Umno-led BN’s persuasive arguments have caused a seismic shift in the mindset, especially among some PKR representatives who defected to become independents friendly to BN. Like a hungry tiger, it is craving for more!

PKR is seen as the weakest link in the political chain – the party with many political representatives and members who once belonged to Umno in particular and also fellow BN component parties.

It would be more challenging to destabilise the largely principled and disciplined PAS and DAP, albeit they too have suffered a mega setback in Perak recently. One can expect Pakatan Rakyat will take all these political wounds in its stride, regarding them as birth pangs with hope of a beautiful political ‘offspring’; thereafter to regroup and respond with a fresh political tsunami – if it can re-create one one more time.

To some quarters, one set lost is not ‘game over’. The political tide can yet change, they argue, if new East Malaysian political parties are formed to partner Pakatan in their quest for real political power and change for a ‘better Malaysia’.

Or, East Malaysian political parties, supportive of or sympathetic to Pakatan’s long-term cause or ideals are prepared to come forth publicly to Pakatan’s aid, which will broaden Pakatan’s base. Indeed, a strong, healthy and lasting broad-based political partnership with shared concerns and ideals and mutual respect are needed for it to truly represent and govern the nation.

Pakatan is hoping that East Malaysian political parties can see the opportunity is now or never. Pakatan’s ongoing and painstaking efforts to woo their East Malaysian counterparts may yet prove to be the winning shot in this titanic battle, although counter-strategies such as Umno’s promise not to enter into Sarawak politics are beginning to make their mark.

Significantly, however, Umno’s promise not spread its wings to Sarawak comes conditional, ie, ‘as long as the state BN backbone, PBB, keeps winning seats for the coalition’.

All things said, the political game is also a matter of perception as much as it is for real, and if one may add, also a dream. Pakatan will surely yearn and pray for Martin Luther Jr’s ‘I have a dream’ to become a reality in Malaysia come the next general election!

All these for a better change, provided Malaysians are prepared to give them ‘1Chance’. Will they?

Pakatan members and supporters believe it’s a resounding ‘yes’ while Pakatan sympathisers are also rooting for the greatly handicapped underdog to upset the massive political heavyweight that is BN in the way Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Cory Aquino had triumphed against their nemeses all odds.

The Umno-led BN, however, is wishing and hoping for ‘business as usual’ in its political dominance for another 50 long years. It’s your call, Malaysians!

The Federal Court’s decision is not surprising and the 5-0 result is less interesting as expected.

As a domestic well-known constitutional scholar said: the whole process is like a strange marriage relationship.

First of all, Nizar (the husband) married the Perak state power (the wife) and later, Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir got involved in their marriage. As a result, two men were fighting for a woman.

From the legal and ethical points of view, of course such a relationship was not allowed. Therefore, they had to bring it to court, letting the judge to decide who should be the rightful husband.

Before the court decision was made, Dr Zambry has been living together with the Perak state power. They have been constantly making love, regardless whether they did it with mutual willingness or not…oops! I mean a lot of policies have bean made and a number of measures have been implemented.

And now, what has been done cannot be undone.

The court ruled that Zambry is the rightful husband, leaving Nizar alone.

Perhaps, we can learn Malaysian political philosophies from the incident.

1. The power of the royal family has become the fourth power
High Court Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim ruled earlier that Sultan had no power to dismiss a Menteri Besar but only the State Assembly had such a power.

The Court of Appeal then overturned the decision and validated the Sultan’s power, which was also confirmed by the Federal Court.

It will be an important case. From now on, the status of state rulers will be more prominent, especially in a political deadlock, the ruler may play a key role here.

Under the western democratic framework, the executive, legislative and judicial branches mutually check and balance while the media monitoring system, which was introduced later, has become the fourth power.

The media bring not much effect in Malaysia but the royal power has made a comeback and become the fourth power. However, it is not playing a role to oversee or check and balance. Instead, it will become the “king-maker” during crucial moments.
2. The implementation of democracy cannot be done overnight

The people’s decision made on 8 March has brought a new phenomena. But the inherent political environment of Malaysia is having a tough inertia. It is attached to the original political structure, eroding many possibilities for changes.

Political frogs and trickery applications are sometimes more effective than the people’s votes.

The implementation of democracy should not rely only on the new phenomena. Instead, they have to continuously move forward and surpass the momentum which is dragging them backward.

Bercakap kepada pemberita selepas menutup Seminar Pemikiran Islam Semasa – Pemakaian Kalimah Allah di sini, Nik Abdul Aziz mencadangkan Pas dan UMNO duduk semeja berbincang dan menamatkan perseteruan lebih 50 tahun antara kedua-dua parti dokongan orang Melayu itu.

Menteri Besar Kelantan itu berkata, beliau rasa amat gembira jika soal perbincangan yang menjadi isu bermusim itu menjadi kenyataan.

“Ia kerana selama ini banyak masa, wang dan tumpuan dihabiskan kerana pertengkaran yang tidak membawa apa-apa faedah,” katanya.

Menurut beliau, jika majlis perbincangan antara pemimpin berlainan agama boleh dilangsungkan dengan baik, maka tidak ada masalah untuk Pas dan UMNO – yang sama- sama Islam – duduk berbincang.

“Saya bersyukur kepada Allah kita berjaya mengadakan seminar mengenai penggunaan kalimah Allah hari ini.

“Saya datang hanya untuk menutup majlis, tapi saya sangat gembira kalau boleh majlis macam ini dibuat antara Pas dengan UMNO.

“Lebih 50 tahun kita bertengkar dengan UMNO, 50 tahun UMNO bertengkar dengan Pas. Apa hasil? Banyak masa habis, UMNO guna masa begitu banyak, kepakaran begitu banyak, lawan gerakan Islam yang dibawa oleh Pas, apa hasilnya?” katanya.

Ujar Nik Abdul Aziz, Pas adalah sebuah parti yang ditubuhkan oleh alim ulama dalam UMNO sendiri dan adalah tidak wajar perseteruan yang ada terus menerus berlaku.

“Tolong fikirlah, 50 tahun UMNO bertengkar dengan Pas dan Pas ini dibuat oleh alim ulama UMNO.

“Pada 1946, semua orang Melayu bersama UMNO tok gurunya, cikgunya, pelajar, tetapi pada 1951, alim ulama keluar daripada UMNO dan buat parti baru namanya Pas, Persatuan Islam Se-Tanah Melayu kemudian berubah jadi Parti Islam Se-Malaysia.

“Jadi apa pentingnya UMNO bertengkar dengan Pas, sedangkan Pas bawa Islam. Selepas kita mati, Melayu tidak ada guna, Cina tak ada guna, Arab tak ada guna.., yang guna Islam dan bertakwa kepada Allah,” katanya.

