One of the criteria to qualify for the prestigious award is that students must consistently achieve pass rates that exceed the rest of the world in the ACCA examination.
While Ktar would be elevated to a unversity college next year, Dr Chua gave his assurance that its School of Business Studies would continue to flourish.
Nevertheless, he said there would be some changes like consolidating its 130 programmes, continuing only selected diploma programmes and introducing university programmes.
The changes would also make sure that Ktar and Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (Utar) would complement each other and develop together, instead of competing against each other, he said in an interview at his office here.
Dr Chua noted that the two institutions were set up and run by MCA to provide quality and affordable education to Malaysians and contribute to the country's development.
Both had produced some 200,000 graduates who found jobs within six months upon graduation, he added.
Dr Chua said the college was proposed by then MCA president Tun Tan Siew Sin at the party's annual general assembly in July 1968.
Ktar, which took in its first batch of 320 students in February 1969, now has a total enrolment of 25,000 at its main campus here and branch campuses in Penang, Perak, Johor, Pahang and Sabah.
It had undergone rapid expansion at its main campus and set up branch campuses under then MCA president Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik in the 1990s, he added.
Dr Chua said the Government's ringgit-to-ringgit annual allocation for Ktar's development and administration costs since 1972 would continue, adding that RM56mil had been allocated for the purpose next year.
The allocation was needed to keep its fees affordable, he said, adding that the fees were between RM9,000 and RM10,000.
Fees at other established private colleges ranged from RM20,000 to RM40,000.
Plans were afoot to expand the main campus here to include a faculty building, students' centre and hall and vocational training building.
He said the development on Ktar's 21ha plot could proceed after the relocation of about 500 squatter families.
Dr Chua said Ktar principal Dr Tan Chik Heok has been given six months, beginning last month, to resolve the squatter issue.
Dr Tan heads a committee of academic staff which is working with Kuala Lumpur City Hall on the relocation, he added.
SHAH ALAM: A controversial ruling by a district council in Selangor banning unmarried Muslim couples from sitting together in a cinema has been shelved, with the MCA slamming the use of religion in politics. MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek said he was shocked that Islamic values were imposed by the council.
He cautioned that friction among the people could happen in a multi-racial country like Malaysia should religion be used in politics.
Separately, the Kuala Selangor district council (MDKS) had been directed to put the ruling on hold immediately.
It is learnt that the decision was made by the MDKS full board council meeting in May.
MDKS councillor P. Thirumoorthy said the ruling was proposed by a councillor from PAS last year.
State executive councillor Ronnie Liu said the state government was not consulted before the decision was implemented recently.
“I only found out from the press. In other local councils, there is no such ruling. So I will ask the MDKS president to delay the ruling and bring it to the full board for further discussion,” he told a press conference yesterday.
A Chinese daily reported yesterday that the only cinema in Kuala Selangor had recently put up notices reminding patrons of the new ruling.
It is believed that cinema operators who did not abide by the ruling were informed that their licences would not be renewed.
A source from the Lotus Five Star cinema described the ruling as “unbecoming and unfair”.
“This has caused fear among Muslims and deterred them from coming to our place,” he said.
In Petaling Jaya, Selangor MCA Youth chairman Dr Kow Cheong Wei said the DAP kept emphasising the equal status of all parties in Pakatan, claiming that for a policy to be implemented, there had to be consensus by all three parties in Pakatan Rakyat.
“If this is truly the case, then why has this cinema gender separation proposal become law? Is this an act by a unified administration by Pakatan?” he said in a statement.
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.
"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.
"DAP believes a clean govt can always perform better than a corrupt govt.
"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.
"From 2008 to 2011, the ease of doing business compared from 2003 to 2008. The fifth most favored 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 promsied under the leadership of DS Najib."
"Anwar is full of rhetoric, no specific, 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 right of citizenship after independence. That's why citizens like LGE are citizens of the country.
"We laid down the foundations. We have progressed, advocated integration not assimiliation. That's why LGE is not called Sukarno Lim.
"These are 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, 95pc of the promise is janji janji kosong.
"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 200 to our newborn babies.
"State govt giving 100, 200 are all populist policy. 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?
"DAP is a camoflauge for Chinese chauvinist party."
Question: Mr President, stated number of major achievements of MCA, contributions to nation building. Yes today, many urban voters perceive MCA has not done enough. Perception 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 for balancing. DAP likes to tell the Chinese they are marginalised. The povery rate of Chinese is still lowest among three major races. Employment highest. Property ownership largest. Cannot deny in implementaion process there are people who benefit more than others, this is the bone of contention, cause a lot of Chinese to be angry with the govt and MCA bears the burden of this.
"DAP tries to portray itself as a multiracial party, but only dares to contest in chinese constituenciaes.
"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.
"In the same way we sometimes feel govt giving too much to bumiputra. but some bumiputras not happy with govt."
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 the latter is true.
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 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 scholarship but rich bumiputras can?
Dont 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.
Dont say we haven't built low ccost housing. We have build. Don't lie.
Question:Is MCA scared of Umno
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 discussion are all taped. The govt should declassify the tape and then they und 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 seize equal partnership but until today PAS have never openly endorsed Anwar as prime minister.
