GEORGE TOWN: Barisan Nasional leaders have criticised the Penang Government for allegedly over-paying, by four times, the detailed design fees of three road projects.
“Construction is not a new industry. Many people are puzzled by the exorbitant consultancy fees,” said Penang MCA secretary Tang Heap Seng in a press statement yesterday.
He said the Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM) devised a standardised gazetted scale of fees for professional engineering consultancy in accordance with Section 4(1)(d) of the Registration of Engineers Act 1967 (Act 138), and it was highly irregular to deviate from it.
Yesterday, it was reported that Barisan’s strategic communication team sought the professional opinion of BEM on the costing of the three paired roads.
The board was said to have replied that the RM177mil in detailed design costs was four times higher than the maximum allowed under the gazetted scale of fees, which the board calculated to be RM41mil.
The three roads are from Teluk Bahang to Tanjung Bungah, Air Itam to Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu Expressway and Gurney Drive to the expressway. They are meant to be a traffic dispersal system for the proposed Penang Undersea Tunnel.
Penang MCA Youth chief Datuk Michael Lee Beng Seng also issued a statement, pointing out that the alleged overpaid amount of RM136mil was more than the reported RM100mil the state spent on flood mitigation in the last eight years.
“We are shocked that the Penang government has put the well-being and safety of the rakyat behind the interests of consultants and contractors.”
Gerakan vice-president Datuk Dr Dominic Lau highlighted that affordable housing, flash floods and landslides were issues that concerned Penangites.
On Tuesday, Barisan strategic communications director Datuk Seri Abdul Rahman Dahlan announced that he was giving the Penang Government a week to explain BEM’s findings, failing which the matter would be referred to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission.
When asked to comment, Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng replied: “Another day.” - The Star
BN fared worse this time around compared to 2008. The number of its parliamentary seats dwindled to 133 from 140. As for state legislative assemblies, the figure was even less impressive with 275 compared to 306 previously although the ruling coalition managed to recapture Kedah and legitimise its control over Perak.
For the first time since the 1969 general election, BN garnered less popular votes than the opposition. I agree with debaters who asserted that this is not a “Chinese tsunami” given the fact that the BN’s performance had also worsened in Malay majority states such as Terengganu.
“Please accept the results.” That was the closing remark of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, in his media conference when accepting the Barisan Nasional’s victory in the 13th general elaction at the Umno headquarters in Kuala Lumpur.
Briefly, my preliminary observation is BN cannot be proud or, more so, swollen-headed with its achievement because prior to this it had boasted openly about winning big and securing a two-third majority in the Dewan Rakyat and recapturing states held by the Pakatan Rakyat.
Instead, its achievement is worse than in the 2008 GE because the PR had succeeded in penetrating Johor and won more seats in Sarawak – two states deemed as BN’s fixed deposit – and won additional seats in state legislative assemblies nationwide.
Although the PR had failed in its “Ubah” and “Ini Kalilah” campaign to wrest control of the Federal Government, the pact had nevertheless expanded its presence to all states.
BN had successfully recaptured Kedah and defended Perak, but failed in its attempt to win back Selangor and Kelantan although its propaganda machinery had given the impression that Selangor was already in its hand and there were hopes of winning Kelantan.
With regard to Selangor, its defeat is a major slap in the face for being so boastful.
Penang needs no mention. Both the Gerakan and MCA were totally destroyed.
The bait Najib put before the Chinese produced no results. They openly rejected BN.
Najib was stunned by the outcome and promised changes to Umno. But the poor showing compared to 2008 has made his position vulnerable.
Also, is the outcome of this general election a“tsunami Cina” (Chinese tsunami) as Najib had described them or were they the manifestation of something more significant i.e. a large number of voters no longer accept the BN and the BN-led government as it exists today?
Is it not possible that this is not a Chinese tsunami or ethnic chauvinism but instead a Malaysian tsunami that is based on new aspirations and reality, especially among the young voters?
Although BN has recaptured Kedah, its strength in all state legislative assemblies had fallen.
It almost lost Terengganu as well as surrendered many seats to PR in all states.
On the PR side, it must accept the choice of voters and any dissatisfaction and dispute must be settled in accordance with laws and regulations, and not via street protests.
Wallahualam. – Akadirjasin.blogspot.com/akadirjasin.com. > A. Kadir Jasin is Editor-in-Chief of magazine publishing company, Berita Publishing Sdn Bhd
The political choice for Malaysians is not whether to embrace change, but which kind of change they prefer.
IN life, change is said to be the only constant. In politics change is a given, even mandatory.
If a governing system does not change its style or policies the way people want, then the system itself may be changed. Such change may be democratic or autocratic, evolutionary or revolutionary, peaceful or violent.
Much will depend on the type and degree of change. Who will be affected by that change, and in what ways?
Will the promised changes be what people had been led to expect? What other changes are likely as a consequence?
Will the pros outweigh the cons of those changes? And if the people find the actual changes not to their liking, will those changes be reversible?
Such questions often arise at general elections. Malaysia’s coming 13th general election seems to have unearthed more of these questions than any other election in the country’s history.
This comes partly as a residue of the 2008 general election. In that “political tsunami”, more seats in the Federal Parliament changed over into Opposition hands than ever before.
At the time, many voters who opted for the Opposition had not actually wanted to change the Federal Government. They merely wanted to teach Barisan Nasional a lesson for non-delivery and general indifference since 2004.
Voters did so by clearly denying Barisan its two-thirds majority. This had come right after the 2004 general election, which had won Barisan 63.9% of the popular vote (more, if Barisan had contested all constituencies).
So in 2008, Barisan scored only 50.3%, an all-time low. The previous low count was in 1999, which saw Barisan win only 56.5% of the popular vote.
Will the general election this year see a swing of support back to Barisan as it hopes, or a further boost for the Opposition as it imagines? Will there be a pendulum effect in favour of Barisan, or a slide favouring Pakatan Rakyat?
As soon as Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak assumed the premiership in April 2009, he had seen the writing on the wall.
He opted for a major overhaul of policy and mindsets with the emphasis on transformation (change).
This spanned an Economic Transformation Programme that aimed for merit over entitlement, the Performance and Delivery Unit (Pemandu) within the Prime Minister’s Department introducing Key Performance Indicators, a change in national attitudes with 1Malaysia, focused aspirations towards a high-income nation and even abolition of repressive laws like the ISA.
The changes came thick and fast, including some that none had thought possible. The pace of changes exceeded anything that any Federal or State Government had seen before.
Even a movement like Hindraf, born in the crucible of street protests and energised by hunger strikes, came to deal with Najib’s Barisan.
Hindraf leaders P. Waythamoorthy and N. Ganesan had discussed their concerns and bargained with Pakatan and Barisan leaders, and opted to work with Najib.
