and small businessmen have complained about the high cost of doing business, in the form of ‘under the table’ paid to the local council. As the new administrators, it is vital that the PR eradicates corrupt practices in local councils. It is said that ‘when there is too much discretion, corruption will follow’. For the PR to eradicate corrupt practice, clear rules must be laid out.
Take for example, alfresco dining and whether this should be allowed. In my opinion, this has become part of the Malaysian culture and would be very difficult to ban. What local councils need to do is regulate it to make it safer; at the same time, this would add revenue to the state coffers.
The same goes for illegal hawkers/petty traders. The solution is proper regulation and not constant harassment and collection of duit kopi. The government must give opportunities to the average citizen to earn an honest living. Illegal hawkers and petty traders should be licensed and regulated to ensure proper hygiene and safety; at the same time, they will contribute to state revenue. Suitable venues with adequate facilities and reasonable rental rates should be provided, so that hawkers and petty traders can operate in peace and customers can shop in comfort.
With reduction of cost in doing business, the savings can eventually be passed to consumers, thus reducing some of the rising costs.
Reduce charges imposed by utility companies
To reduce the cost of utilities such as electricity and water, PR should apply pressure on the federal government. The 2007 Annual Report of Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) reveals that in 2003, it made a profit before tax (PBT) of RM1,648.5 million. In 2007, this increased to a whopping RM4,765.9 million - by 289 percent, or an average of 57.8 percent year-on-year.
However, TNB still claims that it desperately needs to increase the tariff-rate in order to survive. Excessive profit-taking by GLCs is obscene when it is at the expense of the people. The tariff agreement with TNB should be renegotiated downwards.
TNB pays dividends to its shareholders, which includes the government but what about the people, who are its biggest stakeholder? It should give an annual rebate, equivalent to say 1 month’s electricity bill, to both consumers and corporations.
Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim has said that the state government intends to renegotiate the water agreement signed earlier with Puncak Niaga Holdings Bhd and to declassify the document from the ambit of the Official Secrets Act 1972. This is a welcome move.
Puncak Niaga’s 2006 Annual Report reveals that it made PBT of RM180.11 million in 2002 and RM367.28 million in 2006; or an increase of 203.9 percent or 40.8 percent year-on-year.
Increase revenue through training programmes
The PR must provide training programmes to increase the knowledge and skills of the people. Khalid has announced a special programme for youths with a “guaranteed minimum salary” upon graduation. This should be extended to other groups badly hit by rising costs, such as single mothers and retirees. It would help reduce the country’s dependence on foreign labour.
Increase revenue through Foreign Direct Investment
Penang and Selangor enjoy the lion’s share of FDI in Malaysia. PR should ensure that FDI is retained and news sources are attracted into its states. Investors should be encouraged to employ locals - in this respect, Khalid’s proposal to impose a levy on foreign workers could be seen as investor-unfriendly or discriminatory. Incentives should be provided to investors to hire locals. These could be in the form of lower quit rent and assessment rates.
Revamp management
John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton (1834–1902) said “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men".
The PR must revamp the way their states are managed and allow civil servants to serve. When the latter see the wisdom of the new policies, they will give their full cooperation.
These governments will be able to review all past contracts and report any wrongdoing to the relevant authorities. They must obtain sound legal advice before rescinding contracts or they may be exposed to payment of compensation, as the ‘crooked bridge’ fiasco in Johor amply illustrates.
Changes are also needed in the way local councils are managed, including making financial statements public for inspection. This will ensure greater accountability and end the days of ‘sports club donations’.
The process of awarding contracts or the practice of introducing ridiculous rules should be reviewed as well. For instance, a certain local council wants pest-control companies registered on its ‘panel’. There are already laws regulating such companies, so why create additional rules?
Local councils must give adequate notice and take into consideration the concerns of affected residents before approving projects that are likely to cause controversy - such as designating areas for a cemetery or incinerator or hillside projects.
The above article is extracted from
Malaysiakini
http://malaysiakini.com/opinions/81319
as Part 1 of 3
Tuesday, 15 April 2008
Part 2 : Dr M Letter on Shafee, Param and VK Lingam
Why Dr M did not defend himself
Dr Mahathir Mohamad
DATUK Param Cumaraswamy works on the basis of suspicions and his own perception of everything and everyone. Tangible evidence is not necessary.
As I said (Speak Up, April 8), former Anti-Corruption Agency director-general Datuk Shafee Yahya’s statement was merely his version of what was said at a meeting between him and me. He may swear but that still does not prove he was telling the whole truth.
I could have sued him for libel but I too can only submit my sworn version of the verbal exchange between him and me. The judges would have to determine who was telling a lie and this the judges could not do with any certainty.
Consequently, I did not think it was worthwhile for me to sue or even to defend myself. If I had done anything wrong, the government agencies would have to investigate and decide.
Their decision was that I had done nothing wrong.
I had every right to call up an officer against whom allegations had been made by another officer. I suppose Param as a lawyer knows that a person is not guilty until proven otherwise.
The Economic Planning Unit (EPU) head had not been proven guilty. So why cannot he be appointed governor of the central bank?
Today, there are lots of cases of suspicions of corruption and abuse of power in the government. But Param has not made any critical comment, much less take up the cases or even write and make known his suspicions and demand for a commission of inquiry.
As to the videotaping of (Datuk) V.K. Lingam, one should ask why this was done. Isn’t it because of the intention to blackmail?
Incidentally, he is my lawyer in a case where (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim (the same person who provided the videos) had sued me for RM100 million because I said he had indulged in sodomy.
It should be pointed out that in releasing the video in two parts, Anwar was tampering with evidence. And he claims he has more video clips to release. The video clips are obviously being withheld and their value as evidence is questionable.
I had already explained to the (Royal) Commission that there is nothing in the law to bar me from listening to anybody’s view of a candidate for the bench.
But who I recommend is my own decision. Lingam may have influenced judges, etc; but that did not mean I made a decision based on his views. The real truth is that I had never been lobbied by Lingam.
Param seems ever ready to denigrate anyone who did not do what he expects them to do. Thus, because the late attorney-general Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah cleared then chief justice Eusoff Chin of any wrongdoing, therefore Mohtar’s decision that there was no case against me must also be in the same category.
In fact, he condemned Mohtar’s decision during my era, implying that I had been responsible for all of Mohtar’s decisions. What is his proof that all of Mohtar’s decisions were influenced by me? Again his apparent reason is because of his suspicion and his contempt for anyone who did not decide the way he expects.
I just wonder how he was appointed by the United Nations to be the rapporteur on the commission looking into the independence of the judiciary and lawyers. He already had a biased opinion of them as evidenced by his statement in his letter about “Malaysia’s internationally discredited judiciary and legal system”.
His report on them cannot be regarded as impartial.
As far as his immunity to Malaysian laws is concerned, the ratification by Malaysia of the Convention on Privileges cannot possibly cover personal attacks against private individuals.
Otherwise people on the UN commissions can do anything they like, including, as I mentioned, murder. When immunity is granted, it is expected that the person concerned would behave with propriety and would not abuse it. The report should be submitted to the UN authorities.
It must not be made use of by the author to score against helpless individuals. That would be abusing the immunity conferred. It is contemptible.
In any case, the UN imposes its rule on only weak countries that cannot defend themselves. Powerful countries can totally disregard the UN, hence Guantanamo Bay.
No Malaysian court, according to Param, found his statements libellous. But then all these courts, according to Param, are internationally discredited.
Their not finding Param’s statements libellous should be rejected especially by Param, because it would be made by discredited courts. Why is Param citing these courts’ decisions to back his claim?
Had I volunteered to appear in court to clear my reputation, I would be at the mercy of these internationally-discredited courts also. If they did not find me guilty, then Param would say the court is a discredited court.
This of course would be considered by him as irrefutable evidence that my sworn testimony was wrong. You are damned if you do and you are damned if you don’t.
In any case, he insists that the statements of these three high officials of our enforcement agencies (The AG, the head of the ACA and the police) are very unsettling. This is a nice way of saying he believes they are lying.
These officials are not saying this in my or Eusoff Chin’s era. How does he conclude they are lying? Would he appear in court to say these officials are lying in the era of Datuk Seri Abdullah?
Param has gone through great lengths to assert that I had abused and consolidated power when I was prime minister. He has not shown a shred of admissible evidence to show that I had done this. Only surmises and personal opinion. Do you convict people based on these?
Still I would be happy to face a Royal Commission of Inquiry. The only problem is that Param has already concluded that they would not have integrity. Only if he himself makes up a one-man commission would the result be acceptable to him.
That is the kind of judicial approach he apparently believes in.
I hate to think that the world might take this bitter man and his personal hatred as typical of Malaysians. We have better people who are representative of the Malaysian character.
Dr Mahathir Mohamad
The letter is extracted from The Sun Daily
http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=21490
Dr Mahathir Mohamad
DATUK Param Cumaraswamy works on the basis of suspicions and his own perception of everything and everyone. Tangible evidence is not necessary.
As I said (Speak Up, April 8), former Anti-Corruption Agency director-general Datuk Shafee Yahya’s statement was merely his version of what was said at a meeting between him and me. He may swear but that still does not prove he was telling the whole truth.
I could have sued him for libel but I too can only submit my sworn version of the verbal exchange between him and me. The judges would have to determine who was telling a lie and this the judges could not do with any certainty.
Consequently, I did not think it was worthwhile for me to sue or even to defend myself. If I had done anything wrong, the government agencies would have to investigate and decide.
Their decision was that I had done nothing wrong.
I had every right to call up an officer against whom allegations had been made by another officer. I suppose Param as a lawyer knows that a person is not guilty until proven otherwise.
The Economic Planning Unit (EPU) head had not been proven guilty. So why cannot he be appointed governor of the central bank?
Today, there are lots of cases of suspicions of corruption and abuse of power in the government. But Param has not made any critical comment, much less take up the cases or even write and make known his suspicions and demand for a commission of inquiry.
As to the videotaping of (Datuk) V.K. Lingam, one should ask why this was done. Isn’t it because of the intention to blackmail?
Incidentally, he is my lawyer in a case where (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim (the same person who provided the videos) had sued me for RM100 million because I said he had indulged in sodomy.
It should be pointed out that in releasing the video in two parts, Anwar was tampering with evidence. And he claims he has more video clips to release. The video clips are obviously being withheld and their value as evidence is questionable.
I had already explained to the (Royal) Commission that there is nothing in the law to bar me from listening to anybody’s view of a candidate for the bench.
But who I recommend is my own decision. Lingam may have influenced judges, etc; but that did not mean I made a decision based on his views. The real truth is that I had never been lobbied by Lingam.
Param seems ever ready to denigrate anyone who did not do what he expects them to do. Thus, because the late attorney-general Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah cleared then chief justice Eusoff Chin of any wrongdoing, therefore Mohtar’s decision that there was no case against me must also be in the same category.