You can't event agree on a party common symbol and logo and register to party.
Question: I've read your Buku Jingga, stated among other things that if party win GE, forms central govt, going to abolish all road tolls, PTPTN and give income to houses that make less than 4K 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.
Talk about collections from public. When DAP organises dinner, 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 govt'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 as when they see a Chinese... why is it not written more clearly they will build more Chinese schools? indeopendent schools? recognise UEC?
I openly asked Anwar, are you going to build more Chinese schools? More independent scghool? pls tell me.
Because if it is from DAP, I dont trust. 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 govt 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 oppeness to allow indepndent Chinese schools.
Anwar, I cannot blame CSL because he gets his buku jingga from Chor Chee Heung, don't know what document they are reading. Maybe I should send videotape to you.
When you talk about Anwar if PR wins power he will be PM.
SwitchUp.TV, The Star's web TV site, will stream the debate live at 2.30pm. Those who wish to view it can watch live from the switchup.tv here below:
Catch the streaming video of the Chua-Lim debate on the topic, "DAP & MCA: Whose Policies Benefit the Country More?" live from Sunway Pyramid Convention Centre on Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 1430-1630hrs :
The debate will also be broadcast live over the radio by The Star's radio stations 988, Capital FM and Red FM.
Unlike the previous debate which was televised live, a delayed recording of tomorrow's event would be shown on Astro Awani and Astro AEC at 11pm on the same day.
Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute will provide video recordings on YouTube with a delay of between eight and 10 minutes.
Its senior vice-president Ng Yeen Seen said plainclothes security officers would be among the audience during the debate to ensure that order was maintained.
This is one of the security measures to be taken by Asli, which is the organiser of the debate.
“While we are not expecting things to get violent, it is important to have moves in place in the interest of safety,” Ng said.
She said there were no untoward incidents in the first debate between the two politicians on Feb 18 and the same was expected for the one tomorrow.
During the first debate on Feb 18, some of the audience turned rowdy when posing questions to Dr Chua, who is MCA president, and Lim, who is the DAP secretary-general and Penang Chief Minister.
Some were seen snatching the microphone and shouting during the debate titled “Chinese at the crossroads: Is the two-party system becoming a two-race system?”.
For tomorrow's debate at the Sunway Pyramid Convention Cen-tre, Ng said MCA and DAP would each be allocated 400 seats for their supporters at the right and left sides of the hall, respectively.
“In the centre rows, 500 seats have been sold to the public while another 100 are reserved for Asli's guests,” she said, adding that reporters would be seated at tables in front of the hall to allow them to monitor the debate.
The debate, titled “DAP & MCA: Whose Policies Benefit the Coun-try More?”, will be conducted in English in front of a 1,500-strong audience.
The Prime Minister would also be from PAS if Pakatan were to take federal power, he added.
Dr Chua said the coming general election was a do-or-die battle for Barisan Nasional and Pakatan, not just MCA.
Given due recogniti on: Boon Kim Lian receiving an award from Dr Chua while his deputy Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai looks on during the ceremony Saturday.
“There is no room for complacency because Pakatan will do anything to gain control of the country after making some inroads in the last election.
“Pakatan now is very organised and has the resources to take control,” he said at the MCA long service medal presentation ceremony here last night.
Dr Chua said MCA's number one enemy would still be DAP in the elections.
He also stressed the need to expose the party's tactics, so people would not be conned.
”Unlike previous elections, a vote for DAP is a vote for PAS and PKR,” he added.
Dr Chua said Pakatan was only keen to gain power and had no concrete plan for the people or the country's development.
For example, DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng had not been able to reply when asked on Pakatan's socio-economic development model for the country.
“All he (Lim Guan Eng) said was money, money, money, and money makes money,” Dr Chua said on the high-profile debate between him and Lim last Saturday.
Apart from exposing DAP's ploy, Dr Chua said MCA must continue to stay united and work hard to face the next election.
He said the party must also adopt a high profile apart from serving the people well.
“I dare say no party can beat us in terms of service to the people since the party's inception 63 years ago,” he said.
Dr Chua said this was one of the reasons MCA was giving out long service medals starting this year.
Meanwhile, MCA secretary-general Datuk Seri Kong Cho Ha said the party's never-say-die attitude, as reflected in its continued service to the people after its dismal performance in the last general election, was commendable.
EVEN as the 3,000-odd MCA (Malaysian Chinese Association) delegates celebrate the party's 63rd anniversary at Wisma MCA tomorrow, their minds are already on how next year's celebration will fare.
The reason for that is the do-or-die battle awaiting the party in the coming general election, and many see this as the biggest ever challenge faced by the party.
MCA, which won 46 seats in the last election less than half of what it used to win in the past elections will be deemed irrelevant if it slides further.
MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek, who described the current political scenario as totally different from the past, said there should be a sense of “crisis feeling” in the party to take on this challenge.
“We are talking about an Opposition which is more organised and committed and out to replace the Government.
“They will do anything and everything to wrest power,” he said when asked about his message for the delegates at the celebrations.
Of late, Dr Chua has made it a point to unmask DAP, its number one political enemy.
While the two Chinese-based parties have been arch rivals for decades, the war this time around is on a very different platform.