Najib himself, coming into office in his mid-50s and the son of a former prime minister, personified change. One after another, Barisan stalwarts like Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik, Datuk Seri Samy Vellu and Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz quit the scene, following Tun Dr Mahathir’s lead.
Unlike this older generation, Najib engaged openly and repeatedly with the younger generation. Young adults are typically seen as energetic, idealistic and hungry for change.
The obvious subtext was that voters need not opt for a change in government, since the government itself had already launched a comprehensive programme of change. This approach seemed to coincide with the mood of the time.
The 13th general election will see 2.9 million new voters, out of a grand total of 13.1 million nationwide. That represents just over 22% of the country’s electorate.
Some of those new, mostly younger voters may not seek that much change. Many will want more of the changes they have seen, sticking with Barisan, while others may still want a change in the system itself by opting for Pakatan.
A divided Hindraf embodies this difference in approach. In seeking change, should one ride the wave of change in securing more changes, or switch to a competing outfit atop a platform of change?
Which is more important, adding to the momentum of change that had already begun, or opting for the promise of change? Each individual and group will have to make that crucial choice come next Sunday.
On nomination day, Barisan unveiled another surprise: the high proportion of fresh young candidates. In states like Penang, the percentage of new faces reached 70%.
In contrast, Pakatan parties are still led mostly by older people: Lim Kit Siang, Karpal Singh, Nik Aziz and Hadi Awang, with Anwar himself six years older than Najib.
Will the many young voters, seeking change, end up voting for the oldest political leaders in the country?
A decision by the Registrar of Societies (ROS) not to recognise the DAP's central executive committee due to its controversial party elections held in December last year has kicked up a storm within the party's top brass.
Lim Kit Siang in tears
A LETTER from the Registrar of Societies (ROS) on Wednesday has become a bone of contention with DAP leaders, who now want to contest the general election using the PAS and PKR symbols.
At an EGM at the party headquarters on Thursday night, the leaders debated the letter from ROS and at a press conference afterwards they slammed the ROS and its “despicable act” to stop the DAP from contesting in the elections.
The ROS letter, DAP claimed, means that its central executive committee (CEC) is now powerless, that its secretary-general Lim Guan Eng cannot sign any letter of authorisation for election candidates and that the DAP can no longer use its cherished Rocket symbol.
The letter, however, merely states that the ROS is studying the party's registration following a dispute among DAP members over the Dec 15 elections.
The letter also says, pending the final disposal of the dispute, the CEC that came into power after the elections is not recognised.
But the DAP seized the letter as an opportunity to grandstand and turn the blade against the Barisan Nasional, claiming that they have been made powerless and unfit to contest in the elections.
Guan Eng was visibly angry and his father, party adviser Lim Kit Siang, was in tears as they announced, with great emotional effect, the alleged import of the letter a day before nominations.
They also issued an ultimatum that the ROS must withdraw its letter by 3pm yesterday or the DAP will contest under the banner of its allies.
Any verbal reassurances by the Election Commission or ROS that the DAP could continue to use its Rocket banner and issue authorisation letters were not good enough.The ROS letter must be withdrawn.
With an eye on the Chinese voters, the DAP has interpreted the ROS letter as it wants and is laying down impossible conditions that government agencies cannot adhere to.
The ROS has been probing a dispute over the Dec 15 CEC elections after several DAP members lodged complaints with the ROS and demanded action.
Their complaints centred on a rectification of the results announced by the party, nearly a month after the party elections, that an error had occurred in the counting of votes using a spreadsheet software.
In the rectification, Guan Eng's political secretary Zairil Khir Johari, who initially lost in the election of 20 CEC members, had actually won the 20th spot.
The party claimed the delay in announcing the new results was because of the holiday season and on learning the mistake, the DAP had bravely faced it and rectified it.
But members cried foul and started going to the ROS, complaining about various shortcomings in the election, including alleging that there was a deliberate attempt to manipulate the results.
They alleged that no Malay candidates had won and that the party leaders saw fit to “elect” one after the elections were long over.
They also alleged that over 700 party members were not notified of the AGM and had not participated and had they voted, the results would have been different.
The DAP members from Sepang, Seremban and Johor have been persistent in their complaints, even bringing their own counsels to the ROS.
Zairil, after his election as a CEC member, was named as candidate for the Bukit Bendera parliamentary seat, vacated by Liew Chin Tong who has moved to contest the Kluang parliamentary seat.
Whether intentionally or not, the ill-timed letter from the ROS has been seized by the DAP for its own grand theatre ahead of nominations today.
Inevitably, the Barisan is on the receiving end of a drama that is played before the Malaysian public, as a case of outright repression of the DAP.
This despite a statement by ROS director-general Datuk Abdul Rahman Othman, issued late yesterday, that the DAP is not de-registered and that the party can use the Rocket symbol.
Deregistration is not a new thing in our politics and has happened many times before, including to Umno in 1988, and if any such calamities were to fall on the DAP, it is not an exception but the rule. It is how the ROS keeps political parties in check.
But for now, the fact remains that the ROS letter does not even mention deregistration but the DAP leaders are stretching it, for their own political purposes, to read what they want into it an act of repression against the DAP.
As such, they say they have no choice but to use the PAS and PKR symbols.
DAP has been grandstanding on using the PAS symbol since last month and PAS has been reciprocating that the DAP is free to use the party's moon symbol.
The political implications of this are obvious the DAP using the PAS symbol will force Chinese voters to view PAS favourably while at the same time dispelling the notion, held among many Malays, that the DAP is Chinese-centric, anti-Islam and anti-Malay.
It's a clever ruse by the DAP, helped along by PAS, to kill two birds with one stone.
QUESTION TIME It looks like other Malaysian bodies besides those responsible for curbing corruption are being “naughty and dishonest”, the latest being the Registrar of Societies (ROS) which has draconian powers to oversee societies, including political parties.
Sarawak Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud famously (notoriously?) labelled the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) investigation of himself for graft as “victimisation”, and reserved his cooperation because he believed that they have been “naughty and dishonest”.
"They (MACC) don't deserve my cooperation because they have been naughty... and they have not been honest," he said recently.
Change some names, and the DAP is now a victim of “naughty and dishonest” investigation by the ROS. This is likely closer to the truth than the MACC allegations by Taib who continues unscathed despite everything. What’s more, delve deeper into the latest issue and you will wade deep into a conspiracy theory to rival any book by Jeffrey Archer.
The DAP - yes, to its discredit then - had a “technical glitch” during its December elections for the central executive committee (CEC) which resulted in a minor revision to its election results. The studious ROS began investigations, but only decided not to recognise DAP’s CEC several months later, yesterday - just two days before nomination day. How convenient.
According to DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, the letter was faxed to the DAP headquarters at 5.45pm yesterday in very questionable circumstances.