In fact, he condemned Mohtar’s decision during my era, implying that I had been responsible for all of Mohtar’s decisions. What is his proof that all of Mohtar’s decisions were influenced by me? Again his apparent reason is because of his suspicion and his contempt for anyone who did not decide the way he expects.
I just wonder how he was appointed by the United Nations to be the rapporteur on the commission looking into the independence of the judiciary and lawyers. He already had a biased opinion of them as evidenced by his statement in his letter about “Malaysia’s internationally discredited judiciary and legal system”.
His report on them cannot be regarded as impartial.
As far as his immunity to Malaysian laws is concerned, the ratification by Malaysia of the Convention on Privileges cannot possibly cover personal attacks against private individuals.
Otherwise people on the UN commissions can do anything they like, including, as I mentioned, murder. When immunity is granted, it is expected that the person concerned would behave with propriety and would not abuse it. The report should be submitted to the UN authorities.
It must not be made use of by the author to score against helpless individuals. That would be abusing the immunity conferred. It is contemptible.
In any case, the UN imposes its rule on only weak countries that cannot defend themselves. Powerful countries can totally disregard the UN, hence Guantanamo Bay.
No Malaysian court, according to Param, found his statements libellous. But then all these courts, according to Param, are internationally discredited.
Their not finding Param’s statements libellous should be rejected especially by Param, because it would be made by discredited courts. Why is Param citing these courts’ decisions to back his claim?
Had I volunteered to appear in court to clear my reputation, I would be at the mercy of these internationally-discredited courts also. If they did not find me guilty, then Param would say the court is a discredited court.
This of course would be considered by him as irrefutable evidence that my sworn testimony was wrong. You are damned if you do and you are damned if you don’t.
In any case, he insists that the statements of these three high officials of our enforcement agencies (The AG, the head of the ACA and the police) are very unsettling. This is a nice way of saying he believes they are lying.
These officials are not saying this in my or Eusoff Chin’s era. How does he conclude they are lying? Would he appear in court to say these officials are lying in the era of Datuk Seri Abdullah?
Param has gone through great lengths to assert that I had abused and consolidated power when I was prime minister. He has not shown a shred of admissible evidence to show that I had done this. Only surmises and personal opinion. Do you convict people based on these?
Still I would be happy to face a Royal Commission of Inquiry. The only problem is that Param has already concluded that they would not have integrity. Only if he himself makes up a one-man commission would the result be acceptable to him.
That is the kind of judicial approach he apparently believes in.
I hate to think that the world might take this bitter man and his personal hatred as typical of Malaysians. We have better people who are representative of the Malaysian character.
Dr Mahathir Mohamad
The letter is extracted from The Sun Daily
http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=21490
Friday, 11 April 2008
Mahathir Letter to "The Sun" on Tun Salleh Abas and Allegation by Datuk Shafee Yahya
Dr Mahathir : Call for appology Stupid
Letter to "The Sun" on Tun Salleh Abas and Allegation by Datuk Shafee Yahya
Dr Mahathir: Call for apology is stupid
AS I had anticipated, my comment on (Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department) Datuk Zaid Ibrahim’s suggestion that the government should apologise for the action taken against Tun Salleh Abas would draw accusations against me for my alleged misdeeds during my tenure of office.
I regard this as an attempt to shut my mouth should I find occasion to criticise the present government. It is always about "You were worse when you headed the government," even if it is obvious that I had not done badly.
(Datuk) Param Cumaraswamy’s letter (theSun, April 2) falls in that category. He wants to know why action had not been taken against me over the allegations made by Datuk Shafee Yahya (former director-general of the Anti-Corruption Agency) during the Anwar Ibrahim trial.
The statement may be a sworn testimony in court but the accuracy of it cannot be accepted unquestioned. There were omissions and inferences which mislead. Counsel was of course interested in proving that Anwar did not inveigle Shafee into doing something wrong. But during the trial it was revealed that he did get a senior police officer to threaten and intimidate his accusers.
I admit to calling up Shafee to ask him about the raid by the ACA on the office of the director of the Economic Planning Unit. I did that because I received a complaint from the director that the ACA had been very offensive towards him during the raid. He also said that he believed the deputy prime minister and finance minister had set up the whole thing.
I knew that government officers were sometimes overzealous and would overstep or abuse their authority.
I could not verify whether there was any truth in what the EPU director said. Accordingly, I called the director of the ACA to find out what actually happened.
I asked many questions, many more than what he said in court. I also asked him if he had been directed by Datuk Seri Anwar to carry out the raid.
He denied it but he became angry when I asked whether he intended to pursue his investigation. Raising his voice, he accused me of trying to stop him from carrying out his duty. Angrily, he said that he was a senior civil service officer and that I had no right to question him about his work.
I was shocked at his loud accusation against me. No civil servant however senior had spoken to me like that. I was rendered speechless.
These exchanges were carried out in my office. No other person was present. No notes were taken, nor was there any recording, at least by me. So only the two of us would know what really happened or was said.
What he said in court is his version. There is nothing to verify what he said nor is there anything to verify what I say now is wrong. It is a case of his words against mine, sworn testimony notwithstanding. He had obviously omitted his shouted accusations against me. Had what he said in court was all that happened, then it would not have taken more than three minutes. But what he said and what I said took longer than three minutes.
I wonder how counsel knew of what happened in the privacy of my office. Even the Chief Secretary, the only person who was informed by Datuk Shafee could not have told counsel. Obviously it was Shafee who volunteered information. Why did he do this?
I was not a party to the trial of Anwar. If I was to be accused I should at least be heard. But clearly Shafee saw Anwar’s trial as an opportunity to make statements detrimental to my reputation.
Shafee was an angry man and what he said in court was opportunistic and seem to reflect his desire to take revenge against me. I can only assume that this was what motivated him, because what he divulged did not help Anwar much. But it did put me in a very bad light.
As to why this case has not been followed I can only assume that the courts are busy and there are tens of thousands of cases which have yet to be heard. Maybe the fault is with the Attorney General or police. I would not know.
Still I welcome any investigation by impartial people as to the truth or otherwise of what I say in this letter.
As for Param Cumarawamy and Karpal Singh, their hatred of me is well known and apparently has not abated even after I am no longer prime minister.
Many lawyers were angry with me because I had quoted Shakespeare during a cabinet meeting which says, "the first thing we do, we hang the lawyers". I was only joking but they heard of it and believed I meant what I said. The judges also felt unhappy with me.
Besides, I had criticised the judiciary for disregarding the intention or objectives of the laws formulated by the legislative wing but instead interpret them based on the words used. Was I committing a crime for saying this? I was merely stating a fact. Can no one comment on the judiciary at all even when they disregard the interest of the country? In many developed countries it is common for the public to criticise the judiciary.
As for Param, he made libellous remarks about a fellow-Malaysian when he was a member of a United Nations Commission. He should have been hauled before a Malaysian court but he claimed immunity due to his appointment by the UN.
My stand was that his immunity was only with regard to the specific work for the UN. If he breached Malaysian laws on matters not related to this work, then he cannot plead immunity.
His libellous words against a Malaysian individual had nothing to do with his work for the UN. He should therefore be liable, and his immunity could not be invoked. But he got the UN to back him. It was even hinted that if Malaysia prosecuted him, then our case before the International Court of Justice on the issue of the ownership of Sipadan and Ligitan would be jeopardised.
Accordingly I agreed that he should not be prosecuted. Luckily it was only libel. Had Param Cumaraswamy murdered a person, and he claimed immunity, then there would indeed be a miscarriage of justice.
I do not think my recalcitrance over his immunity endeared me to him. Now that I am not a prime minister, he has expressed his delight at saying that I should not criticise anything the present government does because I was guilty of worse.
I maintain that in the case of Tun Salleh Abas I did what was required of me under the Constitution and Malaysia’s laws. I consider the suggestion that I should apologise as frivolous, unwarranted and stupid.
If Param or Karpal is not convinced perhaps they should use their considerable knowledge of the law to shut my mouth.
Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad
The letter is extracted from The Sun Daily
http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=21356
Letter to "The Sun" on Tun Salleh Abas and Allegation by Datuk Shafee Yahya
Dr Mahathir: Call for apology is stupid
AS I had anticipated, my comment on (Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department) Datuk Zaid Ibrahim’s suggestion that the government should apologise for the action taken against Tun Salleh Abas would draw accusations against me for my alleged misdeeds during my tenure of office.
I regard this as an attempt to shut my mouth should I find occasion to criticise the present government. It is always about "You were worse when you headed the government," even if it is obvious that I had not done badly.
(Datuk) Param Cumaraswamy’s letter (theSun, April 2) falls in that category. He wants to know why action had not been taken against me over the allegations made by Datuk Shafee Yahya (former director-general of the Anti-Corruption Agency) during the Anwar Ibrahim trial.
The statement may be a sworn testimony in court but the accuracy of it cannot be accepted unquestioned. There were omissions and inferences which mislead. Counsel was of course interested in proving that Anwar did not inveigle Shafee into doing something wrong. But during the trial it was revealed that he did get a senior police officer to threaten and intimidate his accusers.
I admit to calling up Shafee to ask him about the raid by the ACA on the office of the director of the Economic Planning Unit. I did that because I received a complaint from the director that the ACA had been very offensive towards him during the raid. He also said that he believed the deputy prime minister and finance minister had set up the whole thing.
I knew that government officers were sometimes overzealous and would overstep or abuse their authority.
I could not verify whether there was any truth in what the EPU director said. Accordingly, I called the director of the ACA to find out what actually happened.
I asked many questions, many more than what he said in court. I also asked him if he had been directed by Datuk Seri Anwar to carry out the raid.
He denied it but he became angry when I asked whether he intended to pursue his investigation. Raising his voice, he accused me of trying to stop him from carrying out his duty. Angrily, he said that he was a senior civil service officer and that I had no right to question him about his work.
I was shocked at his loud accusation against me. No civil servant however senior had spoken to me like that. I was rendered speechless.
These exchanges were carried out in my office. No other person was present. No notes were taken, nor was there any recording, at least by me. So only the two of us would know what really happened or was said.
What he said in court is his version. There is nothing to verify what he said nor is there anything to verify what I say now is wrong. It is a case of his words against mine, sworn testimony notwithstanding. He had obviously omitted his shouted accusations against me. Had what he said in court was all that happened, then it would not have taken more than three minutes. But what he said and what I said took longer than three minutes.
I wonder how counsel knew of what happened in the privacy of my office. Even the Chief Secretary, the only person who was informed by Datuk Shafee could not have told counsel. Obviously it was Shafee who volunteered information. Why did he do this?
I was not a party to the trial of Anwar. If I was to be accused I should at least be heard. But clearly Shafee saw Anwar’s trial as an opportunity to make statements detrimental to my reputation.