“The DAP today, which is a Pakatan Rakyat ally, is different from the DAP of yesteryears.
“It is not just working together with its Pakatan allies PAS and PKR to win seats but is also set to change the fate of the Malaysian Chinese,” Dr Chua noted.
He stressed that a vote for DAP is a vote for PAS.
To begin with, he said the DAP had always evaded the question of what would happen if Pakatan wrested federal control because DAP knew well that it would not have much say in the coalition.
For instance, he pointed out that DAP, which won 18 of the 31 state seats in Perak in the last election, had supported a PAS leader, Datuk Seri Mohamad Nizar Jamaluddin, to be the Mentri Besar, adding that PAS only won six seats while PKR won seven.
“DAP is nothing more than a political eunuch to PAS,” Dr Chua said.
He said the DAP had been planting hope in the minds of some 6.5 million Malaysian Chinese that the DAP's feat in Penang which saw its secretary-general Lim Guan Eng's ascension to the Chief Minister's post was possible in other states.
He reminded the Chinese that the Penang feat would not be possible in other states at the moment due to the demography of voters in the country.
Dr Chua also has a message for the delegates tomorrow the need to publicise what the party has done for the people and also what it can continue to do for them.
“I have the party's report card ready,” he said of the various people-oriented programmes implemented by the party since he took over the helm about two years ago.
And perhaps the Chinese saying chuang ye nan, shou ye gen nan (to build an empire is tough, to maintain an empire is even tougher) best sums up what the 63-year-old party is going through now. The event will be broadcast live from MCA's internet platforms.
Those wishing to view the celebration can browse the MCA website at http://www.mca.org.my; official Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/MCAHQ or Ustream Home at http://www.ustream.tv/user/mcatv.
Councillors go easy on Jessie
GEORGE TOWN: Penang municipal councillors have decided not to pursue legal action against Selayang Barisan Nasional coordinator Jessie Ooi for making baseless allegations against the council.
Selangor MCA Beliawanis chief Jessie Ooi >>
Their representative Ong Ah Teong said the councillors had unanimously decided not to pursue the matter and instead focus their time and energy on serving Penangites.
Ooi had made the allegations du-ring the recent televised debate between MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and DAP secretary general Lim Guan Eng.
She had during question time alleged among other things that there were not enough parking lots in Lebuh Pantai and that enforcement personnel had assaulted people while performing their duties.
She had also accused the council of towing away cars at 10.30pm.
The council had clarified that 12 vehicles were towed away for illegal parking since the ruling was implemented in June last year.
Based on the council’s record, no vehicles were towed at 10.30pm and none in Beach Street as alleged by Ooi.
The council had explained there were 829 parking bays on Beach Street and adjoining streets and that its enforcement personnel had not assaulted anyone.
Meanwhile, Ooi in a statement said she regretted the “misunderstanding and confusion” caused by her.
“I admit that during the debate, the time for questions was limited and it was an intense affair resulting in me being emotional and not able to convey my message properly,” she said.
She said the council had the right and responsibility to correct or refute her remarks, but it should not prosecute her.
Ooi said the council’s threat to take legal action against her was an attempt at preventing the rakyat from expressing their views.
Society lacking even after 55 years
MALAYSIA, despite almost 55 years of nation-building, has degenerated into an intolerant and prejudiced society. Progress in education and economy has not made us think liberally and outwardly.
Oddly, we are not isolated from the world at large. We embrace globalisation, multi-racialism and world peace. Yet many of us remain parochial, as though shuttered from the changing times and new challenges.
There are still inward-looking people in our midst who are fond of objecting to a variety of things without justification or reason.
Perhaps it is their inbred attitude to complain, protest and threaten.
For example, even before the 1Care programme is finalised, there are already protests.
Against what?
In their insecure, selfish world, these objectors jump the gun by stirring up a storm in the teacup.
The 1Care programme will be conceptualised and proposed in a year or two.
At the moment, it is mere discussion and brainstorming. So why the hullabaloo?
There is this fear that workers will have their salaries deducted to fund the scheme.
The thinking is that 1Care should be offered free without any contribution by the employers and employees.
Any thought of this nature is only a pipe dream. Not everything is free in this world, not even water, clean air and nature’s abundance of crops.
Before Valentine’s Day, there was also strong objection to its celebration.
Isn’t love natural and universal? It is madness to stifle love. The world needs love, lots of it, to attain peace, harmony, unity and growth.
Politics and religion cannot be allowed to stamp out love, a force that is too powerful to be subdued or crushed. Love has existed long before political parties were created.
Like communism, Nazism and terrorism, the “ism” concepts and practices can do more harm than good.
Extremism is a good example of its negative, sometimes destructive, effects. So is racialism.
We must be on guard against false prophets, pretenders and campaigners with personal agendas.
They are dissenters motivated by self-interest and misguided beliefs. Their aim is to plant the seeds of doubt, suspicion and rebellion.
Fear is a commonly used weapon to create panic and opposition. It becomes a medical and social issue when it leads to phobia.
In some cases, fear triggers national disunity, family discord, social strife and violence.
Malaysia has witnessed many “anti” crusades – anti-dam construction, anti-Lynas, anti-highway building and anti-temple removal.