In a report by Malaysiakini, Lim (above) told reporters that ROS director-general Abdul Rahman Othman had personally met him in his office in Penang on April 5, where the latter agreed to postpone the ‘routine’ investigations in view of the looming elections to May 9, four days after the elections.
“Abdul Rahman personally guaranteed to me that he would not make any decision until investigations are complete, and until he obtains a full report from his investigator.”
But then the letter not to recognise the DAP’s CEC still came.
Lim has cried foul, and indeed that is what it is, coming so late in the day when the ROS has had many months to investigate the “technical glitch”.
Meantime, the Election Commission said that the DAP will be able to field candidates as usual on nomination day, regardless of the Registrar of Societies' decision to suspend the party's central committee.
'No comfort at all for DAP'
Should that not give some comfort to DAP that it can contest under its own banner and put up its own slate? Apparently not, and here is where the conspiracy and plot thickens and links up with the other ingredients for a good, juicy stew.
What gives? If the ROS does not recognise the DAP’s CEC and has given notice to the DAP that it does not recognise the CEC before nomination day, how can the CEC make any legally binding decision on its slate of candidates? There is the possibility that its entire slate of candidates can be disqualified on nomination day itself.
Even if they are not on nomination day tomorrow, post-elections, it is possible to challenge the legality of DAP’s candidates. A compliant judiciary could negate the results of elections where DAP candidates stood. And if DAP MPs and state assemblypersons are suspended on Monday May 6 - the day after the elections - via court injunction, power can’t be handed over.
Thus far, three agencies are implicated in this conspiracy: The ROS with its draconian powers granted during ex-PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s (right) dictatorial grip on the country when he tightened laws for societies to bring them under control; the supposedly independent, but not so independent Election Commission and its assurance which may lull DAP into complacency; and a compliant judiciary, courtesy again of Mahathir, which may be willing to play ball.
The bigger question is, who is the puppeteer pulling the strings behind the curtains? And are they actually so desperate and so fearful of losing as to resort to such measures to deny free and fair elections to remain in power? Indeed, is there such a plot in the first place?
Obviously, the DAP cannot and will not take chances, and unless it has iron-clad assurances that it can use its own logo and put up its own candidates, it will go ahead with its plans of standing under the PAS banner in the peninsular, and PKR for Sabah and Sarawak.
If they have to, it will be a major challenge, but the plot will backfire for those who may have engineered this whole thing. It will only help to push the somewhat disparate partners in Pakatan Rakyat even closer together and hasten the day when they will all stand under one banner.
And it is going to sicken further all right-thinking, reasonable and responsible Malaysians who badly - very badly - want to see elections fought on even terrain with everyone given equal opportunity to express their views and get their message across. So no one has an unfair advantage or obstacle.
Any measure which further enhances Pakatan Rakyat’s image as the underdog will help the coalition more than it harms.
BY P Gunasegaram P GUNASEGARAM is founding editor of KiniBiz. He enjoyed reading Jeffrey Archer’s “First Among Equals”, especially the final twist about who would become prime minister.
After all the brouhaha to get Malaysians living abroad the right to vote, only a dismal 6,268 out of over 700,000 have registered as postal voters.
IT'S disappointing, especially after all the brouhaha over giving all Malaysians living abroad the right to vote.
It has now been reported that only a dismal 6,268 Malaysians out of over 700,000 living abroad have registered as postal voters. There are some who think there could be as many as a million Malaysians abroad.
The Elections Commission (EC) had estimated that there would be at least 100,000 or even 200,000 overseas Malaysians who would register.
The criteria are fairly simple they have to be registered as voters first and have been in Malaysia not less than 30 days in the last five years before the dissolution of Parliament.
Objectively, no one can say that not enough time has been given. The worst excuse I have heard is that the Elections Commission website broke down last week and this made many who are overseas unable to register as postal voters.
This was reported in the pro-opposition Malaysiakini news portal. Surely, if you are seriously concerned with the developments in this country, you would have taken the trouble to register yourself much earlier.
It does not matter if you are overseas or in Malaysia. If one feels so strongly about what is taking place in Malaysia and wants to change the government, the obvious thing would be to ensure the change takes place via the ballot box.
Since the 2008 general election, it has been a long drawn campaign by both sides. Never has political awareness been so high.
That probably explains why there are 2.9 million new voters all first-timers and mostly below 40 years old out of the country's 13 million electorate. That's one out of five voters taking part in this general election.
It does not matter whether these new voters want to throw out this government or keep the status quo. The most important point is that they believe they can make a difference. They believe passionately that talk is cheap and that they will let their votes do the walking.
The call to allow overseas Malaysians to vote was on the agenda of Bersih, and two platforms MyOverseasVote and Bersih Global were set up to facilitate overseas Malaysians to register as postal voters.
Early this year, the EC announced that Malaysians residing overseas, except in Singapore, southern Thailand, Kalimantan and Brunei, would be allowed to apply to vote by post provided that they have been in Malaysia for at least 30 days in total during the last five years.
We have heard the arguments before there are those who claim that those who have been abroad too long do not understand what is taking place in Malaysia while many overseas Malaysians have ridiculed such arguments, saying that they follow events back home closely via the Internet.
Others suggest that the large number of overseas Malaysians are mostly non-Malays who are critical of Barisan Nasional and are likely to vote for the opposition.
They include many who have migrated because of their unhappiness over the affirmative action programmes that favour the bumiputras.
This argument does not hold water because the reality is that even if Pakatan Rakyat wins, the same affirmative actions will continue. Not even the DAP has dared to ask for these special rights to be removed.
While we do not know if the low number of overseas Malaysians registered to vote as postal voters is due to their indifference or because they still find the procedure cumbersome, the EC must continue to improve its mechanism to ensure a bigger turnout.
The reality is that more and more Malaysians, especially the young, will work overseas because travelling has now become cheaper, faster and easier.
Many Malaysians work in Jakarta, Hong Kong, Beijing, Guangzhou or Bangkok while they keep their Malaysian permanent address.
Many companies have also become more global in their set-up and send talented Malaysians to work in their regional hubs.
Unlike the older Malaysians who packed off with their families for a new life abroad, most young Malaysians are often single and live jet-setting lives.
They are not necessarily the grumbling and whining types who run down Malaysia. They may enjoy life overseas but deep in their hearts, they miss the many good things in this country.
These younger and more mobile Malaysians keep their minds open and while they are critical, they also make better evaluation of the issues.
This will be the new overseas Malaysians in the coming years. Make it easier for them to cast their votes in the coming general elections.
ALOR SETAR: The PAS-led government made a major blunder when it handed out RM229,000 in allocations to 58 Tamil schools in the state four days ago.
Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Azizan Abdul Bakar gave out the cheques to the Parent-Teacher Association representatives of the schools. However, the cheques could not be cashed.
The cheques, dated Dec 31, 2012, had a three-month validity period until March 31, but were only distributed on April 2.