Shafee was an angry man and what he said in court was opportunistic and seem to reflect his desire to take revenge against me. I can only assume that this was what motivated him, because what he divulged did not help Anwar much. But it did put me in a very bad light.
As to why this case has not been followed I can only assume that the courts are busy and there are tens of thousands of cases which have yet to be heard. Maybe the fault is with the Attorney General or police. I would not know.
Still I welcome any investigation by impartial people as to the truth or otherwise of what I say in this letter.
As for Param Cumarawamy and Karpal Singh, their hatred of me is well known and apparently has not abated even after I am no longer prime minister.
Many lawyers were angry with me because I had quoted Shakespeare during a cabinet meeting which says, "the first thing we do, we hang the lawyers". I was only joking but they heard of it and believed I meant what I said. The judges also felt unhappy with me.
Besides, I had criticised the judiciary for disregarding the intention or objectives of the laws formulated by the legislative wing but instead interpret them based on the words used. Was I committing a crime for saying this? I was merely stating a fact. Can no one comment on the judiciary at all even when they disregard the interest of the country? In many developed countries it is common for the public to criticise the judiciary.
As for Param, he made libellous remarks about a fellow-Malaysian when he was a member of a United Nations Commission. He should have been hauled before a Malaysian court but he claimed immunity due to his appointment by the UN.
My stand was that his immunity was only with regard to the specific work for the UN. If he breached Malaysian laws on matters not related to this work, then he cannot plead immunity.
His libellous words against a Malaysian individual had nothing to do with his work for the UN. He should therefore be liable, and his immunity could not be invoked. But he got the UN to back him. It was even hinted that if Malaysia prosecuted him, then our case before the International Court of Justice on the issue of the ownership of Sipadan and Ligitan would be jeopardised.
Accordingly I agreed that he should not be prosecuted. Luckily it was only libel. Had Param Cumaraswamy murdered a person, and he claimed immunity, then there would indeed be a miscarriage of justice.
I do not think my recalcitrance over his immunity endeared me to him. Now that I am not a prime minister, he has expressed his delight at saying that I should not criticise anything the present government does because I was guilty of worse.
I maintain that in the case of Tun Salleh Abas I did what was required of me under the Constitution and Malaysia’s laws. I consider the suggestion that I should apologise as frivolous, unwarranted and stupid.
If Param or Karpal is not convinced perhaps they should use their considerable knowledge of the law to shut my mouth.
Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad
The letter is extracted from The Sun Daily
http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=21356
Sunday, 16 March 2008
Mukhriz Mahathir's Letter to Badawi : Call for PM to resign
Mukhriz Mahathir's Letter to Badawi : Call for PM to resign
Below are Mukhriz Mahathir letter to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
Below are Mukhriz Mahathir letter to Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
Translation below:
12th March 2008
Dato' Seri,Let me take this opportunity to thank you and the party's leadership for the faith in me and the chance to contest in Jerlun as a Barisan Nasional candidate. With the blessing and hard work of the party's leadership and machinery as well as the people of Jerlun, I have won the elections and am now a new Member of Parliament.
However, sadly enough, my victory is rendered meaningless in view of the defeat that Umno and the Kedah BN suffered in the hands of the opposition. Apart form Kedah, four other states as well as the Federal Territories also received similar humiliation in defeat.
In fact your own state of Penang was wrested by the DAP from the BN. Kelantan is again under Pas rules. In other states, the BN also suffered a similar humiliation when the level of BN support by the people has tremendously reduced. This, Datuk Seri, has never happened in the history of BN rule.
The sole intention of my letter to you is meant to save UMNO and BN from being rejected further by the people and from being no longer relevant to our religion, race and nation.
Dato' Seri, the people are unhappy and the message from them is very clear, and that is they have rejected you as the nation's chief executive.
Contrary to your claim that you still have the support of Umno and other component parties, the reality is that even our own party members had reneged in their voting pattern by supporting the Opposition and inflicting the BN its defeat.
Dato' Seri, when the people held street demonstrations you openly dared them to resort to the ballot boxes to demonstrate.
They took your challenge by coming out, especially tho people in the Peninsular, and they demonstrated their feelings by voting us out at the BN at State and Parliament levels.
It is therefore clear that your leadership and your handling of the issues faced by the people and the nation are no longer accepted. Let's not deny the truth just for the sake of keeping your seat as Prime Minister.
For the love of this country and the people, I beg that you take responsibility for the defeat. We can save UMNO, the BN and the nation only if you relinquish your positions as Prime Minister and the President of UMNO.
Dato' Seri, I hope you will understand that I make this plea with the intention of salvaging a very dire situation. A move has been made to woo the BN representatives to join the Opposition. The enemy needs just 35 seats more to topple the government of your leadership.
If you do not resign in the near future, I fear that the situation will become untenable and that the Malay support for Umno and BN will be a thing of the past.
This plea I make without malice, and I am aware that your reaction and that of other UMNO members could very well be hostile.
But come what may, I am prepared, for the sake of the Malays and UMNO, to face the consequences of my action. With all humility, I leave my fate to Allah SWT.
Dato' Seri, I am sure that you will do the right thing for the sake of the people and the nation. May Allah SWT bless you for the sacrifice you make by stepping down.
Wasallam
Yours Sincerely
Mukhriz Mahathir
Jerlun Member Parlament
AFP News
Source:
http://promahathir.blogspot.com/2008/03/datuk-mukhrizs-letter-to-pm-abdullah.html
Also
AFP News reported
Mahathir's son calls on Malaysian PM to resign
KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) — The son of former premier Mahathir Mohamad on Friday revived calls for Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to resign after the ruling coalition's unprecedented election setback.
Malaysiakini
Umno Youth exco meet to decide on Mukhriz
Mar 15, 08 7:55pm
The action against Umno Youth exco member Mukhriz Mahathir for asking Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to step down will be decided at the movement's executive committee meeting to be held soon.
Raja of Perlis has the right to pick Perlis MB (Dr Md Isa Sabu)
Raja of Perlis has the right to pick Perlis MB (Dr Md Isa Sabu)
> clearly spelt out under article 39(2) of the State Constitution.
> The Prime Minister cannot appoint the mentri besar
> The Raja of Perlis should be above politics
> Now that the appointment had been made, Datuk Dr Md Isa Sabu could only be dismissed by the state assembly.
KUALA LUMPUR: Under the Perlis Constitution, it is the prerogative of the Raja of Perlis and not the Prime Minister to decide who commands the confidence of the majority and should be made Mentri Besar after the elections, said constitutional law expert Prof Shad Faruqi.
He said this was clearly spelt out under article 39(2) of the State Constitution.
Therefore, he said, it was unconstitutional for the Prime Minister to determine who would be mentri besar. “The Prime Minister cannot appoint the mentri besar. I’m sure it was not the intention of the Prime Minister to usurp the powers of the Raja of Perlis,” he said.
Prof Shad pointed out that the Ruler did not have the absolute discretion in making his choice. He said it was only proper for the palace to pick someone who was the acknowledged political leader and had the confidence of the majority, rather than giving preference to someone the palace liked. “The palace shouldn’t be involved in politics.
The Raja of Perlis should be above politics and not allow personal feelings to colour his judgment,” he said.
He, however, stressed that if the palace was approached by people not wanting a particular candidate to lead their state, then it was only right for the Ruler to take this into account.
Prof Shad said now that the appointment had been made, Datuk Dr Md Isa Sabu could only be dismissed by the state assembly.
Source :
Quoted from Malaysian Bar Website
Saturday, 15 March 2008 08:12am
The Star
> clearly spelt out under article 39(2) of the State Constitution.
> The Prime Minister cannot appoint the mentri besar
> The Raja of Perlis should be above politics
> Now that the appointment had been made, Datuk Dr Md Isa Sabu could only be dismissed by the state assembly.
KUALA LUMPUR: Under the Perlis Constitution, it is the prerogative of the Raja of Perlis and not the Prime Minister to decide who commands the confidence of the majority and should be made Mentri Besar after the elections, said constitutional law expert Prof Shad Faruqi.
He said this was clearly spelt out under article 39(2) of the State Constitution.
Therefore, he said, it was unconstitutional for the Prime Minister to determine who would be mentri besar. “The Prime Minister cannot appoint the mentri besar. I’m sure it was not the intention of the Prime Minister to usurp the powers of the Raja of Perlis,” he said.
Prof Shad pointed out that the Ruler did not have the absolute discretion in making his choice. He said it was only proper for the palace to pick someone who was the acknowledged political leader and had the confidence of the majority, rather than giving preference to someone the palace liked. “The palace shouldn’t be involved in politics.
The Raja of Perlis should be above politics and not allow personal feelings to colour his judgment,” he said.
He, however, stressed that if the palace was approached by people not wanting a particular candidate to lead their state, then it was only right for the Ruler to take this into account.
Prof Shad said now that the appointment had been made, Datuk Dr Md Isa Sabu could only be dismissed by the state assembly.
Source :
Quoted from Malaysian Bar Website
Saturday, 15 March 2008 08:12am
The Star
Chua Soi Lek : The Reasons of MCA Defeat, What People Really Wanted, Ong Ka Ting Leadership and related issues
Interview with Chua Soi Lek (New Sunday Times):
The Reasons MCA Defeats, What People Really Wanted? What Has MCA done so far? What MCA Should do? Why didn't he voiced out earlier?
> What MCA should do to rejuvanate itself?
> What the people really wants?
> Dr.Chua voices out during his time : Reason of him being unfavourable.
Q: Should MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting take responsibility for MCA's defeat and step down?
A: To be fair, (the defeat) is a collective responsibility. (But) Ka Ting's biggest problem is that he practises a "very exclusive type" of consultation.
There are meetings every week, Central Committee meetings every month and party gatherings. I've been attending all these meetings for years, but I noticed people didn't speak the truth. They spoke only what the president wanted to hear. If you're articulate, they think you have some hidden agenda. The president is vested with executive powers to decide whom he wants to be the minister, the deputy or whatever. So, everybody wants to be in his good books, to be included. But it may come to a situation where the emperor with no clothes is the best-dressed emperor in the world.
I was in the cabinet for nearly four years, and I was also vice-president, but how often were we consulted openly on issues? Less than five times. Hush-hush meetings "got". That was Ka Ting's core weakness; the lack of trust in his colleagues. Somebody told me that was his basis for success.
Q: What do you think caused MCA's poor performance?
A: (It's a) disaster. There are two main factors. First was the generally negative sentiment of the voters towards the government. It was negative, very anti-establishment, but nobody realised how strong it was.
There were many issues that cut across racial lines this time, like inflation. Although the government had done a lot to control the price of goods, the dissemination of information about what was done wasn't effective. People don't read the mainstream media.
Then there was crime and the perception that there was abuse of power.
People also felt some MPs were just clowning around in parliament, that they were not treating this august assembly with the respect it deserves.The talk about leaking roofs and "leaking women" hadn't gone down well, especially with the younger generation (who are) educated. There was also the Lingam video controversy.