Sometimes, one wonders whether the resources can be channelled to more meaningful purposes like charity, community development and education advancement.
Another widely-employed strategy is rumour-mongering intended to damage integrity, harmony and unity.
Strangely, many Malaysians accept rumours as the gospel truth, not realising that the wagging tongues strive to spread fear and malice.
Years ago, Tun Abdul Razak once advised: “Don’t listen to rumours.” Not much has changed since then. Many people are still gullible, easily swayed, and outright ignorant.
The rumour mills have expanded from coffee shops, markets and taxi stands to factories, community halls and new townships.
When nothing works, objectors and opponents threaten to institute legal proceedings. The “I will sue you” mentality is quite widespread. It seems to be the final answer to one’s frustrations, grievances and selfish interests.
Bad habits die hard, Negative attitudes linger. We are not an enlightened, liberated society. Do we need to wait for another 55 years to see positive change in our mindset?
Younger, more mature Malaysians have moved on and would like to see more debates, particularly on substantial issues which in the long term can feed the policy makingprocess.
YOUTH and Sports Minister Datuk SeriAhmad Shabery Cheek is not a bad squash player, and I partially attribute my two wins over him to home ground advantage — we were playing at the Royal Sungei Ujong Club which once served as Seremban’s Istana Hinggap — and also to the fact that he was already rather tired, having already played two sets with the Yang di-Pertuan Besar (of which the outcome for the minister was similar).
It is said that he is the most approachable among the Cabinet ministers, and I can see why.
His name is also nearly uttered in the same breath as Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah, Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan, Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed, Datuk Shahrir Samad, Khairy Jamaluddin and, of late, Datuk Seri Nazri “Valentine’s Day” Aziz as Umno politicians who have been condemned within their party for being too liberal or independent-minded.
Round one: Dr Chua and Lim speaking to the press after their debate last Saturday.
(Two of these individuals listed mostly the same names when I asked who else in their party broadly agrees with them — even if they don’t enjoy particularly close relationships with one another.)
Among veterans, there’s Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, recently joined by Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Sheikh Fadzir, in being critical of the party.
Back in 2008, as Information Minister, Shabery Cheek had the courage to face Anwar Ibrahim in a televised debate after the latter’s release from prison.
This was touted as the debate of the century, but now similar superlatives are being applied to the one last weekend between Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and Lim Guan Eng.
I have been told that the available translations are poor, so I won’t judge the content, but what struck me was the eagerness in presenting this debate as one concerning only ethnic Chinese in Malaysia, rather than a debate to discuss issues pertinent to all Malaysians.
It is as if one’s ethnic background constrains the subject matter — but I am sure people of all ethnic backgrounds have a view about cars being towed in the late evenings.
Still, the fact that the debate happened at all has been widely appreciated. Of course, such debates for the benefit of Malaysian students abroad have been happening for some time.
The recent one between Khairy and Rafizi Ramli in London has been making the rounds online, but I remember such debates taking place when I was an undergraduate there myself.
Some say such debates are a waste of time, because Malaysians are supposedly too immature.
Well, immature politicians of whatever age can wallow in their own ignorance: younger, more mature Malaysians have moved on and we would like to see more debates, and on substantial issues which in the long term can feed the policy making process.
This change in attitude must have something to do with the active culture of debating in our varsities.
Not too long ago I was a judge at one of these debating events, and if these ladies and gentlemen become parliamentarians in the future there may yet be hope for our Dewan Rakyat to return to the civilised, august chamber that it once was.
The cultivation of public speaking begins at a young age.
Last week, I was at SMK Tuanku Muhammad to close a public speaking competition for schools in Kuala Pilah, and the 15-year-old girl who won spoke as eloquently as the local MP.
In my own speech I mentioned that aptitude in both Malay and English is not only crucial to our nation’s future success, but also in understanding our past; from the time of Tuanku Muhammad, English was widely used in government, business and social circles: a far cry from the termination of the English national-type schools, the PPSMI debate and ministry websites that “poke eyes”.
In a school named for Tuanku Muhammad’s niece, Tunku Kurshiah, the wind orchestra was rehearsing for its Konsert DiRaja on Sunday. Starting out as a marching band in the 1970s, the orchestra now routinely wins competitions against other schools.
It had invited me to accompany them on the piano, and it was a privilege to play One Republic’s Apologise and the Blues Gang’s Apo Nak Dikato with an orchestra carrying the first Raja Permaisuri Agong’s name in the presence of many of her family members, including the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Tunku Panglima Besar of Kedah (herself a TKCian).
I hope in due course the extraordinary commitment to co-curricular activities can be expanded to squash, too.
Preliminary research suggests that Shabery Cheek is the only person in the Cabinet or among senior Opposition figures (there is still, lamentably, and so close to the rumoured general election, no Shadow Cabinet) who plays this game of strategy, stamina, and flexibility.
The following is a commentary in Sin Chew Daily written by its columnist Lim Fang.
THE debate between Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and Lim Guan Eng deviated from the topic “Chinese at a Crossroads: Is the Two Party System Becoming a Two-Race System?” and turned out to be just a summary of their previous press statements but with a difference — the two leaders were face-to-face.