Jelas beliau, jika isu pembangunan yang menjadi punca UMNO memusuhi Pas, ia tidak sepatutnya berlaku kerana beliau mendakwa Pas juga membawa pembangunan kepada negeri yang diperintah.

Nik Abdul Aziz berkata, sehubungan itu beliau meminta tokoh-tokoh UMNO agar menimbangkan permintaannya itu.

2. A few of the articles tried to defend the Malaysian Government’s action but mostly the blame for the crisis was attributed to the alleged failure of the financial and economic management of Malaysia. Practically no one has implicated the currency traders for the devaluation and the crisis. Even the writers who are friendly towards the Malaysian Government refuse to blame the currency traders.

3. Many are the reasons put forward by the writers to explain the crisis. It is alleged that the stock market boom contributed to the loss of confidence in the Malaysian economy and the Ringgit. Some blame the failure to rationalise and consolidate the banking systems. Others suggested that too much money had been channeled to the property sector. The other causes identified were the total loan-to-GDP ratio had increased; the rapid expansion of credit leading to deteriorating loan quality. Then the blame was put on companies assuming that the economy would forever be on the growth path. The two-tier regulatory system on banking introduced by Bank Negara and the failure to use the interest rate as a policy tool were also cited. Contagion i.e. infection from the financial disease which had affected Thailand was regarded as a major cause.

4. Some even blame a lack of democracy which triggered the financial crisis. And many more. But as mentioned above, no one placed the blame on the manipulation of the currency, by currency traders.

5. The fact that the chairman of the IMF, Michel Camdessus had enthusiastically praised Malaysia’s management of its economy and finances, had praised the Central Bank (Bank Negara), for the healthy state of the Malaysian economy and finances just a few months before the crisis struck Malaysia which run counter to the negative remarks about Malaysia’s economic management seem to be disregarded. The fact that after praising Malaysia for good management Michel Camdessus himself had about-faced and condemned Malaysia for bad management after the crisis occurred did not seem to strike these writers that the IMF was faulty in assessing the performance of a country’s economy. And if the IMF is incapable than is it not likely that others too, including the rating agencies may not be capable of making good assessments and that they too are not the experts that they claim to be; and that in refusing to implicate the currency traders, these experts and the writers and analysts were themselves “in denial”.

6. In the light of the meltdown and the collapse of the financial bubble which had struck the great democracies like the U.S., Britain, Germany and others, should not these analysts and writers realise how ridiculous it is to attribute the Asian Crisis to a lack of democracy.

7. The present crisis which is far more serious than the Asian crisis began in the great democracies of the world. One can almost say that it is democracy which caused the crisis and one can actually prove that elements of democracy are indeed to be blamed for the crisis.

8. This is because of the idea of less Government of Ronald Reagan and the advocacy of the free market, meaning free of Government regulation and oversight, a part of the concept of liberal democracy, which precipitated the current crisis.

9. Malaysia’s democracy does not accept that the absence of Government supervision in a free market is a part of democracy. It is therefore free from the effects of the sub-prime loans by banks which gave the first indication that the economies of the great democracies were not as healthy as they make it out to be.

10. Democracy, particularly liberal democracy must therefore be a cause of the present crisis, and not the lack of democracy. If further proof is needed that a lack of democracy was not the cause of the Asian crisis, one only has to look at China. It hardly suffered from the Asian crisis and today it is economically and financially much more healthy than all the democracies of the world.

11. There may be some weaknesses in the administration and policies of the East Asian countries which contributed to the crisis of 1997 – 1998. But it is time that the role of the currency traders be thoroughly exposed so as to understand the true causes of the devaluation of the currencies and the serious crisis which followed.

The Situation Prior To The Crisis

12. The whole world acknowledged that in the decade before the crisis, i.e. in the period between 1987 and 1997, East Asia was booming. Certainly Malaysia was doing extremely well growing at an average rate of 8% p.a. continuously during that ten year period.

13. The Malaysian growth was not accidental. It was a result of the policies of the Government and the management of the economy and finances. National savings at 40% plus was the highest in the world and the reserves could sustain 4½ months of retained imports. The Ringgit was strong and steady – being valued at about 2.5 to 1 USD for most of the time.

14. Foreign borrowings were insignificant and the deficits in the budget and the trading accounts were small and manageable.

15. There was political stability, a factor that was appreciated by foreign investors who came in droves.

16. As I said no less a person than the head of the IMF, Michel Camdessus publicly stated in a speech on 17th June 1997 that “Malaysia is a good example of a country where the authorities are well aware of the challenges of managing the pressures that result from high growth and of maintaining a sound financial system amidst substantial capital flows and the booming property market……… The Malaysian authorities have also emphasized maintaining high standards of bank soundness”.

17. Although Paul Krugman had commented that Malaysia faced the possibility of the growth rate slowing down in the mid-90s, there was no mention of any possibility of currency devaluation or of a crisis in the offing. Neither did the great rating agencies.

18. The situation in Malaysia was certainly not like that in Thailand where foreign debts were incurred by the business community due to the low interest rates as compared to the Thai rates. There was much money expanded on development of highrise buildings in Bangkok. A lot of new property development was taking place all over the country, financed by foreign loans.

The Thai Situation

19. The situation in Thailand could not but lead to a devaluation of the Thai baht. When it happened the Central Bank stepped in to shore up the exchange rate. But very quickly the bank found that it was unable to halt the decline in the value of the baht. It decided to stop intervention and to allow the baht to float. As soon as the baht was floated, speculators and those fearing devaluation sold the baht for USD. This caused the baht to devalue faster. As the baht continued to devalue foreign investors started to sell off their shares denominated in baht to avoid further devaluation. This caused another round of devaluation. It would seem that the devaluation of the baht would go on forever.

The Malaysian Situation

20. The Malaysian situation was not like that of Thailand. Growth in 1997 was still expected to remain high. There were few Malaysian borrowers of foreign currencies and there was no fear that servicing and repayment of the loans would require more Ringgit than was budgeted for.

21. Foreign direct investments were still coming in both for new industries and for the shares in the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange. All the other financial indicators remained healthy.

22. The Malaysian Government did not therefore anticipate any devaluation of the Ringgit. There was no reason why it should.

23. Then the press began to talk about contagion. It seems that the devaluation of the Baht would infect and drag down the Ringgit. This was worrisome as Thailand was a competitor in the export of various manufactured products. If a devalued Baht lowered the cost of production in Thailand, then to remain competitive, Malaysia may have to devalue the Ringgit.

24. But this was thought to be manageable. The Central Bank would go into the market to sell the Ringgit and keep its exchange rates down. The Malaysian industries would have to improve efficiency in order to remain competitive.

25. So confident was Malaysia that its finances would not be affected that it lent to Thailand one billion U.S. dollars to help it out. Even when the Ringgit started to depreciate a little Malaysia lent another billion U.S. dollars to Indonesia.