There were also shortfalls in the implementation of government policies. Religious issues concerning non-Muslims hadn't been satisfactorily resolved. The church groups were not happy.
The second factor was that MCA kept singing the same old tune -- talking about Chinese school relocations, how many new schools they had built and how many scholarships had been given.
They (the MCA leaders) say these are important. Congratulations, you've done a good job, but the community faces bigger problems.
Problems like economic and educational opportunities, and fairness in dealing with every race on issues like licensing to professional practice. A lot of professional fields were really squeezed.
Initially, we were told (professional firms) must have a Bumi partner, later they (Maybank) said it (Bumi shares) must be 50 per cent. We were unable to address these concerns.
To be fair, MCA has done a lot over the years. But people want to see an MCA that is more vocal to articulate the frustrations of the Chinese, rather than an MCA saying it's resolving issues behind closed doors.
This low-key manner adopted by Ka Ting has not gone down well. People feel we're playing second fiddle to big brother Umno and don't stand up at crucial moments.
Q: Do MCA leaders speak up for the community in the cabinet?
A: Yes, but we addressed it in a "fire-fighting" manner when I was in the cabinet. There was no clear-cut policy to set a direction. There was assurance, but no implementation.
When elections came, we were still unable to address the bigger issues that were of concern to the community.
I met a group of professionals recently who said, "Please doctor, wake up. These are only part of the problems. We have bigger problems which your party is not addressing."
Giving out 500 scholarships is good, but only 500 families are happy. If the country is serious about building its human resources, all good deserving students should be given scholarships. Why must they go crying to MCA or to MIC for help? To the younger generation, it (education) is their right.
Q: Has the MCA leadership become complacent? Is this why people lost confidence in the party?
A: I won't say that but we were feeling very comfortable. We thought we had done a lot. Just before the general election, we got the minister of education to make some announcements, give RM5 million here, RM10 million there.
The Chinese regarded these as an insult. They said, "We are not beggars. Why give us this RM10 million now? Why couldn't you give it earlier?"
Q: There was talk that some MCA members were also campaigning for the opposition.
A: If you parachute candidates and it doesn't go down well with the grassroots and their feelings are not taken care of, I'm sure they would have. But I wouldn't say MCA failed because of their campaigning.
Q: Do the election results signify the beginning of the end of racial politics?
A: It only signifies that (when) pent-up feelings and frustrations are so high, people will vote across racial lines. Barisan Nasional is still relevant, so is MCA -- if we know how to re-brand, re-strategise, admit our mistakes and rebuild on the strong foundation that we have laid down. We still have a good organisational structure. The opposition doesn't have the machinery and the members (yet) they won handsomely. Some were so confident that they stood for parliament and state and won both.
Politics is the art of perception, real or imagined. And they (the opposition) have done well to show they care, can connect with the people and be a force to articulate their dissatisfactions.
Q: You previously said MCA might have taken its rejuvenation exercise too far by dropping a lot of experienced and reliable candidates. Why?
A: People can accept that the party wants to rejuvenate and introduce a mixture of young, old and middle-aged, but local sentiment must be considered .
I can list many cases where we failed and it was because of the candidate. Whether you like it or not, the divisional chairman is the warlord, be he from Umno, MIC or MCA. So if I'm the wakil rakyat and I've been serving my people well, but you tell me, "you've served three terms, your time is up" and put in somebody else -- not many can accept that.
Q: But what about the case of Datuk Lee Hwa Beng (MCA candidate for Kelana Jaya) who served the public, especially in Subang Jaya, faithfully for almost 12 years? He lost to Loh Gwo Burne, a virtual unknown?
A: Sometimes, voters can become emotional. They wanted to send a strong message, to teach BN a lesson. In Hwa Beng's case, Loh Seng Kok (former Kelana Jaya member of parliament) had also served the area well. So there may be people who voted for the alternative out of sympathy for Loh.
Q: Should MCA do away with its three-term policy?
A: I think it is healthy politics for a (capable) leader not to be limited to serving only three terms. Here you have a deputy (deputy party president) who said just one day before nomination day that he was retiring because of health reasons. Do you think people (can) accept it? Things like this have caused the people to distrust the party.
Q: Gerakan was almost wiped out and MCA took quite a beating. There are suggestions on the ground that the two should combine forces and reinvent themselves as a multiracial organisation.
A: I've said MCA is still relevant, just like Umno and MIC because racial politics will be with us for quite some time. The question now is how MCA can rebuild itself after this disaster. It was founded 60 years ago on a purely racial basis to look after the interests of the Chinese.
We have this fixation that if we have developed the new villages, taken care of educational opportunities by building TAR (Tunku Abdul Rahman) university college, built Chinese schools, relocated some, and given them money, then the Chinese community would be satisfied.
We also thought we should look after the longkang, the garbage, the back of people's houses; because DAP don't do it and we do, so we are great and people will vote us.
What they didn't see is that people think all these are the job of the government. So what are we shouting about? It's the government machinery and delivery system that is not good; that's why we have to do it. We have to come up with a new strategy, new image. That we are not just a Chinese-based party, but we accept the political reality that we exist in a multiracial country.
We have to address some of the problems in the context of a multi-racial society. The basic services are important, but some MCA wakil rakyat who have done these excellently still lost shamefully.
That means people rejected them. They want us to address and articulate more fundamental and bigger issues.
So we have to re-brand ourselves to show we are relevant and are able to articulate their frustrations. We cannot stay low-profile, low-key. We should let people know that we are addressing their issues and let the press know about it.
Q: Do you think MCA should be more vocal now?
A: MCA shouldn't have this fixation with Chinese schools, new villages -- these are important, but more important is to ensure the government is fair in dealing with all issues, like the economic opportunities on an expanding economic cake. The perception is that the NEP (New Economic Policy) is still on and anything you do, you must have Bumi participation.
We must tell the Chinese they are not marginalised, that they're still relevant, still part of the mainstream economic development and they are doing well.
Q: Do you think the interests of the Chinese and Indians are going to be properly addressed now that they have less representation in government?
A: That's what we've been telling the Indians and Chinese. I have a very big Indian community in Labis -- 18 per cent. They told me recently that half of them have gone to DAP and Pas. They said "we've been voting faithfully but there's been no change".
They've been staying in estates like their fathers before them, so what representation are you talking about? At least, the new party gives them hope. So until we address their problems, the Indian community has a lot (of reasons) to be against the government. The estate community was a self-contained community which they could be proud of 30 years ago. They had their quarters, their water, their own health (facilities).
But 30 years on, things have not changed. The estates made a lot of money but nobody paid attention to them, until Hindraf (Hindu Rights Action Force) came and there was a sudden awakening. It's only logical they voted differently.
Meanwhile, the Chinese said they voted MCA in the best and worst of times, but it's still the same.
Q: Why didn't you voice these opinions earlier?
A: How do you know I never did? If I hadn't, do you think I would be such an unfavourable man in the party? I would have been the favoured son.
Q: Do you agree with Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's call for the prime minister to resign because of BN's performance in the polls?
A: The prime minister not only looks after the component parties, but also the country. His responsibility is not just to Umno but to all other parties and races. So when you have a bad outing like this, it may cause a lot of problems if he suddenly steps down. People may think that he's irresponsible.
Source:
Extracted from Malaysia Bar Website
©New SundayTimes by Tan Choe Choe, P. Selvarani and David Yeow
The Reasons MCA Defeats, What People Really Wanted? What Has MCA done so far? What MCA Should do? Why didn't he voiced out earlier?
"Speak up for Chinese rights, Chua tells MCA"
In Brief
> Ong Ka Ting - practises a "very exclusive type" of consultation.
> Ka Ting's core weakness; the lack of trust in his colleagues.
> What MCA should do to rejuvanate itself?
> What the people really wants?
> Dr.Chua voices out during his time : Reason of him being unfavourable.
Q: Should MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting take responsibility for MCA's defeat and step down?
A: To be fair, (the defeat) is a collective responsibility. (But) Ka Ting's biggest problem is that he practises a "very exclusive type" of consultation.
There are meetings every week, Central Committee meetings every month and party gatherings. I've been attending all these meetings for years, but I noticed people didn't speak the truth. They spoke only what the president wanted to hear. If you're articulate, they think you have some hidden agenda. The president is vested with executive powers to decide whom he wants to be the minister, the deputy or whatever. So, everybody wants to be in his good books, to be included. But it may come to a situation where the emperor with no clothes is the best-dressed emperor in the world.
I was in the cabinet for nearly four years, and I was also vice-president, but how often were we consulted openly on issues? Less than five times. Hush-hush meetings "got". That was Ka Ting's core weakness; the lack of trust in his colleagues. Somebody told me that was his basis for success.
Q: What do you think caused MCA's poor performance?
A: (It's a) disaster. There are two main factors. First was the generally negative sentiment of the voters towards the government. It was negative, very anti-establishment, but nobody realised how strong it was.
There were many issues that cut across racial lines this time, like inflation. Although the government had done a lot to control the price of goods, the dissemination of information about what was done wasn't effective. People don't read the mainstream media.
Then there was crime and the perception that there was abuse of power.
People also felt some MPs were just clowning around in parliament, that they were not treating this august assembly with the respect it deserves.The talk about leaking roofs and "leaking women" hadn't gone down well, especially with the younger generation (who are) educated. There was also the Lingam video controversy.
There were also shortfalls in the implementation of government policies. Religious issues concerning non-Muslims hadn't been satisfactorily resolved. The church groups were not happy.
The second factor was that MCA kept singing the same old tune -- talking about Chinese school relocations, how many new schools they had built and how many scholarships had been given.
They (the MCA leaders) say these are important. Congratulations, you've done a good job, but the community faces bigger problems.
Problems like economic and educational opportunities, and fairness in dealing with every race on issues like licensing to professional practice. A lot of professional fields were really squeezed.
Initially, we were told (professional firms) must have a Bumi partner, later they (Maybank) said it (Bumi shares) must be 50 per cent. We were unable to address these concerns.
To be fair, MCA has done a lot over the years. But people want to see an MCA that is more vocal to articulate the frustrations of the Chinese, rather than an MCA saying it's resolving issues behind closed doors.
This low-key manner adopted by Ka Ting has not gone down well. People feel we're playing second fiddle to big brother Umno and don't stand up at crucial moments.
Q: Do MCA leaders speak up for the community in the cabinet?
A: Yes, but we addressed it in a "fire-fighting" manner when I was in the cabinet. There was no clear-cut policy to set a direction. There was assurance, but no implementation.
When elections came, we were still unable to address the bigger issues that were of concern to the community.
I met a group of professionals recently who said, "Please doctor, wake up. These are only part of the problems. We have bigger problems which your party is not addressing."