Considering that this was the first debate in this path of democracy, there were some unavoidable shortcomings. The next debate, either in Malay or English and expected to be held next month, should be able overcome some of these weaknesses.
The last time leaders from these two parties squared off was in 1982 when Lim Kit Siang challenged the then MCApresident Tan Sri Lee San Choon to contest in a Chinese majority area to prove which party had the support of the community.
Lee took up the challenge and contested in Seremban in the general election that year. Lim did not contest in the seat but instead the then DAPchairman Dr Chen Man Hin did and lost to Lee.
Thirty years on, this debate has given the new generation of voters a chance to observe the performance of two political foes facing off again. For years, the DAP has had the advantage in the Internet with the MCA being seen there as its whipping boy.
The debate thus gave Dr Chua a chance to prove his “iron man” prowess, as well as use live television to state the stand of the MCA clearly and rebut the DAP.
Some master debaters may question the quality of the debate but this is not a university-type competition as the two were delivering their speech, arguing their political stand and giving a political ceremah. This is different from the political debates in Taiwan.
Lim is good at giving ceramahs but in the debate he avoided the audience’s questions and was embarrassingly tongue-tied when tough questions were thrown at him.
He spent some time reading from his prepared notes and this showed he lacked confidence to expound a convincing argument and concentrated only on voicing out his own political views.
Dr Chua was the first to speak and may not have warmed up at the start, that is until after Lim started attacking him. He then showed his “fighting cock” style and replied sharply.
Without having to read from his notes — a no-no when debating — Dr Chua showed he was confident as well as calm and collected. One could see who was sharp and who was blunt in the debate.
As usual, Dr Chua attacked DAP for not being able to do anything about PAS wanting to implement the Islamic state policy. He said the Rocket badmouthed its opponents just to create an image for itself. He said the DAP was only capable of talking about issues relating to the country, community and people but did not do anything. He accused Lim’s party of misleading the people with lies.
On Lim’s side, he harped on corruption by Barisan Nasional and the MCA’s inability to do anything when Umno shouted out Malay supremacy. Lim also claimed credit for the achievements in Penang under his administration.
When Lim was stressing on Penang’s achievements, he was merely debating as the Penang Chief Minister. Lim forgot that he was also the DAP’s secretary-general. This showed that Lim did not step into the main political arena but confined himself to a regional political stage.
In fact, the debate topic did not apply to the country’s real situation, as the Malays comprise 65% of the population while Chinese make up 24%. Such vast difference in numbers makes it impossible for the two races to go head-on with each other in terms of strength.
The Umno-led Barisan had been practising the two-race system for quite some time to strengthen their position by complementing each other’s strength. It will be no different if Pakatan Rakyat were to come to power, the DAP, which mainly depends on the support of the Chinese community, has to abide by the policies drawn up by PAS and Parti Keadilan Rakyat.
Before this, the DAP used to ridicule the MCA by saying it was hiding inside Umno’s sarong. Today, they dare not repeat such statements because if the Pakatan comes to power, DAP would have one more sarong than the MCA. The conclusion of the debate between the MCA and the DAP is whether there will be one or two sarongs, and which the Chinese community felt more comfortable with.
No winner or loser was declared but the two leaders achieved the objective of reaching out to the Chinese community in one of the most exciting televised debates to articulate their parties' views and directions.
Both leaders have also agreed to a second round, which is expected to draw an even bigger audience as it will be conducted in either English or Bahasa Malaysia.
Yesterday's debate, conducted in Mandarin, has set the pace for a new political culture where leaders from opposing parties are able to come together on the same platform to debate issues with a clear head instead of just firing salvos from different ends.
Those who saw the debate generally felt that both leaders showed courage as they took on sensitive questions such as those pertaining to corruption, the hudud law, land issues and Chinese schools.
There was maturity in the way they presented themselves before the audience at the Berjaya Times Square venue and hundreds of thousands more watching the debate live at home or in coffee shops, food courts and other public places.
While the debate sometimes veered away from the main topic “Chinese at a Crossroads: Is the Two-Party System Becoming a Two-Race System?”, it was nevertheless an exciting hour of verbal sparring, juxtaposed with Chinese proverbs to convey their messages better to the community.
By dinner and supper time yesterday, the debate had led to more debates at kopitiam and eateries throughout the country on who was the better speaker and which party could best represent the community.
Transcript of the opening remarks in the debate between MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng
(Before the debate, moderator Tan Ah Chai (CEO of Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall), Dr Chua (CSL) and Lim (LGE) went up the stage to an enthusiastic round of applause. Both speakers drew lots to determine the first speaker. Dr Chua was to go first. The debate started with the Moderator's opening remarks and introduction of the two speakers). CSL: Dear Speaker, distinguished Chief Minister of Penang, and members of the floor, good afternoon. In a democratic society, a two party system is a good idea if there are adequate check and balances in place. Unfortunately, after March 3 (in 2008), the opposition has been practising the politics of hate as it relentlessly attacked the government to gain power.
DAP is, now, not the DAP from the past. After it enters into a pact with PAS, PAS can control everything in Pakatan because they have the manpower and resources. So it would not be impossible for PAS to create a government that will implement the hudud law.