26. We believed that the financial problems of Thailand and Indonesia would be temporary. They would recover and there would be no problem for them to repay the loans.

The Financial Markets

27. The rich countries of the West had grown and prospered because of their industries i.e. the production of goods and the supply of services to their domestic market and to the world. Their cost was going up rapidly as the labour unions kept demanding for higher wages and expensive perks. But for as long as they remain the principal producers of the high-value goods and services, they could still sustain their production of goods and supply of services.

28. Then they discovered the poor countries with their cheap labour. Whenever they could they transferred their industries to these low labour cost countries in order to reduce cost and compete with the newly industrializing countries of East Asia. If whole industries could not be moved because of protest from their labour unions they would invest in the low labour cost countries for the production of simple parts and components. This way the European and American countries could compete with Japan and Korea.

29. But then the Japanese also did the same and they were able to remain highly competitive producing the same manufactured goods that were once monopolized by the Western countries. It was clear that the Japanese were going to displace most of the American and European manufactured goods in the world market.

30. Famous brands of American and European goods disappeared from the market altogether. The British gave up manufacturing cars, cameras, radios and televisions and other modern consumer products.

31. In America (the U.S.) well-known car makes were also disappearing. Well-known makes of radios, television, cameras, motorcycles and a whole range of branded goods also disappeared from the shelves.

32. In their places, including in Europe and America, all kinds of Japanese goods had made their appearance. Initially the Japanese goods were considered of inferior quality but soon it became clear that the quality had improved so much that they were superior to those of European and American make. In fact they exceeded the standards set by the west.

33. Thus when Japan started to export cars to the US, the US Government insisted that repair shops be set up everywhere. To their surprise these repair shops had hardly any business as the Japanese cars very seldom broke down.

34. When Honda exhibited their motorcycles in England, the British engineers were shocked to find that Honda engines were like the precision motors of high quality Swiss watches.

35. When later the South Koreans got into the act and they practically monopolised the construction industry in the world, the West saw the writings on the wall. There was no way for them to compete in the manufacture of goods, or to bid for the huge construction projects worldwide.

36. The financial market which had started in the 60s and 70s were not very attractive at first. But gradually the potentials were recognized and developed. New products were invented which gave ever increasing returns on investments.

37. Beginning with the sale of shares in order to raise money for capital, the smart players discovered that the buying and selling of shares could yield a lot of profits. The value of the shares were initially based on the profitability of the business.

38. But it became clear that the value would appreciate if there was demand. From then on the value of the shares became decoupled from the profitability of the enterprise. Demand or lack of demand determined the value of shares irrespective of the performance of the enterprise.

39. This led to the smart ones moving the share prices up and down by buying and selling. From this a short step led to the big players developing short selling.

Short selling

40. The actual shares became irrelevant. Simply by offering to buy or to sell shares not in the possession of the party who offered was enough to move share prices. So large numbers of shares (non-existent) would be sold to depress the price. Then when the price reached a sufficiently low level, they would be bought at the low price to deliver to buyers who had bought earlier when the prices were higher. A tidy profit was sure to be made this way, now termed short selling.

41. It was realised that the bigger the funds available the easier it was to move prices up and down. Individuals would not have enough funds and they run the risk of being countered by those with bigger funds. Nor could individuals borrow much in order to be a substantial player in the market.

42. And so companies were formed to manage funds invested by individuals or companies. With funds running into hundreds of millions, there was a greater capacity to manipulate share price.

43. But to be even bigger the fund managers borrowed from the banks. This is called leveraging on the invested funds.

44. The banks agreed to lend as much as 20 to 30 times the funds held by the investment companies or hedge funds so that their capacity to play the market would be greater.

45. With this an investor would benefit from the 20-30 times bigger funds borrowed by the hedge funds. Besides the huge investments by the fund managers almost guaranteed that they would make profits through actually influencing the price of the shares.

46. The investments by the hedge funds and their leveraging (borrowings) are mysterious. It seems that they need not report to the Government on their activities. Besides, by operating from offshore tax-free havens, they needed to submit reports to no one. Investors in hedge funds were thus able to make huge profits.

47. Once the idea of leveraging became known, the fund managers began to look into other possibilities of investing the huge loans they had access to.

48. The currency traders designed their operations in the same way. Leveraging by between 20-30 times the investors’ money held by them, they were able to invest and make huge profits. Again they need not report to anyone. Again, by operating out of tax havens they found themselves free from oversight of their operations by any Government.

Western Banking System and Practices

49. The banks were able to lend huge amounts of money for these operations simply because in the Western banking system, banks are allowed to lend more money than they have by way of capital and other assets and the deposits held by them. Normally they would be prudent and lend only certain multiples of the money held by them. But because Governments often bail out banks when there is a run by the depositors, the banks were emboldened to lend as much as 30 times their assets. This means that very much more money could be lent by the banks than they actually have. The banks are in fact creating money out of thin air to lend to the funds.

50. With huge loans available from the banks, billions of dollars could be lent for mergers and acquisitions. Consultants and experts appeared who were able to advise on mergers and acquisitions, getting huge commissions from their services. Not having the billions of dollars to purchase the businesses was not a problem as banks could lend the money they had created.

51. Now mergers and acquisitions became a business in itself. Rumors of impending mergers or acquisitions were enough to push share prices up or down. No matter whether the shares appreciate or get devalued, speculators would make money. The actual businesses done by the companies involved were not important. The purchase price of the companies bear little reflection of their profitability.

52. Then a couple of crooks invented junk bonds. The shares of poorly performing companies were bought and all kinds of manipulations were made to make them look good. Mike Milken and Ivan Boesky were eventually jailed.

53. Another scheme was to buy up companies to dispose off their assets. Slater Walker Securities developed this scheme.

54. Given the power to literally create money out of thin air, the banks were on the lookout for more ways to lend money. The returns for the banks were based on prospects of a return on the loans given out. The bigger the loans, the better.

Banking Prudence Discarded

55. And so instead of prudently ensuring that the borrowers could pay the loans extended, the banks began to lend even to very high-risk people – the so-called sub-prime loans. The assumption was that even if a percentage of the loans turn bad, the earnings on the rest would cover the losses.

56. But in order to make sure, the banks insured the loans with insurance companies or sold them to secondary mortgage companies. The banks believed that they were well covered for the loans. The risks were being taken care of by the insurance and secondary mortgage companies. But when huge numbers of the loan became non-performing, the bubble burst.

57. Then came the credit cards. Devised in order to make spending money more convenient, the credit card industry grew tremendously. The cards very quickly displaced cash and cheques.

58. Individuals may carry numerous credit cards so that they would not know really whether they have enough in the banks to cover the cost of the purchases they make. This led to a consumer boom as more goods and services are paid with credit cards irrespective of the money in the banks owned by the comsumers.

