MCA do-or-die at 63 in sarong politics

MCA faces its biggest challenge

By FOONG PEK YEE pekyee@thestar.com.my

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?

ROSELINA, Batu Caves, Selangor.


Related posts:

Malaysian Sarong Politics: Two-Party-System becoming a Two-Race-System is a question of one or two sarongs!!
 
Is the Two-Party-Sytem becoming a Two-Race-System? Online spars started before Chua-Lim debate!

Singapore ‘warns’ US on China bashing

Realism as S’pore ‘warns’ US

Behind The Headlines By Bunn Nagara

The city state has begun to adjust to emerging regional realities while pivoting on its pragmatic impulses, as always, while steering a steady course between China and the US.

SINGAPORE’S political positions are nothing if not coolly calculated and calibrated. They are specially so when expressed in formal statements at high-level meetings.

In Foreign Minister K. Shanmugam’s keynote address to the CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies) gathering in Washington recently, US media reported him as “warning” the US against China-bashing rhetoric.



Words about containing China, particularly in the populist mood of a US election year, would he said cause a “new and intended reality for the region.” It was not the first time Shanmugam had said so, having previously cautioned against the futility of containing a rising China.

However, these statements do mark a shift from previous Singapore policies on the US and China. As a small country overwhelmingly dependent on international trade, finance and therefore regional stability, an unwritten rule for Singapore has long been to avoid making waves while sidling up to the largest kid on the block.

Neither the region’s pecking order nor Singapore’s guiding principles have changed, only the emerging realities on the ground. The wherewithal for continued US pre-eminence has largely flattened out without having yet declined, while China’s stature and substance continue to rise.

The Obama administration has lately pledged to boost the US regional presence, but the extent, duration and consistency of doing so are unclear. China, meanwhile, has no need to risk overstretching itself in East Asia because it is in the region’s centre.

At one level, Singapore’s latest statement confirms a shift from former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s pro-US slant following his retirement last May. For half a century, Lee had championed an alliance with the US over other powers like China, lately much of it because of a rising China.

At a more substantive level, Shanmugam’s statement well indicates Singapore’s new and belated efforts to woo an ascendant China. In seeming different now, Singapore is merely reaffirming its standard pragmatism based on an acute sense of self-preservation.

For the region, Singapore’s new tack may be surprising at first but not unwelcome. It simply expressed the obvious when that needed expressing, even if in doing so it made Singapore look more pro-active than its neighbours in acknowledging China’s burgeoning gravitas.

Singapore’s advice to Washington also came on the eve of Chinese vice-president (and prospective president) Xi Jinping’s state visit. The timing had apparently turned up the volume of Shanmugam’s statement to US lawmakers and their constituents.

Like everyone else, the US had long perceived Singapore as a feisty independent state averse to China’s dominance, following its early struggle against ethnic Chinese leftists and then its break-up with Malaysia, while retaining a largely ethnic Chinese population.

Today, Singapore’s “new look” policy is effectively not only for Washington’s benefit or just to showcase a contemporary Singapore to China. It also serves as an oblique reminder to Beijing that any hostile US rhetoric now would be mere campaign posturing and therefore undeserving of a like reaction.

After all, China is also getting set for a leadership change, a time when new directions may be set in ways likely to appease the populace. Its decade-long leadership is more than twice as enduring as a US presidential term and its policy direction could be several times as significant as the US equivalent.

Still, news reports implying how tiny Singapore had “warned” the world’s sole superpower might have seemed strong, if not strange. It is a measure of Singapore’s new posture that far from denying such reports, Shanmugam proceeded to expand on his comments.

He noted with approval how Chinese media widely reported his comments approvingly. Singapore media were also not shy in lingering over the issue.

The Straits Times noted that “a power transition is under way” in the region. Singapore-based Channel News Asia noted how well Shanmugam’s remarks had played in China.

Nonetheless, many US Netizens were not as hospitable to the comments. Among the more common responses was the defensive argument that US rhetoric against China was free speech and so warranted no warning or censure.

Another common reaction was to despise China and its unfolding development even more. A zero-sum mentality prevailed on US-China relations, aggravated by a pervasive sense of a declining US economy in free fall.

The third common reaction among Americans commenting online was to attack the messenger. Thus Shanmugam was criticised for acknowledging China’s success and daring to warn the US over it.