Many of the PTA representatives were shocked by the timing of the handover and left wondering if it was an attempt to ensure Indians' support for Pakatan Rakyat.
Kedah DAP committee member S. Neelamekan described it as an “an unwanted embarrassment” to the government.
“The state government should have been more careful and avoid being ridiculed by Barisan (Nasional),” he said. “The cheques must be replaced as soon as possible.”
State executive councillor S. Manikumar has since apologised to the schools for the mistake.
“The cheques were prepared last December and were rendered invalid because they did not bear the signature of the State Financial Officer,” he said. “We apologise for the technical error.
“However, we have already asked the school PTAs to exchange the cheques with new ones from the state finance office,” he added.
Manikumar said the contribution was for school activities and programmes, adding that the schools received between RM3,000 and RM10,000 each, depending on the size of the enrolment.
MIC Baling division Youth chief M.A. Ramasamy said this bungle clearly showed weaknesses in the Kedah state administration.
He said each of the schools was given RM10,000 during the previous rule under Barisan.
The DAP strategy of targeting MCA candidates could make the Chinese community the unwitting victim.
THE 2008 general election was significant as a “political tsunami” – the Opposition achieved its best ever gains, with the promise of an emerging two-coalition system.
That election would have been even more historic had it also achieved what many thought it would: end communal politics for good.
But it failed miserably, with no political party blameless. Perhaps it was too much to expect qualitative change in addition to quantitative change (seat numbers in state assemblies and Parliament).
Communal politics has been a bane of this country for as long as there have been elections.
That remains a fundamental reality into the foreseeable future.
For Barisan Nasional (and its predecessor the Alliance) as well as the Opposition, race-based politics is practised if not always acknowledged. It takes far more to turn that around than many have imagined. Whether party membership is defined by ethnicity or not, one race or another dominates and characterises each party.
Parties that are multiracial in theory are just less transparent in their ethnic politics.
However, what turns an unfortunate situation tragic is when those parties most vehement about having “turned the corner” of communal politics are also doing the most to perpetuate it.
PAS as the Islamist party has set new standards in trying to ram Islamist-style restrictions down the throats of all Malaysians – Muslim and non-Muslim. It now does so with more gusto and less hesitation.
PKR as another Muslim and Malay-majority party chooses indifference and complacency in the face of the PAS onslaught.
It has even supported the idea of turning Kelantan into an Islamic state.
The DAP prefers silence and inaction amid PAS’ swagger. Elsewhere it would wield its non-Muslim credentials, sometimes to the point of playing the Christian card.
None of this helps to tone down Malaysia’s sweltering communal politics. And since this reinforces the problem in Pakatan itself, it could prompt more of the same in Barisan as well.
The DAP’s latest move sees party adviser Lim Kit Siang contesting the Gelang Patah seat in Johor. It would be the latest “stop” in a long and roving parliamentary career.
MCA, which has half (seven out of 15) of its parliamentary seats in the state, sees Johor as its stronghold.
MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek condemned this as DAP’s strategy of “Chinese killing off the Chinese”.
Both Chinese-based parties are natural rivals whose mutual rivalry has now reached a new high.
DAP leaders may dismiss this alarm as predictable melodrama, but it contains a hard kernel of truth.
The DAP’s drive for power is not above pitting Chinese candidates against other Chinese candidates, which is likely to reduce further the number of ethnic minority MPs.
Johor is also Umno’s home state. There is virtually no prospect of the DAP snatching the state from Barisan.
However, DAP efforts to unseat MCA parliamentarians in Johor could produce a strong Malay-based Umno in the state government contending with a Chinese-based DAP in the Opposition.
That would be bad and dangerous for politics, race relations and the Chinese community’s representation in governance. It would be a regression, precariously setting an unhealthy precedent.
In recent years Malaysian political discourse became more multiracial as both Government and Opposition coalitions became more racially mixed.
With both Barisan and Pakatan led by Malay-majority parties, political differences were distanced from racial differences.
In the absence of thoroughly multiracial politics, that seems the next best option. The prospect of political fault lines coinciding with ethnic fault lines, raising the possibility of an ethnic conflagration as in 1969, has thus become more remote.
But the risk of returning to such political volatility remains. Responsible leaders of every party need to be cognizant of these realities.
Besides, the cause of shedding the racial element in party politics cannot be furthered by recourse to more racial politics.
Under a veneer of multiracial rhetoric, the DAP has been known to practise communal politics in its seat choices and allocations.
Lim’s foray into Gelang Patah to battle the MCA incumbent there is the latest example of this approach. Instead of creating a more multiracial two-coalition system, this communal cannibalism could promote an unhealthy and perilous two-race system.
Apparently, the DAP’s objective is simply to unseat MCA candidates, seen as soft targets since 2008, regardless of the cost to the people. That can only come at the expense of deepening racial politics in electoral outcomes.
Perhaps the DAP’s Chinese candidates are thought to have better chances in challenging MCA’s Chinese candidates than Umno’s Malay candidates. But that is still a tricky calculation depending on the circumstances at the time.
Thoughtful and responsible leaders may not consider that a risk worth taking, much less a cost worth paying.
The twists and turns in the Taman Manggis land issue in Penang is starting to resemble a soap opera but it has also raised the question of whether the legal procedures are observed in the sale of state land.
THE showdown over a plot of land known as Taman Manggis or “mangosteen garden” in the heart of George Town is about to erupt in another slanging match on Nov 3.
Dubbed by some as the “Robin Hood story”, the Taman Manggis land has become one of the most controversial issues in Penang.
It has also become a rather entertaining saga of gamesmanship between Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng and his political secretary Ng Wei Aik on one side and the state Barisan Nasional Youth on the other.
The 0.4ha of land had been designated for affordable housing but before the project could take place, Barisan was toppled.
Lim’s administration has since reportedly sold the land for RM11mil to a Kuala Lumpur company that is planning to build a health tourism facility that includes a private dental hospital and hotel on the site.
That was how the Robin Hood thing came about, but with a twist where Barisan is accusing the Pakatan Rakyat government of being a distorted version of Robin Hood by taking land meant for the poor to give to the rich.
When Barisan accused the state government of selling the land at below market rate, Lim challenged it to buy the land for RM22.4mil. Lim probably thought Barisan would not take up the dare. After all, RM22.4mil is not small change.
But Barisan agreed and announced that it had set up a special purpose company to buy and develop affordable homes on the land.
Caught on one foot, the state government was forced to respond and Ng issued an offer letter to Barisan. And that was when the soap opera began.
The Barisan side led by its State Barisan Youth chief Oh Tong Keong proceeded to pay 1% earnest money as is called for in such transactions.
The next step, as anyone would know, is for the lawyers from both sides to draw up a sales and purchase (S&P) agreement.
Once that is signed, the buyer would pay the balance of the requisite 10% and depending on the terms and condition, the full amount is usually paid within three months or more.