59. For the banks, any expenditure above what the customer had with the banks would be regarded as loans. Unlike ordinary loans, the interest rates are very high – as much as 18% to 20%.

60. Such are the calculated earnings of the banks from the credit card loans that even if a percentage of the loans became non-performing the banks were confident that the earnings from the rest of the credit cards would cover up the losses.

61. From all these activities, from hedge funds to mergers and acquisitions, sub-prime loans, financing insurance and secondary mortgages, credit card loans, currency trading, huge wealth seems to have been made. The Western countries appeared to be growing as shown by their per capita incomes and GDP growth. It would seem that their abdication from the real business of producing goods and services had paid off rather handsomely. Certainly their people seem to be enjoying very high standards of living.

62. The failures in the financial market here and there were ignored or covered up. No one thought there was anything wrong with the systems and the financial products they had created.

63. Then came the sub-prime crisis. Apparently the non-performing loans to the housing sector were too many to be compensated by the successes. First the banks and then the insurance and mortgage companies were pulled down. The economy went into a state of crisis as bank failures affected the share markets. Share prices plunged and the hedge funds sustained huge losses. It should be remembered that just as the profits would be much bigger with the 20-30 times the investors’ funds invested, the losses too would be that much greater. There was no way for the losses to be covered or the huge loans from the banks to be repaid. The hedge funds therefore collapsed, pulling down the lending banks with them.

64. Attempts by the Governments to bail out the financial institutions and companies have not really succeeded. If the economy was doing well then the banks and companies bailed out by the Government would be able to make some recovery. But it would take time because they would have to do prudent business and such business would be slow in giving a return. They can only recover quickly if they were allowed the abuses they had indulged in before. But obviously they shouldn’t although there are some who believe they should be allowed to. As for the companies, the general contraction of the purchasing power of the people must reduce sales of their products and therefore their profits. Even if they recover they would not be as financially healthy as before.

65. The recent talk of recovery is therefore not based on reality. Actually it is to justify not doing anything with systems which in the past had been so lucrative. It would take another worldwide crisis before the west would consider dismantling their banking, monetary and financial systems.

66. The leaders of the West are still in a state of denial. What is more likely is that they are aware of how the financial market operations have brought about the crisis but are unwilling to do away with them because they have made so many of their investors rich and have contributed much to per capita and GDP growth in their countries.

67. And so we may see the crisis continue, albeit de-emphasised so as to sustain the financial market.

68. The real solution would be a return to real business i.e. the production of goods and services. But then the developed countries of the West would have to accept being somewhat poorer than the good old days.

Lokasi terkini Raja Petra itu dimuatkan dalam pos terbaru laman web tersebut bertarikh semalam.

Musa berkata, Raja Petra boleh berada di mana-mana negara termasuk Poland kerana lelaki itu berstatus pelarian.

“Dia membawa status sebagai pelarian, kita akan tetap memburu Raja Petra (walau di mana dia berada),” katanya ketika dihubungi Mingguan Malaysia di sini hari ini.

Pengendali laman web Malaysia Today itu dalam nada menyindir berkata:

“Ketika Ketua Polis Negara dan Peguam Negara buntu untuk mendapatkan saya. Saya pula menyambut tahun baru bersama wanita-wanita Poland.

“Oops.. lebih baik saya periksa sama ada Malaysia ada memohon ekstradisi dengan kerajaan Poland atau sebaliknya. Ah, tak apa Eropah luas.”

Turut dimuatkan gambar Raja Petra dengan dua wanita Eropah.

Raja Petra sebelum ini dikatakan berada di di pangsapuri mewah Gloucester Terrace, Bayswater, London.

Musa sebelum ini mendedahkan pihaknya telah memohon ekstradisi terhadap Raja Petra di London, bagi membolehkan inkues terhadapnya dijalankan di sana sebelum dihantar pulang ke Malaysia.

Raja Petra menghilangkan diri selepas dua waran tangkap dikeluarkan terhadapnya kerana gagal hadir ke mahkamah pada 23 April dan 23 Mei lalu bagi perbicaraan menerbitkan artikel berbaur hasutan dan memfitnah isteri Perdana Menteri, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor.

Dia dituduh menerbitkan artikel bertajuk Let’s Send the Altantuya Murderers to Hell dalam blog www.malaysia-today.net, bertarikh 25 April 2008.

Selain itu, dia dituduh memfitnah Rosmah serta dua yang lain dalam satu akuan bersumpah di Kompleks Mahkamah Jalan Duta di sini pada 18 Jun tahun lalu.

Mahkamah Sesyen pada 11 dan 13 November lalu bagaimanapun membebaskan tanpa melepaskan Raja Petra kerana pihak pendakwaan gagal mengesannya.

Orang ramai dan banyak pihak tertanya-tanya mengapa Anwar bersikap sedemikian sehingga membawa tanggapan beliau takut menghadapi perbicaraan itu.

Apakah kerana pendakwa mempunyai bukti lebih kukuh untuk mensabitkan beliau maka ketua pembangkang itu tidak berani ke mahkamah?

Terbaru, Anwar menerusi pasukan pembelanya mencari apa sahaja alasan untuk menangguhkan kes itu. Pada masa yang sama, akhbar PKR memainkan isu perlunya Anwar diadili mengikut undang-undang Islam.

Awang tidak terkejut dengan perkembangan terbaru ini kerana dari awal telah menjangkakan taktik beliau.

Tidak salah merumuskan bahawa Anwar mencari apa sahaja ruang yang boleh memihak kepadanya dan bukanlah sangat atas pertimbangan undang-undang Islam.

Jika benar beliau mahu mengambil semangat undang-undang Islam, mengapa tidak berani melakukan sumpah laknat atau mubahalah sebagaimana diambil oleh Saiful.

Awang juga sependapat dengan Dr. Mohd. Puad Zarkashi yang mempersoalkan sikap Anwar meminta diadili secara undang-undang Islam tetapi memperlekehkan hukuman syariah terhadap Kartika Sari Dewi atas kesalahan meminum arak.

Persoalan lain, apa istimewanya beliau berbanding banyak tertuduh lain termasuk kes liwat dan rogol yang diadili di mahkamah sivil?

Apakah kes mereka juga memerlukan saksi empat orang? Jika mahu mengikut undang-undang Islam, ia mesti melibatkan semua tertuduh beragama Islam dan bukan Anwar sahaja.

Awang tidak kisah dalam kes itu nanti sama ada Anwar didapati bersalah atau tidak, biarlah mahkamah menentukan. Yang penting ialah keberanian untuk diadili.

Keadilan bukan sahaja hak orang besar seperti Anwar tetapi juga hak rakyat kecil seperti Saiful. Maka janganlah sesiapa sahaja apatah lagi Anwar yang mempromo diri sebagai pejuang keadilan dan demokrasi, mahu menafikan keadilan.