When PAS becomes dominant, the opposition will say don't worry, it will all be good. This is the biggest political lie. Look at Kedah - men and women need to sit separately. No alcohol in Kelantan, no cinema in Bangi. This clearly shows DAP is a slave to PAS.
We want to congratulate the DAP on misleading the rakyat and spreading propaganda, because when it comes to promoting and packaging their agenda, the DAP could get an Oscar for it. For 48 years, DAP was supported by the Chinese, and they have gained their support by "repackaging" their agenda. In DAP's history of 48 years it has only contested in Chinese majority areas, adopting the policy of using Chinese against the Chinese.
The DAP wants to teach Umno a lesson but they dare not face Umno. In fact, they only challenge the Chinese based political party.
DAP often says that its party has been given the Chief Minister's position in Penang. However, this also gives false hope to the Chinese that this could be possible in other states too. I would like to tell them that currently, in other states, it is not possible in this political climate.
DAP today has changed, and no longer is the DAP of the past. Today, in alliance with PAS and PKR, DAP is no longer championing the DAP agenda, but instead helping PAS and PKR to come into power.
In the last general election, for instance, DAP has won more seats than PAS and PKR combined. Logically, the "big brother" or Pakatan leader should be from DAP. But no, the "Big Brother" is still PKR and many mentris besar are from PAS.
In a multi-racial country, we also cannot accept Islamic rule. So, we have to oppose PKR because PAS' biggest supporter is PKR.
LGE: Dear Speaker, MCA president Dr Chua, members of the floor. I thank the organisers for organising this debate. Debate is an important element of democracy. That is why, I hope that debate will have a role to play in the democracy of this country, similar to the US and Europe. I think what the Malaysians really want is not to see both of us debate. What they want to see is a debate between (Prime Minister) Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and (Pakatan leader) Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. The one who does not have the courage to come to the debate, cannot be a Prime Minister.
Dr Chua accused DAP as a party that is being used by PAS. But we often hear, Najib say that PAS, instead, is being used by DAP. I believe that this contradictory stand is a tactic often used by Barisan Nasional.
In Pakatan Rakyat, we do not use each other. We are just prepared to be used by the rakyat. We are not against the Malays or non-Malays, but we are against corruption and poor governance.
I have my doubts about this title because now we are already in a two-race system, because the Prime Minister himself is still talking about the Malays and non-Malays frequently. The Deputy Prime Minister has also said that for him it is "Malays first".
What we want is a two-party system where all Malaysians could be taken care of. Right now, we see that Umno takes care of the interests of the Malays, the MCA takes care of the Chinese, and the MIC takes care of the Indians. As for DAP, they couldn't figure out who we represent.
A two-party system will take care of everyone, and every Malaysian will be taken care of. We don't agree with the idea of Malay supremacy. What we want, is for the power to lie in the hands of the rakyat. I do not know which Umno leader will have the courage to champion Malaysian supremacy instead of Malay supremacy.
The Barisan National attacks the opposition front, accusing it of racism, as it continues to point out cases of corruption. However, corruption has no skin colour. Pakatan will ensure transparency by revealing the assets of its leader, conducting open tenders, taking corrupt officers - and not innocent citizens like Teoh Beng Hock - to task.
We could also say, if not for the support of 40% of Malays in Penang, I won't be standing here as chief minister. I hope the public will support us for a change of Government.
This then is the two-party system that we want - let the rakyat decide the government.
A good verbal fight
On The Beat By Wong Chun Wai
Lim failed to respond to questions concerning DAP’s stand on hudud law and Pakatan Rakyat’s economic plans.
IT was billed as the Battle of Two Fighting Cocks and Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and Lim Guan Eng certainly lived up to the expectations of Malaysians.
Right from the start, they traded verbal blows with each other but still maintained the decorum expected of speakers in their positions.
The highly-charged atmosphere, with supporters of both sides applauding every point, also ensured that the one-hour war of words came to a fitting climax, heralding in a new political culture that will hopefully pave the way for future debates of this nature.
Questions from the floor were passionate although in some instances they deviated from the topic of the debate. But both speakers did not allow themselves to be rattled. They acquitted themselves well and maintained the spirit of being able to disagree without being disagreeable.
That the debate was conducted fully in Mandarin, even though both speakers were not Chinese-educated, reminded us of the reality that in this country we are able to understand one another, no matter the language, and the days of speaking only to a single-language constituency are over.
The fact that many of us, including this writer, had to rely on the Malay translation by Astro, also confirms that politicians have to be careful about what they say because the message will always get through, no matter the language.
But it was a jolly good show, all things considered. Dr Chua has certainly set a precedent when he decided to take on DAP strongman Lim.
Their styles are different and both have their strong points.
As is normal in all debates, zooming in on the opponent’s Achilles heel often results in the opponent doing his best to skirt around the issues. That much was obvious when Lim failed to adequately respond to Dr Chua’s questions concerning the DAP’s stand on hudud law and Pakatan Rakyat’s socio-economic plan.
The MCA president’s experience was obvious, especially as he rounded off the debate with his anecdote to Lim about the heroes in the Chinese historical novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms.
Lim, however, was also able to highlight the point that a viable two-party system simply means that any side can be thrown out if it does not live up to the people’s expectations.