Singapore’s revised articulation of regional realities does not surprise any serious onlooker in Asia. Its concerns are self-evident, its priorities apparent, and its assessment of the region timely.

A contrast comes with the Philippines, where rival claims with China over offshore territory has come to define their relationship. This amounts to allowing marginal interests to determine larger substantive ones: yet again, pragmatism distinguishes Singapore’s policies from the Philippines’.

Even so, Singapore’s recent assessment of regional realities sums up Asean’s understanding of them. What Washington will make of it, if anything, is anybody’s guess.

Republicans are particularly anxious to parade their conservative values, such as by defending US prerogatives, paramountcy and exceptionalism. This has encouraged emotive responses from Americans “in America’s interest.”

Democrats can only respond defensively by trying to match or pre-empt the Republicans’ US-centric aggressiveness. However much the Obama White House may prefer a more mature and measured response, it must also know that is far less likely to “sell”.

Thus Shanmugam’s counsel to Washington comes full circle. He spoke as he did because of the circumstances of the time, and it is those circumstances that now make him an easy target in the US.

As Americans brace for a presidential election in November, all parties can be just as prickly over any foreign reminders that the US needs to behave better. And it is practically a given that enraged US Netizens disconnected from reality will be given a better hearing in Washington than even the most thoughtful of allies in Asia.

Related posts:

Singapore warns US on anti-China rhetoric!
US Military Strategy to Asia: Poke a Stick In China's Eye 

What is a banker really worth?

Barclays made a serious error over the pay of John Varley, the bank’s former chief executive, who stepped down in 2010 with a ‘goodbye package’ of nearly £4m – it wasn’t enough!

Sir Philip Hampton, RBS chairman, warns that the vilification of Fred Goodwin, RBS's former boss, has morphed into the persecution of his replacement, Stephen Hester. Photo: PA. By Jeff Randall - Telegraph

So says Sir Nigel Rudd, Barclays’ former deputy chairman, who led its remuneration committee.

As Britain’s state-controlled banks, RBS and Lloyds, prepare to unveil results and bonuses later this week, Sir Nigel’s comments in my television documentary (Sky News 7pm, Wednesday) will enrage critics who believe that bankers remain detached from public anger over jackpot salaries.

Sir Nigel, however, is adamant that Mr Varley made a “huge difference” to Barclays during the credit crunch, when rival banks fell apart. By raising funds privately, Barclays was able to survive without a bail-out from UK taxpayers.



“John Varley was underpaid. Because what he did [for Barclays] during the crisis was phenomenal,” Sir Nigel says. In his last year, Mr Varley received a salary of £1.1m, a bonus of £2..2m and a performance cash incentive of £550,000.

Sir Nigel, who is now chairman of BAA, the airports operator, offers advice to ministers wrestling with demands for a pay clampdown while trying to maximise value in the state’s bank shareholdings: “If I was the Prime Minister, I’d ban the use of fairness as a word, because I don’t think you can be fair.”

Sir Philip Hampton, RBS’s current chairman, warns that understandable anger about the banks’ past failings is becoming destructive. In particular, the vilification of Fred Goodwin, RBS’s former boss, has morphed into the persecution of his replacement, Stephen Hester.

“We do lynch mobs better than most, but I think the opprobrium is directed now at the wrong people – the people that are fixing the problems rather than the people that are causing the problems,” Sir Philip says.
He believes the main flaw with bank bonuses is that they were linked to profits which turned out to be “illusory”. The banks did not understand the risks they were embracing, but it took a while for profits to collapse, by which time the bankers had pocketed the cash.

Alistair Darling, who was chancellor when the financial turmoil erupted, says that many highly paid bankers were in denial and remain so. “One or two to this day still don’t realise they did anything wrong, which most people find just flabbergasting.”

In a reference to Mr Goodwin and his top team, Mr Darling says: “They didn’t know what they were doing and we, not them, to a large extent are paying the price for that.”

Mr Goodwin’s old adversary, Sir Peter Burt, who led Bank of Scotland when it was outbid by RBS in a takeover battle for National Westminster in 2000 , doesn’t hide his dislike of the disgraced banker but deplores the nationwide “witch-hunt” against him: “Perhaps Fred should count himself lucky there weren’t any lamp-posts low enough from which to hang him.”

Related posts:

RBS, biggest British stated-owned bank losses of £3.5bn !
Lloyds, Britain’s biggest mortgage lender plunges to £3.5bn loss for 2011