This is to enable the buyer to raise funds or secure a loan from the bank.
However, following the 1% payment, Lim demanded that the Barisan pay up the rest of the amount within a month.
The outlandish demand saw a few jaws drop on the Barisan side. First, it is not possible for Barisan to cough up that kind of money in so short a time.
Another was the audacity of the demand.
“There is no S&P agreement in sight and the seller is demanding the full amount. Do they understand the laws of transaction? Without an S&P agreement, no one would want to pay RM22.4mil,” said architect Khoo Boo Soon.
Khoo, who was the former building director of the Penang Island Municipal Council (MPPP), is quite appalled at the frivolous way that state property is being treated.
He is incredulous that state land is being sold based on an offer letter by a political secretary on the instruction of the Chief Minister.
“I have been a government servant for more than 17 years. As far as I know, land transactions have to be discussed and decided by the state exco, the state legal adviser has to be consulted, the state secretary has to be involved. It cannot be a one-man decision, both parties need to sign an S&P agreement,” said Khoo.
The Barisan side was more direct. “This is government land, it belongs to the people. The land does not belong to the Chief Minister’s grandfather. We are not buying a bicycle or a car, this is about public land costing millions of ringgit,” said Oh.
The Barisan side had on Oct 3 written to the state government requesting for an S&P agreement before they proceed to pay up the rest of the money.
On Oct 8, the state secretary wrote back asking them to refer to the offer letter and to pay up within a month.
To compound this half-past-six state of affairs, rumours abound that the land has actually been sold to the Kuala Lumpur company.
No one can tell for sure because the state government has been tight-lipped about the issue.
Requests for information on the actual status of the land has run up against a stone wall.
On top of all that, the house that Lim is renting in Penang reportedly belongs to the wife of the major stakeholder of the Kuala Lumpur company.
The lady is also the cousin of state exco member Phee Boon Poh. The implication of all this is unclear but it does add spice to the story.
Many people following this soap opera are quite confused but that is what makes soap operas so addictive – there are lots of twists and turns.
The more discerning think Lim has no intention of selling the land to Barisan, hence the conditions and obstacles put in the way.
Some suspect the delay tactics are aimed at making Barisan give up.
But it would be a blow to Lim’s administration if the Barisan people actually purchased it and proceeded to build low-cost housing.
Lim would lose face, particularly given that his administration has failed to build any affordable housing since coming into power.
To make matters worse, this is happening amid an inflated property market on the island and where house prices have soared beyond the reach of 80% of wage earners.
Lim should be transparent about the issue. If the land has been sold, he should admit it.
If it is still in the state’s hands, then he should do the decent thing and use it for its original purpose.
Instead he is angry at being criticised and is punishing those who want to build affordable homes by doubling the price of the land.
A Penang lawyer said he is not surprised about the “Robin Hood issue”.
“What shocks me is the silence on the part of the Penang NGOs. They used to be so vocal on issues affecting public interest,” said the lawyer.
In the meantime, the countdown to Nov 3 has begun.
ANALYSIS BY JOCELINE TAN The Star/Asia News Network
P/S: Landlady of CM’s residence is not wife of company stakeholder
Regarding the Taman Manggis land, the Star and State exco member Phee Boon Poh clarified yesterday that the woman in question is his cousin, she is not married nor is she the wife of the company stakeholder.
“My cousin and the stakeholder are just business partners,” he said.
The Taman Manggis land which had been designated for low-cost housing by the former Barisan Nasional government, became an issue when the Lim administration decided to sell it to a Kuala Lumpur company to develop a health tourism facility that includes a private dental hospital, hotel and multi-storey car park.
GEORGE TOWN: A company owned by a businessman from Kuala Lumpur bought the 0.4ha state land in Taman Manggis here for RM11mil although the market price is RM22mil.
Contentious issue: The 0.4ha plot of land in Taman Manggis at the junction of Jalan Zainal Abidin-Lorong Selamat in Penang.
State Barisan Nasional information chief H'ng Khoon Leng, who revealed this, questioned why the land was sold so cheaply.
He said only two bids were received and both bids were from companies owned by the businessman, who is a Datuk.
He said Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng should explain if he knew the businessman personally.
“I challenge Lim to declassify the open tender documents, including minutes of the exco meeting which approved the sale of the land,” he told a press conference here.
Kuala Lumpur International Dental Centre Sdn Bhd emerged successful when it submitted a bid of RM232 per sq ft or RM11mil.
H'ng said the businessman owned more than 20 companies, including several medical specialists centres, tour agencies and foreign workers' agencies.
It was reported that the land at the Jalan Zainal Abidin-Lorong Selamat-Jalan Burma junction had been sold to a company which plans to set up a private medical specialist centre.
The land was earlier reserved for a People's Housing Project.
EVERY August, many of us look forward to the entire nation being awash with feelings of warmth and patriotism as we celebrate our National Day on the last day of the month.
Aug 31 was, until 2010, celebrated as the National Day as it was the day Malaya gained its independence from the British colonial masters, but this caused many Sabahans and Sarawakians to feel left out because their independence did not come until Sept 16, 1963.
Thus, the Government from 2010 declared that Sept 16 would also be a national holiday as it was the day Malaysia was formed – a move many Malaysians on the Borneo side of the country felt was long overdue.
So instead of a one-day National Day celebration, we now have a month-long one from Aug 16 to Sept 16. During this time Malaysians are encouraged to fly the Jalur Gemilang.
This is something that I have been doing regularly even before the call from politicians because I am a very patriotic Malaysian and unlike others I only declare myself as a Malaysian and nothing else.
However, this year I find it very difficult to bring myself to fly the flag. The amount of quarrelling and finger pointing that is going on at the moment makes it very bitter to express my patriotism.
Yes, there will be many of you who will say that the finger pointing and political posturing that’s going on at the moment are also a show of nationalism.
I do not disagree that being politically partisan is part of our democratic process but I cannot help but feel that the political temperature has gone too high for anyone to show his or her loyalty and love for the country.
From the way every act connected with the celebrations of Aug 31 and Sept 16 have been criticised and attacked on the Internet, any neutral but patriotic Malaysian will question themselves if they are being nationalistic or bias towards one side.
The way the criticisms flew when a certain logo was suggested for this 55th celebrations left many quarters stunned. It’s only a logo but yet the venom with which the attack was carried out was frightening.
Would the act of flying the Jalur Gemilang be mistaken as a symbol of support for one side or the other?
Yes, the way the Government had planned the National Day celebrations may not have been very bi-partisan with most of the programmes seemingly be centred around the achievements of the Government of the day.
Yes, the so-called 55th Merdeka song “Janji ditepati” reads like a roll call to the achievements of the Barisan Nasonal government.
But that’s what all the other 54th celebration songs, logos and themes were about – singing praises of such achievements and the 55th anniversary celebration plans are not very different.