It is common for opposition leaders to throw challenges but it is rare for those who represent the government to take them on.
In the political history of Malaysia, one can count by the fingers the number of public debates that have taken place between the two sides.
There have not been many debates of this nature because it is always easier for the politicians to take their rhetoric to ceramahs in front of their own supporters where they know their adversaries are not in attendance.
The entertainment approach appeals to the crowd and the speaker does not have to be on guard with whatever he says even if it can be outlandish.
But in a one-to-one debate such as the one we witnessed yesterday, especially in front of a televised audience, it is a different ball game.
The most recent debate between two Chinese politicians was way back in August 2008, soon after the political tsunami.
Back then, Lim and Gerakan president Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon squared off in a debate touted as “Chief Minister versus ex-Chief Minister” and the topic concerned a land controversy in Penang.
Another debate took place in the 1990s between the then Youth chiefs of MCA and DAP, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat and Lim respectively, on the rather interesting topic of “Who is the political parasite?”
This writer covered the event which was carried over two nights. It enthralled a packed audience at the Selangor Assembly Hall. Everyone had their view as to who won but I think both were winners for their readiness to debate against each other.
Although it was highly entertaining, that debate lacked constructive purpose and focus and I believe both veered away from the topic, which itself was too general.
One of the most watched televised debates was between PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and then Information Minister Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek in 2008. They faced off to argue about the rising price of oil and the opposition’s boast that if they came to power, they would reduce the oil price the next day.
It was quite brave of Shabery, a relatively junior minister then, to take on Anwar, given the latter’s reputation as an orator. In the end, both men actually did well although Anwar did have the edge.
But the biggest debate, unfortunately, did not take place in Malaysia but in the United States where Anwar, who was then in Umno, took on PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang at the University of Illinois in 1982. This was the period of kafir-mengkafir, where each accused the other of being infidels.
At that time, PAS followers refused to attend prayers in mosques led by imams perceived to be aligned to Umno, which was also accused of working with infidel parties like MCA and Gerakan.
But, of course, there are no permanent enemies or friends in politics. Who would have thought that Anwar would now be a PAS ally in Pakatan?
It augurs well for our political maturing process that younger leaders are coming to the fore.
Recently, Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin took on PKR’s Rafizi Ramli in the United Kingdom and the debate was conducted in a civil manner. Intellect and knowledge were the important factors in their debate.
Certainly, we hope that yesterday’s debate between Dr Chua and Lim will spur more Malaysian politicians to spar with each other in the same way.
Malaysians are pretty tired of the current name-calling politics where intellectual discourse seems to be absent.
Democracy is not just about voting once every five years. It is also about being able to articulate one’s thoughts openly. Dissent does not make one subversive and anti-national.
We as stakeholders cannot leave democracy entirely to the politicians. We must be ready to broaden our minds by reading and analysing everything.
It is not just the Chinese who are at the crossroads, as the overall theme of the Asli/Insap forum indicated. All Malaysians are at the crossroads and we have to be sure which road we take. There is no room for second guessing.
Verbal combat with their own agenda
Analysis By Joceline Tan
The debate will probably be remembered less for what was actually said than the way the two political leaders took on each other in a high-octane atmosphere.
THERE had been so much hype over the debate between Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng and MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek that some were afraid that the outcome would be an anti-climax.
But it turned out to be quite an interesting debate – for what was said as well as the way the two leaders carried themselves and handled the rather high-octane situation.
It was a clear-cut fight and as former think-tank head Khaw Veon Szu pointed out, both men came on stage with an agenda which they tried their best to exploit to the maximum.
Right from the start, it was clear that Dr Chua’s aim was to tell the audience out there that MCA had accomplished real things for the Chinese and he wanted to expose Lim’s showmanship and politics, and to nail him on how DAP intends to reconcile its partnership with a party that has the Islamic State and hudud law as its goal.
Lim’s aim was two-pronged – he wanted to remind the Chinese that MCA is with Umno, currently the target of Chinese discontent.
Lim has been trying to portray himself as the underdog in the run-up to the debate but he is coming from a position of strength as the Chief Minister, party secretary-general and an MP-cum-assemblyman and he spent quite a bit of time trumpeting what he had done in Penang and the Buku Jingga.
In fact, it looked like Lim came prepared with a stack of notes and actually read from the notes when making his preamble. Many of those watching the debate were puzzled when he kept referring to the notes on the rostrum, flipping the pages even when he was answering questions from the floor.
In hindsight, it was evident he was not really answering the question but had decided to stick to the script. As a result, he ended up saying most what he had come to say.
“Many people could see that he was reading from a prepared text. But it’s a shame he did not really address the questions,” said MCA vice-president Gan Ping Sieu.
In between, there was lots of gamesmanship as well as one-upmanship.
One hour is really too brief for two parties with so much history between them to actually do much but more than one hour may have been too much politics for some people to swallow on a Saturday afternoon.
And as usual, the most asked question was: Who won?
It is hard to say actually. Both men did their share of attacking, they showed they were not afraid to take each other on and even though both men are actually “bananas,” they handled the language very well. Neither of them were educated in Chinese schools but went to national schools. They only picked up Mandarin in earnest after going into politics.
