– BernamaAll eyes and ears: Anwar chairing the first special Cabinet meeting of the Unity Government at Perdana Putra.
Add the video to your site with the embed code above
PUTRAJAYA: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim will not receive any salary, both as Prime Minister and as Finance Minister, he has clarified.
Cabinet ministers have also agreed to a 20% pay cut until Malaysia reaches economic recovery, he said.
Rubbishing talk that he would be paid as Finance Minister although he had declined the salary for the top job, Anwar announced he would not be taking any form of government salary.
This was in line with his promise made during the election campaign, he said.
During the campaign, Anwar had said he would not take a salary if he was appointed as prime minister because the people themselves were struggling to cope with rising costs.
“Some people say I’m not taking the Prime Minister’s salary because I am the Finance Minister. That’s not true. There is only one salary,” he said, laughing off such claims during a press conference here yesterday.
ALSO READ:Budget to be enhanced with MOF, Cabinet views
The Members of Parliament Act (Act 347) only allows one salary for ministers, deputy ministers or political secretaries.
On the Cabinet ministers’ pay cut, he said this was their way of acknowledging the tough times faced by the people.
“The pay cut will be implemented as long as Malaysia continues to recover economically.
“It shows the ministers are also concerned about the livelihood of the public,” he said.
Asked if the pay cut would be carried out throughout the government’s five-year tenure, he simply said that it could range from three to five years, depending on the situation.
Cabinet to take 20% pay cut
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim thanks his ministers “for their willingness to make some sacrifices” and said this was to show the government’s concern for Malaysians.
The message from Tanjung Piai is really quite simple and straightforward.
The Malays are willing to vote for BN, MCA, PH or PPBM. To them, which party or coalition to vote for is secondary. Increasingly, they want a government that can work for them, not just good in hoodwinking.
Some pundits claimed that it was Umno-PAS union that pulled the Malay votes for BN. I would prefer to think that it is the “push factors” to vote against PPBM and Pakatan Harapan that caused the swing.
Frankly, I think most are quite fed-up with the PH government by now. Many must have paused to ask themselves which aspect of their life has become better since May 9, 2018.
Maybe they couldn’t find any other than the continued intrigues and infighting within PH component parties.
The Chinese, too, can vote for different candidates and different coalitions at different times. To them, it does not matter if it is PPBM, PH, BN or MCA. It shows Chinese Malaysians are not racist. They just want to be treated fairly; it does not matter which race represents them in the government.
PPBM, Amanah and PKR need to be reminded that the Chinese are not leftovers; they are productive citizens.
No one wishes to be insulted, so let no one tell the Chinese to go back to China again. This is totally unacceptable.
The Chinese value their children’s education very much because they know they can’t depend on the government for jobs. So, forums and congresses threatening to shut down certain schools should stop.
They want multilingual education for their children, so stop telling them what language they can or cannot learn. If the government cannot protect the minority, it does not deserve support, period.
Finally, all Malaysians – Malays, Chinese, Indians and others – hate an incompetent government. So stop talking about flying cars, third national car, crooked bridge, Kulim Airport which is a stone’s throw from Penang, and endless plans for Penang.
Barisan Nasional keeps its hold on power thanks to the Malay breakwater that held back a Chinese wave that swept over the country.
A CHINESE tsunami swept over the country last night. It ripped through all the seats that had a significant Chinese electorate and devastated Gerakan and MCA in the peninsula and SUPP in Sarawak.
The tsunami was basically about the Chinese electorate going for change. The result was that the DAP emerged the big winner, making new gains everywhere, including in Johor.
But it was evident that the Pakatan Rakyat slogan of “ABU, or Asalkan Bukan Umno (Anything But Umno)” had also resonated with the urban populace in general because Pakatan regained Selangor with a two-thirds majority.
The Chinese tsunami also helped to carry many of the PKR candidates in many of the mixed seats.
However, the tsunami could not quite make it to Putrajaya.
At about 1am, a solemn-looking Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak announced that Barisan Nasional had a simple majority to form the government.
At press time, Barisan had attained 133 seats, still short of the 138-seat majority won by his predecessor Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
Najib was clearly disappointed but he spoke in a calm and steady voice as he urged everyone to accept the election result as part of the democratic process.