The difference, I feel, is the heightened tension in the country stoked by the high expectation of an impending general election.
People are now too busy guessing when the general election will be held to be bothered about anything else.
Recently, there was a rumour that it would be held in September because “someone told someone” but according to the same media a few days later, it has again been “postponed” to November it seems.
The “jumping” of the two had been expected for over two months.
Nothing done these days is not seen to be connected to the GE 13. It does not matter whether it is the shortage of water or the call for the protection of certain environmentally sensitive places.
The problem is that politicians have been quick to jump on the bandwagon to use these issues to attack their opponents and instead of these matters being resolved, they get muddied by politics.
Politicians, regardless which side of the divide they are from, are extra sensitive during this run up to the general election. Every statement, newspaper report or social media comment which they deem as not favourable to them as made by people with an agenda against them.
Even supposed defenders of press freedom want to gag the media in case their reports do not favour their side.
The country is highly charged. Recently, it was reported that an elderly couple in Pasir Emas, Kelantan was divorcing after 14 years of marriage, the husband allegedly could no longer convince his wife to join his political party.
The 78-year-old man reportedly accused his 61-year-old religious teacher ex-wife of deviating from Islam for not supporting his party. The wife was supposed to have supported Umno while the husband was an ardent follower of PAS.
If political differences can destroy a marriage then what chance has our National Day celebrations got?
As it is, I am the only person in my multi-racial neighbourhood who bothers to fly the Jalur Gemilang come every August. I put this down to the apathy of my neighbours and the lack of patriotism due to ignorance.
They do not realise that the expression of patriotism by flying the flag is the best way to show that we are Malaysians and that nothing can take that away from us regardless of our religious or cultural backgrounds.
WHY NOT? BY WONG SAI WAN saiwan@thestar.com.my
> Executive Editor Wong Sai Wan will not bother to dig out the old Jalur Gemilang this year – he will go buy a new one – regardless if it’s the silly election season.
The country has changed so much since 1969 that to keep using the argument that we are on the verge of race war is rather obsolete.
I WAS wondering when it was going to happen; when certain quarters were going to dust off that old chestnut of May 13, 1969, and use it as a political tool.
It all seems terribly coincidental that as the general election draws nearer, suddenly race riots get inserted into political speech, and a movie about May 13 is apparently waiting to be released.
The country has changed so much since 1969 that to keep using the argument that we are on the verge of race war is rather obsolete.
Let’s look at some facts. Firstly, the vast majority of the Malaysian population were not even born in 1969.
This means that first-hand knowledge of that terrible time is simply not part of most of us. Without that emotional connection, I believe that younger Malaysians are willing to question the feasibility of such a thing happening again.
And really, could it? In 1969, the politics of the nation was so very clearly divided along racial lines. The Opposition was not united as it is today. PAS won 12 seats, DAP 13 and Gerakan 8.
They were not part of a coalition and each stood on its own, therefore it was possible to play the race game because, in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor in particular, the Opposition had the face of “the other”.
Today, with the Pakatan coalition in existence, the Opposition is a much more complex animal. If the Opposition wins, how can the race card be played when two of the component parties are so predominantly Malay?
Let’s take a look at recent events that has got some powerful people’s knickers in a twist.
In particular the Bersih demonstrations of 2007, 2011 and 2012. The demographics of these events were multi-ethnic and became even more multi-ethnic with each progressive one.
By the time of this year’s Bersih demonstration, the make-up of the people who took part was much closer to the make-up of the country as a whole. However, the predominant ethnic group was still Malay.
This goes to show that the political divide, not of political parties but of ordinary citizens, can no longer be conveniently divided along ethnic lines.
Significant numbers of Malaysians, regardless of their background, can be united when they have a common political goal, in this case clean and fair elections.
Furthermore, ethnic Malays can be vocally unhappy with the status quo. In the present-day scenario, it is ridiculous to say that the politics in Malaysia is simply a matter of Malays versus Non-Malays.
And let us look at the 2008 elections. The results were unprecedented and surprised most people. I remember that night very well, as the results became clear that Barisan had lost their two-thirds majority and five state governments.
I decided to drive around Kuala Lumpur, just to see what would happen. And what happened? Nothing. The streets were quiet. No celebratory parties, no processions, no fireworks; nothing.
The Opposition and their supporters on the streets were as muted as the Barisan and their supporters.
No gloating, no taunting, no excuses at all to provoke a reaction from the supporters of the powers-that-be.
I am certain that if a similar result is achieved in the next elections, the same would happen. There will be no provocation from the opposition and their supporters.
That is not to say there will not be any trouble. Recent events in this country have proven that there are gangs of thugs who are willing to be violent for political purposes.
The thing is though, I believe that the Malaysian public are not going to rise to the bait.
I fervently hope we will show them that we are better than them, we are nobler than them and they are nothing but hooligans with delusions of grandeur.
No, the danger that faces this country will not come from race riots.
If we have trouble in Malaysia, it will be if there is a prolonged disrespect for true democratic principles.
If the election process is not transparent and fair, if the result of a clean election is not respected, then and only then should we start to worry.
Debunking claims by DAP stalwart Lim Kit Siang that Mahathirism stoked racial fears and went against decades of nation building, the former prime minister said it was just a figment of Lim's imagination.
The former leader added that Mahathirism was dead and gone and there was no need to fear it.
Lim had said in response to earlier remarks by Dr Mahathir that he did not hate the former prime minister as a person but was only against the Mahathirism policies that allegedly stoke racial fears and went against nation-building efforts.
“I wonder why Kit Siang is so afraid of me, what he calls Mahathirism.
“I don't know what is Mahathirism but obviously it conjures in the mind of Kit Siang something fearful.
“So, he has declared his intention to fight Mahathirism,” the country's longest-serving prime minister said in his latest blog posting yesterday.
“I don't care whether he destroys Mahathirism or not. It is an exercise in futility as Mahathirism is a figment of his imagination.
“He should not be afraid of this toothless tiger, figuratively speaking,” he said, adding Mahathirism died in 2003 when Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi took over as prime minister.
Furthermore, he added, Najib had his own team of advisers. “His policies are his own.”
Dr Mahathir admitted that he was actively campaigning for Umno and the Barisan, saying it was time to return the favour.
“I became prime minister because Umno and the Barisan backed me strongly.
“I owe a debt of gratitude to them. And that gratitude can only be manifested through helping them to be accepted by the people and to win,” he said, adding he would go all out for his son, Deputy International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir, should he be chosen as a candidate.
He said he could now back Mukhriz as he was no longer in a position of power.
The second debate between MCA and DAP leadership was less about convincing the audience about whose policies had better served the people than two fierce Chinese leaders slugging it out for the Chinese vote.
THERE was much less hype in the run-up to the second debate between the two leading figures in Chinese politics.