Giving out 500 scholarships is good, but only 500 families are happy. If the country is serious about building its human resources, all good deserving students should be given scholarships. Why must they go crying to MCA or to MIC for help? To the younger generation, it (education) is their right.
Q: Has the MCA leadership become complacent? Is this why people lost confidence in the party?
A: I won't say that but we were feeling very comfortable. We thought we had done a lot. Just before the general election, we got the minister of education to make some announcements, give RM5 million here, RM10 million there.
The Chinese regarded these as an insult. They said, "We are not beggars. Why give us this RM10 million now? Why couldn't you give it earlier?"
Q: There was talk that some MCA members were also campaigning for the opposition.
A: If you parachute candidates and it doesn't go down well with the grassroots and their feelings are not taken care of, I'm sure they would have. But I wouldn't say MCA failed because of their campaigning.
Q: Do the election results signify the beginning of the end of racial politics?
A: It only signifies that (when) pent-up feelings and frustrations are so high, people will vote across racial lines. Barisan Nasional is still relevant, so is MCA -- if we know how to re-brand, re-strategise, admit our mistakes and rebuild on the strong foundation that we have laid down. We still have a good organisational structure. The opposition doesn't have the machinery and the members (yet) they won handsomely. Some were so confident that they stood for parliament and state and won both.
Politics is the art of perception, real or imagined. And they (the opposition) have done well to show they care, can connect with the people and be a force to articulate their dissatisfactions.
Q: You previously said MCA might have taken its rejuvenation exercise too far by dropping a lot of experienced and reliable candidates. Why?
A: People can accept that the party wants to rejuvenate and introduce a mixture of young, old and middle-aged, but local sentiment must be considered .
I can list many cases where we failed and it was because of the candidate. Whether you like it or not, the divisional chairman is the warlord, be he from Umno, MIC or MCA. So if I'm the wakil rakyat and I've been serving my people well, but you tell me, "you've served three terms, your time is up" and put in somebody else -- not many can accept that.
Q: But what about the case of Datuk Lee Hwa Beng (MCA candidate for Kelana Jaya) who served the public, especially in Subang Jaya, faithfully for almost 12 years? He lost to Loh Gwo Burne, a virtual unknown?
A: Sometimes, voters can become emotional. They wanted to send a strong message, to teach BN a lesson. In Hwa Beng's case, Loh Seng Kok (former Kelana Jaya member of parliament) had also served the area well. So there may be people who voted for the alternative out of sympathy for Loh.
Q: Should MCA do away with its three-term policy?
A: I think it is healthy politics for a (capable) leader not to be limited to serving only three terms. Here you have a deputy (deputy party president) who said just one day before nomination day that he was retiring because of health reasons. Do you think people (can) accept it? Things like this have caused the people to distrust the party.
Q: Gerakan was almost wiped out and MCA took quite a beating. There are suggestions on the ground that the two should combine forces and reinvent themselves as a multiracial organisation.
A: I've said MCA is still relevant, just like Umno and MIC because racial politics will be with us for quite some time. The question now is how MCA can rebuild itself after this disaster. It was founded 60 years ago on a purely racial basis to look after the interests of the Chinese.
We have this fixation that if we have developed the new villages, taken care of educational opportunities by building TAR (Tunku Abdul Rahman) university college, built Chinese schools, relocated some, and given them money, then the Chinese community would be satisfied.
We also thought we should look after the longkang, the garbage, the back of people's houses; because DAP don't do it and we do, so we are great and people will vote us.
What they didn't see is that people think all these are the job of the government. So what are we shouting about? It's the government machinery and delivery system that is not good; that's why we have to do it. We have to come up with a new strategy, new image. That we are not just a Chinese-based party, but we accept the political reality that we exist in a multiracial country.
We have to address some of the problems in the context of a multi-racial society. The basic services are important, but some MCA wakil rakyat who have done these excellently still lost shamefully.
That means people rejected them. They want us to address and articulate more fundamental and bigger issues.
So we have to re-brand ourselves to show we are relevant and are able to articulate their frustrations. We cannot stay low-profile, low-key. We should let people know that we are addressing their issues and let the press know about it.
Q: Do you think MCA should be more vocal now?
A: MCA shouldn't have this fixation with Chinese schools, new villages -- these are important, but more important is to ensure the government is fair in dealing with all issues, like the economic opportunities on an expanding economic cake. The perception is that the NEP (New Economic Policy) is still on and anything you do, you must have Bumi participation.
We must tell the Chinese they are not marginalised, that they're still relevant, still part of the mainstream economic development and they are doing well.
Q: Do you think the interests of the Chinese and Indians are going to be properly addressed now that they have less representation in government?
A: That's what we've been telling the Indians and Chinese. I have a very big Indian community in Labis -- 18 per cent. They told me recently that half of them have gone to DAP and Pas. They said "we've been voting faithfully but there's been no change".
They've been staying in estates like their fathers before them, so what representation are you talking about? At least, the new party gives them hope. So until we address their problems, the Indian community has a lot (of reasons) to be against the government. The estate community was a self-contained community which they could be proud of 30 years ago. They had their quarters, their water, their own health (facilities).
But 30 years on, things have not changed. The estates made a lot of money but nobody paid attention to them, until Hindraf (Hindu Rights Action Force) came and there was a sudden awakening. It's only logical they voted differently.
Meanwhile, the Chinese said they voted MCA in the best and worst of times, but it's still the same.
Q: Why didn't you voice these opinions earlier?
A: How do you know I never did? If I hadn't, do you think I would be such an unfavourable man in the party? I would have been the favoured son.
Q: Do you agree with Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's call for the prime minister to resign because of BN's performance in the polls?
A: The prime minister not only looks after the component parties, but also the country. His responsibility is not just to Umno but to all other parties and races. So when you have a bad outing like this, it may cause a lot of problems if he suddenly steps down. People may think that he's irresponsible.
Source:
Extracted from Malaysia Bar Website
©New SundayTimes by Tan Choe Choe, P. Selvarani and David Yeow
Tuesday, 11 March 2008
Tun Dr Mahathir pressure Abdullah Badawi to step down (losses in Election 2008)
Press Conference with Tun Mahathir on BN Losses in 2008 by Malaysiakini
- Abdullah Badawi , PM to step down and take responsibility
- Badawi destroyed UMNO and BN
- Khairy lead to BN defeat
- Issues lead to loss of states : People dont feel the growth, Government run by family
- Anwar is relevant but will not be PM
- who should succeed Pak Lah
- Dr M : BN CANT manage the economy
I think his son-in-law played a big role (in the defeat). This young man who has no achievements before but apparently the PM listens to him. said Mahathir at a press conference.
Are you surprised by the results?
Mahathir: I think it’s shocking. Although I expected BN to lose but I did not think that they lost five states.I'm sorry that I made the wrong choice in Pak Lah. I never expected a PM to reverse all the policies of the government. So I think the people on the whole must have been very angry. All the three communities, the Chinese, the Malays and the Indians, have reacted.
Will Tun pressure Pak Lah to resign?
I think he should accept responsibility for this. Just as in 2004, the huge majority, the huge victory was purportedly due to him 100 percent. Now he should accept 100 percent of the responsibility.
What do you mean by taking responsibility?
He has destroyed Umno, destroyed BN. And he has to be responsible for this terrible defeat.If he doesn't want to take responsibility, do you think that Umno will do something to make him go?I think Umno people on the ground are fearful of this man as they have never been before. During my time they would challenge me. Here I was not allowed to speak. I was given invitations to give talk to Umno members but these were withdrawn. They say that the police told them to withdraw it.
When you say ‘step down’, do you mean (from) Umno or PM?
I think he should (step down). The Japanese would have performed ‘hara-kiri’. I think that Najib (Razak) has done very well. He has scored an amazing victory, more than the 2004 elections.
What do you think led to this defeat?
I think his son-in-law (Khairy Jamaluddin) played a big role. This young man who has no achievements before but apparently the PM listens to him more rather than the police, the special branch and the armed forces, who are closer to the ground. They were so taken up with their own newspaper reports that they couldn't hear anything else. They dismissed everything they didn't like.
Do you think the timing of the election was a miscalculation?
It can be called a miscalculation but I doubt if they had waited another year, the results would have been any different.
What were the issues which led to the loss of the states?
Many issues led to the pent-up feelings of the citizens of which despite the economic growth, the people aren't feeling anything. They feel the rise in the cost of living a big factor. They also see that this government is run by one family. When family takes precedence over cabinet, over government, then people will be against it.
Do you think this damage is permanent for BN?
Everything can be reversed if you do things properly. They have been so arrogant that they have suppressed any opinions they don't like and believe in their own reports which are not consistent with what is really happening in the country.
With the opposition making so much inroads in Malaysia, what do you think will happen?
Well, there will be instability for some time. If the opposition is good, they should be able to remedy the situation.
Do you think that Anwar Ibrahim is still relevant?
I think he is relevant but he is not going to become the prime minister of this country.
If you were in Pak Lah's shoes, would you be in a hurry to form the government?
I would take responsibility. If the people want me to resign, I would resign.
After this setback, do you think that Barisan has any hope to remedy this situation?
There is hope. But whether the leaders have the will to repair BN is another question.
Who should succeed Pak Lah?
Najib won by 26,000 votes and this is much more than in 2004 when the BN was very, very popular. On the other hand, Pak Lah - who had a majority of 18,000 before - only has a majority of 11,000 now. The fact is that he lost a number of votes. And there are not many people who have improved (their majority) since 2004.Yes, his son-in-law won but he only won by a small majority, smaller than previously. He was also in a safe seat.
How to cure Umno?
The person responsible should retreat.If the Malays had not voted for opposition this would not have happened.
Why did the Umno supporters vote for opposition this time?
They feel their situation is under pressure. Inflation is high. Their lives are on the line. The people know that you can say that there is 6 percent growth but where is the 6 percent on their body? They are having to spend more money.I've said this to Malaysiakini. When you say 6 percent, it is an average. This can be achieved by one person having a very high percentage but the rest have nothing. You can't have this sort of figures and expect people to vote for you.The intelligent people would know that this is not correct. Those that don't understand all these figures, rather be guided by what is actually happening to them. What is happening to them is the higher cost of living and a lowering of their standard of living.
Going back to the 1969 elections, after the Alliance had lost, you were one of the main agitators for the prime minister (Tunku Abdul Rahman) to transfer his powers to his deputy (Tun Abdul Razak)...I am in a dilemma as I'm an Umno member. Are you the agitator again?
I will voice out my opinion. If people ask, I will give my opinion. And my opinion in this matter is that the person responsible should step down.
Looking at the current BN line-up, do you think that the BN government can manage the economy?No, I don't think they can manage. Even when they have full force and tons of money at their disposal they have not done anything.
Why?
You have to ask the state leaders.Penang has fallen to DAP, how do you think this will affect the Malays?It's not just about Penang. If we want to correct that, we have got Malay leaders, we've got a Malay government and the citizens who are Malay must know how to overcome their problems.