Awang cadangkan ahli-ahli PKR dan penyokong Anwar yang beragama Islam supaya mengadakan sembahyang hajat untuk mencari petunjuk. Mesejnya juga, pemimpin anda tidak perlu takut hadapi kebenaran melainkan…

Even Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Abdullah Ahmad Badawi didn’t have as many allegations this early in their premiership.

I think it is most appropriate that Najib Abdul Razak submits himself to some form of an independent inquiry as the weight of these controversies have become too much and it would appear that even parties friendly to the Umno/BN cadre are calling for accountability and transparency at the highest level.

Wong Chun Wai in his editorial in ‘The Star’, writes, ‘The RMAF surely does not expect us to believe that…the theft, does not involve high ranking officials…There’s a perception among Malaysians that there are moves to…absolve the big-wigs of blame. Further he adds, ‘the head of some top officials should roll…’ -

It is quite clear that even Umno-friendly parties are left shaking their heads in utter disbelief. Echoing Wong’s call for ‘head of top officials to roll’ is who else but the defense minister at that time who was the topmost official?

And yet, Najib’s response to the media has been anything but satisfactory. For a prime minister who espouses, ‘Performance now’, why did it take so long for the theft to be revealed? As Wong puts it, ‘we are furious because the theft took place in 2007, an audit revealed the loss in 2008, and the public only knew about it at the end of 2009.’

I am tempted to ask Wong if his ‘fury’ is in some ways directed at Najib? If Najib fails to satisfy the credibility test, what then could we expect from a cabinet that consists mainly of a bunch of inept under-performers/election losers/leftovers of the Mahathir/Badawi era?

Najib, both you and your wife are dodging serious allegations leveled at the two of you. And yet, it appears that one controversy after another keeps coming out of the woodwork which implicates either or both of you. I felt that maybe after the latest Bala/Altantuya episode, the two of you might have had a ‘breather’.

Who would have thought that other allegations were to follow in the form of Tian Chua’s allegation regarding RM600,000 transferred illegally to Rosmah Mansor, and now these stolen jet engines?

From Altantuya to the hijacking of the Perak state assembly to the death of Teoh Beng Hock to the ‘cow head’ incident to the illegal transfer of funds to stolen jet engines, Najib’s rule and political career have thus far been marred by too many controversies. I wonder if there are more to come. If so, does this nation deserve to be put through such stress?

In any other developed nation, Najib would have had to face the full force of a public enquiry. Think Watergate or Bill Clinton, for example.

Najib, you may be in power here, but the world at large isn’t fooled. I shudder to think if these controversies are turning you into a liability at a time when Malaysia is already weighed down by poor perception at many levels.

I can’t imagine what would be playing inside the minds of foreign investors and dignitaries when they hear you give presentations. No right-thinking company would send a controversy dogged personnel to sell and secure deals – no matter how good he is.

Think Tiger Woods and some of the multimillion dollar sponsorship deals he has lost in light of his extramarital affairs. And yet, here we have a PM whose list of allegations surrounding him outnumber that of many of his counterparts in the developed world.

In other words, how to sell when your credibility is suspect?

Come clean Mr PM, if you can. I hope you are not going to continually adopt an attitude of ‘it’s frivolous’. You once said that you want power to be able to serve the people. Well, as one wise saying goes, ‘with great power comes great responsibility.’

And part of that responsibility is to be accountable to your people

As much as we like to cast Dr Mahathir Mohamad as demon, it is impossible to alter the history of Malaysia as plural society, a result of British colonial policy and further enhanced by the BN.

I am particularly miffed at remarks that I belong to a segment of non-Malays who see Mahathir as some sort of bigger-than-life figure. I think the reverse is true.

If we still think that Mahathir is the architect of all that is wrong with Malaysia today, we are attributing to this individual too much credit. In fact, Mahathir is not the man who invented the Alliance or the BN.

That he made the best of the race-based politics of this country there is no doubt but so did so many other non-Malays, many of whom once wholeheartedly supported the Alliance and the BN.

By demonising Mahathir, are we therefore absolving ourselves for the support we gave him in election after election in his 22 years as prime minister?

It is better to try to be objective and less emotional. One man cannot a country make. Even his spin doctor, Mohamad Rahmat, has come out with a book to explain how it was ‘a team effort’ to create ‘Dr Mahathir’ the politician.

We risk making Mahathir into a wicker man and thus miss holding the present powers-that-be responsible for their failure to make Malaysia a better country.

There were another set of readers who felt that I created ’spin’ to explain away Mahathir’s statement. That the choice was not really between ‘Indian’ and ‘Malay’. The reality is very different on the ground.

Malaysia is still a race-based country. This is the challenge faced by non-sectarian political parties in which Gerakan was a showcase. Today, the DAP is also trying to prove itself as non- sectarian whilst being deliberately cast as ‘Chinese’.

At the time Mahathir began his political career, it was still possible for an Indian Muslim to enter the Malay Muslim fold. Today, Malays constitute the majority and no longer need ethnic hybrids to bolster their numbers.

Race-based politics, my article was trying to show, is a numbers game. I know it is very difficult to wrap one’s mind around how race and religion can be conflated. Here is the warped logic of race-based politics, which is stranger than fiction.

Hence to clear the air – we really have to outgrow our own worship of politicians and their supposedly superhuman feats. Mahathir did not create race-based politics although he eventually came to head Umno and the once mighty BN.

Similarly, not all politicians who operated in race-based politics are racists. Tunku Abdul Rahman, for example, wanted to see us become more integrated gradually although he felt we should be independent first.

He too was president of Umno, although he was a leader of another time. Anwar Ibrahim was also once deputy president of Umno but today he is a champion of a non-sectarian political party.

Malaysians have to accept the reality that politics is the art of the possible and that politicians are merely human. Mahathir like the rest of us is, only a product of his times. If this is not myth- busting, I will have to write a work of fiction. Alas, I lack that special talent for drama.

Sebelum kita boleh menarik sedikit kelegaan, Perdana Menteri dan Menteri Kewangan, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak pada 23 Oktober lalu menyatakan kerajaan sedang dalam peringkat akhir menyiapkan kajian mengenai pelaksanaan dan implikasi GST kepada rakyat.

Bagaimanapun, Najib pernah menyuarakan sekiranya kerajaan melaksanakan GST, kadar cukai yang bakal dikenakan akan lebih rendah berbanding cukai jualan dan perkhidmatan semasa, yang bakal diambil alih GST dan pengecualian kepada kumpulan berpendapatan rendah. Ini bertujuan untuk memastikan cukai baru tidak akan membebankan rakyat.

Meneruskan agenda keprihatinan kerajaan terhadap rakyat, terutama dalam situasi ekonomi yang mencabar, kerajaan telah mencadangkan pelbagai pendekatan bagi meningkatkan keselesaan rakyat.