The novelty of the DAP and MCA leadership going head-to-head in a public debate had passed.
Both MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng had proven after the first debate that they are more than capable of taking on each other before a live audience.
As in the first debate, Lim had the advantage of being the top dog because he is the Chief Minister of Penang, an MP and an assemblyman.
Dr Chua, on the other hand, has only his party post to ride on and his party is struggling to regain the confidence of Chinese Malaysians.
Given that Lim is in charge of one of the most developed states in the country, he would have more bragging rights as regards the topic of the debate – “Whose policies benefit the country most?”
But not long after the opening remarks by both speakers, Lim went off the debate path and ventured into ceramah mode and after a while, Dr Chua felt compelled to address him on at that level.
Both launched into attack mode, with neither really answering the questions raised.
They were both more interested in scoring points with accusations rather than giving good, convincing answers on issues.
As Fui Soong, the CEO of the CENSE think-tank, said in her forthright way: “It was like cock-fighting. Lots of posturing and both men going at each other, back and forth. There was not enough intellectual content.”
In fact, the whole thing became rather childish at times, an example being when Dr Chua poked holes at Pakatan Rakyat’s Buku Jingga.
Lim, instead of defending the allegations, said that Dr Chua must have read the wrong Buku Jingga.
That is the sort of answer one would give at a ceramah and not at a national debate.
He did that right at the start and again towards the end.
By the time the moderator called for a five-minute break, the two debaters had gone well off-topic and were instead taking well-aimed shots at each other.
Dr Chua had accused DAP of being a chauvinist party that is more interested in the “politics of hate and blame” rather than nation-building while Lim declared Barisan Nasional as corrupt and bashed Umno left, right and centre.
Lim is not exactly the best orator on the political ceramah circuit but he is a seasoned speaker and his ceramah style was in full display for much of the two hour-long session.
He had a lot of punchy and pithy lines.
But the thing about the ceramah mode of speaking is that it leans towards drama and exaggeration which is entertaining, but less suited for a debate audience.
Lim was in his street-fighter element when running down Barisan and mocking Umno.
This forum, which comes more than four years into his Penang tenure, would have been the ideal platform for Lim to showcase his achievements as the chief administrator.
But through much of the debate, he was far more successful in rubbishing Umno than convincing the audience that his government and his policies had benefited the people more than the policies of Barisan.
Dr Chua does not have the ceramah flamboyance of his rival.
But he has shown in both debates that his forte lies in being factual and analytical and he thinks quite well on his feet.
He is no drama king and he does not embellish the facts to entertain the people although he can be quite caustic in his rebuttals.
But as many who watched the debate would agree, it is evident that Dr Chua understands policies, is good at facts and figures and his experience in the Government comes across quite clearly.
For instance, when Lim tried to politicise the privatisation of the Penang port, Dr Chua argued the rationale of the move with statistics.
His other advantage was that he could sell the “Najib brand name” whereas Lim was rather reticent about the “Anwar brand” even while endorsing him as the prime minister candidate.
Dr Chua came across as rather staid and serious compared to Lim’s more showy style.
But Lim might want to moderate his ceramah style when speaking before a thinking audience.
He has what the Malays term a senyum kambing side about him when running down his opponents and while that goes down well with his supporters, those less acquainted with his style may find it sarcastic or even arrogant.
A little humility would have served him better.
He is the Chief Minister of a key state and he should try not to sound like an Opposition leader.
Both men started well but as the debate progressed, Lim’s ceramah style put him ahead.
However, Dr Chua made a much more sensible summing up while Lim went over the top with a rousing speech rather than a conclusion.
Said Fui: “I feel kind of cheated. I had expected more but I feel like I didn’t learn anything new.”
ANALYSIS By JOCELINE TAN
Chua vs Lim debate: DAP & MCA: Whose Policies Benefit the Country More?
KUALA LUMPUR: MCA's Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and DAP's Lim Guan Eng took to the podium together for a second time in months on Sunday as both leaders took each other on over whose policies had better served the rakyat.
They engaged in a fiery two-hour debate themed DAP & MCA: Whose Policies Benefit The Country More at the Sunway Pyramid Convention Centre here yesterday, organised by the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli).
In his opening remarks, the MCA president highlighted the policies and programmes put in place by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak after he took over the nation's helm.
Lim, who is Penang Chief Minister, spoke about the island state being the “most liveable city in the country” while attacking MCA ministers with a string of allegations.
At one point, Dr Chua, who spoke off the cuff, took a swipe at his debate adversary, chiding him for reading from a prepared text and turning the debate into a political ceramah.
Dr Chua noted that with the government's policies in place, Malaysia's share market continued to rise as proof of the local and foreign investors rejecting DAP's theory of gloom and doom of the Malaysia economy.
He hit out at Pakatan Rakyat, saying that its ultimate aim was to grab power in the coming general election “at all costs”.
Likening Pakatan's battle cry, Ubah (change) to “Power First, and Chaos thereafter”, Dr Chua said Pakatan was only good at instigating the people to hate the Government, demonising the country's institutions and causing friction among the various races in the country.
He also pointed out that the coalition was known to be good at making promises to the people when more than 95% of their promises had yet to be fulfilled.
Lim spoke about the various improvements in Penang including poverty reduction, adding it was the first state to provide free WiFi access in public places.
Lim: "MCA is not qualified to talk about politics here, as it is not MCA who decides - it is Umno who decides.
"The MCA speaks only for the Chinese, and those from the Peninsula - not Sabah or Sarawak.
"It is different for DAP - we want to speak for all Malaysians. Malay, Chinese, Indians, Iban, Kadazan. "We are all Malaysians. Look at the NFC scandal," he said.
"Who gains? The cronies. The losers are the citizens of Malaysia.
"For last 50 years, consumed by race and religion. For the next 50 years, let us be consumed with the tasks of economic wellbeing.
"BN has never spoken truthfully to the people. Let Pakatan Rakyat speak truthfully to you.
Dr Chua stressing a point during the debate with Lim listening intently
"DAP believes a clean government can always perform better than a corrupt government.
"If Penang dares to review the assets of the CM, why is the PM afraid of reviewing his assets and those of his ministers?" he said.
Dr Chua: "Just now YAB asked why the PM didn't want to debate with Anwar. I want to say here, it hasn't happened because he is the prime minister. He is busy with the transformation policies, to improve the country. "From 2008 to 2011, the ease of doing business improved compared from 2003 to 2008. Malaysia is the fifth most favoured FDI nation in Asia.
"They haven't been empty promises like those from Pakatan Rakyat. The promises were fulfilled. These three years, the rakyat has gotten what was promised under the leadership of Najib."
"Anwar is full of rhetoric, no specifics, short on delivery. He has to convince us to translate this rhetoric into what we call delivery.
