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.
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.
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.
Learn anything new from MCA Chua Vs DAP Lim Debate?