Pendekatan yang diambil termasuk pengurangan kadar maksimum cukai pendapatan individu daripada 27 peratus kepada 26 peratus pada 2010. Langkah itu memberi kelebihan kepada mereka yang memperoleh pendapatan melebihi RM100,000. Adalah menjadi harapan agar kerajaan dapat mengurangkan cukai yang sama bagi individu yang memperoleh pendapatan yang kurang daripada jumlah tersebut.

Bagaimanapun Bajet 2010 memberi kelegaan apabila pelepasan cukai peribadi dinaikkan daripada RM8,000 kepada RM9,000 berkuat kuasa 2010. Sekali lagi kumpulan berpendapatan rendah bebas daripada pembayaran cukai ini.

Peningkatan dalam pelepasan cukai peribadi sebanyak RM6,000 yang disumbangkan kepada Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja dan premium insurans nyawa kepada RM7,000.

Pertambahan pelepasan sebanyak RM1,000 yang diberi dalam skim pembayaran premium anuiti kepada syarikat-syarikat insurans, sama ada pembayaran bermula 1 Januari 2010 atau pembayaran tambahan premium bagi skim anuiti sedia ada mulai 1 Januari 2010.

Pelepasan cukai bagi langganan jalur lebar sehingga RM500 setahun.

Usaha meningkatkan kemahiran modal insan masih menjadi agenda utama kerajaan pada Bajet 2010.

Strategi kerajaan untuk meluaskan akses pendidikan berkualiti dan berkemampuan. Pelbagai inisiatif yang diumumkan bakal memberi faedah kepada rakyat dari generasi muda hingga yang matang. Inisiatif-inisiatif tersebut adalah:

*Peruntukan sebanyak RM48 juta untuk mengubah kemudahan dan kurikulum pra-sekolah.

*RM32 juta untuk meningkatkan kadar literasi dan numerasi bagi murid-murid Tahun 1.

*RM20 juta untuk meningkatkan prestasi sekolah tinggi dan memperluaskan kualiti pendidikan dan geran autonomi kepada pengurusan sekolah bagi melahirkan para pelajar cemerlang.

*Anugerah monetari dan bukan monetari bagi pengetua, guru besar dan kumpulan pengurusan sekolah yang memenuhi sasaran prestasi.

Kerajaan juga mencadangkan pelbagai pendekatan untuk memperbaiki kehidupan rakyat dan meningkatkan lebihan pendapatan boleh guna bagi pembayar cukai individu tertentu.

Pada masa sama, kerajaan turut mengumumkan langkah-langkah yang meningkatkan beban cukai.

*Cukai pendapatan hartanah kembali lagi. Cukai itu pernah dihapuskan kini cukai itu akan diperkenalkan semula.

Bagaimanapun, pelupusan sehingga RM10,000, atau 10 peratus, bagi keuntungan (atau mana yang lebih besar) diberikan kepada individu.

Cukai terhadap pemberian hadiah antara ibu bapa dan anak, suami dan isteri, datuk dan cucu dan pelupusan hartanah kediaman buat kali pertama oleh rakyat Malaysia atau pemastautin tetap juga dihapuskan.

Cukai perkhidmatan ke atas kad kredit dan kad caj juga dikembalikan semula selepas dihapuskan sejak 1 April 2001. Cukai perkhidmatan dicadangkan sebanyak RM50 bagi kad utama dan RM25 setahun bagi kad tambahan.

Apa yang boleh diperkatakan Bajet 2010 bersesuaian dengan persekitaran ekonomi. Diharapkan tema Bajet 2010 boleh dicapai, yang mana untuk kesejahteraan 1Malaysia

Presiden Gabungan Persatuan-Persatuan Pengguna Malaysia (FOMCA), Datuk N. Marimuthu berkata, kerajaan perlu memainkan peranan dan memberikan lebih tumpuan dalam membantu golongan tersebut.

‘‘Pembentangan Bajet 2010 perlu memberi tumpuan kepada usaha mengurangkan beban rakyat.

‘‘Selain itu, ia diharapkan dapat memperkasa dan merangsang pertumbuhan ekonomi negara,’’ katanya ketika dihubungi Utusan Malaysia di sini hari ini.

Marimuthu berkata, kerajaan juga perlu memberi keutamaan bagi mengurangkan belanjawan defisit negara.

“Segala perbelanjaan dan kerja-kerja pembangunan di negara ini perlu dikawal melalui sistem tender terbuka bagi memastikan perbelanjaan yang dilaksanakan tidak membazirkan wang rakyat,’’ katanya.

Katanya lagi, beliau juga berharap kerajaan memperluas dan meningkatkan kualiti pengangkutan awam termasuk di ibu negara supaya perkhidmatannya lebih efisien dan bersepadu dalam memberi manfaat yang besar kepada rakyat.

‘‘Masalah pengangkutan awam sering menimbulkan kesulitan kepada kebanyakan rakyat di negara ini kerana kemudahan infrastruktur yang disediakan masih tidak mencukupi,’’ katanya.

Presiden Persatuan Pengguna Subang dan Shah Alam (Cassa), Datuk Dr. Jacob George berkata, beliau berharap Bajet 2010 itu dapat memenuhi keperluan dan kehendak semua pengguna di negara ini.

“Bajet 2010 ini perlu memfokuskan kepada kehendak rakyat terutama golongan yang berpendapatan rendah dan sederhana.

“Kerajaan perlu memahami kuasa membeli golongan ini yang amat terhad. Pengurangan cukai terhadap barang dan perkhidmatan adalah antara harapan mereka dalam bajet ini,” katanya.

Menurut Dr. Jacob, golongan ini tidak mempunyai sumber pendapatan lain bagi menyara ahli keluarga.

“Apabila harga barang meningkat di pasaran, ia akan menyebabkan mereka menghadapi masalah ekonomi ekoran kekurangan sumber kewangan yang tidak mencukupi,” jelasnya.

Presiden Persatuan Pengguna Islam Malaysia (PPIM), Datuk Dr. Maamor Osman pula mencadangkan agar kerajaan menaikkan cukai rokok dan arak sehingga 300 peratus dalam bajet yang akan dibentangkan itu.

Menurut Maamor, peningkatan cukai itu perlu bagi mencegah rakyat negara ini daripada menghisap rokok dan meminum arak seterusnya membantu kerajaan dalam kempen berkaitan kesihatan.

‘‘Ada yang mendakwa apabila cukai untuk kedua-dua barang ini dinaikkan akan berlaku penyeludupan, tetapi bagi PPIM apa yang penting adalah pencegahan.

‘‘Dalam hal ini, jika tiada permintaan, maka tiada penawaran dan peningkatan harga di pasaran secara langsung akan mengurangkan penawarannya,” katanya.

Menurut Dr. Maamor, perkara lain yang perlu diambil kira oleh kerajaan dalam bajet kali ini ialah berkaitan keselamatan negara.