What can veterans like Tengku Razaleigh (Hamzah) do to help Umno at this juncture?
They can give ideas.
Is it to revolt and cause Pak Lah to resign?I am not talking about a rebellion but there must be pressure. And if that pressure is ignored by Pak Lah, then this would turn the matter into a heated confrontation.
Do you think that the opposition success is attributed to Anwar?
I don't think it is so. This is more of something against BN than strong support for the opposition.They (voters) have no choice. If you don't vote BN, who do you vote for? There are only two candidates. So you vote for the opposition or you don't vote at all. Either way, the BN was going to lose a lot of support.
People say that Umno is still afraid of Pak Lah. So how can they pressure Pak Lah to step down?
I'm sure that there are some brave members out there.
Are there any alternatives for Pak Lah other than to resign?I don't see any other alternative. The man that is 100 percent responsible has to show that he is responsible.
Some people were saying if BN's two-thirds majority is denied, a repeat of May 13 would take place. Why won't it happen now?
No I don't think it would happen. In the first place, the police have been very careful, telling people no demonstration and no parades.In 1969, the police gave permission for the opposition to hold a victory parade. And they went to Kampung Baru and started insulting the people there, which caused a reaction. This ended up as a riot. If the police remain strong on these demonstrations and victory parades, I don't think there will be any problems.
Is it time to end racial politics?
I'm going to tell you this (rejection of BN) involves all the races. It's not as if the Chinese reject BN or all the Indians reject BN. Here, you see Chinese, Indian and Malay reject BN except for Sabah and Sarawak.
Umno has retained more seats compared to the other component parties like MIC and MCA. Will they pressure Pak Lah to step down?
That depends on them to whether to apply pressure or not but the Barisan Nasional concept is still relevant. If there is no (MIC chief S) Samy Vellu, then find another Vellu.
Can you comment on Zam (Zainuddin Maidin)?
He won or lost? Oh, he lost. Well, the way he was campaigning was really funny, telling people to look at his face and how it doesn't change. But I think that a face that doesn't change can be very boring. Sometimes you must laugh, sometimes you must cry.He was telling everybody "Ini muka tak bertukar, tak bertukar". Who is interested in his ‘wajar’? If he was Britney Spears, then….
If you had suffered the same defeat, would you have resigned too?
Yes, I would resign if that is the wish of the people. I've always abided by the wish of the people, so much so that people who were against me were brought back into the cabinet, and that includes Pak Lah, Syed Hamid (Syed Albar), Rais Yatim and (Abdul) Kadir Sheikh Fadzil. All these (leaders) were against me.But when Pak Lah was elected vice-president, I cannot (not appoint him) as he was wanted by Umno. As such I appointed him back into the cabinet.
But you did not resign in 1999?
I did not because we won two-thirds. We won with full Chinese support. Yes, we lost Terengganu and Kelantan but we have always lost Kelantan and Terengganu was for very specific reasons.
Did BN lose because too many people like Samy Vellu had hung on to power too long?
I think that Samy Vellu played a big part in the defeat. When he was in BN, he doesn't allow any of the MIC people to come up to his level. If they come up (to be) deputy or vice-president, he will knock them down and even expel them from the party.And he wouldn't allow any other Indian party to join BN. (MG) Pandithan tried to join, begged me to allow him and I wanted to agree but we have this consensus in BN that if one party doesn't agree we cannot accept them.
Are you surprised by (ISA detainee) M Manoharan's victory?
This has happened before in 1959 or is it 1964, when PAS used to go from village to village carrying the candidate's shoes and he won.
What can you say about the media’s - especially the mainstream ones' - role in this campaign? Do you think that there should be changes there?
There should be changes. They should report what actually happens and make a proper analysis. Before, they were able to feed back to me what was happening on the ground. Maybe, when they talk about races and things like that, I would have to clamp down on them, which I did in 1987.
Should all the bosses of the newspapers resign too?
They have their constraints. Some of them are my friends and supporters too and they apologise say that they can't help. "It's all this Kali. This Kali," they tell me.
Has Umno become irrelevant?
For the moment, yes. It's not always so. If Umno serves the country well, and looks after all the different races, then Umno will be relevant again.
What is your comment on the young BN candidates losing?There is this rumour that some of these candidates are Khairy's and that he wants to be prime minister.
Do you think that other BN component leaders should resign too?
I think that one component leader has already been knocked out. As for Ong Ka Ting, it's up to him. This is a very bad defeat for him and MCA and it's never been this bad before.
Everyone says that PAS and DAP cannot work together but if they don't in Selangor and Perak, they can't form state government. What is your take on this?If they work together they can form state government. If not, then representatives of Umno - if there are many - can form a minority government. But it will be a shaky government.
Are you sad with the results?
Yes, I am although I had hoped that a message would be sent to the government.
Will you return to active politics?
I won't return to active politics but if they want advice, I can give them. How can I return when once I stepped down they treated me like a pariah?
The Press Conference is quoted from Malaysiakini
Source
Malaysiakini 9 Mar 2008
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/79523
- Abdullah Badawi , PM to step down and take responsibility
- Badawi destroyed UMNO and BN
- Khairy lead to BN defeat
- Issues lead to loss of states : People dont feel the growth, Government run by family
- Anwar is relevant but will not be PM
- who should succeed Pak Lah
- Dr M : BN CANT manage the economy
I think his son-in-law played a big role (in the defeat). This young man who has no achievements before but apparently the PM listens to him. said Mahathir at a press conference.
Are you surprised by the results?
Mahathir: I think it’s shocking. Although I expected BN to lose but I did not think that they lost five states.I'm sorry that I made the wrong choice in Pak Lah. I never expected a PM to reverse all the policies of the government. So I think the people on the whole must have been very angry. All the three communities, the Chinese, the Malays and the Indians, have reacted.
Will Tun pressure Pak Lah to resign?
I think he should accept responsibility for this. Just as in 2004, the huge majority, the huge victory was purportedly due to him 100 percent. Now he should accept 100 percent of the responsibility.
What do you mean by taking responsibility?
He has destroyed Umno, destroyed BN. And he has to be responsible for this terrible defeat.If he doesn't want to take responsibility, do you think that Umno will do something to make him go?I think Umno people on the ground are fearful of this man as they have never been before. During my time they would challenge me. Here I was not allowed to speak. I was given invitations to give talk to Umno members but these were withdrawn. They say that the police told them to withdraw it.
When you say ‘step down’, do you mean (from) Umno or PM?
I think he should (step down). The Japanese would have performed ‘hara-kiri’. I think that Najib (Razak) has done very well. He has scored an amazing victory, more than the 2004 elections.
What do you think led to this defeat?
I think his son-in-law (Khairy Jamaluddin) played a big role. This young man who has no achievements before but apparently the PM listens to him more rather than the police, the special branch and the armed forces, who are closer to the ground. They were so taken up with their own newspaper reports that they couldn't hear anything else. They dismissed everything they didn't like.
Do you think the timing of the election was a miscalculation?
It can be called a miscalculation but I doubt if they had waited another year, the results would have been any different.
What were the issues which led to the loss of the states?
Many issues led to the pent-up feelings of the citizens of which despite the economic growth, the people aren't feeling anything. They feel the rise in the cost of living a big factor. They also see that this government is run by one family. When family takes precedence over cabinet, over government, then people will be against it.
Do you think this damage is permanent for BN?
Everything can be reversed if you do things properly. They have been so arrogant that they have suppressed any opinions they don't like and believe in their own reports which are not consistent with what is really happening in the country.
With the opposition making so much inroads in Malaysia, what do you think will happen?
Well, there will be instability for some time. If the opposition is good, they should be able to remedy the situation.
Do you think that Anwar Ibrahim is still relevant?
I think he is relevant but he is not going to become the prime minister of this country.
If you were in Pak Lah's shoes, would you be in a hurry to form the government?
I would take responsibility. If the people want me to resign, I would resign.
After this setback, do you think that Barisan has any hope to remedy this situation?
There is hope. But whether the leaders have the will to repair BN is another question.
Who should succeed Pak Lah?
Najib won by 26,000 votes and this is much more than in 2004 when the BN was very, very popular. On the other hand, Pak Lah - who had a majority of 18,000 before - only has a majority of 11,000 now. The fact is that he lost a number of votes. And there are not many people who have improved (their majority) since 2004.Yes, his son-in-law won but he only won by a small majority, smaller than previously. He was also in a safe seat.
How to cure Umno?
The person responsible should retreat.If the Malays had not voted for opposition this would not have happened.
Why did the Umno supporters vote for opposition this time?
They feel their situation is under pressure. Inflation is high. Their lives are on the line. The people know that you can say that there is 6 percent growth but where is the 6 percent on their body? They are having to spend more money.I've said this to Malaysiakini. When you say 6 percent, it is an average. This can be achieved by one person having a very high percentage but the rest have nothing. You can't have this sort of figures and expect people to vote for you.The intelligent people would know that this is not correct. Those that don't understand all these figures, rather be guided by what is actually happening to them. What is happening to them is the higher cost of living and a lowering of their standard of living.
Going back to the 1969 elections, after the Alliance had lost, you were one of the main agitators for the prime minister (Tunku Abdul Rahman) to transfer his powers to his deputy (Tun Abdul Razak)...I am in a dilemma as I'm an Umno member. Are you the agitator again?
I will voice out my opinion. If people ask, I will give my opinion. And my opinion in this matter is that the person responsible should step down.
Looking at the current BN line-up, do you think that the BN government can manage the economy?No, I don't think they can manage. Even when they have full force and tons of money at their disposal they have not done anything.
Why?
You have to ask the state leaders.Penang has fallen to DAP, how do you think this will affect the Malays?It's not just about Penang. If we want to correct that, we have got Malay leaders, we've got a Malay government and the citizens who are Malay must know how to overcome their problems.
What can veterans like Tengku Razaleigh (Hamzah) do to help Umno at this juncture?
They can give ideas.
Is it to revolt and cause Pak Lah to resign?I am not talking about a rebellion but there must be pressure. And if that pressure is ignored by Pak Lah, then this would turn the matter into a heated confrontation.
Do you think that the opposition success is attributed to Anwar?
I don't think it is so. This is more of something against BN than strong support for the opposition.They (voters) have no choice. If you don't vote BN, who do you vote for? There are only two candidates. So you vote for the opposition or you don't vote at all. Either way, the BN was going to lose a lot of support.
People say that Umno is still afraid of Pak Lah. So how can they pressure Pak Lah to step down?
I'm sure that there are some brave members out there.
Are there any alternatives for Pak Lah other than to resign?I don't see any other alternative. The man that is 100 percent responsible has to show that he is responsible.
Some people were saying if BN's two-thirds majority is denied, a repeat of May 13 would take place. Why won't it happen now?