"MCA has been involved in nation building from day one. We were the one involved in the fight against the communist insurgency, the resettlement of the Chinese in new villages, the fight for independence, the rights of citizenship after independence. That's why citizens like Guan Eng are citizens of the country.
"We laid down the foundations. We have progressed, advocated integration not assimilation. That's why Guan Eng is not called Sukarno Lim.
"This is all history. All part of nation building. DAP has no role to play."
"What has PR done for us? No clear direction.
"Look at the four PR states, 95% of the promises are janji janji kosong.
A section of the crowd enjoying the debate
"Everyday tell the whole world you give hundred dollars to the old people.
"Two hundred to the newborn and they must be voters. We give RM200 to our newborn babies.
"State government giving RM100, RM200 all populist policies. Does not address fundamental problem of country."
"DAP has only one thing to show. They collect a lot of money from the rakyat. Despite calls of accountability, transparency - nothing to show. Transparency, Accountability, where are they? Where has the money collected gone to?
Question: Mr President... Many urban voters perceive MCA has not done enough. The perception is that many urban voters are not supporting MCA. What would you do to try regain more support for MCA?
Dr Chua: We accept the fact this is a multiracial country and the policy of BN is the policy of balancing. DAP likes to tell the Chinese they are marginalised. The poverty rate of the Chinese is still lowest among three major races. Employment rates the highest. Property ownership largest. Cannot deny in the implementaion process there are people who benefit more than others, this is the bone of contention, causes a lot of Chinese to be angry with the government and MCA bears the burden of this.
"DAP tries to portray itself as a multiracial party, but only dares to contest in Chinese constituencies. "Why don't you contest in multiracial constituencies? We are a mono-ethnic party, but our aims are clear.
"In this country we have to balance the needs and sensitivities of all countries. No particular race will feel happy.
The crowd at the Debate 2.0
"In the same way we sometimes feel government giving too much to bumiputra. But some bumiputras not happy with government."
Question: Many people still see DAP as Chinese-based party. Are you a Chinese party or multi-racial party, how would you try to win more support among other races if you are multiracial.
Lim: From the very start we are a multiracial party. Our chairman is Indian, we have Indian MPs, have Malay MPs and state assemblymen in the past. We are fair to all regardless of race and religion. Would like the MCA president know that not every Chinese rich as the MCA leaders.
Not every Chinese can apply for PR in Australia.
Don't forget that the Chinese community pays the most taxes in Malaysia.
At the same time we want to see justice and see our Malay brothers and sisters are assisted.
Why is it poor Chinese can't get scholarships but rich bumiputras can?
Don't go and talk about DAP forming a kindergarten. We are a political party to determine the future of Malaysia.
TAR College is clearest example of failure of MCA. Why was it established? Because of unfair quota policies where qualified students cannot enter public universities. so you formed TAR College. Shame on you MCA.
Don't say we haven't built low cost housing. We have built. Don't lie.
Question:Is MCA scared of Umno, that they don't dare to question corruption claims? Is there equal partnership in BN?
Dr Chua: I take objection to that question to say MCA is sacared of Umno. Not a fair question. If I say - and I've always said - if the state Cabinet, state exco and federal Cabinet, all the discussions are taped. The government should declassify the tapes and then they understand better the role of MCA in a multiracial country.
Why is DAP so quiet about Anwar's alleged account of RM3bil, this from a statutory declaration?
This is equal partnership, let me tell you PR claims equal partnership but until today PAS have never openly endorsed Anwar as prime minister.
You can't even agree on a party common symbol and logo and register the party.
Question: I've read your Buku Jingga, stated among other things that if party win GE, forms central government they are going to abolish all road tolls, PTPTN and give income to houses that make less than RM4,000 to make up that amount. Lots of other goodies. How are you going to implement these policies bearing in mind annual revenue does not exceed RM200bil.
Lim: This the first time I'm hearing from a minister admitting corruption cost us RM26bil. Question is, what you doing about it? Are you accepting the fact that BN permits corruption? That's why I say shame on you again.
Don't talk about collections from public. When DAP organises dinners, we don't give free dinners like MCA or Umno. We charge because we rely on public funds to survive. We don't steal the government's money. That is the difference between BN and PR, the difference between MCA and DAP.
I think you need to read the right Buku Jingga, I think you read the wrong one. Abolish tolls, estimate of RM35mil. If you don't believe can be done, vote us into power and we show you can be done.
Question: On Chinese independent schools.
Dr Chua: I only wish DAP is more specific. Why is it not written more clearly they will build more Chinese schools? Independent schools? Recognise UEC?
I openly asked Anwar, are you going to build more Chinese schools? More independent schools?
Because if it is from DAP, I dont trust it. Why? Cos DAP will say this is not common policy framework.
Lim:We are not like MCA leaders who go to jail for cheating rakyat of its money.
When you talk about building of schools, judge by the deeds of the PR government in Selangor and Penang. We have given land, we have given funding, we have given funding every year. If PR can give to all these schools, independent, Indian, Chinese, every year funding, why BN cannot do so?
Don't question our openess to allow independent Chinese schools.
When you talk about Anwar if PR wins power he will be Prime Minister.
Question: What national education policy should there be to generate competent citizens?
Lim:We cannot ignore the fact that human talent will be the future of our country.
Not a question of building human talent but retaining human talent.
Since Merdeka two million Malaysians left the country because they see no future for themselves or Malaysia.
They see they don't have freedom, integrity or justice. That's why we are fighting for freedom, democracy, integrity, justice. To fight corruption is not hard, only depends on whether you got political will. No laws (to combat corruption) in Penang but we have wiped out corruption in Penang, I am proud to say.
If we win power in Malaysia, we will do the same in Malaysia. That is why so many people are afraid.
Dr Chua: When people are educated or talented, they have economic independence and social mobility. Almost all developing countries face brain drain.
This no justification. That's why when I say we trained 200,000 talented people, the Penang Chief Cminister says shame on us.
Look at our meritocracy policy, number of non-Malays in tertiary gone up. Last year, JPA gave more scholarships to all races, 20% to needy, disadvantaged in Sabah and Sarawak.
Talent Corp is another good example of reaching out. When we train talent they say shame on you. If you can't do it, admit you can't. No country in the world can meet needs of education for all citizens.
New Air Itam-Gelugor bypass to cut driving by half
The DAP - yes, to its discredit then - had a “technical glitch” during its December elections for the central executive committee (CEC) which resulted in a minor revision to its election results. The studious ROS began investigations, but only decided not to recognise DAP’s CEC several months later, yesterday - just two days before nomination day. How convenient.
Thus far, three agencies are implicated in this conspiracy: The ROS with its draconian powers granted during ex-PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s (right) dictatorial grip on the country when he tightened laws for societies to bring them under control; the supposedly independent, but not so independent Election Commission and its assurance which may lull DAP into complacency; and a compliant judiciary, courtesy again of Mahathir, which may be willing to play ball.