Mengulas lanjut, beliau berkata, kerajaan diharap menambah peruntukan untuk Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) kerana tahap jenayah pada masa kini semakin meningkat.

‘‘Kita sekarang berada di zaman teknologi yang serba canggih dan penjenayah juga memanipulasi kecanggihan itu bersama kecerdikan dan kelicikan mereka dalam melakukan jenayah terancang,” katanya.

Sehubungan itu, beliau berharap dengan penambahan peruntukan kepada PDRM akan membantu pasukan itu dan dapat mengurangkan kadar jenayah di negara.

Dari aspek pendidikan pula, Dr. Maamor mencadangkan agar kerajaan memberi tumpuan yang lebih termasuk penambahan peruntukan di sekolah-sekolah di seluruh negara.

It is a shame, really. for him to resign as he represents the new face of MCA. For the first time in history, the Chinese community has a president who was elected by them and not by their political master, Umno.

Past history had shown that those who hold the top posts in MCA will have to have the ‘blessings’ of Umno’s top guns to remain in office. Those who show an inclination to be independent from their master will be shown to the door to be replaced with a more compliant one.

Lim Chong Eu and Lee Chan Soon, two former presidents of MCA, couldn’t get along with the former premiers, Tunku Abdul Rahman and Dr Mahathir Mohamed in the 60s and 80s respectively and thus had to vacate their posts. The former later formed Gerakan party which won the 1969 general elections in Penang and ruled the state until March 2008.

Ling Liong Sik, the previous president of MCA, managed to remain to his top post for more than16 years because he could get along with the then premier, Dr Mahathir Mohamed. He followed what his master told him and only resigned from office during the tail end of the fourth prime minister’s term in office.

Many Malaysians regardless of race have a high regards for Ong Tee Keat, a transport minister which did not leave any stone unturned in getting to the bottom of the Port Klang Free Zone scandal which caused billions of public funds to be squandered off by dubious means.

The embattled transport minister must have stepped of a lot of big toes by going all out in the investigations. The perpetrators who had ‘gang raped’ PKFZ may be some top guns from the MCA as well as Umno who do not like their misdeeds to be made public.

If other top politicians had the same guts and principles as Ong Tee Keat, our country will be on a different playing field altogether credibility-wise but the embattled MCA president had to be sacrificed at the altar in order for the PKFZ scandal to be swept under the carpet.

Being a man of principles, Ong Tee Keat has no choice but to resign as he had said earlier that if the MCA delegates rejected his resolutions during the EGM, it would be tantamount to a vote of no confidence in his leadership in the party. After all a gentleman’s word is his bond.

MCA can be considered a ‘headless party’ now as both the president and deputy will have to make way for new blood. Knowing MCA’s history of infighting among its top gun, the people are not sanguine whether the second-largest party in BN can reform itself for the better in order to win back Chinese support.

It will be a wishful thinking that all the problems besetting MCA will be resolved if Ong Tee Keat resigns from his president’s post. MCA needs a strong leader who commands the support of the grassroots and who is willing to stand up for the Chinese community’s interests rather than being a pliant leader who dares not go against the wishes of his ‘master who, anyway, usually has the last say on who can become president of MCA.

Ong Tee Keat is a rare individual who can lead the party to greater heights as he has shown great leadership quality. He dared to cross the line when the situation demanded that he do that. But good people never last long in politics. What a crying shame.

I am a auto enthusiast but have been forced to drive second-hand cars as like many Malaysians. I just cannot come to terms to pay such unrealistic prices for cars.

In 1986, a Toyota Corrolla or Honda Civic only cost RM25,000 – RM28,000. In the early 1990s, the prices rose to RM50,000.

By mid 1990s, it was about RM80,000 and by 2000 it had breached RM100,000. A 1.8 sedan now costs RM110,000.A similar car in Thailand is RM20,000 to RM250,000 cheaper.

The increase of car prices in Malaysia over the past 25 years was caused mainly by the protectionist policy the government had towards the local automotive industry. But surely after 25 years, it is time to dismantle such policies and let the rakyat enjoy their hard-earned income.

Can you imagine the impact to our economy if the prices of cars were to come down?.Haven’t we sacrificed enough for one man’s dream?

The government also stands to gain more income via various taxes should the sales of cars in Malaysia go up. The government shouldn’t only be thinking of taxes it is going to lose via the reduction of such tariffs.

In any event, the government should probably spread out the tax burden and not merely penalise car-buyers.

I have been following the national budget closely every year for the last 7-8 years hoping that taxes on cars would be reduced pursuant to the Afta but every year, I, like many Malaysians, was disappointed.

I hope that this year, we see some reduction in car prices so that the middle-class can also have something to cheer come Oct 23. In fact you (Umno) may even win yourself some much-needed votes in the process.

Towards a ‘1Malaysia’ and for auto enthusiasts too!

The former prime minister has been a vocal critic of the nomination of the former Negri Sembilan mentri besar who was punished with a three-year suspension after the party’s disciplinary board found him guilty of vote buying during the Umno elections in 2004.

“We haven’t learnt much, the last time we put a candidate who was a liar, who was barred by the bar council, who used his clients money. If we put a candidate like that, surely we will lose, “ Dr Mahathir said.

Dr Mahathir was speaking in reference to the Permatang Pasir by-election where disbarred lawyer Rohaizat Othman lost to PAS’s Mohd Salleh Man by 4,551 votes.

The former premier also lashed out at Umno leaders in Teluk Kemang who pointed out that he (Dr Mahathir), too, was expelled from Umno by Tunku Abdul Rahman but was later allowed to return to the party.

“I was expelled not because of corruption or money politics but because of differences of opinion with him. When I came back, it was because my view was acceptable, I never stole money,” Dr Mahathir retorted.

Umno would win the election because it was a stronghold, he said, but having a candidate who is found to have been involved in corruption does not speak well for Umno and Barisan National (BN).

“I have no problem. It is not like I want to hold on to this post forever. But there are many things that need to be resolved,” he told the local media.

“I am ready to let go. Monday or even tomorrow if Palanivel feels that he is ready to take over the party leadership. I am ready to pass the leadership to him.

“I will meet him to discuss this.. I will ask if he is ready to take over as president. And if he is, I will hand it over to him.”

mic-1.gifSamy, who by now holds the trophy as the longest-serving party leader in the local political scene, was referring to his anointed successor G Palanivel who recently upset the odds by beating two other candidates for the No 2 post.

Despite winning the most votes, Palanivel is seen by members as a leader without his own personality, who will help Samy to remain in the MIC hot-seat.

The former Works Minister became party acting president in 1979 before being elected as MIC chief in 1981.

He was re-elected for his 11th consecutive term in April and has publicly assured that he will step down in 2012, when his term ends.

Not soon enough

But 2012 is not soon enough – not only for his detractors within MIC – but also for the Barisan Nasional coalition of which it is a member.