No I don't think it would happen. In the first place, the police have been very careful, telling people no demonstration and no parades.In 1969, the police gave permission for the opposition to hold a victory parade. And they went to Kampung Baru and started insulting the people there, which caused a reaction. This ended up as a riot. If the police remain strong on these demonstrations and victory parades, I don't think there will be any problems.
Is it time to end racial politics?
I'm going to tell you this (rejection of BN) involves all the races. It's not as if the Chinese reject BN or all the Indians reject BN. Here, you see Chinese, Indian and Malay reject BN except for Sabah and Sarawak.
Umno has retained more seats compared to the other component parties like MIC and MCA. Will they pressure Pak Lah to step down?
That depends on them to whether to apply pressure or not but the Barisan Nasional concept is still relevant. If there is no (MIC chief S) Samy Vellu, then find another Vellu.
Can you comment on Zam (Zainuddin Maidin)?
He won or lost? Oh, he lost. Well, the way he was campaigning was really funny, telling people to look at his face and how it doesn't change. But I think that a face that doesn't change can be very boring. Sometimes you must laugh, sometimes you must cry.He was telling everybody "Ini muka tak bertukar, tak bertukar". Who is interested in his ‘wajar’? If he was Britney Spears, then….
If you had suffered the same defeat, would you have resigned too?
Yes, I would resign if that is the wish of the people. I've always abided by the wish of the people, so much so that people who were against me were brought back into the cabinet, and that includes Pak Lah, Syed Hamid (Syed Albar), Rais Yatim and (Abdul) Kadir Sheikh Fadzil. All these (leaders) were against me.But when Pak Lah was elected vice-president, I cannot (not appoint him) as he was wanted by Umno. As such I appointed him back into the cabinet.
But you did not resign in 1999?
I did not because we won two-thirds. We won with full Chinese support. Yes, we lost Terengganu and Kelantan but we have always lost Kelantan and Terengganu was for very specific reasons.
Did BN lose because too many people like Samy Vellu had hung on to power too long?
I think that Samy Vellu played a big part in the defeat. When he was in BN, he doesn't allow any of the MIC people to come up to his level. If they come up (to be) deputy or vice-president, he will knock them down and even expel them from the party.And he wouldn't allow any other Indian party to join BN. (MG) Pandithan tried to join, begged me to allow him and I wanted to agree but we have this consensus in BN that if one party doesn't agree we cannot accept them.
Are you surprised by (ISA detainee) M Manoharan's victory?
This has happened before in 1959 or is it 1964, when PAS used to go from village to village carrying the candidate's shoes and he won.
What can you say about the media’s - especially the mainstream ones' - role in this campaign? Do you think that there should be changes there?
There should be changes. They should report what actually happens and make a proper analysis. Before, they were able to feed back to me what was happening on the ground. Maybe, when they talk about races and things like that, I would have to clamp down on them, which I did in 1987.
Should all the bosses of the newspapers resign too?
They have their constraints. Some of them are my friends and supporters too and they apologise say that they can't help. "It's all this Kali. This Kali," they tell me.
Has Umno become irrelevant?
For the moment, yes. It's not always so. If Umno serves the country well, and looks after all the different races, then Umno will be relevant again.
What is your comment on the young BN candidates losing?There is this rumour that some of these candidates are Khairy's and that he wants to be prime minister.
Do you think that other BN component leaders should resign too?
I think that one component leader has already been knocked out. As for Ong Ka Ting, it's up to him. This is a very bad defeat for him and MCA and it's never been this bad before.
Everyone says that PAS and DAP cannot work together but if they don't in Selangor and Perak, they can't form state government. What is your take on this?If they work together they can form state government. If not, then representatives of Umno - if there are many - can form a minority government. But it will be a shaky government.
Are you sad with the results?
Yes, I am although I had hoped that a message would be sent to the government.
Will you return to active politics?
I won't return to active politics but if they want advice, I can give them. How can I return when once I stepped down they treated me like a pariah?
The Press Conference is quoted from Malaysiakini
Source
Malaysiakini 9 Mar 2008
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/79523
Friday, 7 March 2008
Exclusive Interview with Dr Mahathir : We Need Opposition, No Gentlement Agreement, Badawi Lied and Khairy Protected
Exclusive Interview with Tun Dr. Mahathir (Malaysiakini) on various issues :
- We need an opposition
- No gentlement agreement with Abdullah Badawi
- Video Clip on Anwar Ibrahim : A sarcastic remarks
- Abdullah "lied"
- Khairy protected
Quoted from Malaysiakini
Soon Li Tsin Mar 5, 08 8:41pm
Three days before polling day, former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad told voters that the country needs an opposition that can hold up a mirror to the government.“I believe in an opposition. I have always maintained that this country needs an opposition and they should be critical of the government without which we don’t have a mirror to look at our faces. We think that we are very beautiful but it is the opposition that keeps telling us (that may not be true). “You know the government member (of parliament), sometimes they are ‘ahli bodek’ (apple polishers). They are always saying ‘you’re right’, and you have no means of assessing whether you are going in the right direction or not.”
He told Malaysiakini in an exclusive interview today that it would be a “disaster” if the country “loses its opposition” as in Singapore.Looking a little frail in his trademark bush jacket since his second heart bypass in September last year, Mahathir gave his prognosis on this Saturday’s general elections.He said the government would be able to retain its two-thirds majority but could lost a few seats in Terengganu and Kedah.
Mahathir also predicted that the government would win between 70 to 75 percent of Parliament seats on March 8.In the 2004 general elections, BN won 90 percent of the seats. If Mahathir is correct, then the opposition could win between 55 to 65 seats, which will be a sizable increase from its current tally of 21.Mahathir also did not think the Barisan Nasional coalition would be able to wrest Kelantan state government from Islamic party PAS.“Kelantan would be a very difficult because although the margin is very small, Kelantanese have got a mind of their own, so to speak. If they are living in KL, they are very supportive of the government but if they are living in Kelantan, the peer pressure is very strong.”Mahathir also believed that the opposition would do well in Penang, but not enough to win government, or deny BN its two-thirds majority.
Two clarifications
No gentlement Agreement with Badawi
Mahathir also took the opportunity at the interview held at his Perdana Leadership Foundation office in Putrajaya to clarify that there was no prior agreement in which his handpicked successor would serve only one term as prime minister.“I want to say this, there was no gentleman’s agreement on this but my thinking was that he (Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) should serve for one term and give Najib (Razak) who by then would be much older to succeed him,” he said.The former BN leader who spearheaded BN’s victory in five consecutive elections also ticked off the opposition for seeking to capitalise on something which he had said in jest.
Video Clip on Anwar Ibrahim
In recent weeks, the opposition has been showing a video-clip at their ceramah where Mahathir was depicted to have conceded in a comical tone that he had brutally mistreated his then deputy, Anwar Ibrahim.“I mean any stupid fool would have seen that it was a sarcastic remark made by me but they (opposition) make use of such things and this convince voters that they are not really knowledgeable about things or they are not very sophisticated in the use of the media,” he said.
Abdullah ‘lied’
Mahathir was also asked to explain why he had publicly accused Abdullah of lying.“When I left, I made sure that the party, the government and the finances are in good shape. So when I am told that (my) projects have been postponed because of no money, it’s definitely not true. “If I was still the prime minister, I could go on not only with the projects that has already in the pipeline but also with new projects because we had money,” he asserted.
When Abdullah came into power in 2003, he stopped a number of mega-projects that was inked under Mahathir’s tenure including the ‘crooked’ bridge to Singapore and the Bakun dam project.
Although Mahathir expressed regret for appointing Abdullah as his successor, he refused to comment on the former’s performance.
“It is up to the people to judge. You see, I would be bias. (It) is normal if he wants to leave his mark but the unfortunate thing is that the mark cause some losses for us. That is why I was so critical,” he said.
Mahathir slams Khairy
The Perdana Leadership Foundation chairperson, when quizzed about the possibility of Abdullah’s son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin being appointed minister after the elections, did not mince his words in criticising the ambitious deputy Umno Youth chief.
He said Khairy should not seek protection from his father-in-law.“He (Khairy) has said that ‘I can do these things because I get protection from my father-in-law’. Nobody should ever say that. Do the right thing - you don’t ask for protection from your father-in-law,” he asserted.
Asked for his message to voters on Saturday, he urged them to vote wisely.“Vote sensitively. Vote not only with party loyalty concerns but also vote in order to have good people setting up a good government.”
Source:
Malaysiakini
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/79227
- We need an opposition
- No gentlement agreement with Abdullah Badawi
- Video Clip on Anwar Ibrahim : A sarcastic remarks
- Abdullah "lied"
- Khairy protected
Quoted from Malaysiakini
Soon Li Tsin Mar 5, 08 8:41pm
Three days before polling day, former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad told voters that the country needs an opposition that can hold up a mirror to the government.“I believe in an opposition. I have always maintained that this country needs an opposition and they should be critical of the government without which we don’t have a mirror to look at our faces. We think that we are very beautiful but it is the opposition that keeps telling us (that may not be true). “You know the government member (of parliament), sometimes they are ‘ahli bodek’ (apple polishers). They are always saying ‘you’re right’, and you have no means of assessing whether you are going in the right direction or not.”
He told Malaysiakini in an exclusive interview today that it would be a “disaster” if the country “loses its opposition” as in Singapore.Looking a little frail in his trademark bush jacket since his second heart bypass in September last year, Mahathir gave his prognosis on this Saturday’s general elections.He said the government would be able to retain its two-thirds majority but could lost a few seats in Terengganu and Kedah.
Mahathir also predicted that the government would win between 70 to 75 percent of Parliament seats on March 8.In the 2004 general elections, BN won 90 percent of the seats. If Mahathir is correct, then the opposition could win between 55 to 65 seats, which will be a sizable increase from its current tally of 21.Mahathir also did not think the Barisan Nasional coalition would be able to wrest Kelantan state government from Islamic party PAS.“Kelantan would be a very difficult because although the margin is very small, Kelantanese have got a mind of their own, so to speak. If they are living in KL, they are very supportive of the government but if they are living in Kelantan, the peer pressure is very strong.”Mahathir also believed that the opposition would do well in Penang, but not enough to win government, or deny BN its two-thirds majority.
Two clarifications
No gentlement Agreement with Badawi
Mahathir also took the opportunity at the interview held at his Perdana Leadership Foundation office in Putrajaya to clarify that there was no prior agreement in which his handpicked successor would serve only one term as prime minister.“I want to say this, there was no gentleman’s agreement on this but my thinking was that he (Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) should serve for one term and give Najib (Razak) who by then would be much older to succeed him,” he said.The former BN leader who spearheaded BN’s victory in five consecutive elections also ticked off the opposition for seeking to capitalise on something which he had said in jest.