They are known as “bananas” among those who are Chinese-educated, the inference being that they are Chinese (yellow outside) but Western in thinking (white inside).
Lim has evidently picked up the lingo along the ceramah route and he used quite a number of phrases that had a catchy rhyme. For example, he said people did not want lies (bei pian) but they want change (yao bian).
Dr Chua demonstrated that he is quite well-versed in Chinese history; he told Lim not to emulate the fierce and ruthless general Zhang Fei but to be more like Liu Be, a benevolent ruler who was guided by the legendary strategist Zhuge Liang.
Not many people will remember what was said months down the road but what the two leaders actually achieved out of it.
Dr Chua has certainly carved a new notch as an MCA president who is not afraid to take on his opponent. He was the real underdog because unlike Lim, he has neither a government post nor did he contest the last general election. And it takes a lot to stand up there and take Lim on, given the DAP’s supremacy in Chinese politics today.
The MCA president was quite unflappable and he is certainly able to think on his feet without having to refer to any prepared text.
Lim is better known as a ceramah orator who breathes fire when put behind a rostrum. He showed a more civil side and despite his over-dependence on his notes, he very cleverly side-stepped tricky issues that come from partnering an Islamist party.
Their bigger audience was of course those outside the hall. Lim is already well-known to his Chinese audience and the debate gives him the chance to reach out to the non-Chinese, to show them the other side of his personality.
As for Dr Chua, he should score some points with the Chinese who are always looking for leaders who can think, work and fight at the same time. After yesterday, many Chinese would conclude that this is one MCA president who speaks up and is not afraid of challenges.
If one has to identify a loser, it would the overly boisterous segment of the audience, some of whom think they are at a school debate. A debate should not be determined by how much noise is made. The quality of questions could also have been better and there were several who spoke as though they were there to quarrel rather than pose questions.
But there was also unanimous agreement that the moderator Tang Ah Chai was commendable. Tang has a social activist background and has often been associated with the Opposition. But he was professional and many liked the way he handled the speakers and the floor.
Tang said it for many democracy-loving Malaysians when he concluded that everyone should have the chance to speak up on the future of the country and that even if people disagree with one another, they should listen and have the courage and maturity to appreciate what is good for the country.
Chua: If Umno falls, PAS will benefit more, not DAP or PKR
Reports by FOONG PEK YEE, LIM WEY WEN, YUEN MEIKENG, LEE YEN MUN, ISABELLE LAI, NG SI HOOI, BEH YUEN HUI, TAN EE LOO, REGINA LEE, JOSEPH SIPALAN and QISHIN TARIQ
PAS will be the principal beneficiary if Pakatan Rakyat comes to power in the next general election, Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek said.
The MCA president said if Umno fell, the principal beneficiary would be PAS and not the DAP or PKR.
“This is common sense. So, let's not be deceived by dishonest rhetoric. Let us face the hard truth.”
Pointing out that a vote for DAP is a vote for PAS and PKR, he said that to empower DAP is to strengthen PAS.
“This would pave the way for PAS to be the taiko or lao da (big brother) in the state and federal government.
“In Perak in the last elections, DAP won 18 state seats, PKR won seven seats and PAS won only six seats, but it was a PAS candidate who became the Mentri Besar (Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin),” Dr Chua said in his opening speech at the Malaysian Chinese at Political Crossroads conference in Kuala Lumpur.
During the conference, the much-anticipated debate between Dr Chua and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng on Is the Two-Party System Becoming a Two-Race System was held. The event was jointly organised by the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli) and MCA think-tank Insap.
Dr Chua said the DAP, which liked to allude to their success in forming the Penang state government and having a DAP leader as the Chief Minister, has been giving false hope to the Chinese that this is possible in other states.
“By tradition, this is only possible in Penang but not other states as yet,” Dr Chua pointed out.
He said the DAP had been planting hope in the minds of about 6.5 million Malaysian Chinese that a Chinese-led government is possible and that the Malaysian Chinese had been short-changed by the MCA.
The MCA president noted that the next elections is at a crossroads not just for the Chinese alone, but also for the nation and all Malaysians.
Dr Chua likened Lim to a true street fighter constantly issuing countless statements to condemn or challenge others, and forgetting that he has a state to look after.
The Pakatan in Penang, he said, had yet to deliver its many promises; like building an international golf course, low cost houses, upgrading the public transport system, easing the horrendous traffic jams and upgrading the numerous run down hawker centres.
He also reminded Lim that the increase in foreign direct investments in Penang was a result of the federal government's transformation programmes under Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak's leadership which saw an increase in the nation's competitiveness, ease of doing business and better public security.
Dr Chua also cautioned that Selangor would face serious water shortage if the state government did not address the issue fast.
“If the Pakatan Rakyat delivered all its promises as stated in the Buku Jingga, it will cost taxpayers a total of RM199bil to RM254bil and the federal budget deficit will rise to 27.5% of year one.
“Public debt will soar to RM617.1 bil in year one. Malaysia will go bankrupt by the second year of Pakatan's tenure as the budget deficit will have exceeded 10% of the GDP and public debt will have exceeded 100% of the GDP,” he said.