Fractious infighting at the MIC led to a disastrous outing at the 2008 general election, contributing to the BN’s overall depressed performance.

The party only managed to retain two parliamentary seats, with Samy even losing at his long-held bastion.

Unsurprisingly, he was punished by the previous prime minister and BN head Abdullah Badawi, who did not hesitate to drop him from the cabinet.

Now, with the MIC even more split after Palanivel pipped popular contender S Subramaniam for the deputy presidency, Najib – the current BN chief – is getting worried.

Subramaniam is mulling his future and may even leave the MIC for the opposition, possibly taking some 300,000 supporters with him.

“At that time, he told me that he could not step down and if he did, then it would destablise the party. But that was before the party election,” said Najib, referring to a June meeting with Samy.

“But now after the election, I will discuss with him again but this should not be seen as BN’s interference in the internal affairs of the MIC.”

Winning back the Indian community

Former vice-president S Sothinathan, who also contested against Palanivel for the No. 2 post earlier this month, agrees that the BN can only win back the Indian community if the succession issue at the MIC is resolved to the satisfaction of the public.

“It is a good idea for the prime minister to address the issue as he has to look at the perception of the public,” he said.

Meanwhile, Samy and his supporters have hit back at the calls for him to step down, saying that the MIC must be left to decide its destiny.

Said Samy: “I don’t want to say anything about it. I want to let the issue die down”.
Said Cameron Highlands MP SK Devamany: “I support my president and he will lead the party for as long as MIC members want him to lead.”

Bekas Perdana Menteri itu berkata, beliau bimbang sokongan rakyat terhadap BN akan merosot dan BN akan menjadi mangsa pula kerana Samy Vellu masih lagi memimpin MIC.

Dalam satu temubual dengan Bernama, Dr Mahathir berkata Samy perlu melepaskan jawatan presiden MIC kerana beliau perlu bertanggungjawab terhadap kegagalan parti itu dalam pilihan raya umum yang lalu, malah beliau sendiri pun kalah.

“Kalau kita tengok di negara lain, apabila seseorang pemimpin gagal, dia dengan sendirinya letak jawatan. Kalau di Jepun, dia commit harakiri (bunuh diri). Kita tak suruhlah dia (Samy) commit harakiri.

“You (Samy) gagal pimpin MIC sampai you (Samy) sendiri kalah,” katanya.

Mengambil contoh bekas Perdana Menteri Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi meletakkan jawatan ekoran prestasinya tidak begitu baik, Dr Mahathir berkata: “Samy dia punya prestasi jauh lebih buruk daripda Pak Lah tapi dia tak mahu nak lepas pun jawatan dia.

“Sepatutnya sebelum sampai ke tahap itu, dia (Samy) patut letak jawatan,” katanya.

Dr Mahathir berkata beliau berhak menegur sesiapa pun demi kebaikan BN, dan menambah kata: “Pak Lah pun saya tegur, apa Samy Vellu saya tidak boleh tegur?”

Tindakan Dr Mahathir menegur Samy menjelang pemilihan MIC minggu lepas telah dilihat cubaan mencampuri urusan MIC dan ia telah menimbulkan kemarahan seorang anggota perwakilan yang mencadangkan agar gambar bekas Perdana Menteri itu dikalungkan dengan selipar.

Dr Mahathir berkata pemimpin perlu sedar bahawa mereka bukan dapat memegang jawatan secara seumur hidup.

“Ini ditujukan bukan kepada Samy Vellu seorang sahaja kerana ada yang lain pun macam begitu juga,” katanya.

Dr Mahathir berkata beliau sendiri hendak meletak jawatan pada 1998 tetapi disebabkan krisis ekonomi dan isu Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, terpaksa terus memimpin negara sehingga 2003.

“Saya letak jawatan bukan bila orang kecam saya. Saya letak jawatan sebab saya duduk lama sangat.

“Pemimpin Malaysia ini belum faham apabila dia gagal, dia patut dengan sendiri letak jawatan, tak payah orang suruh. Bila you gagal, you punya parti gagal. Dia bertanggungjawab,” katanya.

Ditanya apakah yang BN boleh buat memandangkan BN mempunyai prinsip tidak campur tangan dalam urusan parti-parti komponennya, Dr Mahathir berkata apabila ia sudah menjadi masalah kepada BN dan jika BN masih tak campur tangan, BN sendiri yang akan menjadi mangsa.

Dr Mahathir berkata pemimpin BN perlu menegur Samy Vellu kerana sebagai pemimpin BN, mereka bukan bertanggungjawab terhadap prestasi parti sendiri sahaja tetapi prestasi BN keseluruhannya.

“Kalau saya tahu seseorang itu akan menyebabkan kekalahan BN, itu sudah menjadi masalah BN. Bukan masalah MIC lagi. Kita tak boleh kata dok tak interfere (campur tangan) saja. Ini urusan BN. Kerana dia, BN kalah.

“Dulu mana ada Hindraf. La ni (sekarang) dah ada berpuluh (kumpulan pendesak masyarakt India). Kerana dialah pasal orang tak mahu dia tapi dia nak jadi presiden lagi.

Dr Mahathir pemimpin yang menggunakan duit, tekanan, salah guna kuasa dan mengugut orang boleh kekal menjadi presiden parti tetapi tidak akan menang dalam pilihan raya.

Mengenai pemimpin pilihan Samy Vellu yang memenangi pemilihan MIC minggu lepas, beliau berkata mereka boleh memenangi pemilihan parti tetapi akan kalah dalam pilihan raya kerana orang ramai tidak akan sokong.

Dr Mahathir juga berkata Samy Vellu kerana tidak memainkan peranan untuk melarang pembinaan kuil tanpa kebenaran walaupun pernah berjanji untuk berbuat demikian.

Samy, kata Dr Mahathir, menjadi popular dahulu kerana beliau (Dr Mahathir) menolongnya.

“Dia nak buat universiti, saya pujuk kerajaan bagi peruntukan RM50 juta dan banyak lagi dia punya projek, saya tolong,” kata Dr Mahathir.

Mengimbas tugasnya sebagai Perdana Menteri dahulu, Dr Mahathir berkata beliau terpaksa memujuk orang Melayu supaya membenarkan BN meletakkan calon MIC di kawasan majoriti orang Melayu kerana tidak ada satu kawasan pun di negara ini yang mempunyai majoriti orang India.

“Lebih dari itu, saya juga berusaha supaya calon-calon MIC ini disokong oleh orang Melayu. Tanpa sokongan daripada ahli Umno dan orang Melayu lain, MIC tak boleh menang. Jadi ini khidmat saya kepada MIC.

“Tapi apabila MIC membuat sesuatu yang akan menyebabkan dia tak akan disokong oleh orang India, baik orang Cina, baik orng Melayu, saya perlu tegur,” katanya.