The Malay electorate, especially those in the rural states, continued to back Barisan. It is a small consolation to Najib that the Malays have returned to Umno in a significant way.
The Malay wall held back the Chinese tsunami and Barisan won back Kedah. It also held on to Perak, which was a subject of speculation until close to midnight.
At press time, Barisan won Perak with 31 state seats against 28 by Pakatan. But Pakatan continued to dominate in Penang with an increased majority.
PAS managed to hold on to Kelantan with a much reduced majority, which showed that Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat's appeal as a religious figure still commands support in the state.
As predicted, PAS won the least seats among the Pakatan parties and DAP is now the dominant party in Pakatan with the most number of seats. It can also lay claim to having defeated a top Umno leader, namely former Johor Mentri Besar Datuk Ghani Othman in Gelang Patah.
The Pakatan wins also mean that Johor and Sarawak are no longer the fixed-deposit states for Barisan.
The zero sum game of politics means that DAP's gain is MCA's loss because both parties contested in Chinese-majority seats. MCA won only seven parliamentary seats, far short of the 15 that it won in 2008.
This was in keeping with the pledge made that the party would not accept posts in the Government if it did not do better this time.
A big question mark hangs over the future of MCA as well as Gerakan and SUPP and they will have to do much soul-searching after this.
The Chinese rejection of Barisan is a big blow to Najib, who went out of his way to persuade them to come along on his economic and political transformation journey.
The Chinese have rejected a moderate and inclusive leader, who has made more overtures to the Chinese than any other Prime Minister before him, and Najib and his coalition will have to reassess all this in the months to come.
There will also be soul-searching on the part of PAS, given its loss in Kedah and the defeat of several of its top leaders, including its deputy president Mohamed Sabu in Kedah and vice-president Salahuddin Ayub in Johor. Another vice-president, Datuk Husam Musa, lost in Putrajaya.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the election result is that the ruling coalition is dominated by Umno and the Malays while the opposition Pakatan is dominated by the Chinese-based DAP.
The impact of this will become clearer as the dust settles over the most closely-fought election ever.
Comment By Joceline Tan The Star/Asia News Network
MP SPEAKS On the occasion of South Korean pop superstar Psy's Gangnam Style performance at the Prime Minister's CNY Open House in Penang today, will Najib Abdul Razak make a statement whether Malaysia can ever catch up with South Korea or at least begin to close the yawning chasm between the two countries?
A cabinet minister said Psy's appearance will make Penang world-famous but it is more important that Penang and Malaysia become world-famous because of our own achievements in all fields of human endeavour.
Sixteen years ago, when we proclaimed the Multimedia Super Corridor as "a gift to the world", Malaysia and South Korea were on the same level embarking on the IT journey.
Today, MSC and Malaysia have faded away from the world radar screen as an international IT hot spot, while South Korea has powered ahead to become the first country in the world to become a broadband society as well as the land of fastest internet in the world - with an average internet speed in 2012 of 14.7 Mpbs, 650 percent higher than the average 2.2 Mpbs registered in Malaysia.
Among the worst
In fact, Malaysia is ranked among the world's worst nations in internet speed - even slower than Thailand's average internet speed of 2.9 Mpbs for 2012.
In good governance, Malaysia trails behind South Korea especially in the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index in the past five years, where Malaysia is perceived as more corrupt, ranging No. 47 to 60 in world ranking in contrast to South Korea's ranking from 39 to 45.
In the latest 2002 World Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters Sans Frontieres (Reporters Without Borders), Malaysia hit a historic low in ranking at No 145 while South Korea is ranked No 50.
Recently, the 2011 Trends in Mathematics and Science Survey (TIMSS) highlights that Malaysia is the country which suffered the biggest drop in scores among all participating countries for both mathematics and science, while confirming the continuing domination by a group of Asian education systems - South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong - in these two critical subjects.
Malaysia woefully lags behind South Korea in educational excellence. In the Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2012-2013, four South Korean universities are listed among the World Top 200 universities while six in the World Top 400 universities - but not a single one from Malaysia.
Has Najib any answer to the question why Malaysia is lagging so far behind South Korea in all fields of human endeavour, when 56 years ago when Malaysia achieved Merdeka, South Korea was poorer and more backward but is now two or three times richer than Malaysia?
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.