Video Clip on Anwar Ibrahim
In recent weeks, the opposition has been showing a video-clip at their ceramah where Mahathir was depicted to have conceded in a comical tone that he had brutally mistreated his then deputy, Anwar Ibrahim.“I mean any stupid fool would have seen that it was a sarcastic remark made by me but they (opposition) make use of such things and this convince voters that they are not really knowledgeable about things or they are not very sophisticated in the use of the media,” he said.
Abdullah ‘lied’
Mahathir was also asked to explain why he had publicly accused Abdullah of lying.“When I left, I made sure that the party, the government and the finances are in good shape. So when I am told that (my) projects have been postponed because of no money, it’s definitely not true. “If I was still the prime minister, I could go on not only with the projects that has already in the pipeline but also with new projects because we had money,” he asserted.
When Abdullah came into power in 2003, he stopped a number of mega-projects that was inked under Mahathir’s tenure including the ‘crooked’ bridge to Singapore and the Bakun dam project.
Although Mahathir expressed regret for appointing Abdullah as his successor, he refused to comment on the former’s performance.
“It is up to the people to judge. You see, I would be bias. (It) is normal if he wants to leave his mark but the unfortunate thing is that the mark cause some losses for us. That is why I was so critical,” he said.
Mahathir slams Khairy
The Perdana Leadership Foundation chairperson, when quizzed about the possibility of Abdullah’s son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin being appointed minister after the elections, did not mince his words in criticising the ambitious deputy Umno Youth chief.
He said Khairy should not seek protection from his father-in-law.“He (Khairy) has said that ‘I can do these things because I get protection from my father-in-law’. Nobody should ever say that. Do the right thing - you don’t ask for protection from your father-in-law,” he asserted.
Asked for his message to voters on Saturday, he urged them to vote wisely.“Vote sensitively. Vote not only with party loyalty concerns but also vote in order to have good people setting up a good government.”
Source:
Malaysiakini
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/79227
Tuesday, 4 March 2008
Interview with Tun Dr Mahathir on Election 2008 , Politic and Malaysia Governance
Interview with Tun Dr. Mahathir on Election 2008 and other political Issues
Najib understands problems better
FORMER Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has a reputation of being a feisty statesman. Today got the rare chance to meet him at his office in Putrajaya — the city that he personally designed — yesterday. He was all smiles and subtlety as he talked about the general election and his nation's political future, but his views are razor-sharp as ever, as Nazry Bahrawi (nazry@mediacorp.com.sg) found out.
.
on THE RULING COALITION
.
The Barisan Nasional has just released its report card. What are your opinions on its achievements since 2004, when Mr Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's first term as Prime Minister began?
.
DR M: There are of course a lot of negative things that are not in the report card. For example, lots of money is being lost, the prestige of the nation has gone down and the fact is a lot of people cannot find work or business in the country. They have to go elsewhere.
.
.
Which achievements would you take issue with?
.
Islam Hadhari has caused a lot of confusion. There is only one Islam and now they are told that they are followers of Islam Hadhari or modern Islam as if it is a new religion. With regards to the new development corridors, they are just announcements. Nothing has happened on the ground. The amount of money involved is fantastic. It goes into trillions of ringgit and it will happen over a period of maybe 10 to 20 years. So, these are promises. Anybody can make a promise.
.
.
What do you think of the Barisan Nasional (BN) election strategy?
.
I think it is a good strategy and they will gain a lot of support from the people.
.
.
on SUCCESSION IN UMNO
.
How do you see leadership succession panning out in Umno (the United Malays National Organisation) and Malaysia as a whole?
.
We have certain traditions. Unfortunately, some traditions have partly been broken. For example, no one is allowed to contest leadership position. The Prime Minister determines who the leader will be and any challenge towards the leadership is not permitted. However, some people are actually called up and told not to stand. This is not Umno tradition at all.
.
.
In an earlier interview, you suggested that Mr Abdullah should make way for Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. Why did you say that?
.
I said that I thought he should be PM for one term and that he should be succeeded by Datuk Seri Najib because Datuk Seri Najib is senior to him. From the speeches that he (Najib) makes, he understands problems much better. He does not seem to be concerned about making sure that any support for the previous government was wrong.
.
.
But you had personally chosen Mr Abdullah over Mr Najib ...
.
Well, at that time, he (Abdullah) was a good choice because he was known as Mr Clean. And he was also older. So, I thought he should get a chance to become Prime Minister at least for one term.
.
.
What do you think of the possibility of Mr Hishamuddin Hussein or Mr Khairy Jamaluddin playing a bigger role in Umno after the elections?
.
I think if you follow them, it will be disastrous for the party.
.
on THE OPPOSITION
.
What do you think of the opposition, including former DPM Anwar Ibrahim?
.
The opposition, as usual, has no very strong platform and they cannot work together. So, Anwar Ibrahim is no longer the great hero that he was thought to be ... Even if he were to win a by-election, he would just be a Member of Parliament and nothing more than that.
.
Do you believe he has successfully united the opposition?
.
He has not played a bridging role between the DAP (Democratic Action Party) and PAS (Parti Islam SeMalaysia). It is not easy to get DAP and PAS together — they have very different philosophies.
.
.
What is your prediction of the outcome of this general election?
.
I think the National Front will still win but maybe with a reduced majority ... I'm quite sure the unrest on the streets since last November will have some impact on the number of votes cast for the government. There will be a reduced number of votes.
.
.
The opposition believes it can deny the government a two-thirds parliamentary majority. Do you think this will happen?
.
I am not so sure they can deny the BN that. Of course, anything can happen in an election. My guess is that the BN will still get two-thirds of the majority — but not the kind of majority it had in 2004.
.
.
Why can't the opposition achieve its target?
.
In Malaysia, the voting is party-based. If you belong to the party, you vote for the party. So although there is dissatisfaction among the members of the ruling party, they will still vote for them. A majority of them vote based on membership of the party or support of the party.
.
.
What are the opposition's strengths and weaknesses?
.
Their strength is that they have drawn attention to the performance of the government in many areas. There were many cases of corruption in the government. The crime rate has also increased. There were a lot of other negative things.
.
But on the other hand, the opposition does not seem to be able to work together. The parties are always fighting each other. So, their supporters will be very unwilling to support other opposition parties.
.
.
You son Mukhriz Mahathir is contesting the Jerlun seat in Kedah, but he had earlier wanted to contest in Langkawi. Some say this is a movement to sideline him. Do you agree?
.
I don't know. Some people say such a thing is happening. But I have no evidence.
Source : Media Corp News
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/240024.asp
28 February 2008
Najib understands problems better
FORMER Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has a reputation of being a feisty statesman. Today got the rare chance to meet him at his office in Putrajaya — the city that he personally designed — yesterday. He was all smiles and subtlety as he talked about the general election and his nation's political future, but his views are razor-sharp as ever, as Nazry Bahrawi (nazry@mediacorp.com.sg) found out.
.
on THE RULING COALITION
.
The Barisan Nasional has just released its report card. What are your opinions on its achievements since 2004, when Mr Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's first term as Prime Minister began?
.
DR M: There are of course a lot of negative things that are not in the report card. For example, lots of money is being lost, the prestige of the nation has gone down and the fact is a lot of people cannot find work or business in the country. They have to go elsewhere.
.
.
Which achievements would you take issue with?
.
Islam Hadhari has caused a lot of confusion. There is only one Islam and now they are told that they are followers of Islam Hadhari or modern Islam as if it is a new religion. With regards to the new development corridors, they are just announcements. Nothing has happened on the ground. The amount of money involved is fantastic. It goes into trillions of ringgit and it will happen over a period of maybe 10 to 20 years. So, these are promises. Anybody can make a promise.
.
.
What do you think of the Barisan Nasional (BN) election strategy?
.
I think it is a good strategy and they will gain a lot of support from the people.
.
.
on SUCCESSION IN UMNO
.
How do you see leadership succession panning out in Umno (the United Malays National Organisation) and Malaysia as a whole?
.
We have certain traditions. Unfortunately, some traditions have partly been broken. For example, no one is allowed to contest leadership position. The Prime Minister determines who the leader will be and any challenge towards the leadership is not permitted. However, some people are actually called up and told not to stand. This is not Umno tradition at all.
.
.
In an earlier interview, you suggested that Mr Abdullah should make way for Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. Why did you say that?
.
I said that I thought he should be PM for one term and that he should be succeeded by Datuk Seri Najib because Datuk Seri Najib is senior to him. From the speeches that he (Najib) makes, he understands problems much better. He does not seem to be concerned about making sure that any support for the previous government was wrong.
.
.
But you had personally chosen Mr Abdullah over Mr Najib ...
.
Well, at that time, he (Abdullah) was a good choice because he was known as Mr Clean. And he was also older. So, I thought he should get a chance to become Prime Minister at least for one term.
.
.
What do you think of the possibility of Mr Hishamuddin Hussein or Mr Khairy Jamaluddin playing a bigger role in Umno after the elections?
.
I think if you follow them, it will be disastrous for the party.
.
on THE OPPOSITION
.
What do you think of the opposition, including former DPM Anwar Ibrahim?
.
The opposition, as usual, has no very strong platform and they cannot work together. So, Anwar Ibrahim is no longer the great hero that he was thought to be ... Even if he were to win a by-election, he would just be a Member of Parliament and nothing more than that.
.
Do you believe he has successfully united the opposition?
.
He has not played a bridging role between the DAP (Democratic Action Party) and PAS (Parti Islam SeMalaysia). It is not easy to get DAP and PAS together — they have very different philosophies.
.
.
What is your prediction of the outcome of this general election?
.
I think the National Front will still win but maybe with a reduced majority ... I'm quite sure the unrest on the streets since last November will have some impact on the number of votes cast for the government. There will be a reduced number of votes.
.
.
The opposition believes it can deny the government a two-thirds parliamentary majority. Do you think this will happen?
.
I am not so sure they can deny the BN that. Of course, anything can happen in an election. My guess is that the BN will still get two-thirds of the majority — but not the kind of majority it had in 2004.
.
.
Why can't the opposition achieve its target?
.
In Malaysia, the voting is party-based. If you belong to the party, you vote for the party. So although there is dissatisfaction among the members of the ruling party, they will still vote for them. A majority of them vote based on membership of the party or support of the party.
.
.
What are the opposition's strengths and weaknesses?
.
Their strength is that they have drawn attention to the performance of the government in many areas. There were many cases of corruption in the government. The crime rate has also increased. There were a lot of other negative things.
.
But on the other hand, the opposition does not seem to be able to work together. The parties are always fighting each other. So, their supporters will be very unwilling to support other opposition parties.
.
.
You son Mukhriz Mahathir is contesting the Jerlun seat in Kedah, but he had earlier wanted to contest in Langkawi. Some say this is a movement to sideline him. Do you agree?
.
I don't know. Some people say such a thing is happening. But I have no evidence.
Source : Media Corp News
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/240024.asp
28 February 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)