The Penang Road cendol, the perfect coming together of delightful – and very different – ingredients. Could the same be said of our politics?
THERE’S nothing like a long weekend: somewhere out of Kuala Lumpur, a relaxed hotel, good food, things to see and do and preferably no politics.
My options were: Chiang Mai, Siem Reap and Penang. George Town won out after I realised that temperatures in northern Thailand and Cambodia at this time of year can reach the mid-40’s.
There was also another compelling reason: cendol – that sublime if wonderfully contradictory combination of five delights: shaved ice, santan, gula melaka, plus finger-length, pandan-scented rice flour noodles and red mung beans.
I’d been dreaming about having cendol for months and, to be frank, one particular variant of the shaved ice dessert: the Penang Road Famous Cendol.
This can be found in two stalls facing one another across a crowded lane in the heart of the city, near Chowrasta Market.
Yes, I know there are many other permutations. Some people insist that Indian Muslims make the best cendol.
Others demand condensed milk – how can they be so sacrilegious? Will they be insisting on rose syrup as well?
Then there are the gula melaka snobs – who believe that the sugar has to be aromatic, buttery and multi-layered with a hint of almonds.
The fact is that the choices for cendol connoisseurs are endless: with or without the mung beans, with durian, with pulut.
The Indonesians have their own versions as well but for me, and after twenty-five years of travelling, there’s only one cendol embedded in memory and it’s in Penang.
Of course, it could well be because of the days when I first started work as a junior lawyer and I was fortunate enough to be sent up to Penang for hearings.
Well, to be honest I should admit that I’d cajole and beg the firm’s Chief Clerk to be sent – anything to be able to travel out of Kuala Lumpur.
So, having completed my work at Penang’s then-musty and un-renovated High Court, I’d jump into a trishaw and head off (jacket, tie, legal files and all) for my cendol, standing alongside everyone else whilst eyeing my stack of files warily.
This time – and since I don’t like Batu Ferringhi – I stayed in town, at one of the boutique hotels, in the Unesco heritage area not too far from my favourite cendol stall.
But since man cannot live on cendol alone, I did also visit one or two other places, but invariably returned – almost religiously – for my ice-cold bowl of perfection, marvelling at the balance of the soft slipperiness of the rice-flour noodles and the firm but sticky texture of the red beans all smothered in gula melaka.
Because of its Unesco World Heritage status, Penang is one of the few places where the landscape of my memory matches what I’m still seeing and experiencing around me.
The same can’t be said of Kuala Lumpur where buildings appear and then disappear with a remarkable suddenness.
Yes, things have changed in Penang, but the fabric and feel of George Town remains, so as I wander past Carnarvon Market, Armenian Street, Beach Street and Little India, I’m reconnected and somehow recharged with a world I once knew.
Moreover, the buildings are undergoing a subtle change as new occupants and businesses arrive, changing the rhythm of life in these historic streets, shops, cafes, restaurants and small hotels.
Having said that, tradition continues unabated wherever you are in Penang. There are special prayers at Chinese temples and clan houses, funerals and activities redolent of history and the past.
Amidst all the heat and the noise it was a relief to retreat to my hotel.
I for one enjoyed the sensitive and artistic eye that had informed and accompanied the restoration of what is now one of the island’s leading boutique hotels – 23 Love Lane, tucked away behind St Xavier’s.
The hotel – more like a rambling private home – is a truly Malaysian experience, from its traditional Chinese gate (replete with ceramic Chien Nien panelling), to its Anglo-Indian bungalow and its Straits Settlements eclectic annexe: the kind of place where the hours fade away as staff bring you endless cups of coffee, roti canai, cukur udang and other local delicacies.
All of which left me in a perfect frame of mind for the opening of the George Town Festival on a balmy evening in Fort Cornwallis, followed by a more lively gathering at Narelle McMurtie’s China House.
And then just when I thought I’d escape the politics, I ended up having a three-hour breakfast with a group of friends – one from Umno and the other from DAP at the same time – proof that opposites, as with the cendol, can be reconciled, at least maybe in Penang …
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.
Recently, the 2011 Trends in Mathematics and Science Survey (TIMSS) highlights that Malaysia is the country which suffered the biggest drop in scores among all participating countries for both mathematics and science, while confirming the continuing domination by a group of Asian education systems - South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong - in these two critical subjects.
